But that contradicts your very own definition. A competitive map is one that holds up at ALL levels of play, if it falls apart at a higher level, then it's not a competitive map. The map at that point would take just as much brain power and communication as Lockout or Hang Em, if not more. That makes it a casual map.
But you could play it competitively. It doesn't hold up because tournament play has a different play style preference, and because their are alternative maps that could be chosen that meet such preferences.
I have to disagree, in my opinion balance hardly has anything to do with the ability to be competitive. A casual audience makes it causal. And certain design choices just attract more casual player. So there are definitely styles of maps that are made to appeal to more competitive hearted players and then there are the ones no one cares to play competitively because they attract the players who's rather drive off with hog and hit sweet jumps and dive into the bare wasteland only to respawn and wait by the sniper spawn because the map is so effing large that no enemy will ever see you. Except that one guy that drives the hog into your base thinking he's going to capture the flag by himself and hardly makes it out of the departure animation before you kill him.
Schnitzel a man who has never read a book on map design knows what he is talking about here, so just read this and know he is right lolz. Competitve versions of maps and casual versions of maps have always existed. Never heard of the pro version of the map that has a different weapon layout and other differences to the map? You might think you know what your talking about but you really don't. Your rules on map design are nothing but an amature designers thoughts, someone who has never even read a book on real multiplayer theory has no place to try and tell people what the "rules" are on map design. Go read a couple books on multiplayer theory than come back kid. Anyone who have ever read even 1 book on it knows this thread is a joke.
lolz where are these books? I would like to read them to. By any chance were the books written on used napkins and toilet paper?
I think some one needs a few tablespoons of there own medicine?Forums are for discussing pointless ****, that's why they exist nerd. Now finish a map already lol --- Double Post Merged, May 17, 2016 --- I'm sick and tired if people using competive in the inncorect way. It needs to stop. A multiplayer maps "Competiveness" is simply meaused by the willingness of players(audience) to compete on said map. If a map is poorly desgined chances are people will be less likely to want to compete on it, therefore making it less "competive". So a maps " Competiveness " is more closely tied to its audiences preferences rather than the map itself.
Who are you selling to and what do they want. That is it. That is all there is. I see darkling ninja liking the one guy who is being a **** about people who are on a sight arguing about something that is so blatantly obvious if you just remove ego from it. Darkling make a good map if you agree with this. Because I don't know this guy talking and I doubt he has made anything good just like you. He would rather just talk down to people and talk about their superior knowledge. Then not share any of this knowledge. Also, going by the book is how you trap yourself in a ****ing box. There are always things that are obvious to make sure something is enjoyable. Maps are made for gametypes and games. Not all maps work in every game. Even if you believe something works in a game people might have different niche gameplay they prefer so they think your map is **** because it plays differently. All that matters is the fun factor and satisfying your customers. Do you think a player base gives a **** about all this wordy bullshit. **** no. They just want to enjoy the time they spend on a game. I don't think Schnitzel is wrong either. Anything can be competitive for ****s sake they have underwater ironing competitions. That sounds really fun doesn't it? No, it ****ing doesn't, but there are obviously people who enjoy it if there is a competition. I am sick of this ****ing design snobbery bullshit I here from people who are not even trying to be a designer of any sort. I mean I read a book so I know more. Get ****ing real you realize in the game industry they hire people off experience rather than just ****ing degrees. Do you think those people who were hired off of experience rather than school read a ****ing book? No... Rant is Rant. **** this ****.
so you read a few books and you're an expert now? where are the maps you made, brah knowledge without application is meaningless
Thefore when designing a map the most key component is considering your target audiences preferences. For this reason I like to categorize forge maps in 3 general categories (more likely exist this is just my opinion) 1. Tournament Maps. (These are usually the most "competive " because highly level play contains players who are generally the most Competive) 2. Matchmaking Maps (These are maps that generally wouldn't be put onto a pro circuit due to various reason but would be highly suitable for general matchmaking play) 3. Casual Maps (Maps unsuitable for MM play or tournament play due to various reasons such as no kill boundaries, or 50 rocket launcher spawns etc etc). Most maps I make fall into the Casual Category, yet this doesn't make them "uncompetive" as many many people love to compete on my maps. Hopefully in the future I can ready my maps for MM and get them into the MM Category.
Anyway, here is the way I see it: A "competitive" or "balanced" map is one where the individual and team's skills are at the forefront while uncontrollable variables are mitigated. E.G. Final Destination in Smash Bros has no variables. I'd agree that cascading advantages are important in deciding this. A "casual" or "unbalanced" map is simply one with more variables. Battlefield is literally more casual than Final Destination because it has more variables. That doesn't make it "a casual map", but once you add moving platforms and stage hazards, you increase the variables and diminish the player's input on the match. "Competitiveness" can also have a coexisting meaning for player mindset, which represents a player's willingness to compete. This stands independent of the terms above, because this is English and we have words that mean more than one ****ing thing. I do feel that it's ultimately a matter of semantics. Most people understand the distinction between a "competitive" and a "casual" map. The only time this becomes an issue is when people start forcing "competitive maps" as the objective standard, as Schnitzel would say. If Smash Bros only had "competitive" maps like Final Destination, it would be a ****ing boring game. We need Hyrule Temples and Icicle Mountains and Green Greens and Jungle Japes and Pokemon Stadiums. That **** is fun. This is literally why all of the maps in Halo 5 are boring as ****. There aren't enough variables. It's like we're all playing distilled tournament stages and they consequently aren't very good because they aren't very creative. In the end, a map being "casual" does not automatically make it a bad map, nor do I think there is some magical threshold one would pass where a map with variables stops being a "competitive" map.
lolz maybe you need to read a couple books on it yourself. Statements like that coming from a man who always scraps his maps don't really mean anytning to me.
Knowledge without application is meaningless. Who else thinks this is a Darkling Ninja alt? He expresses the same level of idiocy, and his grammar is similarly terrible.
I think someone who scraps his own maps is someone who sees his map's flaws and wants to do it better. The first iteration of anything is never a masterpiece. Well, except for everything I forge, of course. ; )