Mapping competition 2003/4

(sib|blue) #41

With the two official campaings that have been released and the conversion of tc_base we have maps playable in clanwars with timelimits of about:

radar (timelimit: 15 mins)
oasis (timelimit: 20 mins)
goldrush (timelimit: 25 mins)
railgun (timelimit: 15 mins)
tc_base (timelimit 15 mins)

These timelimits are all taken from the clanbase rules and could be tweakead some, but they represent the time needed for two even clans to have enough time to decide which team is the best. With the xp-system and the defending team generally growing stronger xp-wise throughout the game, it wont be any easier to attack after 28 minutes than it was 20 minutes into the game. Meaning the game might as well end at 15-20 minutes on most maps. Goldrush is somewhat different since there are several points where the tank is easilly stopped and held for a couple of attacks.

To complement these we would want three maps with timelimits of 10-15 minutes.

(boomart) #42

PLEASE had vehicles : jeeps, halftracks etc… to compete with UT04 and bf1942 ; and and …and third part enemy (zombies for instance), traps are useable actually.

(G0-Gerbil) #43

I still reckon the competition should not be focussed purely on clan maps - just get the best maps, and some of them will naturally lend themselves to clan matches.

So what’s the chances of getting some ‘final’ (or at least updated) rules / deadlines etc.?

(DG) #44

still seeing what is happening with SD, the updated guidelines I posted earlier I think are right for as it stands atm.

I think the point noted that maps should be suited to clanwar, because currently custom maps 99% are very unsuited to clanwar. I doubt a map being good for clanwars would be poor for publics though, unless really it is too small for clans.

Just IMHO, stick to a simple basic concept and do it well. break down most good official maps for most games (incl. ET) into a basic concept design on paper and theyre usually good but simple ideas. I think a problem with a lot of customs is they get carried away and over-complicate things, often with features that dont add to the map which tend to look kind of tacked on.

(G0-Gerbil) #45

I must admit I’m being selfish in the clanwar thing - I ain’t aiming at my next 2 maps being in that area - and there are more pub non-clanned players than clan players.

I think it would be a bit unfair if a map pack omitted the best maps simply because they weren’t small enough - surely the focus should be simply to get more great quality maps out there widely than concentrating on the clan side? I am sure you’ll get enough great clan maps as well, but ruling others out…?

(DG) #46

All custom maps are made to be suited to public wars.
Almost none are made with any real intention of being suitable for clan wars.
Maps that are suited to both are the best maps (for a widespread map pack).

I am sure you’ll get enough great clan maps - The problem definately is not having a huge array to choose from. If it wasnt a problem we could have just picked from the array of great clan maps out, rather than go to effort to encourage them to be made.

Whats the difference between a map that is good for public and one good for clanwar? Just no dual objective and no huge maps, the rest is just being a good map!

(TosspoT) #47

DG thats a shit joke, i was expecting, whats the difference between an Irish man and scotsman. :frowning:
and no i dont no the answer

(G0-Gerbil) #48

Hmmm… I agree mostly with your definition of a clanwar map, although maps can still be large, they just need to not get bogged down on the initial objectives (eg radar is large, it’s just, like oasis, the forward spawn is made permenant by an action of some description).

It’s not so much large, as simply requiring a long time to win.

Oh well, I’ll keep mapping and it’s up to others to see if they think the end results are suitable - it’s just I’d be more than a bit pissed off if they got rejected only because they were not felt to be perfectly suitable for clan wars (assuming the rest was up to scratch naturally).

As I say, it’s the difference between great clan maps and great maps - I’d push simply for great maps - the clanners will take what they want. ET simply needs more maps for an extended shelf life.

(DG) #49

I cant really see any map being otherwise perfectly good but poor for clanwar, unless its either dual objective or huge. yeah if a stonking map comes along that is dual objective it might get slipped in, but i cant really think of much else that would make a perfectly good public map be so poor for clanwars - tank or something that takes 20mins to travel the map even without enemies?

map pack being picked up by ladders, tournaments etc leads to widespread adoption everywhere else too. unless there’s sufficient content for them to pick it up, it will die quickly. like it or not but there is a very significant reliance on what the major ladders do, which filters directly into publics.

If SD are being involved, the goalposts shift a little since initial adpotion isnt quite such a major hurdle - however maps still have to be clan war suited (see earlier SD post on the subject).

tbh there really seems to be some huge disillusion that a map being suited for clan wars is like some strange concept that is totally at odds with current methods of mapping. All it is: not dual objective, not huge (or for that matter, too small) and GOOD. The only difference between that and the general criteria for the public play of the maps is that there its ok to be dual objective.

(G0-Gerbil) #50

Yeah trouble is my current two maps are huge :slight_smile:
Helms Deep could be considered a large version of beach I suppose, but with a bit more to do out front, and the station map, well erm, a bit of goldrush and some other complicated crap :wink:

Dual objective is obviously not good for clanwars, and to be honest all the custom ones I’ve played have been much more biased than, say, depot. They are particularly annoying when in a campaign cos it takes longer to play that map usually than the rest of the campaign.

It’s the time limit thingy. I want more interesting objectives, and they come at a price - time. It’s that that determines to me whether a map is huge or not, not physical size. And my next 2 maps are, well, big is an understatement.

I guess the bottom line is I’m going to do them anyway - if I get them done in time I submit them and then it’s up to you guys anyway :slight_smile:
I know I’ll be happy to use any of the test servers you all supply :stuck_out_tongue:

(pack) #51

Huge maps doesn’t exactly mean long playing times, as long as there is some (unreclaimable?) forward spawn (like the oasisflag) the game is just played on half of the map each time…

(DG) #52

btw mind we wont exactly be bothered about there being two public versions of a map (e.g. te_ or mc_ aswell as other version) aslong as they dont conflict and wouldnt be confusing for players. Often there are maps that take too long, but could be modified slightly to have a big cut on gametime, such as like Pack says, a forward spawnflag (esp. if it cant be reclaimed), or maybe remove one tank barrier + speed up tank a little. Sometimes just widening a chokepoint and removing a few campspots for defence can cut down the difficulty or time it takes to break though. For an example, consider the difference it makes on Battery when the ramp can only be removed with dynamite, or when some constructable takes one engi’s bar vs. two.

(G0-Gerbil) #53

Are you talking about 2 versions in the map pack, or simply a clan version in the map pack and one simply ‘out there’?

Because if not talking about 2 in the map-pack then it’s a moot point.

I see the reward of this competition for a great map is it gets everywhere. I don’t want to have to do 2 versions of a map, knowing the version I originally envisaged won’t get wide-spread release - I’d simply not bother.

If you are concerned you won’t get enough clan-style released for your map-pack, then restricting it only to clan-style maps isn’t going to get you any more entries, it’s simply going to leave you with bugger all to choose from.

I know it’s tricky to define the rules until SD gets back to you, but I’d definately push for the inclusion of all maps, simply making sure they are of a high enough standard.

Or, failing that, you release 2 packs - 1 for clan wars, 1 for publics, although I’m against that in theory because it still gives people a ‘choice’ in what they install - if the aim here is common-ness, then 1 map pack of the best maps is the way to go.

(DG) #54

Monster huge maps arent likely to be suited to the campaign anyway, or dual objective ones - it doesnt exactly flow if (for example) there’s two maps maybe 10-20mins or so plus one that sometimes goes on for hours (dual obj) or takes 30mins. Ditto for maps that suit around 10 players or less, with one map that really needs at least 10 a side.

Think of it from server and players view, whats the point in adding a map that would never be played with the other ones? Its bloat both ways: players/servers using the other maps have a bigger download/upload, and the same would go for players/servers running only the “odd” map.

As said before though, yeah if a stonking map comes along that is dual objective [or whatever] it might get slipped in, but i cant really think of much else that would make a perfectly good public map be so poor for clanwars. Map pack is for BOTH clanwar and public use, maps suited to both basically gives the map double everything – potential popularity, potential servers – of a clanwar only (and I have a hard time imagining such a map) or a public only map. Pubby only maps of course WILL be considered, but since you metaphorically-speaking cut out all of the voters interested in clanwars / get zero points in the clanwar suitability rating, then it would have to be very popular/highly rated in the other aspects. Further, say the pack is 4 maps, and realistically needs at least 2 or 3 to be suited to clanwar; clanwar+public maps have all 4 chances, public-only have 1 or 2, and then you have to factor in that in all probability more of the other maps will be suited to public than also suited to clanwars.

Heavy emphasis is put on clanwar suitabity because its important for the pack generally, and because its an aspect typically lacking with custom maps. Its really not this huge issue, its just a map that is actually good for publics that doesnt have to take ages when smaller teams play it, whats the big problem?

I see the reward of this competition for a great map is it gets everywhere. I don’t want to have to do 2 versions of a map, knowing the version I originally envisaged won’t get wide-spread release - I’d simply not bother.
that doesnt make sense tbh, implies its better to have the one map that doesnt get widespread release than two maps of which at least one does.

We’re not going on and on just to get the maps WE want. we’re going on and on to get the maps EVERYBODY wants - or to be more specific, at least a sufficient/significant amount of players & servers so that it actually gets into widespread useage.

(G0-Gerbil) #55

I guess I hadn’t got a clue as to how many maps you are hoping to have in the pack. Of course this totally depends on how many maps of a high enough quality you get!

For a map-pack of say 4 maps, then yeah I can understand your focus.

I guess I was working on the assumption you’d get plenty of entries, and hopefully with the support behind it to get maps tested and upgraded properly, you’d end up with more, say maybe half a dozen or so (in which case you could have 2 campaigns - 1 smaller clan maps, the other larger public orientated).

Dual objective is tricky, I am playing on a server with all siz official maps and flughafen. While it’s not a bad map, it’s dual nature means it’s simply a pain in the arse. It got taken out of rotation simply because it came on, took too long and half the players got pissed off and left.

A truly great dual objective map will benefit from a dedicated server - in which case you could include it in the map-pack, but not in the campaigns - which of course won’t be hard-coded into the pk3s anyway, 'cos we all know what happens then :stuck_out_tongue:

(DG) #56

Its about at this point I start using teh funneh images.

(G0-Gerbil) #57

Before that happens - is there any responce from SD about what they’d be looking for to make this competition ‘official’? :wink:

(Locki) #58

I’ve read through the queries above and made some notes for us to discuss here.

I can see a couple of small issues with the time limits and clan-focus of the competition. I’ve mindful however of trying to impose our opinion of what’s needed on a competition that’s already in progress.

However, for any competition to result in the winners being included in an officially backed map pack, the rules naturally need to be compatible with the needs of the player community at large. I do believe that most good maps should lend themselves to clan play, but I don’t necessarily feel that this should be the primary focus. It may be easier for example to have a 30 minute public map, and reduce the time limit for clan matches, than it is to take a 15 minute clan-focused single objective map and make it work well for 30 minutes. Whatever happens, it would be bad if the really good public-focused maps to be excluded because of their focus.

Some ideas include:

  1. Making two campaigns or…
  2. Changing the focus of the competition a little (providing there aren’t too many people already working on maps based on the prerequisites set by the competition)

I’ve just received a mail from Pack outlining pretty much the same questions and concerns as those raised above. As far as I’m aware he’s one of the organizers, so what I thought I’d do is discuss the ideas here with Sock and Wils and then get back to Pack with some proposals.

I definitely get the impression that everyone thinks this is a good idea. I can also tell you that Activision’s request for Level Designers was accidental. This request was a misunderstanding during a discussion we were having with our Producer based on this same subject, and there request for Level Designers has now been withdrawn. This is because we’re discussing the same idea here on our forums with you guys instead.

Paul.

(G0-Gerbil) #59

Thanks for the update.

I guess for us mappers, the mantra is ‘keep on mapping’ :slight_smile:

(DG) #60

Sorry for all the quoting -

http://www.rtcw.jolt.co.uk/index.php?page=&action=show&id=5771
(5) Maps should be designed to suit standard team sizes, i.e. around 10v10 for the usual public servers, and also suitable for 6v6 skilled, organised players (i.e. clanwar). With this in mind, 6v6 games should be aiming at something like a 8-15min timelimit; map default timelimit can be longer to suit typical public server teamsizes & dissorganisation. All good maps scale well, the map doesnt have to be tiny - just not huge

-> pretty much in agreement here, but as posted earlier i think its important to emhasise that clan war suitability – of hte pack generally – is very significant for widespread adoption. Most mappers seem to pay little or no attention to clanwar suitability, yet is so often clearly important even for widespread adoption on public servers.

I dont get what this fascination is with custom mappers seeming to suggest in the feedback here they either are not willing or are not able to have maps being suited to clan wars, I think its because most havent played in a clan and dont really know what it involves. its really not a huge deal at all, as said above its just good maps that arent huge (huge maps usually have big areas that are 90% unused anyway) or have so many things that force a map to take ages – often simply too many ideas for the one map, or vast empty spaces that players have to traverse from the spawn before getting to the action areas, getting killed again and having the long walk again. Other than that its just a well put together map. Personally, I find all the best maps stem from a fairly simple design concept (form + function) that has been implemented well.

  1. Making two campaigns or…

I dont think two packs would be useful, but two campaigns might be doable within the same zipped mappack (but 2 seperate .pk3’s IF it was to be done as a algomated pk3), although caution is that if this was a target, it puts a heavy reliance on at least 6 really good maps, and of those 6 there has to be two groups of 3 maps which are “compatible” with each other (similar ish teamsize suitability etc). Problem is most will go for the public campaign and pay even less attention to suitabiliity for smaller teams.

  1. Changing the focus of the competition a little

I really cant see it working well without sufficient provision for the clan community, for the reasons posted earlier about encouraging widespread support - plus, they need new maps too! The clanwar suitability factor seems to get way more than its due attention imho, the focus isnt so sharp as to be a map pack designed only for clan wars, just a lot have picked up on that one point and have difficulty with their own interpretations of it.

btw yeah Pack is probably best guy to talk to directly.