I agree. A visual representation is always important in the map for coordination. You technically cannot have the best playing map in the world if it didn't look visually appealing though. Even a simple, plain map can be appealing if the layout is amplified in this simplicity. Just take a look at old Halo CE and old Halo 2 maps on MCC; the textures are all plain, there's not decorative **** everywhere. It's just simple, clean and nice. Zombie, I also seem to have that issue these days. It feels as though every aesthetic combination has already been done.
Zombie just make sure its clean. So as long as the map doesn't make someones eyes bleed your fine. @chunk I have two complaints immediately with joy(I actually had a map back in reach of the same name). First, there doesn't seem to be enough disconnect between the areas to have the teleporter you have. Also, the dead space in blue seems odd based on where camo has been placed in the room. @TaK you should be fine with that concept. Most of the solid to great 1v1's I have played use a similar concept.
is the opposite for me. aesthetics are easy if you have a theme, but coming uip with a good and original layout is a brain buster for me. it's not even that it's difficult to build a layout, but a vertical map asym is tough to conceive.
I've kinda run into that problem on my 1v1, Goat. Aesthetics are great by my standards, but the layout is kinda simplistic, and I'm not entirely sure how I could remedy that without using too many pieces. Was kinda thinking of adding a platform outside of the hangar, but I'm not sure how I could link that to the rest of the map in a meaningful way. And there's too many pieces phased into the floor and ceiling to add other passageways around the map. http://www.forgehub.com/darkprince909/maps/Stalwart for those interested.
It's good to hear aesthetics won't make difference and all but I can't bring myself to settle with something that isn't at least up to par with the visuals I'm seeing around. Plus my layout is kind of larger than I pictured in my sketches so I may give up but who knows, it may not be too big. I'm working with sight lines but the extra 10% speed didn't help as much as I expected. As far as verticality, I gave up on that. I'm going asym but it's very difficult to build a functioning 1v1 that has drastic height variations & layering. It's hard to keep it easy enough to engage your opponent without radar, which radar in itself is obviously a no go in a 1v1.
i've found the best way to approach verticality is to consider everything in the form of "layers". the bottom is the widest, then middle is thinner and the highest layers should be really thin and risky. when you're on higher elevations, you have an immediate advantage over anyone below you; however, players passed radar range can engage you on tiers that are around the same height or lower to counter it. this makes the verticality relative depending on where you are on the map. of course, it's all nice in writing but in practice it's difficult to build.
Personally when I see people use the term "Verticality" I seem to get the impression that when they say "Verticality is good", they strive to make as many floors on a map as possible, stacking them sky high in the process. To me, verticality is simply the addition of adding that extra bit to the Y-axis in a lot of combat areas. This isn't just accomplished by adding floor after floor after floor on top of each other, it can easily be achieved by adding slight variances in the flooring height in the same rooms. 1-3 units in height doesn't make your map harder to build, it doesn't affect the layout, but it adds the element of verticality in a single room. Adding this across your entire map means that some sections have a greatly increased verticality element without looking style or compromising your build. This is something that I noticed from the very start. The absence of Sprint in H2:A and the same Forge pieces we've had in previous Sprint-enabled games means that all of our maps are naturally larger than the game needs. I must admit this game is much harder to Forge accurately for compared to Reach / H4.
For me "verticality" isn't a matter of variations of elevations, but rather having distinctly different floors that have some degree of overlap and sights that interact between them. Lacking this, a map strikes me as flat, and thus so is boring.
I think you guys are over thinking vertical assyms. a bit. True vertical assyms. can be fickle bitches, but all you need to really need to worry about is giving incentive to the player in higher position to move. Another trick is to make it so the player has limited ability to escape a push from a team or player. Also it is good to make sure the players in the lower areas have the more cover to manipulate. In all honesty you can never tell until you test a map anyways. Most vertical maps I have played for 1v1 don't usually have the issue of people of sitting up top. I am going to use Angst as an example since it is a map most people are familiar with. On Angst the top area is secluded and has access to os, but the real position to set-up/camp was sniper/os because this gave the player/team the ability to see people pushing through lift or snipe and if neither you know they hit the teleporter. This position also gave the player access to every power weapon except GL, but if you are able to get camo GL was usually really easy to get. I say all this because I remember a lot of people saying the top area was the spot on the map only to lose the game anytime they would try to control it. You couldn't abuse it but because of weapon placement it was only useful if nothing spawned. That is never the case in 2v2/1v1's. Moral is you can look at a map and say hey this doesn't work because of this or that but, in all honesty you don't know until you test it.
Yep, that's what I was referring to. A "flat" map isn't a bad map purely because it lacks verticality. Halo 3's The Pit in your opinion should be very boring... which that then comes down to opinion as for me it is possibly the greatest Halo map to date. Even for asymmetric maps, the simple geometry change of slight elevations and drops can be the difference between a "flat" map, and a "vertical" map. Although my honest opinion of a vertical map is one that is typically narrow, and has a greater change in height than it does in width or length. These maps are really against my playstyle as they seem forced and rigid to play on as opposed to free and fluid.
it's interesting how many definitions of verticality there can be. i like overlapping routes, but i try to avoid entire floors crossing over others in most of my designs. when halo is played with radar, these maps tend to run into issues (and even without radar the maps that overdo the floors can become a nuisance. countdown is a good example). i like the interactions between different levels, but i tend to find it wonky when players are beneath you on another floor and you can't see them at all. i get what secret is saying though. i don't really consider the pit vertical either. it has elevation changes, but players interact on essentially the same plane for the majority of the time. the most vertical area would be the sword room. on an unrelated note, whats the trick to finding people in the leaderboards? can you guys list your times so i know how many pages to scroll through?
Xsjados is working on a Beaver Creek remake. This is an early version, and it's still a work in progress. Apparently he's currently reworking some of the flooring to assure a relatively smooth playing surface for movement and grenades. I'll be interesting to see what this looks like when it's all said and done... http://xboxclips.com/Xsjados/eb76d5ec-c94b-49e1-b532-15bfd191bfc9
Add the person as a friend. One of the sorting criteria in the leaderboards is 'friends', which only lists people on your friends list. Unfortunately, it's still terribly buggy, and people often don't show on the leaderboard for whatever reason... If anyone is looking for me on the leaderboard, go to Halo CE - Timing - Pillar of Autumn - Heroic.
mcc doesn't have an in-game file search and there's no online file search. the only way to access other player's file shares is to find the player in the leaderboards or add them and grab it from their file share when they're online. even in h4 when file shares weren't up, i believe you could still view file shares offline and link them from the website.
Do you actually have to finish the campaign level to be on the leaderboard or can you just start and quit? I assume you have to finish the level tho
halo 4 worked on release and it still took several months for them to put file sharing up. so my guess this time around is never.
I'm pretty sure you need to complete the level. I had to run through Pillar of Autumn 5 or 6 times before I even showed up on the leaderboard. Probably never. Nobody at 343 will even answer the question...