Sanctum

I will give it a try. Looks like a great map based on another, but I also am glad that you didn't quite copy everything, that you added some of your own perks. Good job. - Brute Captain

 

I just played this today with a bunch of other people....AMAZING...it is very reminiscent of sanctuary. This map played incredibly well. All of the weapons seemed appropriately placed. Everything looked really clean and polished. This receives a 5/5 from me. The gameplay is great! I'll be recommending this to others.

 

I liked sanctuary a lot. Will give feedback later.

 

Sanctum​

Author: SuperFeiGn​

Overall Enjoyment Durability Aesthetics Originality Balance



6/10 6/10 4/10 6/10 6/10 5/10

Map Recap: Sanctuary? No, Sanctum! A look-a-like of the map Sanctuary, from the good 'ol days of Halo 2. Although this was not the Author's intentions when he first began. The "sanctum" in the middle really catches your attention but, isn't really where the battle takes place. Mostly due to the fact that there isn't anything in the building that you would want go get.

What I liked about this map was that you cannot however hard you try get out of the map. Also the neat and cleanness of the map due to all the interlocking, is very pleasing to eyes.

Well what kind of was annoying on this map was that the spawn points where not great at all. I would frequently spawn right next to someone, either killing him or him killing me (yes I know this is what usually happens in Halo, hah). Also there was no reason to go in the middle. There was a sword but, once you got outside with it there was no use for it since there are close combat spaces. Another thing is that the third floor of the building was even less inhabited since all that was located there was some spikers. Lastly, with a good sniper the map could easily be locked down since there is a lot of openness.

Overall, the map is very clean and is nice for bringing back some memories of Halo 2.

 

Me and a few people from the furious review thread have played your map and hark! Here is my rating:

6/10

The reasoning behind this is:
1)Your top level seems inacessible and/or unnecessary. There's nothing to draw anyone's attention up there. Maybe if you were to have a powerup or something to draw people's attention up there, it would be better. Also, it needs more access points, at least two more. You could just branch out the original bridges to the top or just create two more paths. Also, your top level seems as though it could work better if you could get from one side to the other more easily, closing that gap would be a good thing.
2)The sword seems useless. This is, in part, due to all the distance weapons on the map. Why use the sword when you can have equal or better results from the needler. You could lower the distance weapons and add some more mid or close range weapons (spiker, brute shot, etc). Equipment like the regenerator and bubble shield could help as well.
3)The power weapons seem to spawn awfully low. 90 seconds isn't the best. I'd say at least 2 1/2 minutes for the sniper would do well, the sword I can't say 'cause no one used it in our playthrough. (if they did, they were killed immediately).

Altogether, good map, the sniper works especially well on it, (too well with the spawn time), it's a fun experience.

 

looks well designed and constructed will dl

 

Yeah, I completely disagree with the previous two reviews. I forged through the map with you yesterday (This is II s3m II) and it really is beautiful.


I don't mean to sound critical, especially because I'm new to this site. However, I've noticed a large problem with the reviews/reviewers on Forgehub. Namely, most reviews of competitive maps just aren't that good, useful, or relevant. This isn't anybody's fault - I think it's just a product of different environments. People are at Forgehub because they love to forge and are excellent at it. But being great at forge doesn't mean you're great at map design / balance. Players from MLG seem to have a better eye for the balance side of things, but they give less respect to visual quality and forge precision. In addition, MLG players have just as little a predisposition towards map design as Forgehub ones.

In short, in my entire forge history, I haven't found a ton of people who actually understand what makes a good map good. I respect the seniority of the more known forumgoers here, but some of the comments and posts I see in the competitive side of things are ludicrous. Nobody seems to mind that a humongous 1 sided "assault the tower" map with 6 turrets and every kind of equipment ends up in the competitive section. Likewise, great maps that are supremely balanced and well thought out get shot down way too often because they don't have any gimmicks. There should be a power-up top center?! What?? It's top center, the entire point of this area is to be powerful high ground. Why would anybody move from there if a power-up was spawning in their pocket every minute?

If you're making a good competitive map there's 3 things to consider:
1. Individual map elements - must include vertical loops, interesting angles, etc.
2. Connection of those map elements - must create smooth transitions between each section of the map that allow free movement and give all parts of the map traffic, making higher points more dangerous
3. Power-up placement - must spawn around the map in dangerous places to force people to move from power positions.

His map completes all of these requirements with flying colors. We know it's a beautiful, well-forged map, so I just don't see where that's coming from at all. 9/10 from me, with -1 simply because it's a re-imagination of a great map, not an entirely new creation.

 

Okay, now you're making me pretty upset, but because you made your point without saying "you're wrong" and actually backing your points, I will defend my own and try to show you what I mean and why I mean it. Don't forget, 6/10 is still above average. 5 is considered average... I still think of your map as above average... just not phenominal.

Weapon placement is a huge part as to how a level is played. Thus, it is a very relevant part of my rating. If a weapon, that is placed in a central location such as the sword to attract so much attention, I'd expect it to be more useful. By having a weapon in such a pivitol area that isn't so useful, like your sword is now, it makes that whole part of the level seem unecessary. Why would I go to a place that attracts attention from everyone just to get a weapon that isn't going to do me any good? Also, if a weapon spawns too fast making it overly useful (like your sniper rifles), why would I get a sword, that can be seriously owned by someone across the level with the sniper on such an open level, when I can just sit back with a sniper rifle and take anyone who even attempts to get the sword? Your over-openness and, thus, overusefulness of weapons like the sniper or needler, has killed any usefulness the sword had.

Also, the part of your level that you claim is good because it's "high ground" isn't extremely useful while playing an actual game. It's not convenient to go to you quite literally have to go out of your way to get there. I mean, the positives in this circumstance dont really outweigh the negative "I have to go out of my way and be exposed running up this one ramp visible by over half the level to get up to a platform that isn't that large but is supposed to be great for sniping." Sure, you have that gimmicky jump from the door, but that being said, it's a gimmick. Gimmicks don't make good maps.

Finally, you say your map should get a good rating because:
1. You cannot jump out of.
2. Is near perfectly polished. And i mean better than 99.9999% of other maps.
3. Is near perfectly symmetrical.
4. Is extremely smooth to walk around.
5. Plays similarly to an old classic.

Some of these are expected in an average map. (Not able to be jumped out of, polished "perfectly", smooth to walk around). One is subjective ("perfectly" polished). One doesn't matter at all (perfectly symmetrical), and one is partly the reason I gave it a lower rating.(plays similarly to an old classic)

Just because a map is symmetrical doesn't mean it should get a good rating, in fact, in my opinion, I'd have given a map that played as well as yours, that was asymmetrical, a higher rating. Why? Because making a map that is symmetrical that is well-balanced is easier than making an asymmetrical map that is balanced.

Finally, originality is partly the reason I gave your map a 6/10. Whether you meant to or not, creating a map that is a remake or a spiritual sucessor to a map isn't original. Unless you honestly have never played sanctuary on halo 2, you cannot claim this map is original. You've, apparently, played a map that plays similarly, thus it's not original. I want to see you create your own originality. I want to play something I haven't before.

Altogether, your map isn't horrible, it's not what I'd call original. It's as polished as I'd expect every map that scores averagely or above to be. Just because you can't get out of your map or because you don't "hop" between two double boxes doesn't make it the "m0st amaz1ng m4p evar!!!"

Oh, and nasty, I hate to sound like an ass, but your whole statement was extremely offensive to me. Not only did you go saying that no one on forgehub knows how to make a good map or review, but you also showed you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You said it yourself, you did a "forgethrough." Have you even played one game on his map? If not, you have no room to talk. These last two reviews were from people who actually took time out of their day to play actual games on this map to help someone improve themself in forging. Each of the raters are very experienced in forging and rating forged maps.


Your "three things to consider" is lacking. YOu don't even mention weapon or spawn placement whatsoever, but you also say that his map has "vertical loops" that are "smoothly transitionable." That was one of my qualms with his map. His top floor was completely out of the way, it served little to no purpose and it just didn't add anything to the gameplay. With that in mind, he also fails in your second point, "give all the parts of the map traffic." It's too inconvenient to even be considered as a good traffic area.

 

Rating them based on what? How well they were forged? Nobody on this site has any credibility when it comes to gameplay appraisal. There are loads of people on this site who are careful, precise, and creative in Forge. I respect that, you all have honed the craft of forging to a tee. But competitive maps are designed to play well in a competitive environment. Looking through the history of featured maps and users, I haven't seen one competitively viable map. There's no basis for authority when it comes to the competitive section.

Whose fault is that? The competitive community's mostly. They haven't bothered (with a few notable exceptions) to become even proficient in forge, and they suffer from a deranged obsession with symmetry such that there have been very few maps that look good, and fewer that play well. So the fact of the matter is that there really aren't any authorities on competitive map design.

For gameplay/balance I would trust some MLG veterans to make an accurate appraisal. For durability and aesthetics, I trust ForgeHub which has produced hundreds of great looking maps and tested the limits of forge.

For instance, I've been around MLG since late 2004, and I can tell you that since Halo 1, there have been maps that include open high ground that's difficult to access and contains no power-ups. And guess what? People still go there. P3 on Midship. BR3 on Lockout. Top Blue on Hang'em High. On top of the bases on BC. Glass window on Prisoner. Ring 3 on Sanctuary. Every one of these places is way high up, and they take some considerable effort to get to. There's not even a weapon reward of any kind spawning there, but the pros pull out the stops to get up there because at a high competitive level, high ground is high advantage.


Concerning my three points, weapon placement is included in power-up placement. Where you put BR's and Carbines is not a huge matter - where you put snipers, rockets, maulers, pp's, OS and camo is. Spawn placement can't be great, just sufficient. Either the spawns are horrible and annoying, or you don't notice them. I don't consider that a major component of map design. If these three points are so lacking, you didn't bring up many places in which they falter.

And yes, I have played games on this map. So your comment that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about really doesn't hold much water anymore.


So to wrap up, let me clarify - I'm not trying to be a **** any more than you are. I'm just trying to make the ForgeHub community aware that they aren't always the end all be all of map ratings. In the competitive section, having some people who are ingrained in the MLG community help with the ratings could be a good thing, because they have a lot of experience in balancing. As far as creativity and forge skills go though, let's leave that to teh Hub.

 

Hey I am the other reviewer who posted here, and I also gave it a 6/10. The main reasons are really spawning and weapon placement. If you look at the scoring list, found here, you will notice we gave it the score it deserved. We all enjoyed the map for the game or two we played on it, but the spawns, and weapon placement hindered this map from being great. I am not going to argue with you but saying people cannot build good maps due to bad weapon placement here at ForgeHub is an exaggeration. You don't need to be MLG to know how to play the game and know how to balance things.

Really these are only our opinions. A 6/10 doesn't mean we didn't like your map, many maps have received 6/10's. Just because your map received this score doesn't mean you have to whine about it. I also have to agree with my reviewing partner Haruki in saying that you really have to play this map to get a feel for it. Just because you did a "Forge Through" doesn't mean you know everything about it.

SuperFeiGn, you were making the point that your map is flawless aesthetically wise. And I agree completely but that is not what we are saying is bad. Just because you made the floor smooth doesn't mean your map is great.

I would like for this whole argument to dissolve and for us not to make a great big scene, it is only Halo.

 

Perhaps he summed it up best in his first response - maybe we all just like two different styles of play?

I'd argue that to judge a maps balance and competitive viability requires a rather intimate knowledge of MLG's style of play - if you're designing it for that playing field. There are plenty of maps that inspire competition but are still relatively casual when compared to MLG maps. I suppose I missed this distinction when I first came here. I guess "casual" maps refers to a map where you really don't care who wins; a map that's made purely for fun. In that case, the designation "competitive" really encompasses all maps that seek to provide fair gameplay on a somewhat standard gametype. Then within that you'd find the MLG level that willingly sacrifices all gimmicks and themes in the name of playability and skill.

What I'm saying, in short, is that there are plenty of people here at ForgeHub qualified to give an accurate judging of a competitive map. But, it would be a huge help if there were some resident MLG vets who could do the balance scoring for maps that were meant for intense, MLG rules tournament level competition. In this case, I have no idea whether Feign was going for the former or the latter. If it was really designed for MLG gameplay like I first assumed, having somebody from the tournament scene review it would help give a better gauge for people who like that level of competition as to whether or not they'd like this map.

Annnyways, bad reviews or not, there's nothing like drama to keep a thread bumped, so he at least owes you in that regard.

 

Okay, this is going to be my last point directed at you, not that I don't view you as 'good or intelligent enough to deserve a response', I just have a feeling that this argument will just go around in circles and completely go off topic. Note: I'm not very "happy" when I post this, expect some mild language.

I'm going to start with a general statement then go into specifics. Just because someone isn't an active poster on the MLG website doesn't mean they don't know about level creation or level balancing. Likewise, just because one posts on the MLG website doesn't mean they do. One final string of logic: Just because someone posts on forgehub doesn't mean they're a good forger, likewise just because forgehub features maps that are horribly balanced doesn't mean the whole community doesn't know about balance.. All of these statements you have based your arguments upon.

I'll break it down to show you why you are wrong. You've been claiming left and right that because you post on MLG means you know all about level balancing, for examples, I give you:

If you didn't, in fact, mean to use that fallicious argument that calls upon experience, not logic, then why even say the bolded statement. Case in point: Just because you've been around the MLG doesn't make you an authority on map creation. Also, about the whole "high ground is high advantage" that is the point I've been arguing. In this level, there isn't much advantage to the high ground. give me more of a reason to go up, enclose the ring, make the base of the bridge leading up there to have two acess points rather than one... that's what I've been saying...

This second part is an extreme stereotypical statement. You go about claiming that just because the featured maps haven't been balanced gameplay-wise that has to mean that we, as raters not even connected in the least with any of those maps except that they've been featured on a site we visit, don't know how to rate maps based on gameplay. Do you realize how stupid you sound with that overstatement or should I continue? That gives you no knowledge as to how well I rate. I've hated every featured map that has existed since I've joined forge hub. That is what I like to call an argument based on a stereotype, not logic.

You probably have your own MLG head so far up your ass you don't even realize why I disagree with this statement. There's a difference between MLG-balanced maps and normal maps that you'd see in a halo 3 hopper. I just need to make sure you understand that before I go on. MLG-balanced maps are balanced for the MLG gametypes. They are designed to test one's accuracy, teamwork, and ability to perform without power weapons. Halo-standard maps aren't. Do you realize that on guardian there are 5 power weapons/powerups (7 if you include the maulers from the original design) in standard versions of the map and only 3 in the MLG map? They have a different balancing system. I, on the other hand, enjoy both MLG and non MLG play, I rate maps, though, based on non-MLG standards unless the creator says it's made for MLG gametypes. Case in point, Just because you think the MLG knows how to balance maps for a gametype they designed means nothing. This is an argument based on authority, not logic.

O
Okay, the reason I bring up those points wasn't for the argument about his (or her?) map. It was about debunking you as an authority just because you claim you know all just because you go to the MLG website. Spawn placement is important as is all weapon placement. Having a random SMG and another equally random plasma rifle (I'm talking about sanctum here) thrown on just so you can say your map has dual-weilded weapons isn't good weapon placement.

Are you seeing a pattern here? I was debating logically this whole time. I never once claimed that because I'm on forgehub means I know what makes a good map. I never claimed that just because you are on the MLG means that you don't know how to balance a non-MLG map. I never once claimed that forgehub knows what a good map is. Hell, even when you claimed you knew the most essential things about map designed, I even brought logic to the mix there...

I've treated your points with logic. I expected the same from you.

 

Seems reasonably good...
I'll bypass all the reviews and give it a Download

 

Alright, as I've said to your buddy earlier, which I still fully intend to uphold, this is going to be my last post directed towards you possibly ever (with any luck). Why? Because not only could this argument keep going around in circles, but also because now you're just being a jackass and whereas I love to be one, two jackasses can't make a logical argument. Well, they can, just not when they keep saying the same things over and over.

I'm going to address the last part of your previous statement primarily because that's the only part that really matters ultimately and I'll fully explain why after my post.

Saying fallicious crap like:

This is what is known on the logical debating scene as a strawman argument. What this means is that you take part of what I said earlier (that if this map played just as well asymmetrically I'd give it a higher rating, if this map weren't a remake I'd give it a higher rating, etc) and you take it out of context to make your own argument look better.
Let me debunk your strawman argument here with my logic behind these statments.
Firstly, asymmetrical maps and symmetrical maps take a different level of skill to create. Creating an asymmetrical map that plays well is much more difficult that making a symmetrical map that plays well. I have yet to see one asymmetrical map that I'd give a 10/10 rating. I have found plenty of symmetrical maps that I'd give a 10/10 rating. Ultimately it's the final product that matters, however, just because I'd rate an asymmetrical map that plays just as well as this map higher doesn't mean I docked points from your rating just because it's symmetrical. Don't think those two logical paths intercect.
Secondly, originality is something I take into high reguards. I take originality higher than I would durability or aesthetics. Now, before you turn this into another strawman argument, let me break it down so you can't get yourself confused. I'll start with a quote because I wanted to address this as well.

Aesthetics are, in my opinion, what makes a map standard. Even if it looks amazingly polished, but doesn't play well doesn't mean ****. Just because there are a crap load of "Xgames ramps" that look horribly polished doesn't mean I consider that standard or average. In my own rating system, just because something looks good doesn't guarantee a higher rating. So, that whole argument "well, my map looks good so it should get a higher rating" fails.

Now, to the whole originality part. Like I said earlier, originality is key. I'd say I give a good 1/3 of my rating based on originality. That and if a map plays well (spawn/weapon placement go here) are a good 7/10 of my rating, the others going to things like aesthetics, durability, etc. I don't give any remakes a 10/10. Why? Because they're remakes. The creator of the map spent none of his own originality, but borrowed bungie's. That is not original. My key argument this whole time has been on originality. If you want an exact breakdown on what I docked points for it is:
-3 for originality
-1 for little things I'd like to see improved.

this whole time, things like the swords underusefulness or the top tower's acess points, which you've blown entirely out of proportion have made for a total of 1 point of this map. I never said your map didn't play well. I made a few slight suggestions as to what would make it play better, but ultimately, your map is a remake and why should I give your map a 10/10 when, guess what, bungie created an extremely similar map that looks and "feels" better?

 

Its called consructive criticism. Why don't you just listen to it and not ***** about the score? You made a good map, its just not the best ever made, its not that hard to accept.

And there certainly are better competitive maps on this site, go find them.