[QUOTE=Crytiqal;256230]And then just hope to end up in the same server?
If you focus so much on complimenting a specific group of people what’s so different then to call that group of people a clan? Or did I just say a bad word? lol[/QUOTE]
Do you compy users not have a specific ID that lets you add each other to a friends list and get together? I’m on xbox live so if there was a site such as this and me and H0RSE and others were working on having a group of characters that work well together then they would be able to stack up all the info together online.
Just because some dudes play online together doesn’t mean they need to be called a “clan”.
Those League of Honorable Gamers guys. I don’t know why they call themselves a clan. Because I talked to their leader and they are just a bunch of dudes that play together. I think a clan should have very specific guidelines and so on. Like “you have to have this game this game and this game and this game and you can’t get rid of those games or you’re out of the clan” Because they play those games together. And aren’t they usually competitive?
I’m talking about dudes just strategizing for fun.
Yes, especially for consoles. Mainly because if SD released a gun you would pay for, those who couldnt buy it might be at a disadvantage. But on the other hand if they release a gun you pay for that is not that useful, not one would buy it. Capish?
Although I think maps should be free, since they are not an integral part of gameplay, like say a weapon, I can see them charging for them. Maps are just as optional as skins.
Yeah make all the extra costume crap pay DLC. But guns and such should be free update. Unless it’s a whole map add on update. Kind of like BC2’s vietnam.
Isn’t this point moot for consoles considering there is no option but to pay for DLC?
Again Valve seems to be heading in a good direction with the PC being the testbed for changes and content after which they issue patches and DLC for the consoles.
[QUOTE=.Chris.;256100]They are no ranked servers in the ET:QW sense of the word so it should be all good![/quote] Yay!
Too many maps just saturate the game and I doubt you would be able to maintain a high standard when churning them out all the time.
I respect your opinion about not wanting more maps. I am confused though. You seem to be saying that making great maps is difficult, so don’t bother trying except for 3 maps a year. I’m also confused because you were one of the first people to release a working map for ETQW. Or do I not remember correctly?
When it comes to user made maps, I have certainly seen a 10/1 rule. Only 10% are decent/good and 1% are great with a large majority never making it out of the alpha stage. In my opinion, developer made maps are better with 25% being great, 25% being poor, and 50% being decent to good. I like my odds there. The only way to fail is to not try.
[QUOTE=EnderWiggin.DA.;256258]I respect your opinion about not wanting more maps. I am confused though. You seem to be saying that making great maps is difficult, so don’t bother trying except for 3 maps a year. I’m also confused because you were one of the first people to release a working map for ETQW. Or do I not remember correctly?
When it comes to user made maps, I have certainly seen a 10/1 rule. Only 10% are decent/good and 1% are great with a large majority never making it out of the alpha stage. In my opinion, developer made maps are better with 25% being great, 25% being poor, and 50% being decent to good. I like my odds there. The only way to fail is to not try.[/QUOTE]
I’m just assuming that once you have to meet regular deadlines to release a steady flow of new maps standards are bound to slip as a result, I feel that a small map pack released a year after the release would be better than a new map every month or so.
Yes I was the 2nd, darn ZigZag beat me by few days but to be honest he was making port of his own ET map! Also Meltdown was and still is a mess, while I feel I got the layout spot on, the map has performance issues due to a lack of understanding idtech4 at the time of it’s creation. I created Canal instead of trying to fix them problems
I see what you mean about odds but put what I mentioned before into the equation and them odds are likely to be come less.
It’s been a while since I read this, but I remember SD saying that for ETQW they’d started 50-ish maps (this was in response to someone asking about all those maps in promo screenshots that weren’t included in the final game), and whittled them down to the 10 they thought worked.
If there’s a 5 to 1 ratio for any single SD map to make it to final release, and a 1 in 4 chance of those maps being awful, then making 3 maps for a DLC pack involves doing much more than making 3 maps, if you see what I mean.
The community side of ETQW kinda crashed for reasons that’ve been discussed a bajillion times (awkward engine stuff, dodgy pure stuff, I WISH NEW OFFICIAL MAPS etc), so a lot of stuff that could have been developed into what you’d consider worthwhile wasn’t.
If Brink is a success, the playerbase has the potential to be large enough that the skills are present in the community to make mapping sustainable. If Brink isn’t so annoying to get custom content working on, and it doesn’t have so much OMG OFFICIAL-ness going on, you might get players willing to try the maps still in alpha just as a matter of course. That combination of feedback from players and pooled skills would make a lasting mapping community almost a given, IMO.
That said, if Brink isn’t a success, and Brink is as awkward with custom content, there’s really no point in releasing DLC maps either, sooooooo
I think the biggest difference between the community/developer stuff is that you usually get to see the entire development of the community stuff, including the howlers (because of how community stuff gets tested). SD has the advantage (or disadvantage, depending on how you see it) of having a group of testers sworn to secrecy so the awful stuff generally doesn’t make its way out into the player consciousness.
Whether the community content side of things works out depends (IMO) mainly on how willing players are to try out things that aren’t finished yet, and offer feedback. If that happens, then the fact that there’s a 10/1 ratio of bad/good doesn’t matter, because the
good is continually growing. It’s not like everyone was running about talking about the 10/1 ratio when playing on Counter-Strike custom map servers, for example.
I dont think your gripping this, if weapons and items that effect gameplay are priced, some users will be disadvantaged (unless they are just reskins of old weapons). Whereas priced costumes weapon camos etc will be fine because they are just making users that purchased them look bad ass and unique i guess. (so its just a bonus rather than an advantage for purchasing something)
@shirosae
I think the quote (from Paul I think) was that they had back stories for 50? maps. They hadn’t blocked out 50 maps in the editor.
If Brink is a success, the playerbase has the potential to be large enough that the skills are present in the community to make mapping sustainable. etc.
That paragraph represents the best possible outcome for me. I’m certainly willing to test out a crappy map at least once, usually twice. I’m certainly not against custom maps. I personally wish more devs/publishers allowed more custom content although I understand there can be some technical barriers that prevent user made content, like with BC2.
Assuming the end user is allowed to make custom content, I have felt one of the more important contributions of developer released DLC maps is the addition of textures and models. It has been my observation that most new map makers reuse textures and models included in the SDK. If a developer is able to release new materials, then end user map makers can usually use those new textures in their maps which hopefully give a little variety to user made maps. It is my personal opinion that SD has some of the best artists based on their last released work.
I understand what you are both saying. I think we all hope that Brink is a great success so that there is a reason for SD to support the game with new content, SDKs, etc.
Because content costs money to produce? And being that the last big Bethesda games I’ve played (Oblivion, Fallout 3 and NV) had a good amount of DLC but none of it was free, I wouldn’t expect it to be with Brink. Besides, I’d rather they make some money to make it worth their time to keep producing.
You seem to be saying that DLC has always been chargeable… on PC it’s mostly been free, it’s the console trend of charging for PC that’s the new thing here.
Ok, but I don’t see what difference that makes then. If the trend is to start charging for PC DLC, why would you expect Brink to be the exception? Especially with the quality of DLC fans are demanding these days. I’d rather pay for good DLC than get crappy stuff for free anyway.
I’m quite happy to let the console crowd cover the costs, they were getting ripped off and charged for stuff while the PC got it for free anyway but seemed to think this was ok. What was even funnier with the likes of Bungie was, a year down the line, they released them for free to everyone anyway! Now you seem to think that that’s the way it should be because it’s drilled into you… if people keep paying, they’ll keep charging. All DLC released for the Left 4 Dead games have been chargeable on console and free on PC (in fact the 1st DLC for L4D was free for all). Generally it was expansion packs that were chargeable, and that gave you quite a lot for your money, not just a couple of maps.
It’s not like creating maps back in the day didn’t cost time and money, hell I remember an update patch for RtCW came with a new map thrown in for fun, then they released the GoTY map pack (which SD had a hand in) and that had 7 maps including the patch map in it, and there’s also Marketgarden. So 8 maps for free… jeez $15 (£10) is barely getting you 4 or 5 maps these days, and games back then weren’t making billions from sales. I blame the console mugs for handing their money over and making the publishers think it was ok. Hell I could even understand if the prices were reasonable, but those prices are just scandalous.
It’s not that it’s drilled into me, it’s just that every major title I’ve played that was multi-platform in recent years charged for all the DLC they made, unless it was just a large patch or something. The expansion packs had to be purchased on all platforms. I guess I just feel like something that was given to me free was a bonus, and not expect it to remain that way forever.
Now one reason they might not charge as often for PC DLC is that with the editors that are released or fan-made for games, people could probably make better stuff for free than they would have paid for. I understand that. All that I’m saying is that it seems more than likely from my experience with cross-platform games in the past few years that any major additions to the game will cost money, and that I don’t have some issue with that. I don’t feel like the developer owes me anything after I’ve paid them my money and played the game that I’ve paid for- unless of course it sucked.
Going back to my original post, I’m still perplexed as to why some of the PC gamers are trying to decide what type of DLC the consoles should be offered.
