Maps that should be official
- Thread starter Dr. Sasha
- Start date
so if we reflect on our map output (that's what this topic is for, right?)
There's a couple things that come to mind that I would like to point out.
So there is a set of maps that we feel should go official. That's great and all... but I feel like our picks might be widely different from what valve has in mind. if we take a look at the latest valve made maps (cactus, asteroid, doomsday) or the latest community maps (snakewater, process, standin), it seems that there are only 2 categories of maps that make their way into the game these days.
the innovative maps:
the category in which valve has successfully put our community to shame with just a couple maps being more innovative than our entire map output since god knows when.
the undeniably solid maps:
which are one in a million. usually they are the few maps that have been proven in the fires of competitive play.
now it's sad to say, but most of our maps don't even fit in either of those categories. and those that do only barely make it and are hardly convincing.
and hose are my thoughts on our map output at this point. I think most people are answering the question with "what maps do I feel are high quality enough to be official" while really we probably should be thinking "what are the maps that would help valve make the game progress in the direction they want it to"
because trust me, valve doesn't want to just make the game bigger, it may have been the case in the past but tf2 is already plenty big as it is. I feel it's no longer a simple question of quantity/quality content and that is all.
(I know I'm completely disregarding mvm in all this)
There's a couple things that come to mind that I would like to point out.
So there is a set of maps that we feel should go official. That's great and all... but I feel like our picks might be widely different from what valve has in mind. if we take a look at the latest valve made maps (cactus, asteroid, doomsday) or the latest community maps (snakewater, process, standin), it seems that there are only 2 categories of maps that make their way into the game these days.
the innovative maps:
the category in which valve has successfully put our community to shame with just a couple maps being more innovative than our entire map output since god knows when.
the undeniably solid maps:
which are one in a million. usually they are the few maps that have been proven in the fires of competitive play.
now it's sad to say, but most of our maps don't even fit in either of those categories. and those that do only barely make it and are hardly convincing.
and hose are my thoughts on our map output at this point. I think most people are answering the question with "what maps do I feel are high quality enough to be official" while really we probably should be thinking "what are the maps that would help valve make the game progress in the direction they want it to"
because trust me, valve doesn't want to just make the game bigger, it may have been the case in the past but tf2 is already plenty big as it is. I feel it's no longer a simple question of quantity/quality content and that is all.
(I know I'm completely disregarding mvm in all this)
Create a alternative gamemode prototype contest!
Just like the 2skillsets phase 1 part. Except now having the requirement that it must not be a gamemode valve already uses for their maps. And for that allowing for example 4cp or 3cp linear already could be allowed (4cp linear A/D is too close to badwater but even then could still be allowed). However, if it requires a server mod then it must not be allowed since that would give a too big advantage to newer mappers.
This asks for a little inovation on the gamemode while not instantly going over the top.
And fubarFX, no new gamemodes while rd_ is in development? Its actualy a quite innovative thing they are trying to create and would definitely make alow of new map options possible.
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
- Aug 5, 2013
- 185
- 86
To be honest, this was meant to be a compliment thread, but I do like the things you guys are posting.
I believe we should create more custom gamemodes, but the problem with that is that they mostly don't work or just poorly designed (i.e. capture the control point then capture the flag while the enemy is capturing) or something as confusing as that. We should have more original gamemodes. I think we should make more SD maps, for I like the gamemode. But on with the thread:
cp_zinkenite by Rexy
P.S. When posting the name of a map, please list the author's name as if to give recognition.
I believe we should create more custom gamemodes, but the problem with that is that they mostly don't work or just poorly designed (i.e. capture the control point then capture the flag while the enemy is capturing) or something as confusing as that. We should have more original gamemodes. I think we should make more SD maps, for I like the gamemode. But on with the thread:
cp_zinkenite by Rexy
P.S. When posting the name of a map, please list the author's name as if to give recognition.
Hate to say it but:
Announce contest: "It's too restrictive! It's stupid! I don't know what to do!"
(read: MvA)
Going off topic again, but I really need to touch on this point, because I feel your statement has a couple big reasons behind it.
There has been a general idea/feeling that maps need to conform and not be innovative. It seems like there is a much bigger "it should be easy to know what to do" factor than there needs to be. The idea that the average player is stupider or less inclined to put effort into figuring out a map (true or not, whatever). This is probably brought on by all the stock maps having nice obvious HUD helpers telling the player what to do. (and so many stock maps people have no desire to seek out customs)
Which segues me into the next point... we can't. The TF2 game logic entities are so hard and fast that it is extraordinarily difficult to make something that isn't a standard map, and when you do it will often still have a heavy base flavor one of the primary objective modes and you're only giving it spice.
On top of and alongside this goes the HUD restriction, which also links us back to the first point. We can't make our own HUD graphics, so communicating to the player anything outside the norm isn't easy. Hell, we can't even use reliable text messages (game_text is team agnostic, text_tf doesn't show on minimal/custom huds).
Doomsday and Asteroid have bested us? Well yes. We couldn't have made those. Not without an ungodly amount of logic and even then having no way to indicate the state of the game clearly.
I would love to make innovative maps out of the ordinary, but even with my level of expertise it is an almost futile effort if I want it to be streamlined and intuitive.
Then, maybe one of the things we should contact Valve about is opening these types of things up.
I'll put an email out tomorrow, I think voicing these concerns. They're definitely something that's hurting the snowplow development a bit.
I'll put an email out tomorrow, I think voicing these concerns. They're definitely something that's hurting the snowplow development a bit.
even more concerning, I think, is mappers just sticking to what they know already works. you see, the lack of innovation is not limited to the gamemodes and even if it was, just the subtle alteration cactus_canyon does on it's final stage is good enough for me (or what hightower does for plr, or anything really)
of course I'm not blaming you but I can't help but feel that prefabs are partly responsible for this.
now sure our entities are somewhat limited but let me say this, no artform is complete without its fair share of limitations.
Because valve has the luxury of being able to actually do this. Look at the huge pile of actual feedback the valve maps are getting just on the forums.
If someone tries to innovate in this community, they're shot down. I don't blame anyone for giving up.
In counter to that, Scorpio literally said in the thread when process went official, that the reason we don't go official is because we don't conform enough to what works.
These threads never end well. Compliment thread is a good idea, but it turns into a stupid ego thread. People in chat actually went "oh god, another one of THESE threads" when you posted it the other day. It's actually quite remarkable this hasn't turned into a sour ego party.
- Dec 15, 2013
- 531
- 799
Something that bothers me about how people react to custom gamemode is how they complain about it being confusing. For instance, in the casual event that Berry hosted the other day we played ctf_Haarp, an invasion style capture-the-flag map. As soon as I saw the HUD I knew how the game was going to be played even before it started and without any prior knowledge. A lot of people were complaining that it was too difficult to figure out and saying things like "what is going on". Now I understand that not everyone can instantly figure out what is happening on a map all the time, and people do generally need some help, but I can't stand it when people say something simple like that "isn't obvious enough". Its talk like that that discourages people from experimenting with new gametypes. Also, I remember when I first started playing tf2. I had no idea what the hell I was supposed to do on any of the maps for about 4 whole days. But did I eventually figure it out? Yes. Gamemode don't have to be instantly understood, and we should stop being impatient and labelling something as bad simply because we haven't any patience.
But to keep this from going too far off topic, cp_mojave by Hanz.
But to keep this from going too far off topic, cp_mojave by Hanz.
I'm pretty sure people are just stupid when it comes to new gamemodes. I made an arena map with two CPs and someone asked me "Why are there two cps?" Because, like, there are? Why does Gravelpit have three? Can you believe the gall Valve had to put THREE CPs in Gravelpit?
Here's a thought exercise: Imagine that Gravelpit wasn't an original map, and was made as a custom map a few years after the original release of TF2. How would people react to the new "pyramid" CP formation?
We're really good at quickly hating things that are different, and that's kinda disappointing. Of course new ideas take time to grasp, that's why they're called new.
Here's a thought exercise: Imagine that Gravelpit wasn't an original map, and was made as a custom map a few years after the original release of TF2. How would people react to the new "pyramid" CP formation?
We're really good at quickly hating things that are different, and that's kinda disappointing. Of course new ideas take time to grasp, that's why they're called new.
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,258
wareya
L420: High Member
- Jun 17, 2012
- 493
- 191
Sorry, I don't see it. I'm reading his posts in the thread right now, and I don't see him talking about conforming at all. He says that the vast majority of finished maps don't play well according to valve's ephemeral judgment, but he never says that they're not normal enough; rather the opposite, he rails on how TF2maps.net's community has such cliquish and peculiar standards in the first place! Just like how he made a few posts about how it's not a sin to use shuttered doors, it sounds like he's crying out against the excessive "normality" of what comes out of here when the "normality" isn't even "what actually works" in the first place.
So, I think there's a couple problems:
I hear multiple things from people, some say Valve wants to have more innovation, some say valve want maps that are the same, but if you look at a lot of the new (non MvM) maps that have been added, they all have done something new. Now, that correlation doesn't mean causation, but it's something to note. Maybe it was the maps popularity, maybe it really was the map doing something new, maybe it was just that Valve played those maps and haven't played others. They can't play them all, so how can they know what we like or don't like?
Another thing I wanted to touch on: Innovation. There's innovation, then there's innovation done right. Sure, you can create a PL/CP hybrid (I think Grazr did it once), but if you can't properly iterate it you're just going to get a crap map thats confusing. As idolon put it, yea, people are semi-stupid when it comes to new gamemodes. With Snowplow, some people are like "yea, I get this" other people don't get it at all and we have to explain it to them. Developing a new gamemode is like developing a map, you have to properly iterate it, then be prepared to gut and change things as needed, once the gamemode is done, then you probably have to rebuild the map (if you don't you probably have a smelly piling mess of gameplay). It's hard work, harder than I think most of us understand. But if you're smart about and keep an open mind, then you can probably do something neat. Also (and this is something that I don't think a lot of people here understand or are willing to accept) sometimes, you need to start over, from scratch. You need to take what you had, learn from it and just start over. There is NOTHING wrong with that. I've had to do it a lot in the past year, it sucks, but in the end it is 100% worth it.
.... and on-topic: I disagree with Borneo going official. It's a bit too long and feels like the layout is confusing. I'm not a fan of the art too much. That being said, I saw it a few months ago, so maybe somethings changed. Honestly, I don't know what maps currently out I would say "make this official" ... probably none at the moment. So take that as you wish.
tl;dr: Innovate, but do it right. Be ready for a lot of hard work and probably restarting from scratch. Deal with it. I don't like borneo.
I hear multiple things from people, some say Valve wants to have more innovation, some say valve want maps that are the same, but if you look at a lot of the new (non MvM) maps that have been added, they all have done something new. Now, that correlation doesn't mean causation, but it's something to note. Maybe it was the maps popularity, maybe it really was the map doing something new, maybe it was just that Valve played those maps and haven't played others. They can't play them all, so how can they know what we like or don't like?
Another thing I wanted to touch on: Innovation. There's innovation, then there's innovation done right. Sure, you can create a PL/CP hybrid (I think Grazr did it once), but if you can't properly iterate it you're just going to get a crap map thats confusing. As idolon put it, yea, people are semi-stupid when it comes to new gamemodes. With Snowplow, some people are like "yea, I get this" other people don't get it at all and we have to explain it to them. Developing a new gamemode is like developing a map, you have to properly iterate it, then be prepared to gut and change things as needed, once the gamemode is done, then you probably have to rebuild the map (if you don't you probably have a smelly piling mess of gameplay). It's hard work, harder than I think most of us understand. But if you're smart about and keep an open mind, then you can probably do something neat. Also (and this is something that I don't think a lot of people here understand or are willing to accept) sometimes, you need to start over, from scratch. You need to take what you had, learn from it and just start over. There is NOTHING wrong with that. I've had to do it a lot in the past year, it sucks, but in the end it is 100% worth it.
.... and on-topic: I disagree with Borneo going official. It's a bit too long and feels like the layout is confusing. I'm not a fan of the art too much. That being said, I saw it a few months ago, so maybe somethings changed. Honestly, I don't know what maps currently out I would say "make this official" ... probably none at the moment. So take that as you wish.
tl;dr: Innovate, but do it right. Be ready for a lot of hard work and probably restarting from scratch. Deal with it. I don't like borneo.