DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
@The_Welsh_Wizard you misunderstood. I have played many a greyscale map and am in fact a big supported of new maps.
Im just saying there is a difference between balanced and 'not even remotely in a alpha stage ready to play.
Do we have automatic replay recording for pubs, so the mappers can just watch and fix?
Btw, dota2 map details are changed all the time now.
The demo recording mode is client side only and has to be started before joining a server, also lacking proper playback function... And I'm not sure it even works anymore...
Mapping is no easy feat. The community however dismisses most maps, is because A, they are poorly balanced. B, they suck.
The problem comes down to, a lack of a good feedback place.
Ultimately a game like NS2 needs maps that are either created by people who understand the tactics and gameplay in serious depth from all aspects of the game, finding a person with perfect knowledge of every aspect of this game doesn't exist.
Meaning you need a good place to get feedback from a selection of people that understand the game at that level. Of all the places that exist to provide that none of them are exactly brimming with a high skill selection of players.
The feedback most people provide to mappers anywhere, regardless of game is "oh this looks nice", "there's a hole here", "this tiny insignificant detail is upside down".
Finding the people to say "The design of room X means that a skulk can constantly harass without any repercussion" is few and far between. Because of that the majority of levels that have arisen outside of UWE (and even a few from within) just don't stack up to the scrutiny of average players, let alone good ones.
Although saying that when people have tried to provide that level of feedback, the people making the map dismiss it because only very few people even bring those points up. Once the map releases and no one is playing it it's too late to really fix anything, see Eclipse, Kodiak, Derelict.
Bad, useless or no feedback from the start means that maps just don't get the attention they require in greyboxing stages and then designers don't want to spend the time reworking detailed sections of a map because they've focused on bits that look good instead of bits that play well, because to most people who don't have a clue about providing good feedback that's all that matters, unfortunately gameplay that sucks is what stops people playing those maps actively.
So even though places exist for people to play custom maps, the feedback isn't the necessary information because people focus on the wrong things, don't have the solid understanding of gameplay to make drastic changes or when they do the designers dismiss them because they started detailing before getting great gameplay.
UWE managed to get some great level designers to create a lot of the "core" NS2 maps and the remake of Veil. Who still make some seriously good maps for other games now. They also managed to make some levels that do just suck though. rip rockdown.
It's MUCH easier to make maps in reflex, simply due to the engine.
because this was hidden in the OP, i'd like to point out exactly how much easier mapping is in Reflex compared to [enter any engine here] for those unaware. yeah it'd be nice if more maps were being made for ns2 quicker, but comparing it to reflex... eh. anybody can pick up reflex and have a full map up and running for playtesting within days.
tldr you launch a local server (on any map, whether you developed it or not), press the map editor hotkey, then you change the map. move spawns, change geometry, delete, ect, save. you can do this during a live game (if the server allows for it) which makes balancing incredibly easy when you can just get two people to duel as you spectate and implement their suggestions in real time.
LokiJoin Date: 2012-07-07Member: 153973Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
basically what @howser said except that I am still trying out random ideas and still vaguely interested in mapping for ns2 but I have to say my once zelot like commitment for mapping has faded.
Both of my two previous maps were intentionally designed to be different. Creating a map that looks brilliant takes hours 1000`s of hours for example
Kodiak
Took me the best part of 14 months (some weeks I did nothing other weeks I must have put in 30+hours and random hours in between). This map was tested by the SCC, twice weekly games during its creation until it was picked up by UWE then It was played 4 times a week by the play test groups and that of the scc games. During this time no "official" maptesting or comp scene / players played games on it, UWE PT games mainly focused on bugs and some los issues / frame rate stuff etc. I asked and asked for comp people to play it and give feedback in its early days but no one was interested.
So It did not get played by any comp people partly due to its greybox nature (swalks rule was it needed texturing for any games to occur on it) until release. Initially several comp players had offered some feedback (after release) to which I did alter the map to incorporate this however it was to no avail people had made up there minds. While clearly people do not like the fact lerks can spike through trees (marines can shoot also you know) IT became a doomed projected to try to make it work for comp. The pub scene at the time enjoyed the map and I still have the occasional game on it now when I play
Ironically kodiak when released pretty much had a 49.6 to 50.4 win loss /ratio for marines / aliens which was much better than the popular maps and jambi (using uwe`s sponitor data).
Derelict
took me the best part of 8 months, was a lot lot faster due to now knowing sparks editor and a better grasp of the game. However unlike kodiak the map was mainly tested internally by the then reformed fledgling map testing team, resulting in at best 1 game a week (sometimes two). It did not have any pub / scc play time on it. As such I felt the map suffered greatly for this, as was evident by the lack of vents on the map. People had settled in to a set strat during MT and without the random pub games on it I did not realise the map needed as many additional vents. Some are now in mainly from the feedback I have got from pulling teeth and nails from people. The map may still need more work, but no one is giving any feedback even post "new vents" so ive given up asking for feedback as people dont want to give it
@Cr4zyb4st4rd No feedback is ever dismissed out of hand everything said to me is given thought especially for those maps mentioned, even if one person says somthing I look in to it, hell ask ironhorse or zavaro if they bring something up I ask them to explain why / how etc about the proposed change.
The main reason mappers wont redesign a finished room is time, there is no point, we aint getting anything out of it. Room desgins should be done during greybox testing, rooms / levels only get detailed when (personal veiw here) I am happy / confident that room in greybox form plays well and wont need any significant alteration in the future / layout wont change etc etc
Why dont people leave feedback for ayumi ? anyone in here even played it?
Some of you are making quite an assumption by saying that veterans boycott less-played maps just because they are not familiar with them, instead of, say, those maps having flaws. You are blaming them for not giving new maps a chance while you, yourselves, are not giving weight to the possibility that those maps are just bad. I'm not here to say which way the truth is, but you are just standing at the opposite extreme of the debate, taking for granted that everything new must be good.
Yes I'm making that assumption based on the fact that when new maps get released they are written off by the community as bad, unbalanced, or just plain broken within ONE HOUR OF RELEASE!!! When Derelict came out I was so excited to play a new map, that first day I was able to play it ONCE because the community kept saying it was bad. Some people even said they only played half a game on it and thought it was a poorly balanced map... To this day I think I've only been able to play on Derelict a total of maybe 15 times, and most of those have been small games with under 5 players on each team because everyone leaves when it comes up. Tram comes up more in a three hour gaming session than Derelict will in 3 weeks.
Same with Eclipse.. it got released and the VERY FIRST GAME I played after the patch went live people were voting to change the map because it was "unbalanced" It's IMPOSSIBLE to know whether a map is "balanced" or not with only ONE game played on it. Veterans just instantly write them off because they don't know the sight lines/ambush points.
Also I haven't seen anyone say a new map is good simply because it is new. That is a ridiculous notion. I think most of us would just like the chance to actually TRY some of the new maps before they're disregarded as trash by the veterans in the community.
Edit: It also gets really really really REALLY old playing the same maps over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... Even if they have some "flaws" they're still worth playing... especially since the more they're played the higher the chance of said "flaws" being fixed.
Ironically kodiak when released pretty much had a 49.6 to 50.4 win loss /ratio for marines / aliens which was much better than the popular maps and jambi
Ultimately the results of that are public games, which have little to no tactical play, regardless of the players, although the majority are casual. So it's not much to go by.
The main reason mappers wont redesign a finished room is time, there is no point, we aint getting anything out of it.
And this is why your maps don't get played. Tram, Veil, Summit, etcetc have all had large sections redesigned to improve them.
The same applies for many other maps, custom and official in many games. You get satisfaction out of improving it and having people play it. If you believe that your first attempt is going to work every time then that's just arrogance.
Same with Eclipse.. it got released and the VERY FIRST GAME I played after the patch went live people were voting to change the map because it was "unbalanced" It's IMPOSSIBLE to know whether a map is "balanced" or not with only ONE game played on it. Veterans just instantly write them off because they don't know the sight lines/ambush points.
Ultimately if you play at the highest level you're much more likely to notice the flaws in maps faster. Learning ambush spots is part of the game, no one is going to write a good map off, the problem is we just didn't get any.
Eclipse was trash, it was cluttered everywhere, and a crappy corridor shooter, which doesn't work for ns2. They tried to improve it removing a lot of clutter, it didn't help, the map sucks and almost everyone knows it, choke point corridors are a mess.
Similar for derelict, you play any map in ns2 and you as an alien use vents everywhere all the time and it released with practically zero, yet another corridor shooter where marines steam roll through because the map doesn't understand the game it's built for, judging from lokis reply that's down to the fact the map testing team is filled with casual players.
ZavaroTucson, ArizonaJoin Date: 2005-02-14Member: 41174Members, Super Administrators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Playtester, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited April 2016
On mapping limits:
I agree with @Howser that those limitations are hugely problematic for balance. The cysting (which includes pathing) and wall jumping in particular play a huge role in how to design rooms and hallways and everything else. Power nodes are much less limiting, but regardless, they exist to limit players and in turn limit us mappers. The other issue is that if you make sweeping balance changes, people freak out. They always do.
In addition, I have a feeling that those with the power to change these things are not willing to make those changes because of the time and effort involved testing and balancing around that. Plus, think of the crap storm it would cause?
Many competitive players who know how the game generally flows give input. With maps for pubs, many may give feedback on how to balance maps but don't necessarily know how the game flows. This can lead to badly balanced maps and very few individuals want to play those.
First off, I wouldn't discount what a pub player had to say concerning a new map. I think taking what nearly everyone had to say about a map with a grain of salt is the best method, especially given that everyone in this community loves hyperbole (myself included). Most people, comp players included, have a terrible ability to judge a map's quality and playability.
Much of what goes into making a map is continuing to make your map regardless of what people (comp or pub or otherwise) say. While @malx was creating Nexus the feedback we were getting from players was terrible, most of them suggesting that a two lane center was impossible to balance. Most people hated the map, immediately calling it either "impossibly marine sided" or "impossibly alien sided." These types of comments still exist today, but are less common as now the map has found it's "balance" in the community discussion.
Quite frankly, the map never changed much from the initial push (which had a near finished layout) on the comp community, so the comment that it is more "balanced" now is probably pretty off base. People just eventually warmed up to it, which again, happened with Veil and Descent.
Frankly, players that play in large servers with varying levels of game sense will likely have a better time on maps like Refinery, then things like Veil. You're not going to have to deal with the hassle of the teamwork required to retake Nanogrid for the 8000th match in a row. Comp players won't have a great time on Refinery in a 6v6, but those reasons are known, and you don't need a ridiculously large map pool for that.
Cool map balance factoid: Before NS2stats had shut down, Kodiak had one of the most even rates of alien and marine wins in terms of public game balance.
In addition, maps which are played in the graybox stages are judged right then and there. They have no textures, they have no anything! It must suck. And then the RTV happens. Mappers have a tough time dealing with that crap. In SCC, even, people will join and instantly try to change the map to Veil or Summit, it's hilarious and also quite sad.
The feedback most people provide to mappers anywhere, regardless of game is "oh this looks nice", "there's a hole here", "this tiny insignificant detail is upside down".
Finding the people to say "The design of room X means that a skulk can constantly harass without any repercussion" is few and far between. Because of that the majority of levels that have arisen outside of UWE (and even a few from within) just don't stack up to the scrutiny of average players, let alone good ones.
Although saying that when people have tried to provide that level of feedback, the people making the map dismiss it because only very few people even bring those points up. Once the map releases and no one is playing it it's too late to really fix anything, see Eclipse, Kodiak, Derelict.
Looking through the old files of Eclipse (of which there are a couple hundred), there was definitely some strong changes (with the commentary tacked on with each revision stating "for easier harassment" and things) happening during development, but they eventually lead to the hallway.level with Marine RTs that are miles away, terrible LOS rooms that funnel aliens in poor ways and corners that make fighting fades miserable that we have today.
The map was comprised of mostly the same layout with some strong differences: There weren't a million long, narrow hallways, and the rooms actually had medium to high ceilings with some combat space. I'm not sure where that disconnect came about, but it did in the last few months of overwriting the graybox rooms.
LokiJoin Date: 2012-07-07Member: 153973Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited April 2016
@Cr4zyb4st4rd err no there is no arrogance here, I dont expect my map to be perfect or have perfect rooms. The three maps you mentioned yes got redesigned but they were all done BEFORE the game got its official release, BEFORE people got tired / bored, it happend with the backing of a working full time dev team, lots and lots more players giving feedback while in alpha / beta. Lots of old ns1 players, full EU and NA teams also guessing map testing aswell. YOU can not compare the two. Had kodiak and derelict been made during this time would they had been changed a lot if it did not work? yes ofc they would.
In addition, maps which are played in the graybox stages are judged right then and there. They have no textures, they have no anything! It must suck. And then the RTV happens. Mappers have a tough time dealing with that crap. In SCC, even, people will join and instantly try to change the map to Veil or Summit, it's hilarious and also quite sad.
Casual players not wanting to play a greybox isn't unusual at all though. SCC is still a public server and casual players, with no care about a greybox map are gonna vote to change map, its easier than finding a new server with players after all.
It's not common in anygame for greyboxes to be played unless people know what they're getting into.
As for kodiak. I don't know what went wrong, but clearly something did.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
I still find it fascinating maps like cp_orange on TF2 are popular, orangeboxing so to speak
Also greyboxing is only handy for laning and layout testing, a map changes a lot when props/geometry and lighting is added. Usually causing the base greybox layout to have to be redesigned as well. But it is a good starting point in any case...
I agree with the sentiment that new maps are shunned. Kodiak isn't played commonly due to the initial reaction of vocal players at the rather poor performance at release, the annoyance in both dark areas, and the difficulty of tracking aliens through vegetation. In addition, it has a couple really nasty areas in and around tech points, which I think are actually much worse balance-wise than the darker than normal areas or the vegetation. Many of these problems still persist, but a lot are overblown for areas where they could be played.
For instance, why is Docking so popular in pubs? Aliens starting in Generator are instantly destroyed in nearly every round I've seen by 1500 ELO players doing the early marine aggression towards naturals. Also, cross spawns should never place a team in Locker Room if Marines are in Terminal. Docking is just a complete mixed bag of balance issues and yet player opinions on it and the frequency of it being played hint that players really, really like it.
I think one of the issues of feedback is that there are three types of player feedback:
Good feedback: Good feedback is just that, feedback that is good. It's useful, it outlines why something doesn't work and sometimes even has a suggestion to fix it.
Noise feedback: Noise feedback is feedback which is generally unhelpful, does not describe an issue, or is overwhelmingly colored with bias due to new ideas.
Parroted feedback: Exactly what it sounds like, could be good, could be bad, could not even be true anymore. This is the most common type of feedback, and the ones that most players rely on. Other player's ideas.
When Kodiak came out most of that good feedback was drowned out by the noise feedback, and then the parroted feedback took over. Most people that don't understand positioning, laning, or otherwise would come out of the woodwork to describe why Kodiak was bad. People that already can't track skulks complaining that they can't track skulks because of some trees. You understand the problem.
Of course, it's not the only map where that happened.
Nexus was originally a map called Nyx which was pushed on pub players on a few different servers. That is where we viewed the ebb and flow of the map itself to see what areas could be reworked and redesigned. People hated it, and we forced it on them. We would force change the map to Nexus on our server. We would spectate and play hundreds of rounds of Nexus. We would talk Nexus for hours.
Some common feedback we received in the initial tests was as follows:
It sucks
It's too big
Too many lanes in central
The RTs aren't even on both halves
Horribly Alien-sided layout
Horribly Marine-sided layout
Too many big rooms
Too many hallways
Too narrow of hallways
Too wide of hallways
Too many vents
Not enough vents
Many of these rooms were changed significantly given the feedback. In a lot of ways, the map retained and modified little on those areas which players viewed as problematic, Bridge and the four central rooms. When it was finally pushed on the competitive community in the form of a much more refined Nexus, many players railed against it for a variety of reasons:
It sucks
It's too big
Too many lanes in central
The RTs aren't even on both halves
Horribly Alien-sided layout
Horribly Marine-sided layout
Too many big rooms
Too many hallways
Too narrow of hallways
Too wide of hallways
Too many vents
Not enough vents
The only room that changed significantly since then was Resonance, from essentially a free alien RT to a less free alien RT, but the layout and the rooms specifically in question were left as they were. Bridge and the central areas remain essentially untouched since the earliest versions of the map, and were viewed by both public and comp as most awful in terms of balance. I'm glad we kept them.
Same with Eclipse.. it got released and the VERY FIRST GAME I played after the patch went live people were voting to change the map because it was "unbalanced" It's IMPOSSIBLE to know whether a map is "balanced" or not with only ONE game played on it. Veterans just instantly write them off because they don't know the sight lines/ambush points.
There are a lot of people who could write you a very long and detailed post about what's wrong with eclipse/kodiak/derelict, and it has nothing to do with not knowing all the nooks and crannies by heart. They could do this within their very first games because they have such experience and grasp of the game that you might not realise or understand. You're making a huge strawman by assuming that their peeves are all things that would go away by just playing the map more.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who you could justifiably blame for disregarding new maps without further thought, but be assured that there are a lot of good reasons veterans have to not like certain maps. Look at Biodome, for example, it's still played a lot (even if not as much as the core maps) because it is not AS fundamentally flawed as many other maps.
IeptBarakatThe most difficult name to speak ingame.Join Date: 2009-07-10Member: 68107Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow
If there isn't as much interest in doing new maps, hopefully someone can give some of the older maps a visual update. As time goes on performance should be less of an issue and we have some maps that look really stale in comparison to the newer stuff, like Summit for example. (competitive screaming in the distance)
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
People can say "Maybe they aren't liked because they aren't good enough" etc.. but for those of us who have been around from the beginning we know this isn't the case. It's at least not the default assumption that should occur.
Every single map was disliked upon released, even if it eventually became a standard.
Every single map, except Summit.
This is only because Summit was the only "playable" map (atrium and datacore still had issues tho) compared to Rockdown - which wasn't really a map - and Tram which was getting constant redesigns and suffered huge performance issues (anyone remember the crane prop in Shipping?), or the god awfully balanced mineshaft. So this meant everyone played Summit pretty much all the time... for.. years. When balance changes were tested they were done so on summit.. hell, we still do that today! So between shaping the balance and design of the game and getting the most playtime /refinement, it should come as no surprise that it is the golden "wagon wheel" design that fits best with NS2, and is the most loved.. because it is familiar and polished.
But does that mean others like Veil aren't any good? God no.. it's finally one of the standards.
Was it well received when released? God no.. it was hated, everything from performance to vents, to room layouts, to confusing Y junction navigating.
You can apply that same trend of questioning and answers for every map ever released.. and the only variance in results is whether the map ever makes it out of the unfavorable zone.
Making it out of that zone is determined largely on major published changes - IF they are truly needed. If they are not, small tweaks or time appears to heals all wounds.
Annnndd that's where the badly needed and lack of useful feedback comes into play.
I watched @Loki pull his hair out for so many months requesting feedback on Derelict when it was young, to only receive real vocal and willing feedback on the week it was going to be released. Some of this feedback even went so far as to suggest complete overhauls. Where were was this feedback during the 8 months of development? Why don't players care until it's too late?
To me it all seems like painting in the dark... and the automatic success of your map (when it does not require major changes) is purely lightning in a bottle, thanks to the quality and amount of feedback provided.
Wasn't Veil saved by Gorgeous? Maybe a third of the games on Veil are aliens just turtling on the nano tunnel before lifeforms. There was also the direct route from east junction to dome which got removed.
But yes, quality of maps is overrated. Docking is still wildly popular, as is mineshaft.
It's MUCH easier to make maps in reflex, simply due to the engine.
because this was hidden in the OP, i'd like to point out exactly how much easier mapping is in Reflex compared to [enter any engine here] for those unaware. yeah it'd be nice if more maps were being made for ns2 quicker, but comparing it to reflex... eh. anybody can pick up reflex and have a full map up and running for playtesting within days.
See, Again, this wasn't my objective with my post. I'm acknowledging that it's easier to make maps in reflex, but what my focus was on, is the players attitude towards new maps.
How easy it is to make new maps, is irrelevant in this light. Well, I suppose it might be easier to implement feedback in reflex. But the underlying issue, I find, is the negative attitude. So that's why it was "hidden". Because it's really not what I wanted to focus on in this discussion.
There are plenty of posts about map editor tools. But there aren't very many tackling the negative attitude and refusal to play on custom maps. That is what I wanted to talk about, but unfortunately this thread has already been derailed in to the hardships of mapediting.
I chose Reflex as an example, to show how a community of gamers can reinforce and appreciate their map creators. Not to compare shortcomings in the map editors.
It is not just maps. It is game modes. It is nothing new. It is just NS culture, or at least what it became, as far as I am concerned. I would enjoy it changing, but I would enjoy a lot of things.
Same with Eclipse.. it got released and the VERY FIRST GAME I played after the patch went live people were voting to change the map because it was "unbalanced" It's IMPOSSIBLE to know whether a map is "balanced" or not with only ONE game played on it. Veterans just instantly write them off because they don't know the sight lines/ambush points.
There are a lot of people who could write you a very long and detailed post about what's wrong with eclipse/kodiak/derelict, and it has nothing to do with not knowing all the nooks and crannies by heart. They could do this within their very first games because they have such experience and grasp of the game that you might not realise or understand. You're making a huge strawman by assuming that their peeves are all things that would go away by just playing the map more.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who you could justifiably blame for disregarding new maps without further thought, but be assured that there are a lot of good reasons veterans have to not like certain maps. Look at Biodome, for example, it's still played a lot (even if not as much as the core maps) because it is not AS fundamentally flawed as many other maps.
That's very interesting. See, I look at it as, biodome Works, precisely because it is inherently familiar. I think biodome is a perfect example of demonstrating the point you're arguing against. Biodome Works, because it's in many ways a summit clone, not because it isn't flawed.
New ideas are treated as poison, biodome is played, because it's a familiar idea.
I'm curious if by "fundamentally flawed", you really mean "not wagon Wheel shaped", given the one and only example you provide?
Wagon wheel is what works due to the many controversial and limiting design choices the devs have made, which mainly include the cyst system and a non-fixed marine spawn. But it's not saying it's the only thing that works. Veil is not a wagon wheel (even though someone here tried to sell it as such) and it works. It has a fixed marine spawn, which allows the map to be non-symmetrical. Eclipse has nothing inherently wrong with the spirit of its layout (though there are problems), it's more hated because of feeling claustrophobic and cluttered. Jambi is perhaps the best example of an unorthodox map design closer to the spirit of old NS1 maps, and its considered a good map even for competitive play.
Ironically kodiak when released pretty much had a 49.6 to 50.4 win loss /ratio for marines / aliens which was much better than the popular maps and jambi (using uwe`s sponitor data).
Never understood the hate for Kodiak. It looks really good and original (trees, water, open ceiling), kinda reminds me of the movie Predator.
It also plays differently (maybe too much for some people) since some areas are not enclosed by walls, and the tech point layout which I guess could be called a mix of Veil and Summit.
Great map 10/10 vote Kodiak folks.
LokiJoin Date: 2012-07-07Member: 153973Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited April 2016
I am all for supporting the creation of new maps. Anyone who is making them needs to join the SCC on sundays 8pm gmt we tend to spend around 2 hours playing on various custom maps gathering feedback / thoughts. Its a shame there are not more groups doing this as I am sure it could help spur on maps and other mappers.
In the end more games = more feedback = better maps
As it stands the playbase of NS2 does not really want to invest time in playing a early version map that could end up being inherently fair and if they do more often than not the resulting feedback is "bad map" thats it. That is not much to go off when designing maps.
Kodiak was an attempt at trying to get away from the wagon wheel layout aka Techpoint Res Node Techpoint Res Node Techpoint Res Node Techpoint Res Node layout.
Comments
Btw, dota2 map details are changed all the time now.
Im just saying there is a difference between balanced and 'not even remotely in a alpha stage ready to play.
The demo recording mode is client side only and has to be started before joining a server, also lacking proper playback function... And I'm not sure it even works anymore...
The problem comes down to, a lack of a good feedback place.
Ultimately a game like NS2 needs maps that are either created by people who understand the tactics and gameplay in serious depth from all aspects of the game, finding a person with perfect knowledge of every aspect of this game doesn't exist.
Meaning you need a good place to get feedback from a selection of people that understand the game at that level. Of all the places that exist to provide that none of them are exactly brimming with a high skill selection of players.
The feedback most people provide to mappers anywhere, regardless of game is "oh this looks nice", "there's a hole here", "this tiny insignificant detail is upside down".
Finding the people to say "The design of room X means that a skulk can constantly harass without any repercussion" is few and far between. Because of that the majority of levels that have arisen outside of UWE (and even a few from within) just don't stack up to the scrutiny of average players, let alone good ones.
Although saying that when people have tried to provide that level of feedback, the people making the map dismiss it because only very few people even bring those points up. Once the map releases and no one is playing it it's too late to really fix anything, see Eclipse, Kodiak, Derelict.
Bad, useless or no feedback from the start means that maps just don't get the attention they require in greyboxing stages and then designers don't want to spend the time reworking detailed sections of a map because they've focused on bits that look good instead of bits that play well, because to most people who don't have a clue about providing good feedback that's all that matters, unfortunately gameplay that sucks is what stops people playing those maps actively.
So even though places exist for people to play custom maps, the feedback isn't the necessary information because people focus on the wrong things, don't have the solid understanding of gameplay to make drastic changes or when they do the designers dismiss them because they started detailing before getting great gameplay.
UWE managed to get some great level designers to create a lot of the "core" NS2 maps and the remake of Veil. Who still make some seriously good maps for other games now. They also managed to make some levels that do just suck though. rip rockdown.
And spark is a tedious pos.
tldr you launch a local server (on any map, whether you developed it or not), press the map editor hotkey, then you change the map. move spawns, change geometry, delete, ect, save. you can do this during a live game (if the server allows for it) which makes balancing incredibly easy when you can just get two people to duel as you spectate and implement their suggestions in real time.
Both of my two previous maps were intentionally designed to be different. Creating a map that looks brilliant takes hours 1000`s of hours for example
Kodiak
Took me the best part of 14 months (some weeks I did nothing other weeks I must have put in 30+hours and random hours in between). This map was tested by the SCC, twice weekly games during its creation until it was picked up by UWE then It was played 4 times a week by the play test groups and that of the scc games. During this time no "official" maptesting or comp scene / players played games on it, UWE PT games mainly focused on bugs and some los issues / frame rate stuff etc. I asked and asked for comp people to play it and give feedback in its early days but no one was interested.
So It did not get played by any comp people partly due to its greybox nature (swalks rule was it needed texturing for any games to occur on it) until release. Initially several comp players had offered some feedback (after release) to which I did alter the map to incorporate this however it was to no avail people had made up there minds. While clearly people do not like the fact lerks can spike through trees (marines can shoot also you know) IT became a doomed projected to try to make it work for comp. The pub scene at the time enjoyed the map and I still have the occasional game on it now when I play
Ironically kodiak when released pretty much had a 49.6 to 50.4 win loss /ratio for marines / aliens which was much better than the popular maps and jambi (using uwe`s sponitor data).
Derelict
took me the best part of 8 months, was a lot lot faster due to now knowing sparks editor and a better grasp of the game. However unlike kodiak the map was mainly tested internally by the then reformed fledgling map testing team, resulting in at best 1 game a week (sometimes two). It did not have any pub / scc play time on it. As such I felt the map suffered greatly for this, as was evident by the lack of vents on the map. People had settled in to a set strat during MT and without the random pub games on it I did not realise the map needed as many additional vents. Some are now in mainly from the feedback I have got from pulling teeth and nails from people. The map may still need more work, but no one is giving any feedback even post "new vents" so ive given up asking for feedback as people dont want to give it
@Cr4zyb4st4rd No feedback is ever dismissed out of hand everything said to me is given thought especially for those maps mentioned, even if one person says somthing I look in to it, hell ask ironhorse or zavaro if they bring something up I ask them to explain why / how etc about the proposed change.
The main reason mappers wont redesign a finished room is time, there is no point, we aint getting anything out of it. Room desgins should be done during greybox testing, rooms / levels only get detailed when (personal veiw here) I am happy / confident that room in greybox form plays well and wont need any significant alteration in the future / layout wont change etc etc
Why dont people leave feedback for ayumi ? anyone in here even played it?
Yes I'm making that assumption based on the fact that when new maps get released they are written off by the community as bad, unbalanced, or just plain broken within ONE HOUR OF RELEASE!!! When Derelict came out I was so excited to play a new map, that first day I was able to play it ONCE because the community kept saying it was bad. Some people even said they only played half a game on it and thought it was a poorly balanced map... To this day I think I've only been able to play on Derelict a total of maybe 15 times, and most of those have been small games with under 5 players on each team because everyone leaves when it comes up. Tram comes up more in a three hour gaming session than Derelict will in 3 weeks.
Same with Eclipse.. it got released and the VERY FIRST GAME I played after the patch went live people were voting to change the map because it was "unbalanced" It's IMPOSSIBLE to know whether a map is "balanced" or not with only ONE game played on it. Veterans just instantly write them off because they don't know the sight lines/ambush points.
Also I haven't seen anyone say a new map is good simply because it is new. That is a ridiculous notion. I think most of us would just like the chance to actually TRY some of the new maps before they're disregarded as trash by the veterans in the community.
Edit: It also gets really really really REALLY old playing the same maps over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... Even if they have some "flaws" they're still worth playing... especially since the more they're played the higher the chance of said "flaws" being fixed.
Actually you'd be lucky to get a single game on Derelict in a week of playing NS2 every day.
Ultimately the results of that are public games, which have little to no tactical play, regardless of the players, although the majority are casual. So it's not much to go by.
And this is why your maps don't get played. Tram, Veil, Summit, etcetc have all had large sections redesigned to improve them.
The same applies for many other maps, custom and official in many games. You get satisfaction out of improving it and having people play it. If you believe that your first attempt is going to work every time then that's just arrogance.
Ultimately if you play at the highest level you're much more likely to notice the flaws in maps faster. Learning ambush spots is part of the game, no one is going to write a good map off, the problem is we just didn't get any.
Eclipse was trash, it was cluttered everywhere, and a crappy corridor shooter, which doesn't work for ns2. They tried to improve it removing a lot of clutter, it didn't help, the map sucks and almost everyone knows it, choke point corridors are a mess.
Similar for derelict, you play any map in ns2 and you as an alien use vents everywhere all the time and it released with practically zero, yet another corridor shooter where marines steam roll through because the map doesn't understand the game it's built for, judging from lokis reply that's down to the fact the map testing team is filled with casual players.
I agree with @Howser that those limitations are hugely problematic for balance. The cysting (which includes pathing) and wall jumping in particular play a huge role in how to design rooms and hallways and everything else. Power nodes are much less limiting, but regardless, they exist to limit players and in turn limit us mappers. The other issue is that if you make sweeping balance changes, people freak out. They always do.
In addition, I have a feeling that those with the power to change these things are not willing to make those changes because of the time and effort involved testing and balancing around that. Plus, think of the crap storm it would cause?
On feedback:
First off, I wouldn't discount what a pub player had to say concerning a new map. I think taking what nearly everyone had to say about a map with a grain of salt is the best method, especially given that everyone in this community loves hyperbole (myself included). Most people, comp players included, have a terrible ability to judge a map's quality and playability.
Much of what goes into making a map is continuing to make your map regardless of what people (comp or pub or otherwise) say. While @malx was creating Nexus the feedback we were getting from players was terrible, most of them suggesting that a two lane center was impossible to balance. Most people hated the map, immediately calling it either "impossibly marine sided" or "impossibly alien sided." These types of comments still exist today, but are less common as now the map has found it's "balance" in the community discussion.
Quite frankly, the map never changed much from the initial push (which had a near finished layout) on the comp community, so the comment that it is more "balanced" now is probably pretty off base. People just eventually warmed up to it, which again, happened with Veil and Descent.
Frankly, players that play in large servers with varying levels of game sense will likely have a better time on maps like Refinery, then things like Veil. You're not going to have to deal with the hassle of the teamwork required to retake Nanogrid for the 8000th match in a row. Comp players won't have a great time on Refinery in a 6v6, but those reasons are known, and you don't need a ridiculously large map pool for that.
Cool map balance factoid: Before NS2stats had shut down, Kodiak had one of the most even rates of alien and marine wins in terms of public game balance.
In addition, maps which are played in the graybox stages are judged right then and there. They have no textures, they have no anything! It must suck. And then the RTV happens. Mappers have a tough time dealing with that crap. In SCC, even, people will join and instantly try to change the map to Veil or Summit, it's hilarious and also quite sad.
On Eclipse:
Looking through the old files of Eclipse (of which there are a couple hundred), there was definitely some strong changes (with the commentary tacked on with each revision stating "for easier harassment" and things) happening during development, but they eventually lead to the hallway.level with Marine RTs that are miles away, terrible LOS rooms that funnel aliens in poor ways and corners that make fighting fades miserable that we have today.
The map was comprised of mostly the same layout with some strong differences: There weren't a million long, narrow hallways, and the rooms actually had medium to high ceilings with some combat space. I'm not sure where that disconnect came about, but it did in the last few months of overwriting the graybox rooms.
Wait wait, you never change room layouts when they turn out to be shite??
It's filled with players from all brackets, pub or comp, mapper or player. They are made up of volunteers, as is playtesting.
@eastwood yes ofc I do
Casual players not wanting to play a greybox isn't unusual at all though. SCC is still a public server and casual players, with no care about a greybox map are gonna vote to change map, its easier than finding a new server with players after all.
It's not common in anygame for greyboxes to be played unless people know what they're getting into.
As for kodiak. I don't know what went wrong, but clearly something did.
I should have said "active players".
Also greyboxing is only handy for laning and layout testing, a map changes a lot when props/geometry and lighting is added. Usually causing the base greybox layout to have to be redesigned as well. But it is a good starting point in any case...
The majority of map testers are active players.
I agree with the sentiment that new maps are shunned. Kodiak isn't played commonly due to the initial reaction of vocal players at the rather poor performance at release, the annoyance in both dark areas, and the difficulty of tracking aliens through vegetation. In addition, it has a couple really nasty areas in and around tech points, which I think are actually much worse balance-wise than the darker than normal areas or the vegetation. Many of these problems still persist, but a lot are overblown for areas where they could be played.
For instance, why is Docking so popular in pubs? Aliens starting in Generator are instantly destroyed in nearly every round I've seen by 1500 ELO players doing the early marine aggression towards naturals. Also, cross spawns should never place a team in Locker Room if Marines are in Terminal. Docking is just a complete mixed bag of balance issues and yet player opinions on it and the frequency of it being played hint that players really, really like it.
I think one of the issues of feedback is that there are three types of player feedback:
When Kodiak came out most of that good feedback was drowned out by the noise feedback, and then the parroted feedback took over. Most people that don't understand positioning, laning, or otherwise would come out of the woodwork to describe why Kodiak was bad. People that already can't track skulks complaining that they can't track skulks because of some trees. You understand the problem.
Of course, it's not the only map where that happened.
Nexus was originally a map called Nyx which was pushed on pub players on a few different servers. That is where we viewed the ebb and flow of the map itself to see what areas could be reworked and redesigned. People hated it, and we forced it on them. We would force change the map to Nexus on our server. We would spectate and play hundreds of rounds of Nexus. We would talk Nexus for hours.
Some common feedback we received in the initial tests was as follows:
Many of these rooms were changed significantly given the feedback. In a lot of ways, the map retained and modified little on those areas which players viewed as problematic, Bridge and the four central rooms. When it was finally pushed on the competitive community in the form of a much more refined Nexus, many players railed against it for a variety of reasons:
The only room that changed significantly since then was Resonance, from essentially a free alien RT to a less free alien RT, but the layout and the rooms specifically in question were left as they were. Bridge and the central areas remain essentially untouched since the earliest versions of the map, and were viewed by both public and comp as most awful in terms of balance. I'm glad we kept them.
There are a lot of people who could write you a very long and detailed post about what's wrong with eclipse/kodiak/derelict, and it has nothing to do with not knowing all the nooks and crannies by heart. They could do this within their very first games because they have such experience and grasp of the game that you might not realise or understand. You're making a huge strawman by assuming that their peeves are all things that would go away by just playing the map more.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who you could justifiably blame for disregarding new maps without further thought, but be assured that there are a lot of good reasons veterans have to not like certain maps. Look at Biodome, for example, it's still played a lot (even if not as much as the core maps) because it is not AS fundamentally flawed as many other maps.
"should"
Engine shenanigans and future hardware design changes notwithstanding.
Every single map was disliked upon released, even if it eventually became a standard.
Every single map, except Summit.
This is only because Summit was the only "playable" map (atrium and datacore still had issues tho) compared to Rockdown - which wasn't really a map - and Tram which was getting constant redesigns and suffered huge performance issues (anyone remember the crane prop in Shipping?), or the god awfully balanced mineshaft. So this meant everyone played Summit pretty much all the time... for.. years. When balance changes were tested they were done so on summit.. hell, we still do that today! So between shaping the balance and design of the game and getting the most playtime /refinement, it should come as no surprise that it is the golden "wagon wheel" design that fits best with NS2, and is the most loved.. because it is familiar and polished.
But does that mean others like Veil aren't any good? God no.. it's finally one of the standards.
Was it well received when released? God no.. it was hated, everything from performance to vents, to room layouts, to confusing Y junction navigating.
You can apply that same trend of questioning and answers for every map ever released.. and the only variance in results is whether the map ever makes it out of the unfavorable zone.
Making it out of that zone is determined largely on major published changes - IF they are truly needed. If they are not, small tweaks or time appears to heals all wounds.
Annnndd that's where the badly needed and lack of useful feedback comes into play.
I watched @Loki pull his hair out for so many months requesting feedback on Derelict when it was young, to only receive real vocal and willing feedback on the week it was going to be released. Some of this feedback even went so far as to suggest complete overhauls. Where were was this feedback during the 8 months of development? Why don't players care until it's too late?
To me it all seems like painting in the dark... and the automatic success of your map (when it does not require major changes) is purely lightning in a bottle, thanks to the quality and amount of feedback provided.
But yes, quality of maps is overrated. Docking is still wildly popular, as is mineshaft.
@Zavaro Hated in past tense? Hmm?
See, Again, this wasn't my objective with my post. I'm acknowledging that it's easier to make maps in reflex, but what my focus was on, is the players attitude towards new maps.
How easy it is to make new maps, is irrelevant in this light. Well, I suppose it might be easier to implement feedback in reflex. But the underlying issue, I find, is the negative attitude. So that's why it was "hidden". Because it's really not what I wanted to focus on in this discussion.
There are plenty of posts about map editor tools. But there aren't very many tackling the negative attitude and refusal to play on custom maps. That is what I wanted to talk about, but unfortunately this thread has already been derailed in to the hardships of mapediting.
I chose Reflex as an example, to show how a community of gamers can reinforce and appreciate their map creators. Not to compare shortcomings in the map editors.
New ideas are treated as poison, biodome is played, because it's a familiar idea.
I'm curious if by "fundamentally flawed", you really mean "not wagon Wheel shaped", given the one and only example you provide?
Maybe introducing one extremely simple and silly map like tf2_orange can change the attitude.
Never understood the hate for Kodiak. It looks really good and original (trees, water, open ceiling), kinda reminds me of the movie Predator.
It also plays differently (maybe too much for some people) since some areas are not enclosed by walls, and the tech point layout which I guess could be called a mix of Veil and Summit.
Great map 10/10 vote Kodiak folks.
In the end more games = more feedback = better maps
As it stands the playbase of NS2 does not really want to invest time in playing a early version map that could end up being inherently fair and if they do more often than not the resulting feedback is "bad map" thats it. That is not much to go off when designing maps.
Kodiak was an attempt at trying to get away from the wagon wheel layout aka Techpoint Res Node Techpoint Res Node Techpoint Res Node Techpoint Res Node layout.