To me, This website is for maps and gametypes. If it was just for maps, we wouldnt have a casual and mini game section. If it was just for gametypes, we wouldnt have a competitive section. Now my question is, how big should the territories for a conquest map be?
I hear that. Goddamn spam :'( But thinking about it, even if only a few maps on here are good, we still get the best of the best, because everyone comes here. There are bound to be poor attempts no matter where you go. Unfortunately, there are also bound to be people who like these bad maps, and will happily bump them. Thinking about it... this place is a lot like DeviantArt
AZN... for taking himself way too seriously. I invented the Pallet Conveyor Belt! A conveyor belt should be exactly 6 pallets long with a 4-pallet long starting area! Building a conveyor belt longer or shorter is nothing short of heresy and will invoke my wraith along with wordy personal attacks! [/parody]
I been wondering when I would find the time to post...I been keeping up with this Thread since I posted. AND it seems to have taken the turn of a debate. What its debating I haven't learned of...but bottom line I keep seeing Old FH and old maps, and Mine... A man spent many a day away from home ...only to find his children grownup and matured... and he got angry at them... Now I read over your idea of conquest AZN and simply have to start in defense of the update... I mean Furious had much of a point, to have it updated, reasons that Bungie updated the game play and the double beat down rule made it a pain to play Conquest. TO simply say he stole your conquest would be a miss understanding... He saved it from becoming out dated.... or at least..to his point of view saved it... Not to yours... Now on to the doctrine of Conquest... alright teleporter boxes are about the same to halo as with real combat situations... and squad tactics can get. Bottom line it could be a set up fire... or called in the real service Base line fire support... and for walls you can shot threw... same idea ... not great fire power but it slows down the enemy... Again basic military doctrine is keep communication open for you..and closed for them..so simply tossing the idea out would be like trying to tell Napoleon that he can't use his Honor Guard..(sorry if you didn't get that ..bit of a military history buff) Napoleon said Like that of love You must risk seeing the enemy to triumph... I think you missed Swings, Hobo Heights, Sharks... and a high chance I missed some old ones as well... but the bottom line is... each forge is a new idea. I forge to bring the gap of the old with the new... I try and build off of Foundry... One of my most often said statements is a noob could forge on Foundry it takes a pro to not...but again... what have I really forged? As for others I always see maps that has a created purpose either to be objective... or infection or slayer... the point being that they saw a change they could make to a base line game type... to make it fun for a few days or w/e they saw fit. Now on to Version 3 conquest.... In all truth.. it seems to me it was made for a few forgers trying to use the custom power up in conquest... again you would say..its against team tactics ... I would like to point out who ever hold the high grounds takes the advantage... Now to TGIF ... and all the great mini games I have seen... I mean they are creative... (btw for those that don't know... I was in AZN last TGIF party {tgif 10}) ... I didn't really like them... I got to the point This is really creative...but I looked back and wondered... how creative is this? Starting from its an infection game where the infected have to throw them self at fire bombs till they finally get a kill... its kinda creative for the first round or two but by the end of it... I just walked away, I wasn't much of a fan of a long walk down a short hall...Armor Core was again very creative from a stand point out side of the game... I mean every one having a high shield life span... rockets, Lazers and the like all over the map.. with SUPPER speed... and its almost a Slayer map...where no one gets killed... ... Perfect game... because When you get killed in the back you wait how ever long to re spawn...Azn you may want to look at Crazy lazer hammer fun..its kinda similar to your Armor core..and I love it... . Now to objective games... Side longest... Still wondering why Side longest is even a remotely good fun game... Its to eazy for the player to capture... I mean in a single life span one person can jump over every wall and grab the flag, cross the center and score...and keep on this figure 8 pattern to win...WTH game play is that? I mean yeah it has some interesting game play..but for all ideas Gridlock should have been featured then... FNF games have been all over that map and its hands down balanced game play... Why not not it was Pre Glitch ed Foundry as well.. so How does it match up to the man put in the shadows, and forgotten because of a map most people don't play... ? BTW it wasn't fun to play Territories lock on a map with balanced number of territories...it came down to ... who got there first and then it was over in minutes...BTW Kentucky Tango Is a Loved map for 2 Reasons... Its looks and gameplay... remember it well because it used both forging ideas... I don't see how horrible FH has gotten ... the only problem I keep seeing is people not being open for a new creative mind or idea.. instead we cut each other down... Set up friends foes and the guy thats just there to have fun... I mean WE shouldn't be out to pride ourself in gametypes made or who didn't make... its about gaming with a group of people you know and respect... I mean Matty, Chron, Orange, Cosmic, Furious, and many others have inspired, commented and gamed with to help me with my ideas and failures... I see forging not as a one day event but as this over all ideas of working toward a better game... really creative game types and really interestingly built structures... If you feel that FH isn't acting how it should be ... wouldn't it be the idea to suggest it to get better? I mean Lets just wait for winter to come is kinda a high stand point on yourself... your saying that any one that joined FH since you been gone has just strangled FH like a weed ... and again what are you to say ? Creativity, isn't grown alone its watered by feed back... Strengthened by Testing, and over all by taking the time to notice that it there... So leave out all the rest and make FH better not just sit back and think some one is a hot shot...
Ya know youre right... screaming at little kids over xbl IS fun, who am i kidding? So is trashing the site. Both of those are fun...my apologies. Well then stop bitching and do your part in finding/suggesting some, k? As a staff member, you've earned a certain level of respect and have a certain level of influence, if youre not willing to use it then dont complain. no hard feelings asper, i like you... but think about what youre saying. Your claims about what the site has evolved into are correct, but thats no ones fault, and is a direct result of population growth. You dont have to like it, but it aint changing. But dont trash interlocking just cause everyone uses it. Its a powerful tool, and ill say it again: Interlocking isnt required, but a map that could be interlocked, but isn't, is not reaching its fullest potential.... in every scenario.
I think that we just all need to calm down. Everyone just take a breather. I think that this thread should either be locked or it should go back to the original discussion, what is conquest and what is in a conquest map. There is to much fighting. just chill people.
I'll refrain from commenting on the first few points for the sake of this thread. But it is people's fault, all the members that have been taught to go around and complain about the lack of interlocking on some maps, and the ones go around complementing on solely interlocking. Of course, interlocking is just a tool, and a good tool at that. However the problem isn't the fact that forgers are using interlocking, it's the fact that they base their maps on interlocking. You may argue this point, but if you take a look at the map section it's obvious which maps are based off interlocking. And no, a map can reach it's full potential without interlocking. But once again the problem isn't interlocking, it's over interlocking. But whatever, I'm done spending my time on this topic. Edit: ↑
In an odd turn of events, I'm finding myself agreeing with Asper, not Lightsout on this final point. I'm not saying you're wrong as such Lights, just that you seem to be looking at this wrong. Asper isn't saying no maps should be interlocked. He is merely making an observation about the disappointing behaviour of a majority on this forum. There are stupendous amounts of people here who judge a map largely on Interlocking. I too have observed this. But, once again siding with Lights, that doesn't mean people shouldn't interlock. It just means they shouldn't have to. On the rest of what you have said however, I disagree Asper. There are a large number of good maps about, as I have said before. It's just finding the damn things thats the problem... If only we could develop some kind of anti-crap net or something... hmmm...
Im not saying that maps have to be interlocked either.. but its undeniable that un-interlocked maps would be better if they were interlocked. There's just no getting around it. But I think the abundance of interlocked maps have been mistaken for people being obsessed with interlocking. Thats just not true. When youre brainstorming a map idea, concept, interlocking isnt what youre thinking about. Interlocking allows you to have more options for your map you plan to build. I think he's assuming that people make maps for interlocking, when in reality people design the map layout first then interlock to clean it up and make it run smoother. No one makes some cool interlocked box then bases their map around it, thats foolish. Interlocking is a tool to accomplish the map design you are going after. my sincere apologies to the OP for the hijacking of his thread.
I'm not sure I really agree with the consensus that the current state of FH is so terrible. It's not what it was, there are 10000 members now. But FH provides something that is needed by the Halo 3 community. If it wasn't here, it would be somewhere else. The thing is.... everyone likes to forge. Of course there's going to be a flood of maps that aren't top quality..... that's the way it works. But those are all works by people doing their best, and they are glad to have a place to showcase their work better than they can do at bnet. FH is different than it was originally because Nitrous and TDF and a few other people were visionary enough to make it the premier Halo 3 forge site anywhere. If you want to just chill with your original FH buddies and keep it small, you may have to start something new similar to the GoO. If you still want to be put on guilder pedestals and worshiped by 10000 members, sorry, those days are gone. We did away with that system because it was wrong. Right now you're sounding really elitist and arrogant, Asper and AZN, and I don't think that's what your intentions are.
Asper, you really sound stupid at this point. And egotistical. You're basically condemning the entire site for unoriginality. Unoriginality based on opinion. Just because you "were here first" or whatever makes you fee special doesn't give you the right to be an elitist. Yeah, look it up if you have to. Elitist. You're clearly confused in this situation,apparently stuck in the past when all urz mapz was l33t. Things change, things evolve. Like Conquest. Like Forgehub. When I referenced Foundry in being a catalyst in Forgehubs rise in popularity I was referencing the entire entity. Not just the map, and not just the endless wave of spammers. Do you honestly think that if Foundry never existed and all maps "took 8 hours and were fun" that there wouldn't be any spammers? Point is that no matter what, there will be people that are annoying and will be spamming. I also find it hypocritical of you to be taking this elitist attitude towards a site that you, along with others, supposedly built. The very site that helped invent interlocking and merging and many other Forge tricks has become a place that if you weren't here from the start you are basically garbage with no originality. I am sure all of the hard working Forgers who really try and contribute great maps and gametypes on a daily basis would like nothing better than to hear what you have to say about their maps. Lightsout is absolutely correct. You don't need interlocking. But if you do interlock it creates a better experience for the gamer. Say you try out a nicely designed map and you love the layout. But rather than running smoothly through the hallways and across the floors you hit a bump every couple of seconds. Gets annoying. Say in a match you need one kill to win the game and it's you vs. 1 guy for the win, and you hit that bump and it sends your shot slightly off and he kills you, and wins. That would suck would it not? There is your reason for interlocking. It simply makes the map better and isn't that what it's all about? To create and give an incredible all around experience? Not a "Hey, that was fun, but too bad it wasn't interlocked, it would have played so much better" experience. Yeah people get annoying with their "needs interlocking" spam sprees,but all you have to do is ignore them. Look for what you like, and when you see things you don't like just move on. No need for things to get any uglier, just leave the site alone and deal with it.
Ok, time for me to weigh in. AZN, when the Conquest gametype became one of the FH Standards, you knew that people were going to make maps for it. And you certainly didn't make anyone say "this is for Conquest which was created by AZN FTW" at the end of every map. Everyone knows you made the gametype. I never tried to claim it as my own. However, I did try to improve it. And I put my V2 and V3 on my file share because you were no longer around to guide the development of new versions. I did it for the community. My problems with Conquest V1 were this: (as expressed in the My Case Against Conquest thread) 1. Reduced weapon damage meant more melee kills. Battles were longer and drawn out, like you intended, but they were also repetitive. Run, shoot, melee, repeat. With normal damage (as Bungie intended) the battles were more varied. Also, players that never played Conquest before often got frustrated because they did not realize that damage had been modified. Enemies did not die when they were "supposed" to. Returning damage to normal meant more new players had enjoyable experiences, so the gametype could spread and become more popular. 2. Team changing was disabled. This one is HUGE! Consider a 5v5 game of normal Conquest. Now imagine that two players on your team decided to leave. Now it's 3v5. There is no way you can win with that setup. No one from the other team can take pity on you and join your team, even if they wanted to. So your options are either get raped for the rest of the game (and probably not enjoy it) or quit (leaving the other teammates to take an even bigger ass-whooping and abandoning your friends in the party). Either that or the party leader takes pity on you and ends the game, ruining the experience for everyone. Allowing team changing means that in a 3v5 scenario, someone can even up the teams and make it 4v4. Or you can change teams and tell the party leader to end the game. 3. Custom power-up settings. As a Conquest purist, you may not have much interest in allowing players to customize their maps. But I thought that giving them a few extra options would maximize the variety in Conquest maps. How many ways can you make two straight hallways? As for Conquest maps, I never knew that each territory should touch, or that they should be captured simply by 4 players running through. That was never expressed to the public, as far as I know. I only know of the weapon restrictions (which I agree with). But I also support players tweaking the weapon selection to make their map have its own feel. For example, I don't get upset with Cosmic Rick for adding the regen to his Conquest map. It works well on his map, and that's all that matters. I disagree with your statements. You say that lower weapon damage means that you must rely on your teammates more. But since every player has reduced damage, the net change is next to nothing. In a 100% game, one player against two has the same odds for success as in a 75% damage game. He does 100% damage, they do a combined 200% (a factor of 2). If he does 75% damage, they do 150% (a factor of 2). The damage does not affect his chances of success (much). I say "much" because in an instant kill game, he has better chances of success. So you may have a case for a slightly better chance of him losing when outnumbered in a 75% damage game. I'll concede that. But the chance of it is so slight that I do not believe it has a real effect on the game. So I think the drawbacks of reduced damage outweigh the perceived benefit. I still think that the full damage is more familiar to new players and more enjoyable for all players, but I accept that it can be personal preference. But I strongly disagree that lowering the weapon damage makes the battles more tactical and less random for the reasons that I've already expressed. I think you missed the point. There is a risk/reward trade off with the teleboxes. You get to travel to enemy territory easily but you cannot move, dodge, or escape. There are tactics involved. You can go into enemy territory and distract the enemy or slow them down. You can create a strategy with your teammates by communicating. Does it detract from gameplay? Well if "gameplay" is the monotonous run, shoot, melee, repeat, then yes it does. I never claimed it as my own. I named my gametype Conquest V2 because it was another version of your game variant. If I wanted to rip you off, I would have named it something else entirely, like Contention or something. Naming it after your game was my way of giving you credit. In fact, my major claim to Conquest in the way of maps was Faction which was forged by Wakko45. In his FH post, he links to Conquest V1 only. If I were trying to steal your thunder, I would have made him link to my own version. The major reason I never contacted you was because you were expelled from this community. If you thought I was trying to steal your idea, you should have contacted me instead of publicly insulting me. This is the first I've heard of that. Did we have a fight in the past? I don't remember. I have had issues with some of your maps, just like you have had with mine. But I don't recall ever publicly insulting you in the manner that you have done to me. If you think I am a poor Forger, and you have issues with my maps, let me know. I am open to opinions and constructive criticism. In fact, I welcome you and encourage you to create a new thread listing anything you dislike about my maps. I consider my maps to be pretty good. Even better than yours. I have created my own gametypes. I made Sniper Hill, and have two really good maps for it (neither on Foundry). If you think I'm a one trick pony, and only create aesthetic maps, you are dead wrong. And I'm no amateur. How delightfully condescending. To which map are you referring? Like I said, please share, oh wise map designer and theorist. I agree, but I believe my maps all have balance, etc. I don't recall our argument, and I certainly don't recall an apology. But what's in the past is in the past. I do know that you are currently insulting my map designing ability. I'm not talking about aesthetics. I'm talking about balance, layout, spawns, etc. I don't know where this hostility comes from, but if you think I was trying to steal your idea, I wasn't. I never tried to claim it as my own. I simply guided its development in your absence. In my Case Against Conquest thread, I stated that it basically came down to personal preference. You like V1, I like V3. Let the community play what they want to play. Now pay attention to this next part. I don't care about who created what. The whole point of this site is to help people enjoy Halo in new ways, be it new maps or new game variants. It was never about the prestige or the attention or the status. I applied to be a Guilder because I wanted to help the Guilders perfect their maps before they were released. I said that in my app. I don't go around talking about map theory or about how I trained people to be good forgers or any of that bullshit. I don't create maps to get downloads. I don't advertise my maps. I'm not pretentious or condescending like you. If you have constructive comments about my maps, please share. I'm curious about what you think could improve them. But calling me an amateur is not constructive. By the way, thanks to everyone who has supported the other versions of Conquest or anyone who has supported me in this thread.
Hmmm. I see your point, a lot of members do complain about lack of interlocking. I would not say the majority forgers base maps on interlocking. I do believe a map can reach it's full potential without interlocking. But in most cases, interlocking makes the whole experience smoother. If a map is built solely on gameplay then interlocking should be included; interlocking to make things smoother generally makes the gameplay run smoother. Interlocking for looks and just for looks, I don't think is necessary. I hope you can understand this?
Wow nothing against Furious (I've actually enjoyed your maps) but I have to agree with AZN and Asper regarding the state of maps on this site. I remember browsing this site before ascetics even existed on maps (pre-foundry era) and how most maps came with their own gametype and such. I feel the current maps, particularly the crowded competitive section, are filled with maps that look really really nice but don't even play that special. MLG maps (most of them here suck) are an exception because anything done to the map is for the purpose of gameplay. I remember somewhat recently a creative map named Flying Saucers got featured and people complained because it wasn't your standard foundry map that was budget glitched and had every object interlocked. That was the type of map on forge hub that I would like to see more of. I think the community needs to make an effort to change the focus of maps from ascetics to gameplay probably by making stricter requirements for making map comments so you have to have played the map before you can say something about it. I know a large number of the old staff feels this way too, I just think some action needs to take place. AZN I would like to see some of your newer creations.
I agree with most of what you said. But as alot of the maps now are all about interlocking. Alot of the maps before were all about 'awshum infection floating bases that were totally one-sided.' If you call that good gameplay... This isn't an attack against you, I've already stated that I agree with most of what you said. But even pre-foundry alot of the maps were based around one thing. It's just that there were less people, so it seemed that there were more good maps. At least that's what I feel. BTW, I've followed Forgehub since the beginning but never made an account until April because I didn't think my maps were good enough for Forgehub.
^^^^^ Yeah I remember the infection maps, but that was mostly bnet files forum when it could sort of be managed. I just meant before when people commented on a map it was usually like, "this looks like it will play good" or I tested this and it was fun as opposed to, "OMG nice job geo-merging" or "I played this and the interlocking was amazing". I just think we kind of need a re-boot here, the map forums are horrid in so many ways.