Loving cp_science, and cp_wall is pretty good too.
Shmitz you meake really good maps, how long have you been mapping?
Single player: since Doom. Multiplayer: since Quake. Important note: huge gap between Q3 and Orange Box when I didn't make any maps (assuming board games don't count).
------------------------------------
On a completely unrelated note, I'd like to take some time to discuss Purpose in mapping. The following is mostly a result of thoughts swirling around in my head at 1:30 AM and not letting me sleep until I get them out, so I won't be offended if you don't bother reading. =P
Now and again I get a few bits of specific feedback about ctf_wall and cp_science that I have to reject, and I often feel awkward about it because it's difficult to explain why in logical gameplay terms.
For ctf_wall, a lot of people say it needs to be smaller. For the first beta this was definitely true simply because I was as yet unsure of scale and proportion in source engine, and ended up making most of the paths far too wide. But I have still had it suggested to me that it's too big. One factor to consider is that I intentionally gave the map a grand sense of scale, to really give the map's theme some drama. Despite it seeming like a vast environment, when compared to 2fort many key travel times (like intelligence to intelligence) are actually shorter.
However, the bigger factor is Purpose. I started making Wall because I was frustrated with playing 2fort on 32 player servers. That map just isn't big enough for that many players. Wall must, above anything else, support 32 players. Granted, it's possible that even with 32 players it may be too big, but the problem is that it is rare for me to find it on 32 player servers, so usually it's the people on the 24 player servers who suggest it should be smaller.
For cp_science, some suggest that it should be more linear. In this case, the map's purpose is a bit more influenced by personal taste. I hate the gameplay of Granary and Well, where it's just Offensive Line vs. Offensive Line, and whoever has the stronger offensive front wins. The primary goal with Science was to take the 5-chain setup and give it gameplay that allowed for flanking and forced a more active roll in defending your points. Making Science more linear would be turning it into exactly the kind of map that I hate and wanted to provide a counter example for.
I think I could have done better. Science is not perfect, and if I were to recreate it from scratch I think I could make it
feel more linear by rearranging the orientation of the bases and the center to emphasize the S-curve quality of the chain. If I were being paid to make it, I would do this in a heartbeat. But there lies a more subtle Purpose: mapping for the sake of learning and improving. Science is currently a fun map, even if it doesn't please as many people as it could. I would personally gain more by finishing it's current form and moving on to the next project.
As mappers, we know why we're making a map, and it can be as simple as seeing a cool building and wanting to shoot your friends in it, or as complicated as experimenting with a new twist or combination of gameplay modes. We know what our goals are for
making the map. What happens when there ends up being a significant difference between that and someone's goals in
playing the map?
Personal taste aside, Granary and Well aren't terrible maps. But my reasons for playing TF2 do not mesh well with the (apparent) gameplay goals of those maps. I guess what I'm looking for is an easy way of saying that someone's feedback is perfectly valid, that their request would not necessarily lead to worse gameplay, but the heart of the map would suffer if their suggestions were implemented, all without sounding like a pompous ass.
I feel like there are probably gaps in what I've written above, but I think I'm about all out of coherence for the evening. Sorry again for the long-winded brain dump. Hope I didn't waste too much of your time. =P
).
