Walking to work I was thinking about a gametype for Halo 5 but the more I walked, the more I figured out it would not work but it spawned some map idea I want to work on.
I like radar because I suck so I like to grab shot gun & hide in corners to catch multi kills by the dozen.
Goat i thought i helped you with the middle structure in the middle as an idea to fill some of the negative space but to also give more character to that top middle building/lookout
Maybe its just time to quit forge goat? Lol There isn't such thing as a perfect map, and beleive me I'm all for tweaking and reiterating but sometimes you just got to go for it. If its a bad map in the end its a bad map, that's the worst that could come of it. Finish the map to your best judgement and get some play test's on it, so you can visually see what you do and do not like about the gameplay rather than using pure speculation. Just my 2 cents
Yeah, I'd just get some play testing done and go from there, no sense fixing it if it might already work great. But after that, iterate the crap out of it :d
In addition to what Salty said, I think what is most troublesome with your current design struggles is that you are reiterating and designing out of fear, whether it's fear of how the line of sights are managed or how the spawns will perform, etc. I know it sounds incredibly cheesy, but if you design with fear in mind you are likely to only come up with solutions that are merely imperfect band-aids that create a domino effect and send you in a circle of designing in which you are constantly trying to fix the inevitable next problem that arises. Instead of saying "I don't want this to happen" or "I need to fix this" you should have a (positively worded) vision that you base your design process around from start to finish. You might already know all of that but I've noticed as of late that you seem more concerned with falling short as opposed to (as we used to say years ago) "grow a pair" and make something great. I hope that doesn't come off the wrong way as I'm just interested in seeing you convert the map's potential into a reality.
I'm talking about the changes that were made last night where the tower already had the stuff we did. Going to have to strongly disagree with this. None of us set out to make bad maps or maps we don't like to play. The difference with me is that I would rather spend the next year never finishing a map than ever make a map I don't enjoy playing on. If people think the map I enjoy playing on is bad, that's one thing, but I would never put a stamp on one I don't find fun. Every issue I've had that has held me back thus far has been the result of things I wouldn't find fun, like crappy spawns or awkward playspace, and that's ultimately why I have not made it playable yet. I don't think this will be fun to play on; this isn't the map I want to build. It's closer to helping me see the map, but it's not the geometry that makes the map stick out to me. It doesn't have enough of what I want; it doesn't look the way I want; it doesn't feel close enough to the way I want it to. It's not Genesis. I've got 10 other maps I can be making that would follow more of a traditional development cycle of mass out, pathing and playtesting to see what works and what doesn't, but this one is different. I'm very much being open about the struggles with it because when I'm done, I do think it should be a perfect map. It should be the first perfect map, because why not? If it's not perfect, then I failed, but at least by aiming for perfection I'm square on top of everything else I've done and raising the bar for everything else to come. If someone looks at that now they obviously aren't going to say it's perfect. Hell someone might be scrolling down and saying to themselves it wont play well. It's nothing I haven't already run through my head though which is why I posted my own thoughts. Yes, it's true that fixing one problem will create another. But I do have a positive vision for the design process and this layout isn't it. Those bases aren't what I want bases to be; that middle isn't what I want middle to be. So it's through constant tweaking and iteration that I push the design closer to what it ought to be, slowly chiseling away at the flaws before it reveals itself. Metaphorically I'd be removing the coal off of a diamond. I wouldn't put a big black rock on a ring, so why playtest a design if it isn't the design I'd want to play? Again, if someone tells me that the diamond has a few imperfect cuts or doesn't glow as brightly as I'd hoped, then that's fine. But at least I have a diamond. What is playtesting this design going to tell me that I don't already know? It either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, the "why's" are irrelevant because at this point, it's not the map I want. If it does work, or if parts of it work, it still isn't the map I want. And I don't think knowing which parts work is something I need testing for. I know the bases wont work and I know the middle wont work. Now if I create the map I want and that doesn't work, THEN I have something to go off of. Then I know what I did wrong and then I know what to fix. It could be as simple as scaling a path back or tweaking lines of sight, or it could be the addition or removal of another path. Whatever it may be, as long as it's the map I would want to play, I wouldn't mind tweaking it. But that? That is not Genesis. It's very close, but it's not there. And I think anyone who had that pair would be able to tell me that my bases would suck instead of pressure me into wasting time on a terrible design. I only ever want to build what I would want to play. There is a fun, classic map in this design waiting to be discovered, and I'm going to bring it to light.
well theres your problem, all maps are bad. i know hwo you feel goat, i'll iterate on my maps a hundred times before i end up with a testable version, all i can really say is all though you might have your theoretical concerns about the map, after so many iterations its get to the point where testing it would provide a lot more insight then how you think it will play. you may imagine it to play a certain way but the rest of us probably won't try and play it how you think or design it to. i think you're at the point now where its worth it to start testing it.
I'm not going to force people to play Super Mario on my map. In fact, one of the design goals that I've done a better job of pushing is to have a bottom portion to the map that almost completely bypasses the platforming aspect. So you can play the low ground, play the high ground, or shuffle between the two. It's a balancing act of course so that the bottom of the map doesn't completely ignore the rest, but that element of this current iteration is in line with what I feel the map should encompass. It's all the other geometry supporting it that I don't think is strong enough. Here's the first version of the map I built in Halo 5. Testing this would have told me nothing because it's not the geometry I wanted. I'm technically on the 4th iteration in Halo 5, which isn't even that much. In the past, I didn't have a playable version of a map until the 8th major iteration, so Genesis is technically ahead of schedule. Each time I make a sweeping change, I grow closer to seeing the map and better at building it. But it's important that I don't lose elements of it that are working while I retool the elements that aren't. And again, I don't think cobbling together a beta to hear people tell me what I already know is a good way to spend my time. I think you guys are underestimating the designer's ability to predict the way a player plays on it. Are you going to find every possible playstyle, trick jump or sightline? Nope, and it'd be a shallow map if you did. But I don't need the founder of Hidden League Gaming himself to tell me that you can break out of my map in one spot, and I don't need Gamesager to play on my map and spawn kill me in another spot before I recognize a spawning problem. So what is testing at this point going to tell me that I or anyone else looking at the map hasn't already discerned? It's not playable yet, and that's not because the other half isn't there. A map with glaring sightline and spawn problems isn't something I'd want to play.
Not a knock on you, but I'm more of a quality over quantity person. Variety is good, but in the end I'd rather have a few good maps than a bunch of decent ones. And I'd say more often than not, spitting out content is going to lead to undercooked content unless you're a genius or something. I may agree with the quantity thing for other creative outlets (it's better to spit out drawings than focus on perfecting one for instance), but for something like a map that's going to be stressed over many hours,the quality of my output is more important to me than the rate at which I put them out. I had a lot of bad geometric forging habits in MCC that I'm still trying to break out of, but I don't think iterating on a design a few times before testing it is one of them. I'd rather do that than test the first iteration of this map (or worse, release it) and end up with GOAT'S MAP V9 like I had in Reach at one point. A wise man once told me that your first idea sucks. If I had to sum up my Forge philosophy in one sentence, it would be that. I just can't count.
I have a few gems believe it or not. Not like anyone gives a **** anyway. That's kinda why spending so much time on a single map seems pointless to me. Experimenting with and playing on different designs is why I enjoy this hobby. Forcing myself to create something that I think is perfect will only lead me to disappointment when someone with different ideas comes along and shits on it. You can't please everyone, but if pleasing yourself is really all you are trying to do, then have fun.
Well MCC was DOA so I could see why there wouldn't be interest outside of a contest. And with a contest looming once again, I expect most people to be focusing on their own designs instead of seeking out others. I think once that dies down however, there will be more content discovery going on, especially when 343 updates the File Sharing system. I used to spit out and test maps in Reach all the time. Off the top of my head: Gondola - first Forge map. It was **** Gateway - a weird city/plaza map. It was **** Downtown - another city map. Went through 10 changes with the last few being new path and cover additions. Still **** Invasion Battery - Fun to play but geometrically ****. I had some weirdass bridge across Alaska and Montana, SMH Outbreak - fermented deer shiiiiiiiiiiiit Some Valhalla reimaginging - Fun concept but **** Jackal Creek - went through 4 iterations before I released it and I guess people liked it, but I didn't like most of it and released an overhauled version sometime after. Pioneer - A different take on Jackal Creek. Liked the geo but it was boring Invasion ONI - Fun to play but had really bad spawning issues and I didn't have the budget to fix them Invasion Covie - What was this I don't even Think Twice(co-forge) -@GodlyPerfection knows how I feel about this map lol Invasion ODST - Oh boy, where do I even start with this. First of all, I did play this map many times. There were at least a dozen playable versions before I scrapped all if it and changed my design philosophy. Had a whole bunch in Halo 4 too. Can count around 8 playable maps i built in that game - Last Order, Shortstop, The Mantle, Deadeye to name a few. I played one of them and scrapped it soon after and spent the rest of the time building another, which @CANADIAN ECHO held me at gunpoint to try to finish. And yea it had some cool geo and I'm glad I fleshed it out more, but I don't think it would have played well. There are probably a few that I'm missing, but the point was that I would build, test, and release until i got fed up with the quality of my output. Each one of those maps might have been decent if I put more time into them (except those first two city maps). Working on different things was good for my Forging technique, but not so good for my repertoire. I've listed every map I want to build in Halo 5 out on a spreadsheet. Some of them are remixes of these failed designs and others are fresh concepts that I either couldn't do in the past or thought of recently. Most of them are going to go through rough pathing massouts and extensive testing before they get to where I want them to be because I don't know what I want them to be. Genesis however is the exception. In another post maybe I'll elaborate more on why it is the exception, but I'll say part of it is the fact that it's geometrically a pain in the ass to Forge. I probably would have played this version if there was a mirror tool. I don't see the point of spending 8 hours replicating the other side of the map though when it doesn't even feel good to begin with. And then the scale ends up not being the same as it was on the scratch canvas and I need to spend another 2 hours adjusting it. It's way too much work for something I'm not even sure about.
Well Think Twice was one of my favorite forge maps ever so..... I didn't know you were the one who forged it. Nice work! I don't know what to say other than don't be so hard on yourself. If you acted like this back when Reach was out, I never would have gotten a chance to play your map in matchmaking. You know what you are doing. You are a good forger. We all want another one of your maps so ****ing post one already.
It was a coforge. I really enjoyed the collaborative process up until it got to a point where I would have scrapped it because I didn't like how the layout played anymore. I feel I should mention again something I said on a previous page: There are no bad ideas, just ideas that don't work well together. I don't think any of those maps had to stay bad maps (except those first two city maps I already mentioned), but I think focusing on finishing, testing and releasing them as fast as I did prevented them from reaching their potential. They just weren't fleshed out enough.
Working with @A 3 Legged Goat has been a different process then I have ever come across. The closest thing would be working with Fritzster. Both of these forgers during there time spent almost a year to make one map. This process is something that is different then any normal map making process because only in Halo Forge you have the time to really flesh something out. The fact that you dont have a time constraint allows for full creative freedom. NOW with that being said everyone makes maps different. I know that people like ME, Col Keller, and a 3 legged Goat we have a tendency to reforge a map a number of times that would blow a persons mind, but in that process we still forge differently. Like me and Col Keller have a tendency to forge something a play chess on it a few times then playtest the map a few times with are secret testers . Then reforge again and repeat this process. Goat likes playing chess on his map until he is happy with it PERIOD. He might 1v1 on it but that is it. We all could learn something from Goats style of forging and incorporate it into our maps. NOW the reason I been helping him so much lately is just like everyone on this forum. I want to play the map also and I see the potential Goat has in this Halo 5 Forge. But I think I am done typing really tired.
You're a trooper. I didn't get much sleep either lol. I think most of us play that chess game on our maps while we're building - it's how we imagine combat scenarios and adjust lines of sight while we're working on it. I really enjoy that aspect of Forging because it's taking a puzzle and piecing it together. What I don't enjoy is playing a map and realizing that I have to redo half of the puzzle. I don't think everyone should spend a year on their maps because then we would have nothing to play, but I spend as much time as I do in part because I don't want to go through that process. When a map works, it should build itself and not end up with glaring problems thereafter. Every map has prototypes, but for Genesis I don't think the prototypes need testing beyond "is this area fun to run around? Are these lines of sight good? Does this geometry make sense?" If the answer to all of those is no, it needs to go back on the drawing board.