XForgery's Conquest Forge-Off

Long read. I have one question and probably more later.
If you win or another staff member wins will you be receiving the prizes?

 

Alright. Another question.

If you get two of your maps nominated to be in the Top 5, do you get to choose which map you think should be up there or will there be another vote?

 

May I ask exactly why this approach to judging is being taken? Surely, when holding a contest to find the best Conquest map to play, what's important is exactly that, how well the map plays Conquest. Judging the map based on how much the Forger was working against a canvas kind of misses this point if you ask me. Say the final choice for top spot comes down 2 maps, one on Sandbox and one on Assembly. Now say that it's generally appreciated by those judging that the Sandbox one plays a decent amount better than the Assembly one, yet the Assembly one is picked as a winner because it is more 'unique' and 'takes more skill to make'. Now, I can see where the attitude comes from that, when someone makes a Conquest map on a map that doesn't immediately lend itself toward the gametype, they should be congratulated on doing something really challenging. But, when that's all said and done, don't you think they should be asked exactly why they chose this canvas over a more conquest friendly one (and SB is, to date, the most everything-friendly canvas that we have)? The attitude it seems to promote, imho, is "hey, let's make things needlessly difficult for ourselves and ignore the wealth of options that SB offers on some predication of skill and being unique".

Now unique can be good, I'm not gonna deny that. I can demonstrate what I mean in terms of Orbital in normal gameplay terms. It's overlapped double - U layout is really different from other maps, and produces really interesting path movement and push/pull dynamic in competitive games. This, I think, is a good example of where 'unique' as a principle can yield worthwhile results in gameplay terms, bringing something new to map design and building that actually gives a boost to gameplay an enjoyability. But unique for unique's sake only detracts from gameplay, and seems more the attitude of a Forger who cares more about his own reputation than the quality and enjoyability of the map they actually produce, that they need to rely on making their map needlessly deviant in design and choice terms in a way which doesn't compliment gameplay, instead of making the logical choices and letting their map's gameplay speak for itself, relying on being 'unique' to get noticed instead. Again, unique can bring something great to a map by potentially setting it apart from other projects, but if this uniqueness doesn't actually bring more fun gameplay then what is the point?

Also, I can see why you name SB as 'easier' in terms of the construction choices you have, but it seems to miss another key aspect of Forging: design. With a non-Forging purpose canvas like, say, Rat's Nest or Orbital, there is geometry already present (kinda the point I guess), your Forging choices are steered and restricted. You have a certain number of options in which to make your map work for Conquest, yet your not presented with the same Forging challenge that maps like SB and Foundry give: design once again. With Forge canvas maps like these two, you're presented with a blank space to Forge and you have to completely design and create the whole map from scratch as opposed to, frankly, having a good deal of the work already done for you. The effort and skill that went in to designing a map is a key aspect of how skillful the Forge is if you ask me, and working in a pre-structured map like Rats Nest demonstrates skill only in terms of logical problem solving imo, working against what is in front of you when, actually, there isn't always a logical reason to do so.

Therefore I'd say that preference or prejudice toward any canvas at large again misses the point, the question that should really be asked is "how well does the canvas you picked compliment what you were going for?", basically, was the canvas used the most logical choice for the design you have in mind?. But, at the end of the day, you can cast as many judgements as you like on the choices the Forger made, but what really counts is the map produced, isolated from all other considerations. Basically, how fun is it to play? If I play 2 maps, one which took 5 hours yet plays in a more enjoyable way, and one which took 50 hours and is built in Guardian yet doesn't hit the mark, then I'm gonna load up the 5 hour one every time. And, again, if I play a map which I think doesn't play very well, then find out that it took 50 hours of challenging Forging to produce, it doesn't make me think that the map is any better, more that the person wasted even more time than I previously thought.

Now I know I'm making a big fuss over a small rule, practically demonstrated by the tiny text used . But rejection of Foundry and SB on the basis of them being 'easier' has always irked me something rotten. Pick the canvas that works best for what you are trying to achieve, and don't look at any canvas as inherently better or worse, just as each suited to some purposes better than others. If the layout you have in mind happens to coincide with the layout of, say, Rats Nest, then of course use it as a canvas, you'd be silly not to. But, conversely, if what you want to achieve is not helped by the geometry of existing maps, then why would you avoid Foundry or SB? It will only hurt your map in the end. I don't want to come across and condemning your choices here, and of course you're the guys putting the effort in to this contest so you can run it how you see fit. But I'd just hate to see a truly great and enjoyable conquest map marked down because the person used SB, especially if SB was actually the most logical choice for what they wanted to achieve. I can see the logic in promoting non standard Forge canvases as choices to be used when they are fit for purpose, more people need to look at them as options, but alienating Foundry and SB (I know Foundry is disallowed in this contest for more legitimate reasons, but this relates to a wider attitude held by some that I've seen) only turns this same needless rejection of options around, and as a result misses the increased design and variation options that these two maps give, in fact they have much more scope to produce variation in map design and gameplay terms than any other canvas could. How different are any number of Conquest maps on Orbital going to be in comparison to the insane amount of paths and designs choices you can take in SB?

At the end of the day, isn't what's really important only how well the map plays, how fun it is?

 

Very good rebutle. But the main reason that they chose to restrict foundry, and try to psychologically restrict Sandbox is because there are already tens of maps on foundry, especially after the conquest forge-off here. There are bound to be a plethora of maps on sandbox pretty soon too. Since there arn't yet, Sandbox was allowed into the competition, but with that note, I know the number of people working on it will decrease quite a bit. Also, it has been a goal of ours to get a conquest map on every canvas, which if Sandbox had no "restrictions" would probably never happen.

 

Oh I don't play down the reasons for doing so, and I too think it is great to encourage widespread canvas choices and increase the range of Conquest maps on each canvas. It was more the 'ease' comment that I took issue with, principle rather than practice. And once again I do have a great appreciation for any properly run contest such as this which encourages people to Forge, it can never be a bad thing, and I hope my comments didn't come off as a downer on the contest itself, rather than a discussion on the nature of variety in canvas choice as a more general principle, this was definitely not intended if so.

 

I dislike the mantra that a ton of Forgers, new and old, have been giving off lately. Sandbox doesn't make your maps automatically easier to make. Maybe it does, but Forging is still difficult to do right. Sandbox let's you Forge in bigger environments, and in different ones. How much time and materials would you be wasting if you made a death floor Conquest map like Chasm on Foundry, instead of Sandbox's Skybox? Like you've said yourself, use the original aspects of the map to make your new one. Where else are you going to find perfectly flat area to use as the ground? Foundry and Sandbox are the only two that have a vast, wide area available to use. Save materials by using the ground as the ground floor so you don't have to lay out blocks for the floor. I'm a bit hard pressed on time to finish this up, but as Pegasi said, it's only really important that the map plays good, and is fun.

 

I largely agree. I'd like a world where all canvases were seen as exactly that, different canvases which stand as different options. Each has their own benefits depending on what you have in mind, and each is fit for their own purposes, having the choice is the great thing about Forge (albeit one of the few imo). No canvas should be seen as inherently better or worse, more or less skillful to use, but as a variety of options where you look at them all once you have your idea and pick whichever lends itself best to your desired product. I'd say that SB and Foundry have more options and possible paths to their name, making them more common choices since you have more scope to realise ideas that don't fit in to other canvases with their pre-set geometry. But, conversely, and as AZN has always said, not using a non Foundry/SB canvas when it actually has geometry that could be turned to your purpose is just silly.

But this is getting in to a debate on the subject, and much as I love a good Forging debate, this thread would be better served being free for questions on the contest itself. Now I know, major hypocrisy alert here, I started this discussion . But, whilst admitting my own position in this thing, could we maybe take this debate to a dedicated place so we can have it out on the subject whilst leaving this as a place clear so that questions on the contest can be seen and answered as quickly as possible?

 

My only complaint is: couldn't you have picked a more original name?

 

I actually agree that it should be named differently, and if I had seen that similarity before, I would have insisted on it.

But, to defend it a little bit, that is more of a Subtitle. We have a monthly challenge, this being the April Forgery Challenge, which is the true "title".

Again, I will probably have this changed to something more......... unique.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Yeah it's fairly general, but with members being on both sites, it would have been nice to have something different. Oh well.

 

Although I do agree that other maps can and should be explored and utilized for their possible uses in Forge maps, a great map is better than a good one that was done on a harder-to-Forge map. It's a bit like saying that you have a class of mostly average people, except for two; one who is extremely intelligent, and one who is somewhat mentally disabled. The smart one writes a beautiful poem, whereas the retarded (non-derogatory version of retarded) one writes a decent one. You know that both of them worked very hard on those poems, because they both have a yearning and love for poetry. Yet, you can only pick one to be the best of the class. Which one do you pick? The best one by looking at what's actually written, or the junkish one that was done to the best of it's ability?
It's really hard to decide within that. In that comparison, it's saying that we should really try not to use Sandbox because it'd be too good in comparison to other maps. My opinion is that there would be two categories, one for Sandbox maps and one for non-Sandbox maps. Forging on maps with more complex baseline geometry is obviously a different sort of challenge that makes it so much more 'stiff' to Forging than Sandbox. By separating them, you allow the judging to not have any sort of bias towards or against one type of map.

Sorry guys, for perpetuating the debate. It's a good one, and one that we do need to discuss thoroughly in my opinion.

 

Ok, point well made I'd say. I know you've always been one who tries to remind people that all Halo maps are in fact canvases, and not to forget that we have many options for Forge and not just two. I can actually see the logic in encouraging people to think more and reward those who employ logic to make their map on the canvas which suits it. That, along with your clarification of what exactly you meant about SB, has my argument all covered. Fair play dude.

@ Nemi: I still agree that this is a pertinent debate, but personally I think that what AZN just said kinda pins the focus away from exactly what I was talking about. I now don't think he's pushing that SB is a worse canvas by any means, pointed to pretty solidly by his own admission that his entry is gonna be built on SB. Rather I now see what he's saying is that this contest is being used as an opportunity to remind people about their options. Whilst any map in itself should be looked at solely in terms of its resulting gameplay when deciding how good a map it is, the furthering and expansion of Forge is also a consideration, and if this contest is being used as a way to promote variety and real thought in Forging then I have no complaints, any maps produced that are maybe a bit lacking in the originality or variety department and don't win, they don't suffer in gameplay terms from not winning, they still have everything they had before.