HCS: Season 2 Discussion

I'm gonna come out and say it, since I doubt any one else will. This is horse ****. It is a magnitude of horse **** that I'm choking just trying to swallow the first mouthful.

1) Expectations: What expectations? Laskan wants pretty pretty maps like that stupid trainstation? Yeah, no. How many times must we go down this road? Aesthetics are important, but gameplay comes first. There is a trade off between the two, as no one wants to play an amazing map that's ugly as sin, but a pretty map that will play like **** isn't gonna make the grade either.

2) No remakes of dev maps, I'm fine with. Classing Orion into that category, I am not. Nor am I fine with maps that were in MM before being cut from the selection. This isn't general population MM we're looking at, this is HCS. Just as MLG's playlists in the past operated separately from the general population decisions, so should this. Cutting maps for this "reason" is a crock of **** and you know it.

3) Catering to twitch viewers, and mobile viewers at that? Are you smoking crack!? One thing, this is such an insanely niche demographic that it should not matter. Furthermore, what should be the goal is providing great GAMEPLAY for the people that actually play the bleeding game!

4) Skyward only? Ruling out Nebula is understandable, because it is dark ALL THE TIME. Ruling out the other canvas though? Stupid. The darkness last only 30 seconds, and that's easily fixed with a simple scripted lighting effect. Also, Skyward has its own host of problems ranging from being more sensitive to framerate to having a weird pinkish color to its blocks. Atmosphere is important right? Well, Skyward doesn't exactly have the best atmospher because it's canvas isn't exactly a believable location and the coloring of the objects is flat out meh. Factor in the issue with map files not loading well in lobbies when they exceed certain file sizes, and this becomes an asinine criteria.

5) Symmetrical only? I'm pretty sure any one of us here could right you a book on why asymmetrical maps are actually far superior for gameplay reasons. Symmetrical is only a requirement for gametypes such as Flag and Bomb, as every other gametype plays arguably better on asymmetrical maps.

Honestly, this is the biggest joke of a selection process we've ever had. These absurd criteria that have been added take away just about any legitimacy to the selection, and the emphasis on aesthetics over gameplay completely kills it. Yes I'm coming off a bit harsh here, but honestly, can you blame me? I'm fumed about this. I know many of the other forgers here are too. We've spent god knows how many hours designing, building, and refining these maps, and all for what?! For them to be dismissed for arbitrary reasoning? Give me a break.

Whoever is running this poor joke of a show needs to be cut off and let go. Put some one that actually has some real design experience in charge.

Almost any map can play KotH as well as Ridge does. There's nothing niche about it's KotH gameplay. It also doesn't feature the kind of KotH gameplay I'm supportive of, being the type featured in MLG H3 and HR settings. Sorry brah.

 

Keep in mind that the required critera for submission listed previously in this thread may not represent the collective opinion of the HCS organizing team. There is far more testing, discussion and debate to be had on the future direction of HCS settings. War and I are doing everything we can to relay our concerns and the limitations of the forge system to staff at .

The renewed focus on originality and showcase quality maps is welcomed -- the restriction on asymmetrical designs is not, especially given the lack of reasoning provided as to why they are excluded from the selection process.

We're working on resolving this.

@TheElderAcorn , we've been testing hill on Ridge. It's a solid design with awesome verticality. More feedback on the way soon.

 

I never said that aesthetics is more important than game play. I said game play is paramount, but viewers must also be able to understand what they are watching. We explained that this requirement can kill frame rate but they want us to try our best to accomodate both requirements.

I used mobile viewers as a lowest common denominator because if they can understand what's going on then everyone else can as well. Epicborough and Dispute (other than the back base stairwells) are good examples of this. When the camera switches to another player viewers are instantly orientated.

 

Ah, so you were streaming on your mobile while running around the map then?

Sorry for playing the devil's advocate here, but I highly doubt you have even the roughest of idea how the lion's share of these maps will come off on mobile streaming. Also, who in their right mind streams from a mobile device? It's hard enough watching Youtube videos on a phone, let alone a fast paced FPS game.

Wanting maps that do have spectator appeal is understandable, but I think you guys are going a little overboard on this.

Regarding the aesthetics vs gameplay comment though, while I acknowledge you may be in the same camp as the rest of us in favoring gameplay, it doesn't seem like the task lead reflects that given his preference for sub-par designs such as that Tubestation or whatever map.

*Just to clarify, I'm not trying to come off as a **** here. No hard feelings, right?

 

Seriously, the last thing I want is for Laskan and certain CC's (APC *cough cough*) to make a commotion again about how I'm a horrible douche bag that's out to make people feel bad, because that simply is not the case. I absolutely should not be punished (like I was in Reach) for having an abrasive way of communicating my thoughts on a subject that I'm deeply vested in.

 

i don't think using mobile as the lowest denominator is good example because quite often they have higher resolutions then a standard laptop so even though their screen is smaller you'll be seeing more detail then on a standard laptop.

 

Well, this is unexpected.

Personally, the only thing i disagree with is the symmetrical requirement. I'd be inclined to disagree with the canvas requirements as well, but the indoor and outdoor lighting on Skyward - despite its pinkness - is much more readable than the other canvases. I don't trust scripted events to work flawlessly in the wild, so until Awash is patched, it looks like we'll have to make do with Skyward. I also am not too keen on its Skybox, as deathpits feel visually (and therefore, very consciously to the player) out of place when you fall towards a Halo ring. This is just a minor thing though.

Moving past that, I don't think is saying "decorate your maps with a bunch of nonsense", but they are saying that if it looks like a "Forge map", people aren't going to be interested. This is something I've always felt strongly about. Forge maps have the inherent barrier of being community content; it's not readily accessible by booting up the game (especially in MCC), so most of the fanbase is unlikely to experience the map. The disconnect is furthered when they look barren, gray, or otherwise vastly different from disc maps. This is not our fault of course, because the developers haven't given us enough tools to make maps that rival theirs.

Nevertheless, how a map appears visually is something to be very conscious of, and not just for "aesthetics". Orientation and depth perception are very important things that are lost in boxed-in seas of gray. Obviously the way the map plays is the most important thing, but visuals are just as critical, especially if it's going to be viewed by people who are not familiar with Forge maps. As everyone has already said, the reason we haven't made extensive use of the rest of the canvas is because it either looks terrible or makes the framerate drop, so it's good to see they're somewhat aware of that.

In the mean time, perhaps Forgers can collectively work to develop the necessary techniques and understanding of H2A's engine so that we know how far we can take our maps. More than anything, we are competiting for to take Forge more seriously. Maybe in the future, they'll stop giving us broken canvases and noisy pieces.

I'm surprised Athelon was disqualified given their conditions though.

 

I would like to recommend my map Triumph for the next session of testing. I feel it fits the new criteria. Has no frame rate issue. Is built for competitive gameplay and supports 5 different Gametypes. Here is the forgehub post http://www.forgehub.com/Xsjados 2/maps/_Triumph_



Please let me know if there are any issues or changes you would like me to add before the next testing. I'm open for any suggestions.

 

No offense, but do you honestly think that that map looks good? Personally I feel that it looks like a generic forge map and will be turned down by 343 within the first 5 seconds of the game.

Now about the criteria of the map selection. Personally I think that it's a shame that they do not want asymmetrical maps atm. Also the high standard for 'pretty' maps is a tricky one as we all know that it is not really possible with the current forge to make 'pretty' maps while staying playable. I do however feel that the overall aesthetic appearance on all maps except for Athelon is below par.
I really want to see forgers get more creative with their structures and think of dynamic elements on their maps. 343 loves their waterfalls on Sanc, their stalactites on Lockout and all the other elements. So try to think of something on your own map.

 

If they rejected every single one of these maps, then clearly they are just stubborn to select anything.

I've only looked at a couple of these maps in person, but it blows my mind that Athelon didn't get picked up. It's a simple layout and looks beautiful. And dispute looks very clean and easy on the eyes, I have no clue how it plays though.

I can understand why the other maps were rejected, not that they were bad by any means.

 

Thank you I appreciate your honesty. Thats the sort of thing I'm looking for feedback on. I can definitely add more aesthetics to the maps to make it look nicer. Currently im only at 250 object count so I can definitly add more for aesthetics. Anyone have any suggestions?

 

My issue with it is the piece usage, there isn't a consistent use of pieces on the map. The textures are everywhere which makes the map look like a forge map. Also try to create structures in which you cannot easily tell which objects are used. But tbh I wouldn't bother cleaning up the map unless you are giving the layout an overhaul in which you can create more structure on the map.

 

so are the specifically looking for CTF? i thought HCS needed hill and slayer maps.

 

No problems there SecretSchnitzel. I don't know about the other CCs but i recognize passion no matter how it's worded.

Anyway, not all the maps were rejected outright. They just were not accepted in their current state. Some which were not disqualified by the above criteria may still have a chance with some reworking. I will find out which ones an have WARHOLIC contact the builders.

 

What do you mean - "will not be receiving any testing by at this time"? They didn't even test our maps?

 

/HCS need to be clear about their testing process and the kind of maps they're looking for, otherwise people are going to be spinning their wheels building stuff they don't need or can't use.

 

Plainly speaking, anyone who thinks it's possible to meet these criteria...well I'm just going to guess that they have essentially no experience with H2A forge, because the criteria are completely unrealistic. Terrain pieces are particularly bad for frame rate. It's entirely possible to build maps with unique structure, but if anyone is expecting trees and terrain with silky smooth frame rate...lol...the person expecting that hasn't a clue what they're talking about. I really wish it was possible, but there's a reason such a map doesn't exist.

It's super frustrating seeing good maps turned down without so much as a play-through with the sustain team, which seems to be what's happened if I'm interpreting this correctly. This is the same **** that pisses me off about Halo in general right now. Function is sacrificed in favor of beauty. I guess I was delusional enough to believe that it would be different when it comes to HCS, seeing how its entire purpose is to determine who the best Halo team is. This is so damn disappointing for me, both as a forger who enjoys forging competitive maps, and as a spectator that has been following the competitive Halo scene since CE.

Why ONLY symmetrical maps?
Why the focus on CTF?

This makes absolutely no sense. You want aesthetically beautiful maps to enhance the viewer experience. I get that, and I'd like that too, but you're mistaking the means for the ends. What really enhances the viewer experience for HCS is not primarily beautiful maps; it's great gameplay. What the HCS needs is NOT more beauty, it's more variety. It needs variety in the number of maps. It needs variety in the style of maps. It needs variety in the gametypes. I won't say that a maps appearance is unimportant, but it is of less importance than these other factors, even if the focus is on viewer experience.

Please, don't underestimate your viewers. We're not dimwits who can't comprehend asymmetrical maps, or multiple gametypes. We're watching HCS because we want to watch the best players in the world showcase their talent. Forcing potential forge maps to be symmetrical and focused on only 1 or 2 gametypes is counterproductive given the current state of maps/gametypes. If you take the greatest jump ropers in the world and only let them use one jump rope at a time, you're restricting their ability to showcase their talent. Restricting the shape of maps and variety of gametypes in HCS is likewise restricting the players ability to showcase their talent. Such restrictions are a disservice to everyone involved in or interested in the HCS.

Whoever is making these decisions for right now needs to be replaced with someone who knows what the hell they're doing.