Ok, you're sending me some mixed messages here.. lol I don't disagree with you - every gametype and map is competitive by nature. All I'm saying is that the degrees of variation that are possible within one gametype are what I perceive to be the bounds of this casual/competitive divide. No radar, no loadouts, precision rifles is the competitive end, and radar, loadouts with AAs etc., automatic weapons would be the casual end. Casual and competitive are terrible words to use and they mean other things, but that's the Halo-specific meaning I've learned to associate with them in my time amongst the various forums. Any gametype can be more casual or competitive - grifball could be more casual with more spawn points or map cover, or more competitive with more consistent weapons and physics. In terms of maps Swordbase could be more competitive with more balanced spawns and more open spaces that support team-shooting. Sanctuary could be more casual with more LoS disruption at mid and courtyards. Do you see where I'm coming from? As I said though - I don't disagree - there are gametypes that lean toward either end of the 'spectrum' and you gave good examples (although I would switch IS and SWAT personally lol). I just think that it's more than a simple classification of maps - it's a deep look into the nature of the game we play and in a way, a look into ourselves, and it can be quite enlightening to keep in mind whilst forging. Forging for the scenario you're unlikely to experience can give a map a lot more depth than you'd realize.
"Ok, you're sending me some mixed messages here.. lol " No, you're just not understanding the bigger picture here. "every gametype and map is competitive by nature." Exactly. It's not the gametype that is competitive, it's the players. The gametype just sets conditions and a environment. "All I'm saying is that the degrees of variation that are possible within one gametype are what I perceive to be the bounds of this casual/competitive divide. No radar, no loadouts, precision rifles is the competitive end, and radar, loadouts with AAs etc., automatic weapons would be the casual end." Again you just contradicted what you previously said. Now you are confusing skill with competition. Either one can be just as competitive and we're talking about maps here, not gametypes. Going into the details of the gametype is waaayyy off base and loadouts and radar wouldn't really have any effect on map design. Either way, they're both equally competitive, the conditions are just different. Casual and competitive are terrible words to use and they mean other things, but that's the Halo-specific meaning I've learned to associate with them in my time amongst the various forums. They have confused you with competitive = good map and casual = bad map. That's soooo off in so many ways. Competition doesn't mean skill either. It means atleast two people competing for the same thing, so if you change the conditions on how to achieve that, doesn't effect them wanting the overall achievement any more/less. Any gametype can be more casual or competitive - grifball could be more casual with more spawn points or map cover, or more competitive with more consistent weapons and physics. This is where you are so confused. No gametype is more/less competitive than the other. Someone can want to win just as bad at Grifball as MLG. The learning curves and skills required may be different, but that has nothing to do with the competition. The word "Competitive" is used like a ***** here and is being used as sooo many things. Your using the word to describe environments/conditions/situations and not about two people trying to achieve the same thing. Using different environments and conditions does not change the level of competitiveness, it changes the required skill sets. In terms of maps Swordbase could be more competitive with more balanced spawns and more open spaces that support team-shooting. Sanctuary could be more casual with more LoS disruption at mid and courtyards. Do you see where I'm coming from? Yes. You're very confused by the words meaning. These are all different conditions and environments. All it requires is different skill sets and knowledge. As I said though - I don't disagree - there are gametypes that lean toward either end of the 'spectrum' and you gave good examples (although I would switch IS and SWAT personally lol). I just think that it's more than a simple classification of maps - it's a deep look into the nature of the game we play and in a way, a look into ourselves, and it can be quite enlightening to keep in mind whilst forging. Forging for the scenario you're unlikely to experience can give a map a lot more depth than you'd realize. Maps/Gametypes/Conditions/Environments/Situations are not competitive, the players are. Since we're talking about Halo 4 here, it's a video game and competition has all to do with motive. Take Pro Football comapred to High School Football. The motive behind being a pro player, where lots of money is at stake (how much you're paid by performance) including the Superbowl is higher than a high school player playing another local team. A map is an environment. A gametype is a condition. All maps are designed to house competition unless they're designed for art purposes (aesthetics or to use in a video). The motive behind these maps are generally designed to house certain conditions, like MLG for example. This doesn't make the map more competitive. Here's another way to look at it to help you better understand. Lets look at all video gamers. Where all here to have fun and compete against other players in our ideal environment and conditions. Some like racing games, sports, shooters, rpg's, rts's, etc. So let's move on to shooters, most FPS are divided up between realistic and arena style. Halo 4 sits right in the middle between the two becuase it mixes realism and non-realism. Without chief's shield, he can be taken down just like in CoD (a realistic shooter). Add chief's shields and a Incineration cannon and put him in CoD and you can imagine the brutality. This is why so many players are attracted to Halo because it can support a wide spectrum on environments and conditions. ----------------------------------- So what have we learned here today: -All maps/environments house competition (but players prefer one over the other usually) -Gametypes only change up the conditions ( another thing players tend to prefer over another) So maps can be classified by two ways (1.) How well they support the conditions they were designed for and/or (2.) The conditions they are designed to support (Infinity Slayer, BTB, etc.)
exactly, but didn't you all see me say this on page 1? sometimes this forum seems to totally ignore newer posters and then praise someone who says the exact same thing later... i'm not upset it's just a pattern i've noticed... this discussion is causing confusion because some are using "competetive" as a noun and some are using it as an adjective. It can be used as both, but the context needs to be understood so that you know what the other is talking about. Noun - competetive means whether the map can support competetive gametypes. Adjective - describes how well-suited for competetive gameplay a particular map is. In this regard, a "competetive" (n.) map can not be very "competetive" (adj.) in that it supports competition, but doesn't do it as well as perhaps others do.
com·pet·i·tive [kuhm-pet-i-tiv] Show IPA adjective 1. of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by competition: competitive sports; a competitive examination. THESE ARE CONDITIONS. 2. well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price. THESE ARE CONDITIONS. IT GOES WITH WHAT I SAID EARLIER, HOW WELL THE MAP SUPPORTS THE CONDITIONS IT WAS DESIGNED TO HOUSE. PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT CONDITIONS AND MOST MAPS ARE DESIGNED TO HOUSE MORE THAN ONE CONDITION. 3. having a strong desire to compete or to succeed. THESE ARE CONDITIONS THAT THE PLAYER PREFERS Sorry for the caps, just wanted my text to stand out from the copied text.
right, so if you describing a map, you use the adjective, but what this community has done is to make it a noun also, saying it is a "competetive map" becomes a noun. the community seems to want to classify them, even though that does make an adj. a noun. so with a noun you are taking maps and placing them in buckets.. .classifying them as competetive vs casual. that can be defined like what you've said before about whether they support competition (certain gametypes that are meant to decide skill). then, the adjective is simply trying to place a rating on HOW competetive the map's gameplay has the potential to be. In reviews, honestly people should be giving a competetiveness rating and only the author can tell you what he/she intended for the map... that it be competetive or casual. to clear up the confusion, we could call maps "Competition" maps vs "competetive" because that first word keeps it neatly in the noun category and doesn't attempt to use the same word-form as the adjective. A poorly designed map, for instance, could be a "competition" map but not be very "competetive" afterall. It would be a case of the intended design not being very well executed or crafted. A "Casual" or "non-competition" map could still offer some really competetive gamplay at times, even if it is not best suited for deciding skill as a competition should by definition.
But this all goes round and round because Flood and Race house competition as well. So they would fit into your genre just the same and receive a competitive score by viewers by how well it supports the race gametype and how much competition can be housed on the map. Edit: You can't classify a map by how well it supports competition. If you do this all you're doing is classifying them by how well the map is forged and this would have to be done by the mods/admins or a poll would have to be done for every single map. All gametypes house competition. People are more interested in looking at maps that support a certain spectrum of gametypes. Classifying them by a grade would be confusing to he average viewer here. When classifying/describing a map you must you a noun, not a adjective. Adjective comes down to people's opinions on how well that map supports competition. Many will disagree with each other because some may like/dislike different maps that all serve the same purpose. This leaves nothing but a large grey area that will withhold nothing but opinions. Classifying maps under what gametypes they support is the best way to go. THEN... you could have a community rating system on each map on how well the map supports gameplay in that specific gametype. So after you click on "Standard Maps", you would bring up the standard map forum and would see a list of map titles with a community rating next to the title.
that, I could live with. a stated gametype list for each (we already have this) and then people could rate how well it plays for each gametype. that's qualitative and even though it's still subjective based on opinions, would at least mean something.
Holy sweet ****. Okay.. Fenix. Listen. When I say 'competitive' or 'casual' I am A) Not intending them in the literal dictionary definition - I am intending a bastardized definition that has been twisted by the gaming communities/industry to describe something that's hard to verbalize, and B) obviously alluding to the taste/style of the players involved. If I say "Sanctuary is a very competitive map" what I mean is "Sanctuary is a good map for players that are looking for a fairer and team-friendly play-space" If I say, "Swordbase is fairly casual" what I mean is "Swordbase is a good map for players who are looking for a less predictable play-space where teamwork isn't as essential" If I say "Team Throwdown is competitive as fk" what I really mean is "Team Throwdown is a great gametype for players that want a clean, fair, predictable, team-friendly experience" If I say "Dino Blasters is casual as hell" I mean "Dino Blasters is a good gametype for players that are in the mood for random shenanigans" Do you get what I'm saying? And yeah, classifying maps by gametype support makes sense for forum sorting, but that's not really what's being discussed. How do you differentiate the gametype settings observed in MLG/AGL and Team Throwdown from Infinity Slayer? Can you classify those? I mean, if you can acknowledge that there are distinct levels of player competitiveness, can you use that to describe a gametype? The style it's most suited to? Could you class a SWAT focused map and a Slayer focused map separately? They both support Team Slayer, but not the same variant per se.
"Fenix. Listen. When I say 'competitive' " Yeah, you're using it as an adjective, not a noun. Adjectives are opinions in the form used here and not a good way to classify a map. "And yeah, classifying maps by gametype support makes sense for forum sorting, but that's not really what's being discussed." Well it has been discussed for some time now but that was not the original intent but goes hand in hand with what Shoe originally posted. Classifying a map by level of competitiveness comes all down to opinion. "How do you differentiate the gametype settings observed in MLG/AGL and Team Throwdown from Infinity Slayer? Can you classify those?" Yeah it's very easy brother. MLG is MLG and Team Throwdown is an official Gametype of Halo so it would belong in the Standard Map sections. Plus I don't see team throwdown lasting to long in matchmaking. MLG was placed into matchmaking back in Halo 3 and we all know how well that went. *sarcasm... Most Players prefer Infinity Slayer and BTB and that's a fact (look @ the player count at any given moment). MLG's playlist was barely even populated back in the day. "I mean, if you can acknowledge that there are distinct levels of player competitiveness", This has nothing to do with the map. "Could you class a SWAT focused map and a Slayer focused map separately? They both support Team Slayer, but not the same variant per se." SWAT is a standard gametype as well and played on maps that house all/most standard gametypes. Forgers can make a map specific to SWAT but it would still be classified under a standard map and the forger would label in his description that the map is designed specifically for the official gametype "SWAT" and would not work well with the other common gametypes.
Not classify, describe. I'm not saying there should be a competitive map forum. All I'm talking about is quantifying the language we use. As far as 'classification' goes, that's a moot point - the Halo 4 map forums use a different and less ambiguous nomenclature that agrees with what you're trying to say. Population doesn't really have any bearing here. And I'm not saying that these things should be separated distinctly - I'm saying that there is variation that can be described. There are dozens of official variants of Team Slayer. Being able to describe the character of the gameplay style they support is beneficial when discussing ways to improve maps and encourage specific strategies. I mean, it's not like a map can 'kinda' support Team Slayer; it either does or it doesn't. If I play somebody's map and I want to explain to them how I feel it could play better (with the same gametype it already supports), that is when this competitive/casual diction comes up. Ex. "Your mid is too enclosed - opening it's LoS will allow for more competitive control" or "blue street is too open - if you throw some cover down it will be easier to casually navigate" It's not very clear, but that's how I have seen it used. Not as classification, but as a descriptor of elements that directly impact gameplay style. (aka the style of gameplay that the map will allow players to use effectively) It does. Players play on the map. Some maps are better suited to some players. I get wrecked on Simplex, but I wreck people on Adrift. The people that wreck me - more competitively inclined. Myself? More on the casual end. So what does that mean for the maps? Well Simplex gives more of an advantage to competitively inclined teams. Adrift gives more of an advantage to casual, less coordinated teams, or rather it puts them at less of a disadvantage than Simplex does. So is Simplex competitive and Adrift casual? No. Does Simplex demonstrate competitive elements better than Adrift? Yes. If I wanted Simplex to support a more casual MM-friendly style of gameplay, this comparison would be very useful. If I wanted to categorize Simplex and Adrift into two categories, it would not be. As a classification it is too ambiguous. As a comparative descriptor it is just ambiguous enough. But seriously, you're getting your arguments all mixed up here. You're trying to explain to me why I'm wrong, and I'm just trying to explain my opinion on the meaning of the words, and well, now trying to explain to you why the literal definition is irrelevant to this discussion, or at least why you don't need to beat it into everyone's head. We all understand the literal definition. It means everything. Even campaign can be a competition. We're discussing a definition that has been attached to a word where it doesn't belong.