That's even different than what Multi was suggesting. He's saying that he'd remove/fix weapons/spawn if the map is good otherwise. Having new criteria that every map has to play well both ways would not be a good decision at all. Some maps are designed with pickups in mind, as chunk stated. I know mine are.
I don't design maps with weapons in mind, because that means the weapon is then a critical part to how the map plays. Which sounds like a good thing, but what about when the weapon isn't in play? What about when the weapon is held by the person who is doing the exploitation. Map design and weapon placements are different things. You can't mask sloppy design work with weapons or powers because that isn't addressing the actual issue in the design. It will only address the issue when that weapon is in play, like every 2-3 minutes. Other than that, the gameplay will either slow down, or become problematic. Weapons should compliment a design, not determine it. If you have bad weapon placement, and you want the judges to only play it the way you intended, that's fine. But it can actually only hurt you in the long run. I'm assuming it isn't going to happen for more than a handful of maps, and all that means, is that the map will be getting a second chance, rather than dismissed or graded poorly. I understand it is easy to get attached to your work, but what he's saying doesn't negatively affect you in any way. The only thing to ask here is, do you want your pride to get in the way of your score? To be clear, I don't care either way.
First of all Multi or whoever it may be deleting a weapon isn't going to change **** if we don't come to a majority agreement that it should of been done. That alone is going to highly decrease the instances that it will happen. I know for sure soldat will argue for weapons staying because he tends to enjoy more OP pickups on a 1v1 map. I'm also more open minded to a forgers intentions and stronger weapons but am middle ground. I can't speak for blaze. The obvious abusable weapons won't be on the probably small pool of realistic final contenders because their forgers will be less incompetent. Maybe their is some wild card map that turns out to be great but the forger doesnt sit around reading waywo all day and isn't completely aware of our mindsets on the sandbox. The questionable situations where this issue may actually create some debate between us will most likely be very minimal and will spark thorough testing until we do come to an agreement not made lightly. It's not like were about to start deleting all of your weapons asap guys.
We'll update the contest thread tomorrow and if anyone wants to opt out then go ahead. I've made my peace on the subject. I just need to go to bed ffs. I'm screwed tomorrow.
Not really trying to have this debate. I understand both arguments and why people have different perspectives on it. Most of my maps are designed with pickups in mind. They are no more "sloppy" than anything else I create. There isn't less thought in them, and they don't rely on the pickups to make them work. It's the same idea as teleporters being band-aids. If it's being thrown in as an afterthought to address any issue, then that's a fair assessment. But, if the map is designed with the teleporter in mind, there's nothing wrong with that.
tested these weapon kill times just now for the current game (not the update) BR: 1.2 Magnum: 1.3 Lightrifle 4sk: 1.2 BPR + Magnum switch: 0.8 Sentinel Beam: 1.4 AR: 1.4
This, of course, got me thinking. But, as far as I can work out in my mind, is that this would require the mini-game gametype, so not really condussive for this contest, FYI. It would involve some of the same mechanics I used in the "Gorn" ball, which chases you with shield-draining fire. I say mini-game, because to my knowledge, that is the only way to give and take player traits at will. Correct me if that's wrong.
I made a map in one sitting overnight and it's probably the best holistic design I've made without stealing someone else's map. I don't think it's insanely groundbreaking or anything but it IS a key map! I'm literally going to spend one more day making the geometry clean enough to play and try to get the scripting done to test it before I actually make the map, because **** grinding one map for months just so I can get ran over by Tom french i'm going to make a blackout a week
But if it does play equally as fun as another with pick ups and then plays much better than another without, the map would be inherently better due to quality of versatility. In my opinion. This is coming from someone who despises 'one trick pony' and most gimick maps and gametypes. The beauty of halo is versatility. I can load up construct and play 4v4, then load up swat, then King, swords only, fiesta many things and it's still a fun map to play despite the level pickup placement encouraging movement to risky area. It's a personal preference however, that's my side of the argument. This is why you'll always see me testing my own maps without weapons before anything and fine-tuning the layout before I move on to fiesta testing and picking the weapons that compliment the map best despite my own judgement and personal desires most of the time.
I see we've reached an impasse regarding the fundamental aspects of 'design'. The problem is that the contest was set up in a way that allows an interpretation of the word 'design' depending on what the competitors and judges want it to mean. Because it is not explicitly stated that the maps must be 100% completed at the time of submission and/or that the judging rubric does not allow for the potential of a map and all or some of its submitted design elements (including technical, geometry, scripting, lighting, performance, weapons), **slippery slope alert** you could end up potentially arguing over whether a map COULD be good - you could just say "this map would be great if it didn't have XY&Z therefore I will judge it as if it did not have XY&Z and I give it a 10 out of 10". Actively editing elements/portions of the map after they've been submitted and judging them based on these changes takes you out of the theoretical and puts you in reality, meaning the submission is no longer even being judged for its potential, but for its real changes. Frankly, I don't even mind 'potential' being taken into account, but the fact is that unless the rules are solidified in such a way that 'potential' is only taken into account in a limited theoretical scope, and used as some kind of tool for the second round of judging (the map already needs to be a contender), then you could very well end up on the slippery slope of people submitting blockouts where the art is 'implied until suggested', the spawns are thrown in without any testing, and the weapons are 'just placeholders'. So if you want to judge based on what could be, it's gotta be SO LIMITED and SO CODIFIED in the rules (which it is not, currently) where only the best maps (judged without the edits) would actually be able to benefit. As it is though, it is implied that 'design' does encompass all elements of a submitted map, and I take it this is how people have been thinking about their designs. I have no problem with taking into account the 'potential' of a map, again, but because 'design' is implying everything on the map, including gameplay, the only time potential should come into play is after the results have been filtered and the round 2 tweaking period is open - bad 'design' should not be granted leniency if it impacts the overall product, which sucks, but because we are working with 'design' and not 'map design' (i.e. geometry) - in the end, anyone competing should become a better 'designer' based on the feedback. If this is incoherent, its because I typed it in LA traffic, feel free to change some of my words and then respond. :^)
When does any map play equally as fun as another? The differences will set them apart, even if it's by a small margin.
What's it like being a robot --- Double Post Merged, Sep 13, 2017 --- If anyone wants to discuss this over live and make your case be my guest, I really don't want to continue typing everything