Competitive casters complaining about map issues

[Trotim]

Sometimes when a competitive match is being casted the commentators like to stress map issues. So for example on barnblitz_pro (which yyler already had to edit because they don't like the original) one would constantly point out "oh Barnblitz last is too hard to take". Or one entire cast of ctf_haunt had a "funny" orange overlay with Halloween gifs just because they didn't like the map.

What's your opinion on that?

 

[thaumiel]

You'd think competitive players would playtest these maps before they made it into a league's rotation and point out any such issues to the mapmakers. i appreciate that map rotations are often out of the average player's control however.

Nonetheless, it can be somewhat annoying when a caster's personal opinions about a map pervade an entire cast. i don't want to hear about how much the map sucks, i want to hear about what these teams are doing on the map. i won't call it unprofessional, since this is tf2—no one is doing it professionally—but it is slightly irritating.

for various reasons i anyway don't watch casts as much, preferring individual POVs with mumble comms

 

[EArkham]

Competitive feedback in general is in a pretty ridiculous state. It's extremely difficult to get it in the first place, and when it is offered, it's often maddeningly vague or nigh useless (eg, "I don't like this map"). There are exceptions, such as ScorpioRising and hooky, who do try to help mappers with solid feedback and getting their maps played, but these exceptions are few and far between.

I loved the idea of making a map for competitive, but I've given up on it. Final straw was some guy who said I could not possibly make a competitive map without playing competitive myself, like I'm too dense to understand feedback or a demo, or the fundamental differences between pub and comp play. I guess maybe, somehow, I would just magically develop this insight after getting owned in an entry level match.

Competitive players seem to be very entrenched in an "Us vs Them" mentality. Maybe it's due to the anti-comp nonsense that happens on SPUF, but whatever the reason, it makes creating maps for them very difficult.

So really, the commentators are only a symptom of the bigger problem IMO.

 

[fubarFX]

take a chill pill guys. commentators are here to be entertaining.
that's just where highlander is at right now. few maps work in hl so they end up with a sub optimal map selection.
they do try new maps in ugc tho which is good. they try harder than their competitive cousin and I salute them for that. risks are taken and missteps are going to happen, that's just how things work.

one could argue that it's the caster's job to introduce better maps but that's a lazy-ass argument.

 

[Dr. Spud]

If say, Starcraft 2 casters spent their time talking about how much each map sucks, nobody would watch their streams.

Incidentally, not many people care about TF2 comp streams.

 

[ForbiddenDonut]

Final straw was some guy who said I could not possibly make a competitive map without playing competitive myself, like I'm too dense to understand feedback or a demo, or the fundamental differences between pub and comp play. I guess maybe, somehow, I would just magically develop this insight after getting owned in an entry level match.

Interestingly, one of the maps being bashed in Trotim's post is ctf_haunt, which is really only an aesthetical overhaul of ctf_vitalism. ScorpioUprising has had his foot in both the comp. and mapping scene for a while.

And then there's cp_obscure by Byte, who was really entrenched in high-level play, but obscure is lambasted as painfully slow.

Arnold and Hanz have broken through to the comp. crowd, but I'm unsure how much comp. experience they themselves have.

de_dust was made by David Johnston when he was 16. All he really did was copy scenes from a bunch of TF2 screenshots and then expanded that into a testable map. For one of the most competitive game communities of our time, the map they hail as 'perfect' was made by someone who made it just because Valve posted cool screenshots.

It's kind of a joke to assume that everyone (including professional developers) that has made a good map for a competitive game has played that game at the highest level. Quite absurd.

 

[fubarFX]

If say, Starcraft 2 casters spent their time talking about how much each map sucks, nobody would watch their streams.

Incidentally, not many people care about TF2 comp streams.

not really, there's an audience for that. if you know lagtv, you know that you can cast a game of starcraft just wandering around the map and never talk about the match itself and get tons of views. it just is what it is, some games are boring. casters have to put up with them it and make entertainement.

 

[Pocket]

de_dust was made by David Johnston when he was 16. All he really did was copy scenes from a bunch of TF2 screenshots and then expanded that into a testable map. For one of the most competitive game communities of our time, the map they hail as 'perfect' was made by someone who made it just because Valve posted cool screenshots.

I did not know that. That's pretty funny. I didn't get a lot of playtime on Dust when I was in the CS:GO beta because everyone liked Dust2 a lot better; I wonder what its backstory is.

 

[GPuzzle]

I did not know that. That's pretty funny. I didn't get a lot of playtime on Dust when I was in the CS:GO beta because everyone liked Dust2 a lot better; I wonder what its backstory is.

I think it's Dust2 - don't they think that Dust2 is perfect, while Dust is not? But I may be terrible wrong.

 

[ForbiddenDonut]

Dust 2 dethroned Dust in CS:S and Condition Zero as 'most played multiplayer map in the world', but Dust has always remained quite popular.

Doesn't really matter, though. David Johnston made Dust 2 as well.

 

[EArkham]

Just now watching the Salamancer cast of pl_barnblitz. Is this the one we're talking about? Cause honestly I don't really find his comments to be all that ranty or horrible.

 

[Zee]

Dust 2 dethroned Dust in CS:S and Condition Zero as 'most played multiplayer map in the world', but Dust has always remained quite popular.

Doesn't really matter, though. David Johnston made Dust 2 as well.

Dust 1 was popular sure, but that's like saying tf2 players hail 2fort as the perfect map because it's the most played. Dust1 kinda fell out of comp play fairly early if i recall.

To the original post, To be fair, that's what they SHOULD be talking about on barnblitz. It's part of the map's gameplay. I really don't see whats so wrong here. That being said, bashing haunt non-stop is really immature, and probably doesn't help comp tf2's case.

 

[ForbiddenDonut]

Dust 1 was popular sure, but that's like saying tf2 players hail 2fort as the perfect map because it's the most played. Dust1 kinda fell out of comp play fairly early if i recall.

Strange comparison. As I noted, Dust1 and Dust2 is made by the same guy. Dust1 fell out because the guy that made it made an improved version of his own map. It's still played in comp. play in CS:GO to this day.

It's one of the most played competitive played maps of all time.

2Fort has never been considered in TF2's competitive play. It's awful right out the gate.

Back to my original point - David made it without any competitive experience and based it just off pictures of TF2. It became a map good enough that it's played consistently in CS tournaments.

That immediately shows that you don't need competitive experience to make a competitive map.

 

[Zee]

Dust2 isn't an improved version of dust1. It's a completely different map.

Dust1 actually has many issues with game play because it was the first (or one of) bomb defusal map(s). That's also part of the reason dust1 was ever played in competitive, it was one of the only maps available. The reason I brought up 2fort is because 2fort is popular in pub play, despite what many believe is horrible design.

When Johnston made Dust2, everyone had a much better understanding on how Counter strike played. Since the mode was actually played and tested.

Anyway, my point is, dust1 was made before there could be any competitive experience, and dust2, the map that surpassed it by leaps and bounds, had the benefit of being made once the game got a little cooking time.

I agree with you. One doesn't need to have a tremendous amount of competitive experience or skill to make a good comp map, but you definitely need to understand how the game works in comp, but that really shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

 

[ForbiddenDonut]

Dust2 isn't an improved version of dust1. It's a completely different map.

Dust1 actually has many issues with game play because it was the first (or one of) bomb defusal map(s). That's also part of the reason dust1 was ever played in competitive, it was one of the only maps available. The reason I brought up 2fort is because 2fort is popular in pub play, despite what many believe is horrible design.

When Johnston made Dust2, everyone had a much better understanding on how Counter strike played. Since the mode was actually played and tested.

Anyway, my point is, dust1 was made before there could be any competitive experience, and dust2, the map that surpassed it by leaps and bounds, had the benefit of being made once the game got a little cooking time.

I agree with you. One doesn't need to have a tremendous amount of competitive experience or skill to make a good comp map, but you definitely need to understand how the game works in comp, but that really shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

When David made Dust 2, he set out to improve on his original concept of Dust. You can follow his thought process on his blog: http://www.johnsto.co.uk/design/making_dust2

He literally opened both the original and the new dust and started transfering what he liked and left what he didn't like. Yes, as games are out longer, the design conception of the game improves. This was one of the essential reasons why he made Dust 2. Yet, it doesn't change the fact he crafted several maps hugely popular in competitive play without playing it himself.

The argument here isn't that you don't need to know how competitive play operates. The dude told EArkham that he needed to be a competitive player to make a map for one. That's the problem.

 

[Trotim]

take a chill pill guys. commentators are here to be entertaining.
that's just where highlander is at right now. few maps work in hl so they end up with a sub optimal map selection.
they do try new maps in ugc tho which is good. they try harder than their competitive cousin and I salute them for that. risks are taken and missteps are going to happen, that's just how things work.

one could argue that it's the caster's job to introduce better maps but that's a lazy-ass argument.

I don't mind them trying new maps, not at all. I agree players have to be forced to play custom maps as otherwise they won't give them a chance. (That this even is the case is part of an underlying problem, true.)

I just don't want to hear anything like this during a cast. You can say some spot is hard to push through. You can say it favors defensive strategies. Whatever. Just don't keep saying "oh it's too hard" or "oh it's just because it's a bad map".

I'll admit I'm mostly posting this because I'm annoyed. The current feedback koth_arctic is getting (including the classic nonsense "it shouldn't be snow because that lowers fps!") doesn't help my mood.

 

[fubarFX]

I've already voiced my opinion on arctic and I don't want to get back into that. but I will say that you only have one shot if you want to get in the comp scene, you can't afford to miss. don't expect constructive feedback ever, you're on your own. the map you build has to be damn near perfect or it will crash and burn. rushed contest maps are especially prone to failing and I have no idea why anyone is surprised. if you expect people to like your map based on its potential, you are so mistaken.

I usually interpret "oh it's too hard" as "the map does not reward taking risks and is forcing me into conservative play without any guaranty of rewards". I might be wrong but I think the feedback is there, you just have to look for it.

as for the cast, there was interesting discussion on the map, despite the mischievousness.

 

[Pocket]

You'd think they'd have come up with a way to just disable the snow particles by now. Or demanded that Valve give them one.

 

[GPuzzle]

You'd think they'd have come up with a way to just disable the snow particles by now. Or demanded that Valve give them one.

They also do that with CS:GO.
"Oh, details don't matter, it kills my fps, visual clutter."
I hate that the mappers put so much to make the map look good, and then people say "Oh, take this off, I think it's worse with it."
I hate it;

 

[Sel]

You'd think they'd have come up with a way to just disable the snow particles by now. Or demanded that Valve give them one.

Disable weather effects...?