Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 133

Thread: ET competition maps guidelines

  1. #81
    I don' t get it why almost everybody in this discussion seems to prefer multiobjective maps. ET is now 2 years out there and it has not achieved as developed competitive environment as original rtcw had in a less time. and the obvious reason is boredom playing and watching it.
    multiobjective maps take a huge amount of time and give no surprises. But sports is about surprises - at least from the spectator's point of view. imagine ice hockey were you had to beat several pre-goals somewere in the middle of the pitch before u could get to the real thing.
    If the map is simple one objective the gameplay gets more agressive and therefore more fun. Its easier to learn, easier to watch and there is a lot of heat.

  2. #82
    ET is one-year old, not 2, and it's NOT RTCW. Those that want simplistic gameplay and short rounds went COD (or stayed with RTCW). Those that remain want multi-objective maps in keeping with ET's style of gameplay, the same style of gameplay that makes it so popular on publics (and more popular than RTCW ever was, even in it's heyday).

    The reason the ET competitive scene is less developed than RTCW's is that RTCW had a running start (balanced maps from the off, ET's standard maps were never designed for competition) and it had several patches (it didn't get really competitive until 1.33 and OSP). But then RTCW wasn't free, ET is. Besides, if RTCW gameplay was so perfect, why did it die?

    Also, your analogy with "real" sports is flawed. Ice Hockey would indeed be boring if the 1st team to score wins, which is what single-objective maps are all about.
    m00!Kendle

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Kendle
    Besides, if RTCW gameplay was so perfect, why did it die?
    http://www.rtcw.no/main/league/league.asp ... it never has been so big

    ontopic: imo are offense based maps more fun to play, having less time/difficult positions for setting up your defense makes it more important to make very "importand" team-decisions

  4. #84
    Fretn, I think you know what I meant. All the "top" teams from RTCW have gone, and in general (i.e worldwide) RTCW is no-where near as big as it once was. Kudos to RTCW.no for providing a great competiton for those that remain, but what other leagues / ladders remain from RTCW's heyday?

    And no-one's arguing that offensively biased maps are what is required for ET (read the thread, that point has been hammered home many times). However, single-objective is NOT what is required in ET, IMO, because if you're the kind of player or team that wants single-objective, fast, short rounds, you'd stick with RTCW or go play COD / CS.

    This thread is about making competition friendly ET maps, not competition friendly RTCW/COD/CS maps. Maps that can be played with, and uniquely take advantage of, ET's extra Classes / Weapons. In fact it's those extra Classes and Weapons that make multi-objective work, and desirable. Take out Coverts, Team Doors, Command Posts, Ammo Racks, Mobile MG42's, Mines, Rifle 'Nades, Constructibles, etc., and of course most ET maps would be too big. But then do all that and you've got something similar to RTCW, so what would be the point, as that game already exists?

    And before anyone accuses me of being one of those short-sighted "alter ET in any way and it magicly becomes RTCW" types, read this. It's mainly about XP, but as you can see I fully appreciate the differences between the 2 games. All I'm interested in is making competitive ET work better than it does currently (and making more competition friendly maps would go a long way to doing just that). Making it more like something that has been and (almost) gone isn't the solution, IMO.

    edit: Here are some smilies :banana: :beer: :clap: :drink: Please let's not de-rail this thread with an RTCW -v- ET or XP debate.
    m00!Kendle

  5. #85
    Kendle u r right about release date, however i don't agree on other issues. U really went wrong with your ice hockey example, as this has always been stopwatch in ET and RtCW and everybody plays several rounds on one map.
    Don't take it personally but from what u are talking it seems to me that u really have not played rtcw on competitive environment much. RtCW is totally different from CoD and CS. And ET is a follow-up of RtCW tweaked a bit for public gameplay but falling behind in competitive environment - there has been a lot of discussion on that (u can even find comments at this thread about using cov-ops/soldier classes in clan wars). Anyways, no matter what, ET is what we have now and there is no room for arguing which version is/was better.
    I and a lot of people out there have our reasons for liking simple one objective maps:
    1. fast and agressive gameplay
    2. room for surprises
    3. easy to learn
    4. easy to watch
    5. more exciting to watch
    6. as they tend to be small - decent fps even on the low end machines
    I would aprecciate if u could write down some simple reasons why multiobjective maps are better for clan wars and "e-sports" in general.

  6. #86
    ET being as popular as it is i dont see any reason why there cant be single objective and multi objective maps. One thing is clear though and that is that people in clans find it as hard to agree on anything as people who make maps do.
    :banana:

    Here's an idea. Perhaps some clan person could get a clan type web site to run a poll asking clan people exaclty what they would like in a comp orientated custom map. Choices could be time limits, multi or single obvjective, dyno or doc objective etc etc. So far the only thing that is clear as far as the want and need of clans goes is:
    1. offence biased
    2. shorter time limits
    3. maps that are not the size of the moon
    4. maps that are not mazes

  7. #87
    Multi-objective maps are not necessarily better for clan wars or e-sports in general, they're just better for ET, IMO, which is what this thread is about.

    Yes, SW competition is about playing rounds, and setting times, with the fastest time scoring a round win. So to be correct the Ice Hockey analogy is play till one team scores, then swap ends and play until either the other team scores, or the time the first team took to score elapses. Still not quite the same as "real" sports is it? And, without taking anything personally, I've played competitive RTCW since April '02 and ET since it came out.

    And whilst I agree that RTCW as a game is different from COD/CS, it's actually closer to both at a competitive level, because it's based on the prinicple of playing several rounds, albeit in RTCW you accumulate a score over each SW pair, whereas in COD/CS it's simple rounds won/lost.

    In ET, if you want to preserve the diversity of Classes / Weapons, and account for the slower rate-of-fire of the SMG's (which makes for longer and less easily won / lost firefights, for example) then you need maps which challenge you to produce strategies to use them. If that means playing less rounds (because each takes longer), then so be it.

    My point is, if you want fast and furious games, with scores accumlated (by whatever scoring mechanism) over several (i.e. 6 - 10, or more) rounds, then stick with RTCW (or COD or CS, etc.), as games that fit that bill already exist. If you want a more challenging game, that involves using weapons other than SMGs, and involves tactical offensive / defensive strategies, play ET. All ET needs is offensively biased maps. Anything else and you're treading on ground already covered by other games. If that makes ET a less appealing "e-sport", then I haven't got a problem with that.
    m00!Kendle

  8. #88
    to some up your long post - u mentioned 2 reasons:
    - diversity of classes weapons. actually the only weapon that changes the gameplay is landmines. there is no reason it could not be used on smaller maps. rifle nades are to some extent similar to panzer which is used more rarely now. sniper rifle is spoiled totally and used far more less. Mortar ang MG42 are good on publics and only. Sten is as ****ty as FG42. Thats all - no real advantages.
    - rate of fire is made slow to make easier to notice from were u are being shot at - e.g. easier to play for beginners as less is determined by your reaction time and more by luck and bigger monitor.
    Anyways, good old base plays quite similary even with the slow rate of fire and all new weapons, so this has not to be the reason for having different maps. Try to be more constructive.

  9. #89
    LOL, try to be more constructive? I've no need to be. You can argue that smaller single-objective maps are better than longer multi-objective all you like, and I'm not necessarily going to disagree with you (though if you've ever watched demos of COD Clan matches (the gaming equivalent of watching paint dry) you'll realise that small is not always better). The point is there are already games out there that cater for that style of gameplay so there's no need to turn ET into something it isn't. All that's required is better balanced maps to make it work at a competitive level.

    However, my opinions on ET's "diversity of Classes and Weapons", for what it's worth:-

    Mines are great for locking down choke points, which is why attack always need more than one approach to the objective(s) and Mortars and MG42's are also used quite a lot in Clan matches. Royal, the former UK No.1 Clan, started using a Mortar on Oasis and now virtually every Clan does the same. They're also used on other maps, as is the MG42, for locking down choke points and spamming enemy spawn (in Europe we play with limited XP and b_stickycharge 2, which means Field-Op spam is virtually eliminated).

    In fact, since I started playing ET, coming from a RTCW background and playing against other ex-RTCW Clans, we and others were slow to pick up ET's new weapons. As we've gained experience against Clans that didn't play RTCW previously we've seen Mortar / MG42 / Rifle 'Nade and Covert-Ops used more frequently, and indeed, with Field-Op and Panzer spam reduced thanks to the new XP tweaks, ET's "forgotten weapons" are being used more and more in Clan wars. (download demos from the games played in UnterElite, the UK ET Tournament I help to run if you don't believe me.)

    The rate of fire was reduced by SplashDamage to balance the other weapons. One (perceived) flaw with RTCW is that the SMG is all-powerful and other weapons didn't get used as a result. SD made the SMG less powerful to encourage other weapons to be used. They've only partially succeeded in that, as the heart of most teams will still be Meds / Engies / Field-Ops, but even so the rate of fire fundamentally alters the dynamics of the game, making it slower and more tactical. Most RTCW conversions don't play well in ET, with tc_base being the worst offender (although being able to plant Mines in a concrete road is undoubtedly the worst bit). I was admittedly never much of a fan of Base in RTCW, but in ET it's awful. There's only now one "tactic" for Base. Blow R2 and go Med heavy the high route to R1. Nothing else works cos mobile MG42's and Mines eliminate the other alternatives.

    So, to sum up another long post, you could strip out some of ETs supposedly redundant Classes / Weapons, you could reduce map times, you could reduce number of objectives, you could play more shorter rounds for a fairer more competitive game, and I'm not going to disagree that you'd probably end up with a better "e-sport" as a result. But why do that to ET when these other, better, "e-sports" already exist? If you want to play a SMG only WWII FPS over lots of short rounds, go play COD. If you want to play a mostly SMG only WWII FPS over several short rounds with 1 objective, go play RTCW. If you want to play a WWII FPS with a wider range of weapons, over longer, fewer, more strategically challenging rounds, play ET. And that's not to mention SOF, DOD, BF1942, MOH:AA, AA, etc.The choice is yours. There's no need to turn ET into something else , when that "something else" already exists. All that's required of ET is better balance. XP tweaks have already gone some way to achieving that, but better maps would go even further.
    m00!Kendle

  10. #90
    I would just like to add: Anyone who wants to repsond to these points, by all means do so, mappers need all the input they can get. However this debate is getting a little off-topic IMO and I'd rather not deflect the issue further by continued exploration of this. Remember, this thread is designed to give mappers ideas and guidance for making competiton maps, not for anyone, including me, to "prove" their opinion is superior to anyone elses. If mappers want to make small, single-objective maps, go right ahead, it's not for me to say they shouldn't. CS and COD are not phenomenally popular for no reason, even if RTCW's better days are behind it

    At the end of the day the "golden rule" is this:-

    Competitive ET is played in Stopwatch mode, which means results are based on times set. If the defending team hold off the attacking team for the entire duration of the round then neither teams scores any points. Maps therefore need to be biased so that the attacking team is more likely to "win" the round than the defending team. Keep that one simple concept in mind and you can't go far wrong.
    m00!Kendle

  11. #91
    Maybe it's just because I'm a mapper but I don't get why the defending team don't get points because they did a good job.

    *shrugs*

    I'll try that with my next project... but that still a long way to come...

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by MadJack
    Maybe it's just because I'm a mapper but I don't get why the defending team don't get points because they did a good job.
    Because defending is only half the job...

    Take this scenario:-

    TeamA are playing TeamB. TeamA attack first and set a time of 10 minutes. They swap sides and TeamB attack, but set a time of 5 minutes. If round wins were counted the score would be 1 - 1 (they both achieved the objective), but obviously TeamB is the better team, as they achieved the objective faster. Stopwatch works by awarding a single point over a "pair" of rounds, and is inherently fairer in that it more accurately rewards the better team. It's the prefered competition format for ET, as it was for RTCW.

    COD and CS don't use this mechanism because they play so many rounds (40 in COD, for example) so the theory is that the better team will be revealed by simple round wins at the end of the match.
    m00!Kendle

  13. #93
    I could argue with you 'till the end of times but it's rather irrelevant to the topic.

    On Topic, I really hope more clans or members of them will offer their help to support us and the mapping community... As I said, my intentions are a comp. map for my next project but that's in the future.

    My current project is offensive based but I really don't think clans would be interested in playing it It's more of a pub map... Anyway, we'll see

  14. #94
    There are arguments for multiple rounds of single objective maps and there are arguments for a single round of multiple objective maps, but in any case, you can't easily mix both! Because then sheduling will go all messed up. So as ET maps are multiple objective and played with single rounds (one on each map, sometimes best of three on one map), single objective maps are kinda useless. But I wouldn't tell those who prefered the RTCW-style to piss off, as ET would still be a great plattform for them to play "their" game, being free and all. However, they should start alternative leagues for this, maybe using an alternative mod. Everyone should play what he prefers and the most popular gamestyles will be, well, most popular. No reason to argue about that IMO.
    But this thread should be about how to make ET-style competitive maps, which means that multiple objectives are a requirement.
    I'm glad that I lost my first response to this discussion, because it was long and pointless.

  15. #95
    Semantically, what do you all mean by "multiple objective"? Two things to blow up/cap (oasis, radar), or a chain of events that have to happen (gold rush, railgun, fuel dump)

    Certainly ET has single objective maps (Battery) and RTCW has multiple objective maps (Base, Beach, Village, Assault (mixed))

  16. #96
    Pretty sure at least Kendle is meaning both, either or any combination of "chain of events" & "two things to blow up".

  17. #97
    i thought multiple meant like a map in two stages. first stage on oasis capture old city, second stage blow both guns. radar blow door first then get docs later (of course you dont have too you can skip stage one if your tactics are good). i thought tc_base would be single object as you dont need to do anything else before going for the radars.

  18. #98
    In that case, the only real single objective maps in RTCW (that come immedately to mind) were Ice (cap), sub (dyno), and assault (dyno) - and even they had stages where you had to breach barriers to open up secondary routes

  19. #99
    A typical ET map is like this:
    A ------- B --------(X)----- C
    First Allies spawn at A and Axis spawn at B, while the battle happens between A and B. Once Allies have completed a first objective, they spawn (usually permanently) at B, while Axis spawn at C, thus a "second phase" of the map begins and battles happen between B and C. Sometimes there is even a third Allies-only spawn somewhere at X which can be captured. No RTCW map is like that AFAIK. In fact, a typical B-C part of ET is like a typical RTCW map, with one or several objectives. For example the B-C part of Oasis, is remarkably similar to the entire mp_base in structure and size.

    Edit: Of course there are exceptions, I just thought about Railgun... That map is clearly different. Not very popular though.
    There also isn't really any ET map which includes a long and difficult doc run (like on Ice, Beach or Village). Usually the hard part is to gain control of the area around the objective, while actually escaping with the documents is the easy part. Even on Radar, which is a pure doc run map, it's not really hard to escape and the distance is pretty small. This might seem less exciting, on the other hand it reduces the lotto-factor a lot.

  20. #100
    I'll buy that. What about the forward flags for RTCW? Ice, Assault, Beach, Village?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •