I said testing needs to be done at the champ level, which it wasn't, so therefore it was more or less useless for determing how the maps would play at that level.
That's extremely black and white considering I predicted how every single doubles map would play before it got into matchmaking and I was right. This isn't some magic trick that only I have I've seen you do it too. There's no reason for a judge to look at the smg room in hazard and not realize "hmm maybe we can crouch in one of the infinite corners in here". That's shitty judging to do nothing but base the entire results on super super casual play. --- Double Post Merged, Mar 26, 2017 --- A competitively viable map doesn't mean it's boring. I don't know why so many people draw that conclusion instantly. If anything the type of maps you're thinking of are the ones that won. And they play awful
I don't want to inflate your ego anymore then it is inflated, but have you considered the fact that you are an above average human? Not everything that's super apparent to you will be super apparent to the majority. Just consider that. --- Double Post Merged, Mar 26, 2017 --- Im all for you hosting and being the sole judge of a 2v2 contest. I'd enter for sure
Halo is just bad. Slayer is bad. Flag is bad. The base settings are bad. Designing around a bad game is going to lead to an abnormal amount of bad maps. That doesn't excuse their design flaws, but it limits designs that would otherwise work fine. Beyond the stuff Xzamples has mentioned - orientation, readability, stuff like that and all - a map is only bad if it doesn't work in its intended game. Halo, and especially Halo 5, has really inflexible settings. It's time for this gay ass franchise to actually evolve in an intelligent way, not with all this superficial garbage like armor abilities. The gametypes and the base settings need substantial improvements. Changing the radar is the first step in a loooooong list of steps that need to be taken. For example, 100% of teleporter problems would be solved if you could see the receiver node through the teleporter. And it's the perfect trash for 343's lore nerds to write canon about: portable wormholes!
Should be another 2v2 because the number of people still playing and forging has diminished. Anything bigger would get less entries.
Moria WIP (I know, not much there yet) Verticality, interactive horizontally/vertically launching jump pads, 2-4 speed boosts could be some key words After grinding out For Honor, I'm back at it again! Slowly finishing the last part of my linear infection map Scarabeus, giving Optic Prison a facelift (I'll post a WIP once I got more to show) and making an artpass for a map called Solidarity by Blaze... So yeah, I've got some work to do after my little hiatus, haha.
Except that I wasn't asked to be a judge for the exterm contest, which is fine because i like money. Except if I don't win... in that case it's bullshit. contests are inherently subjective. There's no magic way around it for judging something like a map. ****, even olympic events where specific moves are assigned point values based on complexity and execution have judges coming up with different scores. Your "proven method" would not solve the issue at all.
You cannot eliminate human bias, but you can reduce it with facts and evidence. You and I may have a completely different analysis of what is an "original" design or not, but if we're both using the same scale, we have a way to measure, compare and rank that difference. Without the scale, it's all up in the air, subject to whims, feelings, and emotions about the game you just played on it, the person who made it, or the opinions of the other judges. Those against this scale - which is nothing more than a few extra steps on top of criteria that is already being used - just sound lazy to me. And I don't agree at all with the notion that having a scale would force people to build "towards judge's preferences" or whatever. Contest entries should be good maps, period. And it should be understood that the best of those maps would win. Therefore, why would you submit a map knowing that it is 1. not original 2. doesn't play well 3. doesn't look good 4. has framerate problems and expect to win, let alone be considered a matchmaking worthy map? The scale is simply a means to an end, and one that is far more quantifiable than the current system, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be more accurate - that depends on the experience of the judges. I'll use Smokestack as an example. I haven't been on the map recently, so I don't know how it ranks up. But assuming the gameplay was solid, I think the map should have been in the running for far longer, and barred from the top slots only because it wasn't as original.
The Splatoon 2 testfire inspired me to return to this re-imagining of Blackbelly Skatepark from the original game. It's obviously still a real early blockout, but it has no teleporters to argue about. Spoiler
Even then, a 1-5 scale rating on "gameplay" and "aesthetics" is still going to be largely subjective. You'd have to tie down the point system with questions that have a yes/no answer Even a category such as "originality" is too vague Should we judge the originality of the aesthetics and structure within the same point structure, or should we break them up? Many maps have inspiration from other maps, it's just a matter if the judges have a wide enough map knowledge base to recognize it's inspiration and therefore reduce it's points more. I'll be honest, I didn't play many of the 2v2 maps so I can't have a legitimate discussion about them with you. The ones I did play, I didn't care for. Optic prison is the only one I legitimately enjoyed and i typically dislike the quake style-maze like- constantly picking up power up style of gameplay that a majority of popular 2v2s seem to have
I think the reason that Halo 5's sandbox is bad that the large amount of magnetism and hitscan weapons forces the maps to be where the skill and knowledge needs to be. The sandbox requires little-to-no hard work to master, therefore the maps need to be where the large skill gaps lie. Guess what? No maps in matchmaking have that. Also, a community like Halo's (casual af) despises high-skill/high-reward these days. Oblivion? They'd hate it. Trinity? Even more. If you want a truly large skill gap competitive arena shooter, either go back to Quake or make your own damn game. Why do you think I'm doing the latter!?
Meanwhile a few people are desperately trying to turn the thread back into maps people are working on
Is the map's originality enough to hold it back? Yes/No Is the map's gameplay issues enough to hold it back? Yes/No Is the map's art/lighting issues enough to hold it back? Yes/No Is the map's performance enough to hold it back? Yes/No Is this what you're implying? If so, then it's not much different than a 1 or a 2 being given on the point scale. And I disagree about aesthetics. Visual design has enough understood principles to be quantifiable. A good judge should be able to recognize the visual appeal of a map for its intended theme. It bears repeating that you need to have judges who know what they're doing to judge contests. You are not eliminating bias, but the difference is you are parsing their experience through a filter, one that works independent of their preferences. If there is a better system out there, I'm all for it; I disagree that the current method is good enough, and there is enough substantial evidence to support that. --- Double Post Merged, Mar 26, 2017 --- Well maybe one of the mods should move the posts to a separate thread.
and the point scale you are proposing isn't much different than a 25% scale that they're using now. Your scale......% scale out of 25 1 ............. 1-5 2 ............. 6-10 3 ............. 11-15 4 ............. 15-20 5 ............. 20-25 On your scaling system, a judge could potentially give the map a 4 (which is then multiplied by 5 to find out it's value out of 100, assuming it's worth 25% of the point total) which out of 100 = 20 points. On the current system, that same 4 assuming all the judges would have given it a 4... can vary between 15-20 points. It allows the judges more freedom to rank the maps relative to each other. If map A recieved 18 points for gameplay, and a judge thought that map B played just a little bit better, they can opt to give the map 19 points for gameplay. Your system would have both maps earning 20 points, which is why i don't care for your system.
You either severely misunderstood my post, or you mistyped something, because what you are saying sounds neither like what I proposed nor what is being used, which is nothing because there is no point system for contests currently.