I'm so over this subjectivity bullshit I thought we concluded this like 6 months ago. This just in, nothing is ever bad. Everyone feel good about yourselves now.
Okay this made me genuinely crack up, it reminds me of that one episode on the office where michael scott is going around giving gifts to all his employees on his last day He gives this autistic looking doll that looks like it was made by a child to oscar, and oscar just accepted it and thanked him as if he though that was michaels best attempt at a gift Then off camera michael started laughing because of how low osars perception of him was, one of the best moments in the show imo XD
Nah it doesn't happen for me usually, I just haven't slept well because of all this heat. Enough is enough. I'm positive all year round but I'm a little ***** in this weather. It drains so much energy.
This is why the scales I suggested for previous contests functioned on a 1-5 gradient scale. How balanced were the encounters on this map? 1-Not balanced at all 2-Poorly balanced, very sloppy 3-Fairly balanced, needs some improvement 4-Well balanced, a few tweaks may be needed 5-Excellently balanced, no tweaks necessary If it were to be viewed as a heap of sand, 1 would be a single grain, 2 would be 100, 3 would be 1,000, 4 would be 10,000, and 5 would be 100,000; or you could assign whatever value you want to them. The important thing is that there is a discernible distinction between the levels. As for what "balance" means, or what the difference between a 4 and a 5 is to the individual may look like....well those are for the judges to decide. A balanced encounter to one person might mean "I was able to punish them for making a bad decision," While it could mean "I was able to get out of any situation" to another person. Who really is right or wrong? Ironically, there should be a balance of those. Too much forgiving swiss cheese leads to an unpredictable map, and too much punishment leads to a linear and 1-dimensional map. Moderation is key, and a variety of perspectives helps to avoid distilling the map selection (assuming there is a good amount of flavors). But without a clear definition and clearly defined system to guide everyone, it's too easy for bias to seep through. Some people might not like one kind of geometry or encounter, while another may prefer that map for the exact same reason. For instance, I know how people play when it comes to "lazy cover" and I literally don't care, I'll put it on one section of my map precisely because it's annoying and prolongs an encounter...but obviously if it's all over the map, that's a problem. Assuming people aren't scrandoms who have no concept of how to play Halo at a serious level, I wouldn't want one opinion to be favored over the other, or for ambiguity to cloud the process. But I trust at least one of those judges to not be a scrub
Okay, this is slightly irritating because i had a very similer theme and color palete in mind with my new map, and you are doing almost the exact same thing. Same sky box, same kind of rooftops, same catherdral era architecture. You intentionaly copied BTs color palete and similer setpieces like the rug, but this time i know it's unintentional so i'm not going to give you crap. It's okay though because by the looks of it my map will be much better. Yours still looks good though don't get me wrong i'm excited to play it
I agree with that, and your scoring system was fine with me. Like you said: Its for the judges to decide. Moderation is key, but even determining what moderation means will vary from person to person. @MultiLockOn Its been a while since youve misrepresented my stance with a hyperbole.
I'm aiming for a armenien church theme for mine, with the level design being inspired from dark souls 1 fire link shrine, and dark souls 3's first level high wall The wife has been needy since she got back from her trip so i havn't had much time to get it to the point where i'm happy to take pictures, all i can say is SOON.
I mean that's essentially the bottom line of your stance. No one is ever at liberty to actually determine what is better, it's all just relative. And then we end up with people making donuts saying "well it's what I like." Nonsense.
"My map will be much better." Jesus ****ing christ. Maybe you need an eleventh commandment. Stop being a narcistic **** all the time. Ackrite bruh.
Come oooooooooon In design, as in morality, “moderation” is DEATH. You commit a category error by applying a medicinal/self control concept to the concrétisation of objective principles - which is ostensibly what having a competition to find the BEST is about.
No it isnt. People can say what they like more. Donuts arent my thing either, but the idea that people cant like them is just silly. @icyhotspartin You really need to practice expressing yourself with different verbage. I understood what you said, but only by using context. If someone is used to segmented, choke-point based maps, and another is used to open, free-flowing maps then those two would have different descriptions of moderate pace. The center would be skewed based on their experience. I dont understand how or why someone would attempt to refute this.
I have never met someone so engulfed in their own pride that they think it's humility. This dude might be the most oblivious human being I've ever communicated with. Dude has yet to post anything of quality, has no following, and acts like he owns the place. This is the kind of thing that makes people hate Christians Oh I'm not saying there isn't enjoyment to be had. I'm saying you can enjoy something and still recognize it as objectively poor. I enjoy tower of power in Halo 2, and I can also concede that it is shallow and stupid. I also still vote for lockout and the pit despite all my criticisms.
I feel like the concept of balance gets iffy when it comes to map judgement. Some hold a symmetrical ideal, feeling strongly that you should be able to hold either 'side' of a map with equal movement opportunity and sight lines to the other. Others appreciate asymmetric approaches, though they can sometimes be dismissed as broken. Damnation and Prisoner are two examples of maps which have been loved by many yet have layouts which are heavily imbalanced, where there are clearly very strong vantage points looming over weak positions. I really love those maps where the meta revolves around an uphill struggle for power with players assuming clear roles of either attacking (pushing out of weak areas and gaining pickups), or defending (doing everything they can to cling to their advantage). The excitement in these designs for me comes out of trying to overcome disadvantageous situations and the creativity in play styles that such situations force. What many call a 'balanced' map on the other hand could mean layouts where your opponent's position offers no benefit your position doesn't already have, and so you are left with a standoff that lacks any incentive for player movement. Obviously a map shouldn't be total bullshit to play, but too much balance can be a straight road to boredom. Imbalance can be a chosen quality, not an inherent design flaw. That's my little vent and writing practice done for the day!
Okay, but the way you said it made it sound like you think donut maps are objectively lesser maps. I loved ToP. Its meant to be simple. Its simplicity is part of why it was so popular.