Trinity

I literally tried email and password combinations 3 times until I gave up. I created an account solely to compliment you, Multi. This is incredible. I really and truly cannot decide which I favor more, the map or the thread. I feel like I just watched a movie trailer built for a Halo map. I could not be more serious. Thank you for creating something so beautiful to admire. The map is gorgeous, and I'm sure it plays very well. I cannot wait to play this once I get the chance. Clearly, both took a serious amount of effort, and you are consistently upsetting me more and more that I don't own this game. I wish you the best of luck, (since this is your last map) and hope to see more content from you in future Halo installments. You're the man. - Nick the Ratman.

 

Hehe, don't check here often my butt. Nick is reppin' that Iso and Trinity train

 

I can certainly see where Chunk is coming from when he says this map would play better in a different game with a longer-range utility weapon. Part of that could be due to this map's bloated vertical scaling, though. It almost appears as if parts of this map were designed under the assumption that merely increasing the height difference between areas would make the map play more vertically, an assumption which really misses the mark and leaves vertical engagements feeling awkward at times. The reason I say this largely lies in the excessive use of long 45 degree and similarly steep ramps throughout the map. These ramps are awkward to traverse and more awkward to fight on. Now, I will say that the extent to which the map relies on structural cover is great; the central sniper placement is solid, and the speed trench is a nice touch. It is a shame to see a map where the visuals were such a priority suffer in that area as well, though. Don't get me wrong; the map looks nice enough, but player immersion is broken by the visual awkwardness of the steep ramps, the boxy grass plane bordering one side of the map, and the framerate drops which plague play on the map. These immersion issues combine to really undermine the visuals (and lead to less-than-desirable gameplay as described above) and squander the otherwise solid aesthetics on the map. Overall, this map is really a mixed bag. Props for uniqueness and the reliance on structural cover, but the bloated vertical scaling and the immersion issues really hold it back. I'll be playing some more games on here and seeing what else I can learn about the map.

 

I'll disregard your friend's childish post and jump right into dissecting yours. No, I don't take it as defensive or hostile that you respond to criticism on your map; it's only natural and the mostly level-headed response is appreciated.

Regarding the question as to whether the design is better suited for another game, it is absolutely an important one. No, the fact that this map would play better with the CE magnum or a no-bloom DMR does not detract from the design itself. However, it does detract from the map when it is played in a game where neither of those weapons is present. If I designed a wonderful Halo map, but played it in CoD it would not play well despite it being well-designed. Maps will be judged on how they play in the game they are built in.

Simply making something taller does not make it play more vertically. Vertical gameplay is achieved when players on various vertical levels engage each other. Now, this map does have vertical gameplay because there are several vertical levels interacting. The excessive height difference between those levels is not what makes it play vertically, however. This excessive height difference becomes problematic when it requires excessively steep ramps to connect the various levels. The 45 degree ramps are indeed a problem. Of course 45 degrees is not some magical number, some specific threshold past which anything is too steep. There are other ramps on this map which appear to be in the realm of forty degrees which are also too steep, hence "long 45 degree and similarly steep ramps". There is no stigma here, only an observation that ramps which are particularly steep feel awkward for players to traverse and break immersion.

It is rather obvious that I am not discrediting the map due to its framerate issues. Were that the case, I would not have written a balanced post acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses of the map and even stating my intentions to play the map more in order to learn more about it. The framerate issues on the map are indeed problematic, but they do not render the map's strengths any less valid. I judged the map by every aspect of importance including the quality of the design, the fit of the design within the game it is built in, the visuals, and the performance. I did find your comparisons to Stonetown and Truth somewhat humorous; Stonetown is made a bad map by H2A's sandbox and Truth is an overscaled travesty of a Midship remake. Neither map is bad merely because of their framerate issues, but those certainly do not help. Using and CA's maps as a baseline for map performance is a slippery slope in general given both companies' track records of making maps which do not perform well.

In closing, I shall state that I find your use of the bandwagon fallacy to be disappointing; that thirty-two of your friends enjoyed the map and didn't find the steepness of the ramps to be an issue in no way invalidates any of my points or validates any of yours. I shall also re-state my intention of playing the map more in order to learn more about it. I will, of course, hold off on giving the map any sort of final numerical rating until I do.

 

I did not completely discredit the map. I stated that the map sacrificed gameplay for beauty. I then gave a 6/10 rating because of this mixed with the overscaling. If you think this is discrediting the map, your standards might be a little high.

What is the point of a map that is a ***** to play, even if it looks incredible? I don't even think Trinity looks incredible!

Also, at first it seemed that you were taking the feedback into consideration, but when I read "The map is a blast to play. Yes, I'm bias. But that's all I've heard from 32 different testers over the past 2 months." I discredited your statements. I do not care if 500 people loved your map, it is plagued by frame rate issues which render the map, in my opinion, unplayable and therefore worthy of a generous 6/10.

 

I would like to begin by stating that the picture I posted below Multi's was merely to level-off the seriousness of this post. It was not meant to insult anyone. You, however, took it as a personal attack and deleted it because you felt as if it were undermining your "authority". Seeing as you responded so defensively to a light-hearted joke, I can only come to the conclusion that you are in-fact the childish one. Now, let's discuss your critiquing of Trinity:

1. If I designed a wonderful Halo map, but played it in CoD it would not play well despite it being well-designed.
Stating this is illogical as neither I nor you nor anyone else can prove this assertion. Providing a subjective opinion as "fact" in-order-to support your argument is invalid. Plenty of maps have been remade in different games and have worked fine, just look at the maps on this website. A decent sum of them were remakes or "reimaginations" of multiplayer maps from games such as Mass Effect 3 and Golden Eye. A map may not be the "best map ever" if it is remade in a different game, but saying it would not play well is an overstatement based on your own subjective beliefs of how a map, particularly in Halo, should play. Games with generally similar movement and weapon mechanics can generally share map design in many regards, obviously allowing for the differences in the games to alter aspects of the maps such as scaling and pathing.

2. Simply making something taller does not make it play more vertically. Vertical gameplay is achieved when players on various vertical levels engage each other. Now, this map does have vertical gameplay because there are several vertical levels interacting. The excessive height difference between those levels is not what makes it play vertically, however. This excessive height difference becomes problematic when it requires excessively steep ramps to connect the various levels. The 45 degree ramps are indeed a problem. Of course 45 degrees is not some magical number, some specific threshold past which anything is too steep. There are other ramps on this map which appear to be in the realm of forty degrees which are also too steep, hence "long 45 degree and similarly steep ramps". There is no stigma here, only an observation that ramps which are particularly steep feel awkward for players to traverse and break immersion.
The problem with this entire paragraph is that it is in no way objective or generally accepted; it is merely how you define an "immersive" and "non-awkward" play experience based on you own respective style of play, that of which holds little merit as your play experience is not one which is refined nor one which has benefited from high-level (competitive) play by the standards of professional play. Having said this, I am not disregarding the fact that you have experience playing Halo and designing maps for it. I am, however, saying that for you to state that the angles (specifically 40 degrees or greater, according to your post) and lengths of the paths on Trinity make movement and general game-play problematic is utterly false. This is your opinion, one with which many players of different skill would disagree with. Also, the height variation on this map does not require "excessively steep ramps to connect the various levels". That was an intentional design choice, not an after-thought as you seem to be making it out to be.

3. Using and CA's maps as a baseline for map performance is a slippery slope in general given both companies' track records of making maps which do not perform well.
Who are you to judge the performance of developer maps and generalize it as fact? Sure, you can say you personally do not like them, but to judge and label them as if you are speaking for an entire community is a privilege you do not possess. Also, Multi never used them as a baseline for map performance, he merely asked if they were inherently bad because of frame-rate issues.

If you are going to judge a map, judge it for what it is, not for how well you can play it.

 

There was nothing remotely illogical about my first statement. It was an exaggerated example to get my point across, nothing more. At no point did I attempt to pass my opinion off as fact. Similarly, your assertion that maps ported from Mass Effect and Goldeneye have played well in Halo is an opinion and one I disagree with. I assert that this map, due to scaling, would play better with a utility weapon with greater range; I can say the same about one of my own maps in H2A. At no point did I say that this map does not play well in this game because of this, only that it would play better in a game with a longer range utility weapon. However, because this map is not built in a different game, I am judging it by how it plays in this one. A large part of the scaling issue which causes this is in terms of the vertical scale of the map. If the vertical scale of the map were shrunk without the lateral scale changing, I believe that the Battle Rifle would be better suited for the general range of engagements on the map. I realize that it is intentional that this vertical scale is very large, hence why I hypothesized that this decision was based on the assumption that making the map taller would make it play more vertically. However, the map does not need to be as tall as it is to play vertically because verticality is achieved when players engage each other from multiple vertical levels, not merely because a map is particularly tall.

Your assumption that I am basing my dislike for the use of steep ramps off preferences within my unique play style is a false one. All of my feedback is rooted in overarching design theory, not based off of singular experiences I had on the map or other empirical evidence. The longer and steeper a ramp, the further above the player's field of view is the ramp's horizon. There is a point for any player where that horizon becomes so far out of their field of vision, or they must correct their FOV so far to get that horizon within their FOV, that the ramp begins to feel unnatural or "awkward" based on their internal perceptions of what is "normal" within the physical world. In other words, some degree of inclination is going to feel too steep for any given player. If a ramp feels too steep to a player, they cease to be immersed. As designers who wish to immerse these players within the levels we create, ensuring that we avoid any ramps that feel too steep is important. Naturally, what this threshold of "too steep" is varies from player to player, but I have found that avoiding ramps of greater than approximately 40 degrees is a good rule of thumb. It's by no means an exact science, but my point is that these ramps appear too steep to me as a designer, not just as a player. Combine this with what I said earlier about my belief that the map would benefit in other ways from the height difference decreasing without sacrificing its vertical gameplay, and I see no reason for the ramps to be as steep as they are. If there is some other rationale for the ramps being as steep as they are, then I am open to hearing it.

It is a fact that many of the maps which and Certain Affinity have produced in Halo 4 and Halo 2: Anniversary have suffered from performance issues. To suggest that neither company has a positive track record for making maps which perform well is hardly a generalization, but at no point did I claim any of my opinions as fact.

In summary, nothing I said was merely based upon my personal experiences with the map. All of my feedback was based upon how this map's design stacks up against my own design theory. Your own design theory may differ.

@MultiLockOn, yes it looks like we're on the same page. We clearly have different ideas of what is most important in a map, but there's nothing wrong with that. All of my feedback really comes down to the following; I like the structural cover, I like the vertical nature of the map, I like the speed trench, I think the map would play better with a longer range utility weapon, I think the map would play better (and still maintain its vertical gameplay) with a smaller vertical scale and shallower inclines, I wish that there were not framedrops. I do not think that the framedrops make the map inherently bad. I think some of that feedback was misconstrued as an attack somewhere along the way. It wasn't one.

 

When two people unload an entire clip at eachother wothout anyone dying, I think the map might be overscaled.

Finally, how many times are you going to make me repeat this? The map is overscaled and has bad frame rate issues that render the map unplayable for me. I don't care that the map isn't made for competitive play and I don't care what artistic abilities you think you are showing off, the overscaling and frame rate issues ruin the map.

But hey, I probably didn't play it anyways. How could I possibly have such an opinion while having played this stunning compilation of metal mounds?

 

Just because some people can't bake a cake doesn't mean others cant.

 

This entire argument caters itself to something unnecessary. I misconstrued your ideologies, and I'm sure you did mine. Neither of us are right, and neither of us are wrong. We simply have differing viewpoints on something so minuscule in the grand scheme of things. I'd like to here more on your design theory (as compared to mine), to help understand your beliefs if nothing else.

 

Just want to state that none of my satements in this post should be taken as insults, or a bias for the map.

With that out there, lets talk about the following.

1. Grass Planes - These items were a necessity for the map to remain playable. I'm kind of confused as to why them "taking away from the map" was a response even generated. I know Multi doesn't like them either, but there was no way around them. For the map to remain playable (framerate-wise) and in all honesty they don't look that bad. Conventional? No. Practical? Yes.
2. 45* inclines - Okay I totally understand where the critisism of these is coming from, but after playing with them for more than 1 or 2 games, I re-adapted to them. By that I mean steep ramps were a thing back in Halo's early days. This map was created with classic halo in mind. Therefore, it goes kind of hand in hand. Did you play ghost town in H3? that back ramp was at like 60 degrees, and not once to this day have I heard someone complain about it. Or the ramp in bottom middle.
3. Verticality - of course this map has verticality. It does not mean having multiple layers stacked up on eachother keeping straight forward fights... that is just what I took as your description. It means having multiple points on the map that are at different elevations. Verticality generally refers to larger variations in height over small ones. This map is a perfect example of that.
4. As for primary weapons, I can't help but feel as though having a no-bloom DMR would only hurt the map. Remember Hemmorage? It played terrible in Reach because of that DMR. Pin point accuracy is a bad thing in my opinion. You don't have to agree.
   I understand I can be wrong. In fact, everything either of us bring up is all opinion based. The ability to miss shots only strengthens the map. If you could guarentee full hits at that far of range, then camping would become an issue. But I don't want to get too far into this topic because it is a black hole of controversy and opinion. However, "When two people unload an entire clip at eachother wothout anyone dying, I think the map might be overscaled." Did you ever play ANY Halo BTB? That is possible in any Halo game. I understand this isn't a BTB map, but the idea is the same since it is such an open map, it does not need to be a tiny arena map.

So, with that being said, is the map perfect? no, but I felt the points being brought up were unfair.

 

Haters gonna hate

 

This offers a good laugh. I agree exactly with Xandrith, if a map has significant frame-rate then it is fair to say that a map is **** to play on!

 

People don't really notice a modest few drops below 60 FPS. You don't visually recognize that distinctive "frame rate" stutter until it drops below the ~25 FPS mark. While performance below 60FPS is noticeable on many maps (especially forge maps), it's only by a "feeling", as the reticule "feels sticky" or somewhat unresponsive compared to on maps that perform at 60FPS.

Having not played this, I can not comment on any possible framerate. If it's just "sticky" feeling, then there's no cause for concern. If there's visual stutter, then by traditional criticism, it's unplayable at a competitive level. Doesn't take away from the design or aesthetics, but it does take away from the map's overall appeal.