The link didn't lead anyhere on Waypoint man, couldn't search the file by name either. Maybe it's set to private EDIT: Nvm got it
That's a really odd hypothetical. Any change you make to the geometry will change the way the map plays. How much? It depends on how the room itself is changed. And this idea is all relative. I'm under the impression that you see room-based maps as these isolated areas that barely interact. That's not true of all room-based maps, and it certainly isn't true for Angst. Changing one room would have a domino effect on the rest of the map. I don't find open maps any more difficult, I just don't enjoy long range engagements as much. They do play alike in a broad sense, but they really don't in practice. Simplifying the way a map plays is a great way to put unnecessary limitations on design, and ignore the intricacies of what gives a map its identity. I would personally lean in favor of Optic Prison, because the movement is very dynamic on a style of map that is by nature standoffish through the use of teleporters and its unique weapon/item layout. That sounds like an appropriate band-aid solution for the issue, but I'd probably be more in favor of redesigning the structure to allow for more variation in spacing. It feels repetitive and restrictive moving around at times. No, layout refers to the pathing and structure as well as overall shape. It is a safe design, I'm not arguing otherwise. But, I don't necessarily see that as problematic. Some of my favorite maps are relatively safe designs, and my maps will be a reflection of that. I wanted to make the next step from Worthy, and Angst was a clear progression, from a design standpoint. Anybody could've come up with the Pet Rock. But, the person who did do it is rich because of it. Just saying. I've never looked at a map, and thought "Only X is capable of this.". Awkward meaning cumbersome or tedious. In Oblivion's case, I'm referring to movement. It's just a chore to get around the map, and it takes away from my experience when I play it. And the lighting only magnifies that issue. The hole isn't what makes it awkward, it's that there's a ramp the hugs the wall, then a gap, then continues. It seems like you're making decisions like that for no reason other than making the map feel different. But there's a reason that's not common practice: because it provides awkward experiences. I do agree that steep ramps are awkward, especially if they are extensive and commonly flowed into. They are usually a product of afterthought with how much space was needed to reach the needed elevation with a more shallow angle. I wouldn't say it breaks a map, but I would say it's better to make vertical transition less awkward. It's pretty odd to tell people not to feel uncomfortable about something. It is a natural reaction, that you have no control over. I found it odd that I walk into a corridor and teleport at a 'random' point. It's a readability factor. I understand why you did it, but it still feels odd when I use it. Especially mid-combat. Writing things off for no reason is absolutely a limitation. But, I have reasoning behind my opinion on these things. If a feature provides an awkward experience, I will be inclined to hold that against the map. I understand why you made labyrinth connect that way, but I'd say that's another example of a band-aid solution. It addresses one issue, but creates another. I would've just redesigned the area. So, I think the bottom line is that we look for different things when we critique a map, and we have different goals when we create a map.
While I agree it's cool to work obstructing geo to your advantage, something that can be criticized as being awkward in my head translates to "does not fit in context." Running around a layout for a while should give a player a general feel and set expectations for core H5 mechanics in this example. Ascending/descending platforms? Check Slopes dictating an uphill or downhill pathway? Check And so forth. What's not okay is setting these expectations and throwing a brick wall in front of them. A certain mistake I noticed on certain forge builds is building a large, dominating structure fit with power weapon spawns which have a SINGLE way of climbing said structure. This means that anybody on the lower portion is effectively screwed, sans the lucky charge or two. And it's just not fun, no matter how many platforms you make Or the large hallway sprint ending in an impossibly small corridor section where all freedom of movement is stripped. Contrasts such as this without an alternative path or some sort of easing angle can be pretty jarring. It's literally hitting that brick wall.
Did someone say Ascend? The Deus Ex thing looks cool. I know nothing about the series but you have some nice urban environment stuff going right now.
What have I ever done to you? Seriously question. I even complimented your map progression some time back. If you can't handle someone else putting forward an opinion that is different than your own you have no business going on the internet. A couple pages back you were jerking yourself off about how accepting/willing to learn about other people's ideas; how you didn't enjoy being an asshole. So what is it? What did I do that hurt so so bad? I realize 80% of the people here probably don't like me but I honestly don't give a **** -- I like forge and I like the discussion here. This is a video game forum for one specific gaming feature. None of us should give to big of a ****.
Lol I'm here to stay buddy Sure, I'm not picky. Pm me a link? I will give credit when/if I get it completed.
To wiggle into the discussion between Multi and Xzamps, it's actually really interesting to see a fleshed out back and forth between the two points. The primary things I've kinda pulled out from the discussion is the decision of Safe vs Experimental and preferred engagement distances when making a map. These elements are huge drivers in how a map is built and typically can't be changed too easily once you get the ball rolling. Personally, I'm a huge fan of H5 pistol play vs Halo CE pistol play (The only other game where the pistol is really worth a damn.) That comes mainly from how confirming the impacts are with the H5 pistol. I used to play a ton of COD alongside Halo and one of my favorite things about COD gunplay is how confirming bullet impacts are with your targets. You get almost a physical confirmation of your damage dealt and for me, that really helps keep my shots consistent and controlled. The H5 pistol, hit-scan granted is a very reassuring weapon when doing damage. I would say that any map that doesn't account for at least a basic level of pistol play is gonna suffer from some disdain. It's too against the meta. That being said, I am a huge fan of the AR not just being a rapid fire pea shooter I happen to spawn with (looking at you H3, Reach, H4) Having the option to both disgruntle and displace enemies with a reliable automatic adds something to Halo that we really haven't had since CE (and H2 sorta). BR duels are fun and all but right now, I'm more a fan of having extra options for fights besides out strafing the same dude with the same weapons 15 times in one match. After having played almost 1000 maps through my customs lobby, the greater majority being core 4v4, I absolutely love when a map not only does something different, but it does it WELL too. Honestly it doesn't have to be the next best thing or like a 300 script super event. It can be something as simple as a cool jump, a really dynamic sight-line, a killer weapon set, an intuitive interactive element, ya' know stuff like that. On the topic of that, can we talk about how so often people seem to neglect the Spartan Abilities as influences for map elements? Sure you have like boost jumps and like every now again people will have a slidey section but otherwise most maps don't give you too many options for really chaining your abilities and pulling off cool/interesting things as a result. I'm just as guilty of this. It's part of why I love seeing people build maps with the full range of movement in mind. I can see where both of you are coming from. There are benefits and disadvantages to both styles and I think it really comes down to what kinda audience you wanna appeal to when you put that map out. I guess to wrap that all up, if you can give me a map that actually makes me bother monitoring my ability cooldowns, has some inkling of innovation all while giving me decent room for both mag and AR play Im a happy camper
My summoning ritual worked! Thanks, at least it's cool without context. I'd recommend you play Deus Ex Human Revolution at least once through in your life. It's really special
all my (recent) maps are scaled for classic Halo and self balancing. so they could be played without weapons or abilities and function more or less the same.
I literally have no idea what the **** you're talking about. Not really man, we value the same things. All great designers value the same things. There are non negotiables when it comes to what creates a great map. We all agree a map that stagnates and resolves in a single power point is a bad principle. So movement is important. We all agree that maps that are scaled to the least noble corners of the sandbox are bad in principle. So maps that are scaled so tightly and with sharp enough corners that every engagement is an auto-win for the AR. That is bad level design. And most recently I've started preaching that proper sandbox design is the most important factor you can have in a map; essentially there shouldn't be a single winning strategy on the map. Otherwise you're not playing the other team, you're simply seeing who can play the map better. I would argue that is poor level design, let's pretend we agree on that and say that's poor principle. We agree on all of this. The difference between you and I is that I don't see any value in unoriginal content. The same way every forger on this website could give a **** about 2 base 2 towers should extend to all played out design philosophies. Just last night we played doubles on Chunk's monastery map. It was a fun game and had a great theme thanks to Buddy Jumps. The layout worked and did everything it should've done and provided a balanced experience. But guess what, the map's layout was hugely reminiscent of Chillout. A long central room with a sequence of smaller rooms on either side. Chunk did a great job designing it but to call it revolutionary would be wrong for the same reason Amplified wasn't revolutionary. For the same reason High Guard wasn't. The same reason Cobalt isn't. And for the same reason I have a hard time seeing any interest in a map out of the Solo book of design. They're just played out, already established motiffs. I'm not saying you're not allowed to enjoy these maps, because I can see value in them too. But your signature literally has a joke about midship clones in it "How many nicknames can Midship have." That should extend to all areas of level design. So don't post things as if we're just looking at two different sides of the same coin; because we aren't and we don't. I just believe that maps that show actual creative tendencies are the ones that truly have staying power. PT 2
THAT has been the basis of this discussion we've been needing to have for months and are just now having. This last response of yours seems like it was addressing all my prior comments and got really off topic so I'm trying to steer us back. The entire root of this issue is that when I see Hazard by Solo, I literally see no value in that map whatsoever. Absolute none. If I ran a 2v2 contest and loaded up that submission I would probably fly around the map for 15 seconds, end the game, and instantly discard it. Why? Because look, the map is one of the slowest playing, most brainless 1 dimensional, uninspired, linear, underdesigned 2v2 maps I've ever seen. It plays to a crawl when the powerups aren't up (which is a band aid solution as Im sure you will agree), you quite LITERALLY have no other choices but to run straight into them straight ahead from the outside paths or get ****ed in bottom mid. The map isnt even a true 3 lane because they all blend together in the middle and create this gigantic stupid pocket of impossible crossmapping. That map is complete and utter ****. And before the inevitable "The map is supposed to play like that" Cool. Would it make it better if I said Overgrowth plays exactly like the H5 level designer intended it to? Of course not. Because slow stupid and 1 dimensional is a poor principle to follow. But my biggest issue is that the map is QUITE LITERALLY 3 ROOMS END TO END AND THAT'S IT. That's all there is to the map, 3 rooms. It looks like something that someone who literally has never made a map in their life sat down and made. And I'm bringing up the fact that it placed in the doubles contest not because I'm annoyed about the placement of it still (which I am) but to show that this is the type of design you have gone on paper to promote and say "This is what I support. This is a map worthy of a $200 some dollar prize pool" which is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. That is the last thing we should strive for as level designers in the forge community and it shouldn't have been rewarded. It had nothing redeeming, it wasn't fast. It wasn't dynamic or flexible or sandbox, it wasn't unique, it didn't show ANYTHING. That map has no value in my book of prominent designs. Nothing. Which extends beyond that. Cobalt and Genesis, cool. They play well. Now show me something impressive. When I look at Angst, what is it 4 rooms in a square? For someone who has been designing as long as you have I don't even know why you bother. It should be HARD for you to make a map that's essentially 4 rooms in a square play badly. Seriously, I'm sure you're able to look at maps of that style and size and pretty much immediately know if there will be LOS problems or camping problems. So why not push yourself? And yes of course I'm oversimplifying the layout but that's besides the point. I feel like I've reached the point where it is very difficult for me to make an unbalanced, broken map. When I test maps I'm not even testing for problems anymore because I already know what will work before I place a single block. Trinity was finished the first draft, i never changed a single block after all the tests. Legion was finished the first draft, and it's only playing better every day. Oblivion was finished the first draft. Motherfucking Arcanum was the most difficult thing I have ever had to wrap my head around because of the key concept and it came out to a pretty simple layout, and it worked out perfectly. THAT IS PROBABLY YOU TOO, and many other experienced forgers as well. I don't expect to load up a purely fat map and look at a spot and say "Hmm this looks like it might be a problem". I expect to go into the map and see what new layout they've created and what new encounters I can expect. I don't expect to find imbalances in your maps. I don't expect to find imbalances in xXandrith maps. I expect to see something new and cool though, so it makes me sad to load up a knowledgeable forgers map and go "Oh, it's just a single atrium map with paths going around the edge." Which has been my experience with solo. Every single map he's made in H5 I felt like i've played before I've played them and it makes me very sad. 99% of forgers are still testing maps to see if they work. That is a problem, you shouldn't even need to test a map to see if something will work of it is broken because just about every map that's been posted is the same generic garbage that we've seen here for the past 10 years. WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TESTING IN A MIDSHIP CLONE WE KNOW IT WILL WORK JUST LOOK AT IT. That stuff only makes sense if you're trying out something crazy and unexplored. Like a key map. Because who the **** knows if that will work. Making a map play well is easy. There is no challenge to that, anyone can do it. Making something that plays well that is unique is the only way to truly show design skill. Which is why I harp on you. The idea of me making a map with this sort of design makes me want to blow my brains out holy **** how boring can it get. And all I ask is that other people do the same. Look through Xandriths maps from H2A; Honeycomb, Chain Gang. They all play fine and at the time Im sure he was proud of them. Ask him if he would make a design like that now and he would probably laugh at you. He's moved so far past that style of map with Storm Peaks looking back is boring to do. The thought of me making another Trinity style map is boring because I've already proved it; TWICE. Hell the thought of making another key map isn't even that interesting to me because I've already proven I can not only make a great proof of concept but the very first of its kind will probably remain the only one of its kind for a long time. Maybe ever. But I wouldn't want to sit on that. The way you look at Midship clones is how I look at Angst, and Hazard. And Cobalt. And Twice Forsaken. To me they might as well be the same thing, and sure you can still make a great map with that formula but at point do you have to innovate and be so creative with those working designs that it doesn't even resemble the same thing. People can say "Look coloseum is a good take on a 2b2t" and my response to that would probably be Yeah, because its' not a 2b2t. It's a 2 enclosed base rooms that have little influence on the rest of the map, one shitty tower, and 1 good tower. It's something different. So if you're going to tell me you can still do a cool creative map with the chillout basis; yeah sure. But it'll probably have to be innovated enough to where it either geometrically doesn't look like it, or just plays nothing like it. Which makes it something new completely. The bottom line is; I want to be impressed by designs. Not see generic room based maps that bore me to death. If I had never seen Angst in my life before and Given loaded it up and told me it was his, I probably would've laughed and told him to delete it. And seriously, that's not a knock on you because my H3/Reach maps were garbage, much worse than Angst. I didn't hit my stride until 2 years ago with Trinity which is really where I opened my eyes and started pushing what i thought were unexplored boundaries of competitve core level design. You say there aren't any maps like no ceilings - dude come on. It might as well be an Octagon. I KNOW you can do better than that. There truly isn't anything that looks anything close to that. Certainly not when I made it, so nothing played like it. Everyone wants to see a map that plays well. I'm saying if you make a generic uninspired map that plays well then you didn't really make anything at all. It's not your design. There is very little to be proud of in a safe map. To me, that's pointless. The map plays itself. I'll respond to the other conversation points now that strayed from the topic ____________________________________ " I'm under the impression that you see room-based maps as these isolated areas that barely interact. That's not true of all room-based maps, and it certainly isn't true for Angst. Changing one room would have a domino effect on the rest of the map. I don't find open maps any more difficult, I just don't enjoy long range engagements as much." Dude, room based maps are definitely easier to design and there is nothing wrong with me saying that. If I completely changed the geometry of shotgun room in Chillout but left the entrances and exits the same, the camo room would probably go completely untouched. In open air maps everything affects everything. I don't want to play this "Every map is just as hard to make! Griffball is as hard as Core! Aesthetic and racetacks are just as difficult as 2v2 maps!" No. They're not. And there's nothing wrong with that. Obviously this isn't a catch all but you understand what I'm saying. Generally room based maps are much easier to design because of this. This isn't a catch all rule. ________________________________________ " They do play alike in a broad sense, but they really don't in practice. Simplifying the way a map plays is a great way to put unnecessary limitations on design, and ignore the intricacies of what gives a map its identity. I would personally lean in favor of Optic Prison, because the movement is very dynamic on a style of map that is by nature standoffish through the use of teleporters and its unique weapon/item layout. That sounds like an appropriate band-aid solution for the issue, but I'd probably be more in favor of redesigning the structure to allow for more variation in spacing. It feels repetitive and restrictive moving around at times." Dude. A map with two facing sides will play pretty similarly in principle until something gets ****ed. Boarding Action played the exact opposite of Sword Base. Optic and High Guard find nice middle grounds. High Guard actually took that middle ground and made it interesting to move around and fight in. That's all there is to it. Yes Yes there are obviously differences in the minute way they play. There are differences between Amplified and Onslaught too. The have the same general shape, they tend to show similar gameplay principles. That's all i'm getting at. ________________________________________ "No, layout refers to the pathing and structure as well as overall shape." We're arguing semantics. ________________________________________ " Awkward meaning cumbersome or tedious. In Oblivion's case, I'm referring to movement. It's just a chore to get around the map, and it takes away from my experience when I play it. And the lighting only magnifies that issue. The hole isn't what makes it awkward, it's that there's a ramp the hugs the wall, then a gap, then continues. It seems like you're making decisions like that for no reason other than making the map feel different. But there's a reason that's not common practice: because it provides awkward experiences. I do agree that steep ramps are awkward, especially if they are extensive and commonly flowed into. They are usually a product of afterthought with how much space was needed to reach the needed elevation with a more shallow angle. I wouldn't say it breaks a map, but I would say it's better to make vertical transition less awkward. It's pretty odd to tell people not to feel uncomfortable about something. It is a natural reaction, that you have no control over. I found it odd that I walk into a corridor and teleport at a 'random' point. It's a readability factor. I understand why you did it, but it still feels odd when I use it. Especially mid-combat." The thing about dismissing something because you feel awkward is that it's not subject to any sort of standard. My boss at work, the dude who made Nuketown, has a rule for us. "The 2nd floor can't be higher than 128 units. 1 unit is 1 inch." I looked at him with my jaw dropped and said "Dude thats like 11 feet at floor to head." Literally imagine 3 spartans standing on top of each other. That's the rule we're given for Treyarch COD. Why? "Because people feel awkward looking up." It's a completely ****ing retarded arbitrary rule from some imaginary awkward feeling that doesn't exist outside the Call of Duty community. I tried splitting the center courtyard into two smaller courtyards and he said "No dude people expect a big open center courtyard just make it one" WHY? BECAUSE ITS "AWKWARD". It's a ridiculous merit to judge anything by and you're cheating yourself of a lot of good experiences. The Legion teleporter isn't awkward, it's just a hall to run into. You're a human being with a working brain. You literally go through the teleporter hallway 1 time and understand how it works. That's how every single other person i play the map with has learned it and not once has anyone complained about it. It is the simplest thing in the world and sticking your foot in the sand and refusing to accept things like that is only harmful to you, and no one else. The Oblivion teleporters are only awkward if you tell yourself they're awkward. An angled piece of geometry is only awkward if you tell yourself its awkward. You are literally standing on not flat ground. That's it. You need to seriously be way more open minded of things like this because if you can't accept something as simple as an angled dirt path than how will you ever experience anything cool in level design, better yet make anything that stands out. What if I told you any ramp steeper than 10 degrees made me feel awkward. What if I told you green rectangular teleporters make me feel awkward. Square door frames make me feel awkward. Looking down makes me feel awkward. Catwalks make me feel awkward. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds. ________________________________________ "I've never looked at a map, and thought "Only X is capable of this."." Oh I definitely have. I don't think anyone else in forge would have come up with Loading Zone except Given to Fly. If you would have told me that Solo made it I would've laughed in disbelief. And I don't think it's unfair to say that no one could have made Arcanum except me. ________________________________________ "I understand why you made labyrinth connect that way, but I'd say that's another example of a band-aid solution. It addresses one issue, but creates another. I would've just redesigned the area." How is it a band air solution. There is a hard drop off out of the Labrynth, that's a balancing factor. If there was a ramp, it would not be balanced. I knew that going into the design it wasn't a last minute choice. (If it's the requirement to clamber thats' irking you than that's fair but that's a critique on Halo 5 moreso than my design. In any other Halo i would've retained the pathing and shortened the height to work with a crouch jump. I didn't in Oblivion because i didn't need to) ________________________________________ "So, I think the bottom line is that we look for different things when we critique a map, and we have different goals when we create a map." Dude, we don't. We both want to see incredible maps that play well. So stop telling people that we just look for different things because that's a cop out and we don't. I want to see incredible maps, just like you, that someone actually had to design, not just copy.
Here's my top down layout of my newest map. I'm still working out some of the kinks, so be warned, it's not perfect yet. It's going to be a 2v2 map that has a heavy focus on both close long range encounters. 3 main quadrants on 3 different height elevations, with 2 of them connected by a teleporter. Critiques are welcome: Spoiler