Poll: More or less official maps?
More
Less
[Show Results]
 
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
More official maps, or less official maps?
#1
If you want some of the current official maps to be removed, vote for less official maps.

If you want more official maps to be added, vote for more official maps.

Simple enough, any unnecessary comments in this thread will be deleted.
Reply
#2
It's not really a question of less or more for me personally. More of a question of official maps that are playable both in matches as well as pubs. Saying that, I really dont play pubs seriously, but if you have balanced maps for matches, chances are they will work well with pubs. More maps would be great, the quality just needs to be great as well so i'll vote yes.
Reply
#3
(14 Sep 12, 07:07PM)Waffles Wrote:  It's not really a question of less or more for me personally. More of a question of official maps that are playable both in matches as well as pubs. Saying that, I really dont play pubs seriously, but if you have balanced maps for matches, chances are they will work well with pubs. More maps would be great, the quality just needs to be great as well so i'll vote yes.

Hello.

In my opinion its not a matter of the amount, but the quality. So in this instance, get rid of a handful, and add a handful more in.
Reply
#4
@ alien,
map requisites help the quality of the maps produced. I think it was Igor Stravinksy said that it is much easier to work within confines than start from nothing.

By quality of maps I'm thinking in terms of the overall quality. A map can look great but be awful to play like ac_sylang. It's one thing to cater to pubs, it's another completely to add maps that only work as pub games. If you want to add maps, heed what undead has to say. You all may think he's a cunt, but in terms of balancing maps (his re-work of iceroad has a lot of insight put into it) he's quite good. If we bolster both the number and quality of maps in the official package, that would be a step in the right direction.
Reply
#5
The thing with adding more beautiful official maps is that they will always be overshadowed by douze, depot, des3, des (in dm/tosok) and that one random map that defies laws of physics like @camper
Reply
#6
Sure in pubs maybe, what I'm talking about is supporting a vibrant competitive scene which paired with the massive downloads that AC has, may actually encourage new players to stick around. Basically, the idea of "let's make the game good for pubs!" is all well and good, but it does encourage, albeit indirectly, the overuse and exploitation of the games glitches. i.e. i'mbadatthisgame@camper.

Who knows what actually draws the players in, but one thing is certain, they are not sticking around.
Reply
#7
Remove the unfun ones and add some nice new ones. It's not about the number really, just the quality.

I'd remove ac_snow (very biased, rather ugly), ac_rattrap (very biased), ac_aqueous (very biased), ac_toxic (biased but decent for 1v1, rarely played), ac_keller (boring, rarely played).
I'd remove the flag poles from ac_arid (very biased but good for 1v1s).

For each of these maps there's a better map not currently included.
Reply
#8
I voted for less, because my current laptop hates rattrap/industrial/etc.. Spawn ---> sluggish, choppy, etc. But if the side switcher gets done, my vote is more. That takes care of the competitive side, while leaving freedom to add maps that are fun and sexy. Clan matches are tough to find these days, but the pubs are loaded with players, thats where the majority of AC players are.

Current pubs have these small maps, and throw 20 players into them. It's chaos. So I personally would like new larger maps(like ac_avenue) that can handle the pubs(and server limits going to 10), and have a nice variety of appearances. Keller's brown, Aqueous's green, etc. They make the map look & feel different. Instead of maps with similar layouts & appearances.
Reply
#9
More is better! Don't remove anything.
Reply
#10
I vote for me, and I'll tell you why. There isn't anything wrong with the maps we have now nor the ones being added in the svn. There is a certain amount of talk about biased maps, but really, none are that biased if you practice them enough. Also certain maps play better on the pubs then in matches, and you shouldn't discredit a map for being good in one but not the other. If its not good in one, don't play it there (i.e a map good for pubs, don't play it in a match). Its just that simple. I think having more maps gives the players more choices and keeps things progressing and from being overplayed and boring. For example, look at sauerbraten, they have loads of maps that come with the packaging. Why? Because they are quality maps and having more maps is good for the players. I personally get tired of the same maps over and over, so adding new ones would be great. As a player you have an option, don't like a map, don't play it, easy enough. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean others don't as well. A quality map deserves to be noticed and deserves to keep its official packaging if it has made it there. Thats my 2 cents worth, take it or leave it.
Reply
#11
More maps. Were you just bored?

I don't see an option for Halo to vote for himself. More power to him though. I also vote for Halo...
Reply
#12
oops, I meant more, sorry! lol
Meant to say "I vote for more"
Reply
#13
(14 Sep 12, 09:19PM)Pi_Halo Wrote:  I vote for me, and I'll tell you why. There isn't anything wrong with the maps we have now nor the ones being added in the svn. There is a certain amount of talk about biased maps, but really, none are that biased if you practice them enough.

This absolutely false. Take outpost as RVSF: we can win it against absolutely any team as RVSF. Our opponents have played it practically as much as us but simply can't beat us. If we have CLA it's quite the opposite -- we mostly lose.

(14 Sep 12, 09:19PM)Pi_Halo Wrote:  Also certain maps play better on the pubs then in matches, and you shouldn't discredit a map for being good in one but not the other.

The maps I suggested are all either no fun (on pubs or cms) or aren't played much anyway. There's no point in maps for the sake of variety if their gameplay (which is what this is ultimately about) is bad.

Your arguments seem to boil down to adding maps is only a plus but it's not true. Official maps get much more play time, can be played in clan matches and also the counter argument that it's very easy for server owners to provide any excluded maps on their servers anyway.

If we're going to have lots of default maps, let's separate them into official and extra maps where only official maps may be played in match mode. This is if you like a compromise, but the fact is the maps that are bad for competitive play are for the most part not fun in pubs either.
Reply
#14
I of course want to see more official maps, a large variety to choose from is never a bad thing. Of course official maps are held to a pretty high standard, they must look good and play well on the pubs or in matches, the community doesn't really need to worry about being flooded with sub-par officials.

Also, clans need to start agreeing on what maps will be played during the match (and other rules) before they start playing. Nobody can force you to play a map that you don't want to play. You have the option of saying 'no, I will not play that map please choose another' - why people feel obligated to play whatever map a clan may pick first is beyond me.

There are some official maps that only play well on the pubs. Edifice is pretty good example. It doesn't have a very competitive friendly layout. It was designed for large games on the public servers. I don't recommend that any clan use it to match on. Should these maps be taken out of the official package just because they don't play well in the competitive scene? I don't think so, especially not if we implement the clan match mastermode idea.
Reply
#15
Edifice & Avenue are in my clan match map bag once the new release is here, despite being more pub-oriented. :3
Reply
#16
I'm not aware of the details of edifice, but if it's like you say (good for pubs, but bad for cms) I wouldn't suggest removing it either. It's really a very good compromise to implement map restrictions for match mode since clans bickering over what should be played is unavoidable otherwise.

I also still think the maps I suggested above are best removed. They're just not really fun, or not played or both.
Reply
#17
More.
Reply
#18
I WANT AC_LANIO TO BE OFFICIAL!!!!!!!!!!! same with ac_discovery
Reply
#19
Moar plz
fewer camper maps though
Reply
#20
Sure people can say "no i won't play that" but that is inherently bad for competition. Suppose we pick a map and it gets played, then the other team chooses but gets denied their pick. That hardly seems fair. Obviously it's a game and not that serious except in tournaments where there are set rules for such things. However, if the goal is to produce a solid product that will aid the player's experience and not hinder it, then it seems to reason that official maps should be playable regardless of CM, pub, or mode. Certain maps are great 1v1, others are fun for HTF, CTF, etc. Maybe if you had an official package where there were "suggestions" of gamemode that may help, but also may make menus bulky. Ultimately, if a map is going to be official, it should be well thought out (as many are) but also scrutinized for how playable it is within the confines of the game. The problem we run into with that seems to be how balanced the map is for both sides (and biases do occur despite what halo may think, no offense intended) as well as what mode it is picked in. Very simply, some maps are perfection for one set thing and absolutely horrible for other modes. It may be there are simply too many modes to custom fit a map to all of them. Or it may be that certain maps should not be playable in certain modes (at least match mode as a compromise). I have never played another game with so much variety in modes which is a great feature of AC, but when it comes to actually refining what it is to be a good player or refining what is a good map, often this variety does more harm than good.
Reply
#21
[Image: xzibit_yo_dawg_render_by_kernelpanicx-d5aa710.png]
(Clicky me)

Very interested in the outcome of this thing. Happy clicking! :) Oh, also, I voted 'more'.
Reply
#22
Yes please. Sauer has a shit ton of nice "official maps" (i.e. the generic set of maps available when you vote a map/mode) and I think AC should follow that example.
That said, all of these are relatively high quality maps, so as Optic mentioned, quality is still very important.
Reply
#23
My only answer:
Reply
#24
(14 Sep 12, 07:13PM)Mr.OpTic Wrote:  Hello.

In my opinion its not a matter of the amount, but the quality. So in this instance, get rid of a handful, and add a handful more in.


+1

Take some current maps out and add some new ones
Reply
#25
Any map is biased unless it's symmetrical in every way. When i see a game's community discussing the bias of certain maps to a side (rvsf or cla) I see a community discussing how to make the game fair to all players. It won't happen. There will always be advantages, even if it comes down to fps, monitor refresh rate, mouse responsiveness, etc. Truly symmetrical maps would be boring because it exposes the formula needed to win.

We need more maps like Shine, Sunset and Ingress. These maps have similar layouts but offer variety in the perks they give each side. Making "them balanced enough." So im with Optic, some need to be removed, others can be added.
Reply
#26
Arguments that go to extreme of "the game can never be completely fair" and go on to conclude that we therefore shouldn't even try to be more fair are missing the point.

I also think if the poll had asked a better question we'd see very different results. Many people want new maps so voted "more" but seem to agree that there many maps not worth keeping.

My argument to anyone who truly thinks keeping all the maps currently in AC is a good idea is: consider maps like ac_snow -- which I believe to be possibly least fun (and also fairly biased) map in AC. There are many many better maps we could replace it with.
Reply
#27
In my opinion ac_wasteland should be added as a 1vs1 map.
Reply
#28
maps to be added:
venganza
italy
dust2
wasteland
ore
cavern
terros
greenpeace
new iceroad.

get rid of:
snow
aqueous
rattrap
keller
toxic
old iceroad

I know your going to say, blah blah blah but quality>quantity. Toxic, Keller are great maps but no-one plays them, it's a waste of space in the game, which maps like terros can take it's place.
Reply
#29
(14 Sep 12, 09:58PM)Bukz Wrote:  Also, clans need to start agreeing on what maps will be played during the match (and other rules) before they start playing.
you can't just leave it to the community to decide what maps are playable in matches. the devs should decide it, if you can't you're not very capable, and if its in the package and it isn't playable in matches its not on official quality.

(14 Sep 12, 09:58PM)Bukz Wrote:  Edifice is pretty good example. It doesn't have a very competitive friendly layout. It was designed for large games on the public servers.
on the contrary. if the bases were designed properly, the map was balanced(there isn't much to balance really, the map could play ok in matches, whether that was your intention or not.), various little things were fixed and it had greater detail it'd be a great map. but in its current stage its sub-par.

(14 Sep 12, 09:58PM)Bukz Wrote:  Should these maps be taken out of the official package just because they don't play well in the competitive scene?
yes, or at least fixed up. at least it would encourage people to design proper layouts when they make maps instead of making them without any thought behind it.

(14 Sep 12, 09:19PM)Pi_Halo Wrote:  There is a certain amount of talk about biased maps, but really, none are that biased if you practice them enough.

stopped reading there and won't bother arguing because you're jaded from how AC's flow works.

(15 Sep 12, 10:46AM)Elite Wrote:  In my opinion ac_wasteland should be added as a 1vs1 map.

agreed
Reply
#30
+ac_cavern
-ac_rattrap
Reply