Discussion in 'Contest #5: Payload map' started by YM, Sep 18, 2008.
I'd say it would be allowed. pl_frontier is way crazier.
Is this contest still open? I'm thinking of adding in my canyon map - if I can figure out why it's crashing - it's 90% done - just have to optimise it with hint brushes now
you can enter this competition at any point.. it's running untill New Years. So as long as you hand in your submission by the end of 2008 that's all that really matters. (As long as it's a single stage non-gimmick payload map of course).
Ok cool how do you add in those poster thingy's to hammer?
I'm liking the contest so far - it's spawned many new WIP's to follow with a keen eye
One thing I don't like however are the restricting rules. I'd like to know the reasons behind limiting the map to one round and also why we're not allowed to use gimmicks. Both decisions stifle creativity somewhat and given the likes of pl_frontiers cart, creates a bit of a blur as to what classes as a gimmick and what doesn't.
If a designer has the time to create two or three rounds, why not let them? If they're able to pull of a functional, enjoyable gimmick, why not let them?
In the end, we'll have a bunch of one round payload maps that area all the same, but with different layouts.
I personally would like to see a bunch of different setups, round based, gimmick based - it's a good motivation to have people explore ideas and really step up the PL creativity. These are also levels that wont just 'end here' when the contest is done, I imagine designers would like to go on and continue their work.
Time should not be a reason for preventing either of these, if someone is able to pull off a functional and enjoyable, three round level with gimmicks - why not let them?
A three round level, or a level with a gimmick, isn't necessarily better than a one round, no gimmick level. It all comes down to how it's pulled off and personal (and community) preference.
The reasoning behind limiting the contest to a set of specifics is for ease of comparing- it's a rubric. A set of definitions, something to base any kind of rating on. If they have the time to create three rounds, good for them. The contest is for a single stage PL map. You wouldn't allow, say, an attack-defend map in a linear CP contest under the exception "the author had time". Likewise, a multi-round PL map doesn't belong in a single-stage PL map contest. They're different game types.
The community here encourages the creation of quality maps. People here rage over jump maps, orange_x, and other gimmicks. Some people find the concept of having two cows humping as a cart to be entertaining. Most of those people are at FPSBanana, not TF2Maps.net. The contest reflects the community's want for quality single stage PL maps. It is supposed to get the talented mapmakers here to create something competitively in the hope that what will result is plenty of good custom PL maps, not a flood of gimmicky abuses of the SDK.
You say it is good motivation to have people explore ideas and step up the PL creativity- that's what the contest is for. But, we want people to explore one game type and to do it professionally. Time isn't preventing anything. Map ideas are not a dry well, even if it is under a specific set of constraints. Layouts, gameplay, visuals, it is all infinite. This is an opportunity to do something creative and get rewarded for it.
So it is preference as you say. Your preference is you apparently want to make a three stage gimmicky map and be able to enter it into a single stage quality map contest. The community preference is what made this contest. The community decided on certain restrictions and quality-control standards. You can accept them and enter the contest, or do your own map and not.
If you can pull off a functional, enjoyable gimmick, it probably doesn't qualify as a gimmick anymore... conscious design choices eliminate the gimmickry. I'm biased here as I'm using the train, but I didn't choose a train because I felt like having one, I chose it to address some problems inherent with PL maps, and frankly I feel like I solved them... I can see the contest being open to "gimmicks" if they're incorporated in a way that rewards players rather than punishes them... in short it's arguable on a case-to-case basis
If someone really objected to frontier's train, I'd either compile a regular pl version for the contest or simply withdraw.
Well I certainly didn't intend my post to come off as hostile - but that's the response you seem to have given me Nineaxis. Perhaps it's tied to the other post about your rotating bomb infringement, perhaps not. But I fail to see where to hostility came from in my original post - I'm sorry you found it somehow. Apologies in advance if anyone else finds it.
Thanks for your post none the less. Weaving through your attitude highlighted some things I hadn't thought of, such as orange maps and jump maps - and for that reason, I can understand why these levels wouldn't be accepted. Likewise with the cow cart and the high regard TF2Maps holds itself compared to other networks.
You're correct in my preference of wanting to make a three round level with a gimmick thrown in. It's an idea I've entertained for a while now and in the end, I wont enter the contest with it. The gimmick is no more of a gimmick than a modified cart. It's small and players only experience it once throughout the round - and playtest feedback has been nothing but positive for it so far. But the problem is, it isn't a modified cart (which is allowed in the rules).
I really feel small modifications to the gameplay should be accepted (such as path alterations). So long as the quality of the overall level is upheld. I understand the need for guidelines in order to make judging easier - but I can't see round based gameplay or small modifications complicating the process, all I can see is it adding more variety to the end results.
I agree and at no point am I dogging the competition. Like I mentioned right at the start, I'm liking the contest. But why not let players really explore the one gametype (gametype being the keyword here), further rewarding them for their creativity?
Anyway, that is all I have to say on the matter. I don't expect it to change. I just wanted to know the reasoning behind it, as I feel limiting those two factors limits the overall creativity given to the designers. And hurts them more, in the end - than it would the judging process.
If you restrict people to only doing a few things then they have to really think outside the box to make theirs interesting and innovative whilst still staying in the bounds of the restrictions.
The basic answer to your question is: Just because.
We've set up a competition to explore the single stage payload concept, want to do a multi stage map? Then don't enter. Its as simple as that really. We also want to see what people can do without straying into any bad gameplay mechanics which are very often assosiated with gimmicks, since its a gimmick players don't know what to do or they're not used to or its too complicated for them to do in a game and enjoy or it breaks the flow of the game.... blah blah blah.... gimmicks make maps crap, if you've thought about the gameplay mechanic enough to implement it well so that it A) doesn't break the flow of the game, B) is instantly understandable (and do-able) by the averafe player and C) is actually fun to do then it really ceases to be a gimmick.
You say if a designer wants to make multi staged maps or include gimmicks, why not let them. Well my statement back is this: We are letting you. you can put whatever the hell you want into your map, its really up to you what you do in your map. All we want is to spark a bit of creativity in people, if we say "just make a good map to win prizes" there will be far less enthusiasm about it because people already have the scope of making any type of map, if we limit it people start to think how they can do that particular type of map, making them more likely to actually make a map.
Well, we are letting you explore the gametype, the gametype is "single stage payload" since "multi stage payload" is actually quite different the two can be set appart. and excluding gimmicks (as well as for the reasons above) is a way of keeping you on the gametype, using a huge platform for a cart isn't the gametype we want, using two carts isn't the gametype we want, using one cart push/pull style isn't the gametype we want.
You're still free to make those types of maps but just don't enter them in the competition.
I've kinda justified the choices we've made a few times over but if you only take one thing away from this post let it be this: If making your map conform to the regulations in this map compromises it in a way you deem to be too strong, please, don't enter it
Would it be too gimicky, Youme, if I made a long single stage with one cap point and the cart didn't retract back?
It sure hate tc_meridan! It's such a LAME gimmick map! Same goes for cp_freight and cp_steel!
If by not retracting back you mean the cart doesn't move backwards after the usual 30 seconds, no, that isn't too gimmicky. I've stated in the rules you can have as many/few cap points as you want and the omission of the cart rolling backwards is a small omission.
It will cause some confusion to unsuspecting players which may cause your map to lose popularity. Which of course may lose you some votes, but then again the fact it never rolls backwards might just dissapear into how incredibly awesome and fun to your map is.
Like I said before, if you can pull it off in a way that is fun to play, well balanced, simple to understand (even for thickies) and it doesn't stick out as something that valve wouldn't touch with a barge pole then its fair game.
And since I'm just restating what mangy quoted from before with a yes/no stuck on the front, thanks mangy.
I fail to see any gimmick in tc_meridian, the fact that its a round based CTF map isn't a gimmick at all, its about as much a gimmick as cp_dustbowl is because its multi-stage. And cp_steel also has very little in the way of gimmicks, it has a well balanced and fun to play system, its also incredibly simple, anyone who says otherwise needs their head examining, I'll admit it is easy to get lost though but thats because players are unwilling to explore and quick to complain.
I've not played freight though, can't comment on that.
I like meridian too, but you have too agree that theres a whole load of "gimmicky" things about the map, ctf-style tc, jungle enviroment. I'm trying to say that you guys may be a little strict.
Youme I'd loosen up the rules too. 99% of the gimmick maps will fail, because it IS a gimmick map, and you jury's won't vote for it at the end, so it should be the mapper his choice.
And it adds the 1% chance that something brilliant will be created too, you never know .
Good maps aren't gimmicks. I think the rules are fine as they stand. Meridian would fit in a no-gimmick TC map contest under the game general concept as this. It is well done and works. Yeah, it's a jungle, but it is a TF2 styled jungle, not HL2 textures or something made in paint.
The rules are not that restrictive right now. They say make a quality map of the single-stage PL gametype by January 1st, 2009.
I want to put one gimmicky item in my map. There is a section, right towards the end, where you go around a wall for vis reasons (think right after the first cap in the 2nd round of goldrush). Now, I think the map could be made better by allowing the train to down either the left of the right path, therefore throwing the D off a little by them not know which direction the cart will come from. ultimately it ends up rejoining, but it makes it more difficult on demos, pryos, snipers, and engies to just camp one spot. To make this less of a gimmick, I'd set it up so that the path is choosen on round start, and then remains that way for the rest of the round, rather than a player controlled event. If it is deemed to be too much of a violation of the rules, or it doesn't play well, then its quite easy to disable. And if it works well but isn't allowed and I don't make the contest due to personal time restrictions, it stays in.
What's gimmick anyway?
Not doing the same thing Valve does? That's not innovative
That doesn't mean you can't make the best TF2 map ever when you're not trying to do something new.
Look, a good example is cp_steel. In my terms it's a gimmick map, but performed so well and so beautiful, to me it's one of the 1% gimmick maps that are REALLY worth playing.
So yes, in my opinion people should have carte blanche for this contest.
Thanks for your reply Youme
Don't get me wrong, this was never a complaint about not being able to enter my level. It was a general enquiry as to why this restriction was put in place.
We all have different opinions of whats too gimmicky, whats not easily understandable and what is and isn't fun. If you simply accept them all, then yeah, there may be some shit ones, but to quote Snipergen:
Basically, the line isn't clear unless the gimmick is proposed ahead of time for early approval (which defeats the judging process at the end). Just let people go with their flow and let them discover if people like the idea or not.
This point below is a clear 'no' for any kind of gimmick - but previous posts for requested features/gimmicks in the level are making it somewhat blurry. It should really be enforced, or changed to allow them all - because people are trying to think outside the box but are having to ask if its ok.
I think people are trying to think outside of the wrong box really.
Its no gimmicks because we don't want any changes on the payload gametype, none at all, just a standard payload map (there are however things that can be changed within the payload gametype like cart model, speed, number of cps..etc) And also no gimmicks because we want the innovation to come in layout and detailings - thats where you need to think outside the box for this one. Another desert industrial? or an alpine map? lots of height advantages or large playing fields? A natural rocky environment or a built up industrial complex? That sort of thing is the creativity we want to give with this contest.
Separate names with a comma.