Remind me to put it onto the next server at the new ISP. Wasn't able to upload it on the offline machine 
is outdated since the reason for limiting the map quantity, the assumption that too many maps cause lags turned out being nothing but an assumption. Maps are only competing to further versions,Pegasus wrote:Considering CEONSS has for a while now been operating under a fixed roster size policy (100) whereupon maps exist competitively to one another and each new entry requires both the removal of some (presumably inferior) predecessor as well as the exclusion of any other potential candidate brought forth for consideration at the same time
the ECE-NNC-Version is neither chokepointed nor abnormally weaponry unoptimized, andPegasus wrote:chokepointed, weap/ammo unoptimized
uuhmm, isn't much different from other maps.Pegasus wrote:and space/crowdsize (and, thereby, lag-) challenged specimen
Which ones?Pegasus wrote:deserves its place in the map list over a multitude of other, potentially stronger, contenders?
So you don't like it?Pegasus wrote:And preferably with arguments other than "well, I like it."
First I hear of it, but okay, I guess. So the maplist can now theoretically extend as far as anyone's knowledge of arcane, obscure and/or abandoned concept maps from repositories like mapraider will span? A somewhat daunting thought that...laboRHEinz wrote:[fixed roster size] is outdated since the reason for limiting the map quantity, the assumption that too many maps cause lags turned out being nothing but an assumption. Maps are only competing to further versions[...]
I played the same version only a few minutes before typing up that post and, other than the chokepoint mix-up, mostly due to the near optical illusionary nature of the node graph's orientation, I stand by all my criticisms. Weap lockers have at most only half the usual (and necessary) arsenal to offer and 170 link ammo tops and the map's "trump card" super is the most ineffectual one could put there; the reasons leading up to inevitably laggy gameplay with 32 peeps fighting all over such a small map are left as an exercise to the experienced UT player. All this applies and burdens the map's quality profile without even going into other issues, like the mobility-related caveats (blocking volumes over ridges and fly[er]trap trees). This is not a good map for 32p; it's never been anything more than a serviceable map for ~20p.laboRHEinz wrote:[...]the ECE-NNC-Version is neither chokepointed nor abnormally weaponry unoptimized[...]uuhmm, isn't much different from other maps.[...]Pegasus wrote:and space/crowdsize (and, thereby, lag-) challenged specimen
You want me to irrevocably derail this thread to a dozen new directions?laboRHEinz wrote:[...]Which ones?[...]
"I like it" is no objective basis one can have any kinda debate about the merits and flaws of creative works upon. But, no, I certainly don't.laboRHEinz wrote:[...]So you don't like it?
Slightly exaggerated conclusion after adding one single map. We will never have 500+ maps or 20 different Torlan versions.Pegasus wrote:So the maplist can now theoretically extend as far as anyone's knowledge of arcane, obscure and/or abandoned concept maps from repositories like mapraider will span? A somewhat daunting thought that...
We'll see the players' feedback. If the majority doesn't like the map or if the playercounts drop significantly, we certainly gotta remove it again. Sorry then, Cat ;-) But well, the very first feedback was like "cool cool cool". So let's wait for some more matches and then decide whether it is to be kept or not.Pegasus wrote:I played the same version only a few minutes before typing up that post and, other than the chokepoint mix-up, mostly due to the near optical illusionary nature of the node graph's orientation, I stand by all my criticisms. Weap lockers have at most only half the usual (and necessary) arsenal to offer and 170 link ammo tops and the map's "trump card" super is the most ineffectual one could put there; the reasons leading up to inevitably laggy gameplay with 32 peeps fighting all over such a small map are left as an exercise to the experienced UT player. All this applies and burdens the map's quality profile without even going into other issues, like the mobility-related caveats (blocking volumes over ridges and fly[er]trap trees). This is not a good map for 32p; it's never been anything more than a serviceable map for ~20p.
Suggestions and discussions are welcome, sure thing.Pegasus wrote:You want me to irrevocably derail this thread to a dozen new directions?laboRHEinz wrote:[...]Which ones?[...]
Personally i prefer the choke maps, they are usually won in time and require teamwork to do so. Having said that, the fact that CEONSS has open maps and is the last popular ONS in Europe is probably not a coincidence.
you know you like it really, you winged beauty you..Well, the question - not conclusion, mind - was based on your clarification about current CEONSS roster policy, nothing to do with this map's inclusion per se. Point is, unless quality control is applied to candidate maps at some point during maplist revisions, there'd be nothing else to keep the roster's size from growing faster and faster simply based upon ppl's requests here for random map inclusions. That's what's concerning me. Also, if there's gonna be a ceiling, and it's not 500, what is it then? 200? 150?laboRHEinz wrote:Slightly exaggerated conclusion after adding one single map. We will never have 500+ maps or 20 different Torlan versions.[...]
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to spite or upset anyone here personally by grilling Frostbite; hell, I'd be just as liable to do the same to any other map suggested for inclusion that I might have reservations with for the sake of the roster's overall quality ratio. I get that sometimes you can appear the more lax and lenient one by granting certain... "favours" (yeah, yeah, fu Firefox spellchecker, it's favour) to ppl insisting some map they want gets added based mostly on good will and, contrary to that, I probly look like Cerberus or something for insisting we must apply a strict set of exacting quality standards to any map before it gets the green light, but, in the end, I think we're both trying to maintain quality gameplay on the server, just approaching it from different sides: you from the PoV of a guy/group requesting something new, me from the position of everyone else who'll then come across it during their evening ONS once it's there. Eventually, both mentalities need to be there and balanced to achieve this result, so that's why I've insisted on the objective evaluation discussion here as you already included the map. To that point, other than Cat's latest response, which I'll get to in a minute, it's been 2 days now and I don't see anyone else rushing to assure us this Frostbite's gonna be decent gameplay material when the crowds come rolling in so, sorry, but I remain skeptical about this map :/.laboRHEinz wrote:[...]We'll see the players' feedback. If the majority doesn't like the map or if the playercounts drop significantly, we certainly gotta remove it again. Sorry then, Cat ;-) But well, the very first feedback was like "cool cool cool". So let's wait for some more matches and then decide whether it is to be kept or not.[...]
IMO, indeed it isn't. Chokepoint maps are notorious for resulting in extended, boring, "unproductive" gameplay that only gets resolved via OT wins. Meanwhile, everyone's gonna be bashing each other's heads again n' again around the same small area increasing lag while the rest of the map is left unplayed and the choke node itself will keep on going up n' down like a yoyo until the match ends. Recall demo servers Primeval matches for a more handy visual aid. Not to mention that's how it typically plays out in the best case scenario, i.e. where teams happened to be balanced; otherwise, regardless of the map, 16 peeps will just trample 16 others for a few minutes of humiliating, whine-sprinkled "play" and everyone moves on to the next battle once that business is concluded. So yeah, chokepoints in maps: always an early worrisome sign of potentially bad gameplay ppl should look for when considering maps to suggest.Cat1981England wrote:[...]i prefer the choke maps, they are usually won in time and require teamwork to do so. Having said that, the fact that CEONSS has open maps and is the last popular ONS in Europe is probably not a coincidence.[...]
To start from the end, I don't think Frostbite qualifies for the "different" descriptor, what with being as old as it is. As for the "quick", I covered that extensively right above this by way of its chokepoint nature. True, this version isn't exactly that, but it still is pretty close with all the action focused near where the two base paths meet in the center, so for all intents and purposes, 32p matches on this map will still be mostly laggy, spammy messes if the teams happen to be balanced. The "win[ning] requires a healthy dose of teamwork" bit is a description that covers the general concept and design aim behind any FPS team gametype and also holds true for any map, so let's skip that. Lastly, while many of the mainstay fun tools to wreak havoc and get your ONS jollies going are indeed present on the map, as I've said before, it's the limited and confining spaces that are the ever-present issue. Mobility on this map is a problem whether you're flying, hovering or just casually driving around, namely those stupid trees and blocking volumes. As far as pedestrian duels go, sure you can have fun with those as long as you're not around the middle node's geometry, otherwise prepare to get snagged, trapped and stalled with every misstep between tight nooks, raised walkboards, annoyingly high battlements up above and generally due to any other kind of st.mesh thrown in there for good measure by the mapper. It's not a very accommodating place to fight, is what I'm saying here, nor are many of the high and narrow-sloped ridges across from that place either, so there's little other room to duel well. Hide n' seek tactics will work well, but I wouldn't expect Frostbite matches to be determined strictly on good hitscan or fancy/dodgy footwork skills.Cat1981England wrote:[...]You have a raptor, tank, manta, turrets, air strike - sniper spots and areas for the DM'ers to strut their funky stuff. To win requires a healthy dose of teamwork and ultimately, it's quick and different.[...]
Both are equally problematic scenarios ONS players would like to avoid, ideally by voting maps that suit the current player size.Cat1981England wrote:[...]After a couple of hours in 20+mins maps it would make a nice change of pace and compared to all the multi node maps, it would offer a different type of ONS which could compliment the server quite well. Variety is the spice of life after all. As for it being too small for 32 players, perhaps, but no worse then playing one of the huge maps with only 12 people.[...]
Frankly, Frostbite has had its time in the sun, and it was quite a lengthy time as well. But, let's be honest, it's a map made with 2005 era sensibilities where weapon hunting and ~20p sizes were the dominant design assumptions of the time, largely presumed to serve just as well there since they worked for other gametypes. It would take at least a couple of years before ppl started finding larger (32p) map sizes, fully stocked lockers, more generous vec loadouts and several other concepts as a lot better suited for ONS play and the ppl trying to deal with this particular gametype's bigger scope challenges (part of the gratitude flies off to the Titans there; ONSPlus too). I, for one, am glad we've moved on and, thus, not too chuffed to see the rotting corpses of those kinda maps (it, Urban, etc.) get dug back up again from time to time for nostalgia's sake and certainly even less so when those sticky issues haven't even been dusted off 'em through some quick edit before their proposed server rehosting. What can I say, I'm weird like thatCat1981England wrote:[...]Com'on
.Although most of it won't be fresh news to you, gimme some time to dust out some notes, compile the list and get back to you on this.laboRHEinz wrote:[...]Suggestions and discussions are welcome, sure thing.
Nothing personal here either. We all love UT2004 and therefor have the server at heart.peg wrote:Just to be clear, I'm not trying to spite or upset anyone here personally by grilling Frostbite;
I know this wasn't directed at me, but i just want to make clear that i (and presumably others who make a request) are not "insisting" or expecting "favours" but are simply enquiring whether the map in question could be considered. By all means tell me to bugger off if need bepeg wrote:I get that sometimes you can appear the more lax and lenient one by granting certain... "favours" (yeah, yeah, fu Firefox spellchecker, it's favour) to ppl insisting some map they want gets added based mostly on good will.....
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. In my experience the open maps end in OT far more often then the closed maps, although i admit i have nothing to back that up with other then vague memories.peg wrote:Chokepoint maps are notorious for resulting in extended, boring, "unproductive" gameplay that only gets resolved via OT wins.
This already happens on open maps such as TripleSlap (i think* can never remember the map namespeg wrote:Meanwhile, everyone's gonna be bashing each other's heads again n' again around the same small area increasing lag while the rest of the map is left unplayed and the choke node itself will keep on going up n' down like a yoyo until the match ends. Recall demo servers Primeval matches for a more handy visual aid. Not to mention that's how it typically plays out in the best case scenario, i.e. where teams happened to be balanced; otherwise, regardless of the map, 16 peeps will just trample 16 others for a few minutes of humiliating, whine-sprinkled "play" and everyone moves on to the next battle once that business is concluded. So yeah, chokepoints in maps: always an early worrisome sign of potentially bad gameplay ppl should look for when considering maps to suggest.
). At least with a single node people have the chance to attack the main node.With respect Peg there is very little teamwork on the current open maps. There are so many vehicles that people lose the habit of sharing outside of the start and the huge amount of ammo means that there is little point in people linking up to build nodes. In a traditional 1-3-1 map, if you are losing it's virtually impossible to re-take control of a map without team mates defending nodes and key positions. In Frostbite you need to be able to hold onto the node long enough to attack their main mode. To do this you really need the tank to be healed, avrils to stop mantas coming in behind and insta-gib for the raptor. All of a sudden you have a real team effort going on to win the map, this simply doesn't happen to the same degree on the current open maps which require people to simply attack the nodes quicker then the opposition.peg wrote: The "win[ning] requires a healthy dose of teamwork" bit is a description that covers the general concept and design aim behind any FPS team gametype and also holds true for any map, so let's skip that.
See below.Peg wrote:But, let's be honest, it's a map made with 2005 era sensibilities where weapon hunting and ~20p sizes were the dominant design assumptions of the time
peg wrote:Both are equally problematic scenarios ONS players would like to avoid, ideally by voting maps that suit the current player size.
Don't you find the current maps all a bit repetitive. How many times do you see people join for half a map then complain that they're bored and leave? We do have some variation with DM maps and others such as Maelstrom. Frostbite could be another thread in the cloth.peg wrote:It would take at least a couple of years before ppl started finding larger (32p) map sizes, fully stocked lockers, more generous vec loadouts and several other concepts...