Again, you're using the term layout wrong. The concept of a map is a broad description of what the layout entails. For the record, you are responsible for devolving this exchange into what it's become. My tone didn't change, and I didn't go the route of exaggerating, misquoting, and insulting you.
The high road is blocked, traveler. You will have to find a way around! You said that he has an insurmountable ego and that I was just a multi lapdog... multiple times. Also you've ignored every point I've made in the last page. I'm glad this is on a public forum.
My tone changed because I became frustrated, my message never changed. Yours did. I just broke down everything we've discussed so far into the simplest possible statements. We both claim we look at level design objectively in the raw geometry of the map. "You are more balanced in your approach, where I am heavily leaning on the functional aspect of design. The way you breakdown visuals is the way I break down geometry. A map can look boring as hell, but still have a concept that sets it apart from other maps." That is you. This is also you. Not being objective. "I'm not saying awkward just because I feel like it. Those things provide awkward experiences. It's just as logical to ignore those feelings as it is to pretend a LoS, or connection, or power position doesn't exist on the map." "I am open-minded. But, when I feel a feature provides an awkward experience, I will be inclined to be against it. I'm not going to ignore my own logic and instinct." Until you can recognize that your perspective is heavily skewed by your preferences towards extremely established and already practiced design styles then you're not ever going to move forward. I'm not telling you this to make a public example or try to win some silly debate. I'm telling this because I hope you actually read what I'm typing and make a conscious effort going forward to not discredit things based on primitive feelings. You're missing out on enjoying a lot of cool stuff and making even cooler stuff. Until that happens your maps will continue to look like generic room based Reach maps that are a dime a dozen and play like every other one that has been made.
@xzamplez "Level Design is subjective." How do we determine what qualities of a design are preferred or not preferred? How do you say one of your maps is more suited to high level play than another? There has to be something within that design that makes it "good" for high level play. And if that trait exists within other maps that are considered "good" for high level play, then you can logically surmise that this is a constant quality of level design. The reverse is also true: Most people would agree that shield doors cause issues with Halo gameplay outside of niche game modes. I believe the authority on those traits are collectively held and based on the most logical conclusions. "Awkward geometry isn't seen very often because it's Awkward" If the definition of Awkward in this scenario is "causing difficulty or inconvenience", then yes, those elements of design aren't common place. However, you could argue that inconveniencing the player is a design tool. It's an inconvenience to grab OS on Damnation and slide jump over the wall to Rockets, but if you lower the wall, then the player gets both power ups too easily. The Camo powerup is also in an awkward location because it's difficult to get to it. But considering that it's incredibly powerful on the map, making it difficult rewards the player who grabs it. This is also why the Scattershot on Twice Forsaken - a map literally based around teleporters, which are historically known for being camped by shotgun players - was the most difficult weapon to get to. I could say that 3 Speedboosts aren't common practice because they're Awkward, but that wouldn't be true. Perhaps 3 of the same power up are not an inconvenience, but I'm sure we would agree that fighting a player who is moving much much faster than you would be difficult. I haven't seen a map with 3 Speedboosts until No Ceilings, but that's simply because nobody designed a map for it until you did. The correlation of there not being triple speedboost maps does not cause speedboosts to be inherently Awkward. For the sake of clarity, I think we should recognize that "Awkward" and "Clunky" are not the same thing. Let's say the definition of Clunky is "not consistent or responsive." You could argue some of the jumps on Oblivion are Clunky. You could also argue that Ladders in CE were Clunky, especially on Prisoner. They've largely been replaced by lifts because a ladder often required you to jump once you reached the top, allowing room for error. I would say inconsistency is an undesirable trait, and therefore an objective quality of level design, whereas inconveniencing the player is a design tool. Sure, you might want a ladder on your map at one point because a ladder is functionally different from a lift. But people have a right to therefore call it Clunky, because it traditionally is. Your issue with the Legion teleporter is neither a case of Clunkiness or Awkwardness, but how Intuitive it is. You're accustomed to instinctively identifying an animated or otherwise ominous looking area tucked in a corner of the map as a teleporter. Legion's teleporter is intentionally ambiguous and doesn't clearly communicate to you where the sender actually is, preventing you from exploiting it. Of course, it can be more visually communicated that something is about to happen, and therefore your disdain for it lacking a tell is a perfectly valid opinion to have. However, I don't think you can say it is inconvenient or inconsistent, because it teleports you at exactly the same point each time you walk into it. I don't believe this to be a case of semantics given the way I just explained it. These distinctions are important, otherwise we're just going to go around in circles. "We don't know what has been done, therefore we can't say if it's original or not." The key mechanic is original to Forge. Arcanum could have fallen flat on its face and you might have said "the Key mechanic doesn't work in Halo," but would that be a logical conclusion? The lightbulb didn't work until it did. The first airplanes crashed. The first 999 failures don't matter if you succeed once, which is why Multi said that "a vertical map would be a CoD map if it was in CoD." And it would absolutely be original within the context of CoD. In the context of Halo, there is still a lot of untapped potential. We have never had underwater combat and there are very few Forge maps that attempt to mimic this with gravity volumes and player traits. Is swimming original? I'm sure @a Chunk would feel very unoriginal if he fell off of that boat, but how many Halo maps feature prominent underwater combat? Could you say a Halo map with underwater combat would be unoriginal just because CoD does it? Or would you agree that it'd be one of the most unique Forge maps in this game, on account of there being nothing else in the game like it? Context is important. If we are showcasing "original" content, I think it's best to display that which is unique, trailblazing and different from the status quo to inspire others to keep forward thinking.
Okay good post goat but now he has someone else to respond to and will CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE POINTS HE CAN'T REFUTE
There is an incredibly easy way to fix this problem. I suggest everyone who doesn't want to talk to the guy anymore to do it
I never claim I look at level design objectively. I don't believe it's possible. Do I believe that certain characteristics provide what the majority see as good gameplay? Sure. But, I don't ignore the fact that the minority exists. You said Chill Out was the best map in CE, as if there is some popular consensus that made it fact. But, it isn't. You call it moving forward, I call it change for the sake of change. If I have a reason that I see it as a detriment to gameplay, then I will see it as poor design. You aren't making a public example. My goal was never to prove you wrong, because there isn't a wrong. My goal was to explain my perspective. If I viewed map design objectively, I'd say Oblivion was a poor map. But, I don't because I know some people enjoy it. I will continue to make what I choose based on the goals I set for myself.
Lol. Okay, so we're going to end this discussion on the 'opinion' card. Waste of time but ok. I look forward to your next room based map with 4 rooms. Also, just for shits. Can I ask why you think Oblivion is objectively poor. Because I've never once seen an exploit or dominant strategy on the map. And I've watched some pretty good players take a shot and they were always making new approaches on the fly.
Oblivion in my opinion is still one of the most unique and well designed maps in this game, and I've already gone on record to say it completely changed the way I forge. If I were to look at the map objectively, there aren't many things I would hold against it. I think some of the routes are clunky (inconsistent) and the map is darker now than it was when it was posted. I also find most of the spawns disorienting, and all of these things make it difficult to enjoy playing on the map. Also, **** @Kell Of Scots camping in the candlewalk with a Plasma Rifle. However, in the end those are minor things that simply make the map less accessible. Assuming all of those things were addressed, I think the map would be close to perfect. I don't believe there is any objective criteria by which I can say "this ramp is too steep" or "this should have been a ramp instead of a jump" because those would be rules. Once you understand rules, they are meant to be broken.
I respect that you are confident in your design sense and intuition; however, I'm sure you recognize how arbitrarily defined "detriment to gameplay" is as a characteristic. I'm not going to pick on Solo or Seth because they are my friends, but I can look at the two maps that placed high in the 2v2 list and find things that are detrimental to gameplay. I was on Hazard when they were trying to find a way to make the SMG room less campy. We knew the issue was there but it was never a problem during any testing session because none of our preferred playstyles involved camping. However, when I played it in Matchmaking, the map revolved completely around that spot and it was extremely difficult to get people out of there. I would consider that detrimental to gameplay. I'm personally not interested in regurgitating the contest discussion anymore, and I know you had issues with Hazard, so this isn't about that specific example. Rather, I am puzzled by your lack of clearly defined vernacular. It leaves design interpretations up to whims and anecdotes and is very difficult to find a basis in reality beyond one's individual preferences, which are rarely representative of what other people's maps actually are.
@A 3 Legged Goat I agree with basically everything you said in the post with the screenshots, except your bottom line. I don't really care about what's original in forge. I only use it because it's a simple editor. I don't have much to say to your last post, other than I'm glad you enjoy it. I just don't agree.
It's fair if you are not invested in the collective pool of maps in Forge. However, it looks rather suspect given your tendency to dismiss designs outside of your preferences, or ones that otherwise attempt other ideas, on this perceived "detriment to gameplay", which insofar has been - at best - loosely defined. If you're referring to Oblivion, I explicitly stated I didn't enjoy playing on the map - but for clearly articulated reasons and not ambiguously defined issues with its design. By saying level design is subjective, and then holding maps to an arbitrary amalgamation of "gameplay" as though there is a universal all encompassing standard, you are in actuality contradicting yourself.
K. I've explained it before, and I've talked to you in a party about how to address one of the issues I have. But to summarize: movement, balance, consistency, and readability. I honestly don't get why this is such a big deal. You don't like my maps, and I'm fine with it. Why don't you feel the same way?
The reason is because I've talked to him about it before, and it would be a more appropriate party conversation. I respect the people here, but I'm not trying to win anybody over by agreeing with me. My goal was to share my perspective with Multi. And I have.
You literally did not answer my question. I asked what was objectively wrong with Oblivio. Your response is "movement, balance, consistency, and readability." 3 of those are subjective. Balance is the only objective measure and I'd like to see you break that. I'm asking because I'm curious. I don't like people publicly posting things like "I think such and such is a bad map" without actually ever explaining why. I'm asking you to explain why and you've given me no answer.