theSpinCycle

Says who though? There's never going to be a definitive answer on which style of map is better, both sides have convincing arguments as to which is superior. Honestly, it all comes down to either preference, or whichever side of the argument you feel you can defend the best.

Which Halo "classics" are you talking about? I bet I could argue there are more classic symmetrical maps.

:)

I wouldn't say that. Lines of sight are a result of how the map is designed regardless of symmetry. This is an exaggerated case but say the entirety of your map is comprised of one circular tunnel. It's infinitely symmetrical yet has basically no lines of sight.

I'm doing more redesigns, it's starting to look less like triangle map and more like MLg Pr0zzs. I is worreh'd :o

- 2nd VM

I think the connection between the bottommost and topmost teleporters would add a nice risk from somebody attempting to use it as their opponent can have LoS on both points from a given position. The other set of teleporters isn't even really necessary to be honest, but it could possibly help speed up gameplay since you're probably going to have to upscale.

Goodluck with it mang.

Are you talking about the length in front of green reciever when you say dropdown area? If so, I would definately keep that area as it has a strong connection to central floor and potential to add connections to the upper floor. I couldn't think of any reason for Schnitzel to have removed that area, hahaha. for the teleporters, I don't know which ones he removed exactly, but personally, would only remove two of the center ones. The others are pretty important IMO, although green reciever could be positioned differently. The problem with yellow armor spawn in the original is the lengthy dead end it leads to. I think it could work with Quake but not so much Halo. If anything, you could add a connection to remove the dead end and benefit the flow.
[spoiler][IMG]
Red are the two that aren't so important
Green is a good way to connect the remaining ones
Blue is the connection that would be nice[/spoiler]

Well symmetrical maps will always have the edge over asymms in terms of balance because, well, they're symmetrical. Thats why I think they would have the edge over asymm for getting into MM. But I'm all for asymm if we can get it playing well.

Not much map to learn? We could definitely add some complexity. It needs something that's for sure.

Ah, I gotcha. Yea feel free to add anything to those if you have ideas. Honestly I can't really say I'm leaning towards a certain one at the moment. You?

If you still want to try possibly getting it into the 2v2 matchmaking playlist then I think symmetrical is the way to go.

Lifts could still be implemented, I just focused on getting the geometry down. Hell even that's subject to change, I'm not happy with certain parts of it right now.

Whaddaya mean, two distinct sides? It's more like 4...But I mean if it can be tweaked to where it's not too difficult to go from one side to the other, without making it too easy to escape, then I don't see a problem

NOOOOO why did it rotate :(

[spoiler][IMG][/spoiler]

Needz moar psuedo-symmetry?

Yea I agree about le donutz. I'm about to upload my next sketch which may or may not fix that. Oh and that was an idea for a ledge of some sort you could get to from a mancannon somewhere

Needz moar symmetry?

[spoiler][IMG][/spoiler]

Super basic. It's just something to think about

I think Aerowalk is a design that would play well in Halo without making changes. Personally, the only aspects I think would need to be changed in the meager sized dancefloor and the Yellow Armor area. I can take some screenshots of segments of the map, if you need them.

Regarding that last part, I think the problem with directly remaking some maps in Halo is that Quake maps are designed around faster movement settings. They also take aspects like packed weaponry and splash into account, thus strong aspects of Halo map design are of lesser importance. Power positioning, more subtle verticallity, and less open areas, for example.

Still confused. What floor is that sender on? Confusing 2d is confusing.

Then make it not a dead end? Lol.

So when are we makin dis shite?

You didn't see I moved the snipe? I had moved it away from S1 just for that reason. I like the sticky det being close to R1 because it'll give incentive to move back down to the lower area of the bottom ring.

Leftmost? Deadends??? Where...

I do like the room-based-ness. It'll most likely have to be opened up a bit more than in your sketchup, but of course, that's another thing to work on after it's been forged and tested :)

The more I thought about it the more I started to disagree with my last two VMs, lol. I like the idea of the new bridge now. I'm thinking it actually would help promote more movement around the map. Also with that bridge, I would take out S2/R2 (from my sketch) completely, which it looks like you did in your sketchup. The 2d is a bit confusing though, especially top left. And idk about the new tele set up you have, what do you think of keeping just S1/R1 from my sketch?

Just to clarify...

So it effectively allows Red to stop Green/Gold from easily escaping, but it doesn't promote as much movement. Red could still stop Green/Gold from escaping
just as easily by dropping down or running across the inner lvl4 path to cut them off. And as a result there would be more movement around the map.

Another thing to note: There's a connection from the lift on the lower floor up to R2. By adding the new bridge, players on 4 will won't need to drop down and use the lift up to R2. By forcing players to drop down and use the lift on the bottom, you're also forcing the possibility of more engagements between 2 players both in the lower part of the map.

[spoiler][IMG][/spoiler]

Say the Red player spots the Green player as he goes under the bridge. Instead of Red either having to drop down or run across to the bridge to catch Green, with the addition of the new bridge he could quickly take a few steps to the right and still have Green in his sights. Same situation with Red and Gold.

^Which may or may not be a bad thing. I think you would have to test out different versions to see what works best. But you're right about it forcing players to use the entire map. I like that.

Hmmm.. Interesting. On one hand it would create new and interesting ways to move around the map. But on the other hand, I feel like it could make the top too powerful with so many back-and-forth connections leading to more lines of sight.

I think I know what you mean. The far right area seems iffy to me right now too. It'll have to be tweaked somehow, but my thinking behind it was to have an area somewhat similiar to the camo/OS platform to balance the opposite side. About the lack of "ways out," since it has height 5 you should be able to jump across to lvl4, but not jump back the other way. With a bridge connecting the two areas, lvl4 would be too advantagous with all the routes around the top of the map.

Breaking up the lvl4 semi-donut path? It's an interesting thought. Can't really say much about it though since I don't know how you plan on doing it. Paint pls

Too many lifts! As of right now there's 3 which is already a bit much for a small map. I don't see anything wrong wih keeping the psuedo-donut shape, because I don't see it having the same problem most donut maps have, which is what you're worried about. I also think there needs to be a hard route to the top from that area.