I've always identified with Jeff Winger . For those convinced that I'm suggesting a more arena-based approach to Big Team Battle indubitably results in a experience superior to the more conventional approach: 20 space whales for the first person who catches my HBO reference!
Isn't that how every disagreement with "squad theory" forgers ends up being? Build a map with intentions of showing its competitive capabilities > Player sits in warthog turret waiting for teammate to pick him up while another player sits by sniper and waits for it to respawn > Argue that design is competitive despite attracting casual players and montage junkies. If you want to make it play competitively, you could always raise a couple hundred thousand dollars and hold a tournament. That will make your map be played competitively. Otherwise, it's not going to happen for BTB/squad, in my eyes. I achieved exactly what was explained as squad theory to be and still had players pissing in their own mouths (for a lack of better term). The only difference was that it was balanced. competitive players were able to punish them for not having map control and vehicles but wasnt too easily broken that it caused tug of war or the opposite of being unbreakable by even skilled players. That, in my opinion is the closest thing you'll get to making BTB competitive and it still was played casually.
So now you're just embracing the pretentious attitude. Nice. I'll admit it is better than tip-toeing around it.
No, not embracing the pretentious attitude. I identify with the misunderstood nature of his character; that he actually has only the best intentions for everyone that he interacts with, but is often misunderstood due to the way he expresses himself (I express myself in a similar manner). I also think he's simply one of the greatest lead characters on any show, ever. The writing for Community was spectacular. It's always been one of my favorite shows. Jeff is also a huge troll, so I naturally take great inspiration from his character .
If we had to choose traditional BTB concepts OR squad concepts, I'd understand the need for a heated debate: But we don't! If you enjoy conventional BTB, make a map that supports conventional BTB play style. If you enjoy squad BTB, make a map that supports squad BTB play style. I don't understand the need to convince everyone of the validity of your opinion. If you enjoy the play style your map provides, then that should be enough for you. This is directed at everybody. I fell into this trap years ago as one of the biggest advocates of old school arena map design. Some didn't like it, and some tried to convince me of why it didn't work. I came to a point of enlightenment when I realized that it's okay they feel that way. I design and create maps, because they provide the play style I prefer. There doesn't need to be any other reasons. I'm glad not everyone prefers the same maps I do, because that's how we get such a diverse pool of maps for the community to enjoy.
Honestly, I firmly believe that you do mean well, but just like I have no ill intent with my posts, people will interpret things vastly differently.
Not to disagree with you, but I want to point out that the only person here who has played the Squad Design Theory version of Recurve is The Fated Fire. People seem to be accusing others of pre-judging maps based on theory, before playing the map, while simultaneously judging a map they haven't played, and disregarding the analysis of the designer, who has actually played the map. Also, I though Fated Fire presented the whole thing pretty humbly in his first post. If I designed a map that I was proud of and thought played well, and 343 basically threw 90% of it away and built a new map, I would be really upset. Even if the original map sucked, you gotta feel bad for the guy. And whats wrong with believing in and promoting your map and its design theory? There's no need to clarify every other sentence with "In my opinion", "I may be wrong", etc... Say what you believe, and why. Nothing in the opening post struck me as condescending. What I really don't get though is the disregarding of scientific evaluation of map design. It's really helpful to evaluate what elements of previous maps you though were successful, simplify those things into design ideals, then experiment and see if they apply to maps. Not to say the systematic map design can't lead to lack of originality and staleness, but every map designer should think about what makes a map good, and it would be foolish to not try to apply it to their maps.