If I were entering in the contest, I would opt out. Can we opt in to have the judges make geometry changes? If my map sucks, can I opt to have the judges remake or replace it for me?
That still makes no sense. I'm looking for the best experience on a map. If I can get a better experience by deleting an incineration canon I will. If your map is fine as is then it doesn't need to be touched.
And that's fine unless the author doesn't want you altering a submitted map based on your desired experience. Of course, if it were 343, they wouldn't ask the author's permission. They own it anyway, so they would just do whatever they wanted. Hopefully a contest run by actual Forgers is more flexible.
@xzamplez Is that the update to the one map you showed me the other day. I know you where wanting to change it
Jesus you guys are starting to get really annoying. You're acting like I'm going to reforge maps. I gave an example of removing the LR on legion and the map turned out fine, that's around the extent of what will be happening. My preference are maps that play good. If you're looking for a cop out here you won't find one.
Destiny has been distracting me for the last couple of days so I haven't been able to keep up. Can anyone give me a tl;dr of the last 20 or so pages?
I never said it's been said otherwise. You're arguing against words I've never said, instead of the point I am trying to make.
I think it's pretty reasonable the judges will not disqualify maps that have a bad weaponset that can be improved. If they look past your weird weapons and like your design, who cares? Salt is inevitable after judging and I'm ready for it. This is my 1000th post btw so you have to like it. It's like a rule.
You are going on someone else's map and removing something you think is wrong with the map in order to make it a more viable entry. You as a judge reserve the right to judge maps based on how they are submitted. If the contest rules permit you to make (weapon) changes to entries and continue judging them, then that is also your right as a judge. And it should be the author's right to prevent (their weaponset) from being changed. Whether or not you are only changing maps you determine have a problem with their weapons is irrelevant to the principle of you changing someone's entry based on your idea of how it should play. The author determines how the map should play. This just sounds like an extension of the nonsense mentioned a few weeks ago about offloading testing to the judges. Too many can of worms are being opened because people want to discourage the debate about weapons and wait for 4 people to make that decision for them. It's a ****ing 1v1 contest - if someone scores the lotto on a layout and then puts the Nornfang on a 10 second respawn top mid, then **** them. Some of us actually test the weapons on our ****ing maps.
I would rather see my map disqualified than see it place after being changed by the judges. We literally just changed the prizing structure back to the "winner takes all" format, and now we're giving a handicap to people who don't want to test their ****ing submissions. I don't believe entries should be changed at all, but if it's allowed, don't touch my ****ing map.
I'm not disagreeing with that. But I just see what he means. And we both know the untested maps won't stand a change with these judges. I just believe if NGA or Blaze would say the same thing in different words it wouldn't be a big thing like this.
Sometimes (most of the times) the best designs are not the ones that are fine tuned. In most cases the most polished maps are the ones with some technical issues, spawns, performance, weapon balance, whatever. A good core design is always the most important aspect.
We could playtest all with weapons on map and without probably. I can't see why that'd be a problem. If the power weapons make the map more enjoyable and it doesn't hold up without it, it's going to be judged lower than one that functions will with both aspects being top notch.
Literally everything I've ever made is not as polished as a Solo map. Arcanum still has pretty bad spawning. Oblivion still has broken chambers. Legion has lightning issues. All of them have performance issues to some extent. Hangar doesn't have any of these issues. The spawns work. The weapons do what they're meant to do. The performance and lighting is fine. If I were go judge the maps on the rubric everyone is asking for Hangar could be the greatest map ever. Problem is that's an extremely distant, Impersonal, and frankly stupid way to judge. Because when it comes down to it, the design of Hangar is unimaginative generic slow garbage that doesn't deserve recognition in a contest about level design. This is the point I've been trying to make. What matters most to ME by an astronomical margin is the design. Everything else comes after. I can look past Arcanums broken spawns, performance drops, broken clambers, and bullshit weapons because what the CORE of the map is, is good. I enjoy playing it regardless and can see past the other detractors and that's what really matters. I could give a **** if there are more refined maps out there that literally tells me nothing of the designer. That's easy. The actual geometric design is always the most integral part of a map and unless there is a severe discrepancy of quality elsewhere, I will always value and reward the better layout than a safer, more refined one.