@elodea You have a strange point of view, you know, most of things you wrote is right, but I disagree on the competitive aspect. Everyone knows there's some maps unplayable for competitive, just take a look on Mineshaft for example. But that doesn't mean all these maps (Eclipse, Kodiak, etc) can't be improved to make them balanced for 6 vs. 6, that's completely wrong. I already said Kodiak is more or less balanced at the moment, it needs some changes, of course, but this map clearly isn't pro-aliens or pro-marines, and that's the goal. Indeed, Eclipse is unbalanced, no way. If dedicated mappers want to improve their map, everything can be done, even make existing maps balanced.
If your opinion is to keep playing on regular maps, I can understand that, but an important part of competitive players would like to fight on new & original maps, they just want balanced maps, that's all. And personally, as a competitive player myself, that's just boring to play on the same maps, everytime, with sometimes, the same layout, that could be cool to discover and get some new maps like Jambi, this one is, in my opinion, the best example of a community map made and played in competition.
I hate to repeat things, but you and everyone else should already know by now pursuing balance is not the same as pursuing fun.
*If uwe was serious about competitive maps, they would have adopted caged a while ago.
UWE is a company; they have to earn money and cater for as much of their playerbase as possible. In regard of maps, this does not only cover the gameplay but also the looks. And, frankly, ns2_caged is not (yet) one of the most beautiful maps out there (sorry Flat).
UWE boasts so much about creating assets for maps, creating concept art for maps, helping create beautiful maps. Yet somehow all that support doesn't seem to apply to caged?
You can't just give your average customer - a pubber - a seemingly half-finished map and call it "official". From a business point of view, this would be a horrible decision (upset players, leaving, etc etc).
Please don't assume it's all about you and your style of play. Please don't throw around sentences like "If uwe was serious about competitive maps", because they are not only full of negativity, but because this is a strawman argumentation that helps nothing to the cause.
And seriously, nothing stops you from playing caged. I don't know if it's in the competitive rotation, i don't play competitive. Just go to the workshop, download it an play it if you want it so much. There is no need for it to be official. UWE can probably not handle it (as in: ensure quality, testing etc.), anyway.
They gave you the tools, so take them. Do it by yourself. Or be happy that there's community mappers building maps for you.
...
please point me to where i demanded UWE cater to my 'style of play'.
I said IF UWE wanted to construct competitive maps. It's all good and well to create general maps and release them. It's another thing entirely to then go out and accuse the comp community for being stubborn and irrational for not adopting it.
PelargirJoin Date: 2013-07-02Member: 185857Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, WC 2013 - Silver, Forum staff
edited May 2014
@elodea I disagree with you. In my opinion, @nachos is right.
I think, players, and I mean old players, the ones who played NS2 with many hundred of hours, not the beginners, don't like the idea to play on new maps. For sure, that's pretty cool to discover new maps like Biodome, Descent, Eclipse or even Kodiak recently, but that doesn't mean they like to play on these maps. NS2 players, some of them believe in the fact this is only fun to play on regular & classic maps, because, yes, they know everything they have to know, that ventilation, that hidden corner, that position to ARC such place, etc. That's easier indeed to fight when you know the entire map, skill is good enough on new maps, but you can easily defeat someone just thanks to your knowledge of the map itself.
I like new maps, originality, new layout, new strategies, new ways to play on, etc. But you have to train on these maps, you cannot play as you want, because you don't know what way I can use, what's the better idea to ambush people... I remember Descent, Biodome & Eclipse when they released, especially Eclipse which one nobody loves to play because it's too unbalanced in favor of Aliens, but if everyone wants to play on these maps, just after their release, with time, they're not the most playable maps, you can ask people, the latest maps aren't the favorite ones, clearly. In competitive, that's exactly the same, an accentuated degree perhaps. The goal of 6 vs. 6 is to prove your team is better than the opponent one, that means better strats, better skills, everything you can use thanks to the map to win a game. New maps = new gameplay, you have to find new strats, learn the map itself to ambush, I don't know. And players, most of them, don't like that, boring & long, why playing on new maps if we already have the last ones, no fun for us. I don't share this opinion, but that's a fact, most of them think the same. And I don't talk about unbalanced maps, worse, no need to play if we know there's nothing to do because that's a pro-aliens map, or pro-marines map, this is not fun, I can understand that.
I agree for the feebacks too, that's an issue for the current maptesting on the custom maps. You have to say what's wrong? How can we change that? What can we do to improve this? But generally, if mappers know there's a problem there & there, he can correct it himself, and just keep going with new changes and see if that's better or not.
@elodea You have a strange point of view, you know, most of things you wrote is right, but I disagree on the competitive aspect. Everyone knows there's some maps unplayable for competitive, just take a look on Mineshaft for example. But that doesn't mean all these maps (Eclipse, Kodiak, etc) can't be improved to make them balanced for 6 vs. 6, that's completely wrong. I already said Kodiak is more or less balanced at the moment, it needs some changes, of course, but this map clearly isn't pro-aliens or pro-marines, and that's the goal. Indeed, Eclipse is unbalanced, no way. If dedicated mappers want to improve their map, everything can be done, even make existing maps balanced.
If your opinion is to keep playing on regular maps, I can understand that, but an important part of competitive players would like to fight on new & original maps, they just want balanced maps, that's all. And personally, as a competitive player myself, that's just boring to play on the same maps, everytime, with sometimes, the same layout, that could be cool to discover and get some new maps like Jambi, this one is, in my opinion, the best example of a community map made and played in competition.
I hate to repeat things, but you and everyone else should already know by now pursuing balance is not the same as pursuing fun.
*If uwe was serious about competitive maps, they would have adopted caged a while ago.
UWE is a company; they have to earn money and cater for as much of their playerbase as possible. In regard of maps, this does not only cover the gameplay but also the looks. And, frankly, ns2_caged is not (yet) one of the most beautiful maps out there (sorry Flat).
UWE boasts so much about creating assets for maps, creating concept art for maps, helping create beautiful maps. Yet somehow all that support doesn't seem to apply to caged?
Because it's not done yet. If you want to incorporate a non finished custom map, you can either use one of your already hired mappers, who presumably has to abandon one of his own projects, or hire a new mapper (e.g. the guy who made the custom map in the first place). Both are expensive.
Or you just wait until the map is done. (Like they did with Kodiak)
You can't just give your average customer - a pubber - a seemingly half-finished map and call it "official". From a business point of view, this would be a horrible decision (upset players, leaving, etc etc).
Please don't assume it's all about you and your style of play. Please don't throw around sentences like "If uwe was serious about competitive maps", because they are not only full of negativity, but because this is a strawman argumentation that helps nothing to the cause.
And seriously, nothing stops you from playing caged. I don't know if it's in the competitive rotation, i don't play competitive. Just go to the workshop, download it an play it if you want it so much. There is no need for it to be official. UWE can probably not handle it (as in: ensure quality, testing etc.), anyway.
They gave you the tools, so take them. Do it by yourself. Or be happy that there's community mappers building maps for you.
...
please point me to where i demanded UWE cater to my 'style of play'.
"*If uwe was serious about competitive maps, they would have adopted caged a while ago."
(I noticed you posted a new post while I was writing mine. I will respond to it later on.)
This implies they should value the competitive scene over a whole bunch of other factors, like money, or pub play. Furthermore you are clearly coming from the competitive side of this game.
Ergo, you say they should cater more about you (and your kind) than about money, or pubbers.
I said IF UWE wanted to construct competitive maps. It's all good and well to create general maps and release them. It's another thing entirely to then go out and accuse the comp community for being stubborn and irrational for not adopting it.
Now you are mixing stuff up. First, neither me nor UWE ever claimed the competitive community to be "stubborn and irrational".
Second, yes, you said "if". But it reads like "If uwe was serious about competitive maps -which they aren't-, they would have adopted caged a while ago. But they haven't, and that's wrong."
If that's not what you meant we have a misunderstanding here.
Far too many people play this game on past experience rather than learned skills. People play summit/tram/veil because they've played them before and are comfortable with them. People are scared to play new maps because they simply can't transition skills like positioning and ambushing, they can only use moves and positions they've learnt from experience. Obviously this is a paradox and stupid; but it's a high barrier for a map to enter a regular, popular cycle.
This running sentiment mentioned throughout the thread by different posters is just so wrong. If UWE wants to really construct a competitively accepted map, they need to look past the mindset of a comp community that is stubborn. For example, tram used to be universally hated and played like absolute crap - over time it was opened up and iterated into a really great playing map.
It isn't that people arn't willing to learn how to play new maps , it's that the map has been designed to actively restrict the 'moves and positions' available to begin with. Take eclipse for example. It doesn't have a good feeling, doesn't encourage creativity, and so no-one really bothers playing maps they don't find fun.
There is a golden balance between player vs player (faciliating generic pvp flow) and player vs map (what the map uniquely brings) interaction, and some maps like eclipse have lots of the latter at the expense of the former. Although surprisingly, docking is not a comp map because it has too much of the former, and too little of the latter. The courtyard centered play and short distances due to marine spawn are a huge problem.
Now YOU say the comp community is stubborn? I'm confused.
PelargirJoin Date: 2013-07-02Member: 185857Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, WC 2013 - Silver, Forum staff
edited May 2014
@F0rdPrefect You're talking about official maps, I don't think a map needs to be official to be played for competition. You're right because that isn't necessary but that doesn't mean only community mappers can create competitive maps, you can play on custom maps if you want, Workshop is good enough for that. Look Kodiak, a community map made by Loki and he's very aware to improve it for competition, but this is disappointing to see other officials maps left in oblivion for 6 vs. 6 aspect because they aren't working on and they only keep them for public. Of course, sometimes, they tried, Docking is the best example to prove it, even if this map is still unplayable for competitive.
Seriously, I do not like the idea to have something like a separation between competitive & public maps, especially for the last ones (Kodiak, Eclipse). But personally, my goal is only to make some custom maps playable for competitive, we haven't got enough maps on the cycle for Season 4. Wait & see.
EDIT: in my opinion, at the current state, Caged isn't good enough to be a balanced & competitive map, we need to work on, so to be official, that's the same I guess.
@F0rdPrefect You're talking about official maps, I don't think a map needs to be official to be played for competition. You're right because that isn't necessary but that doesn't mean only community mappers can create competitive maps, you can play on custom maps if you want, Workshop is good enough for that. Look Kodiak, a community map made by Loki and he's very aware to improve it for competition, but this is disappointing to see other officials maps left in oblivion for 6 vs. 6 aspect because they aren't working on and they only keep them for public. Of course, sometimes, they tried, Docking is the best example to prove it, even if this map is still unplayable for competitive.
Seriously, I do not like the idea to have something like a separation between competitive & public maps, especially for the last ones (Kodiak, Eclipse). But personally, my goal is only to make some custom maps playable for competitive, we haven't got enough maps on the cycle for Season 4. Wait & see.
[...]
And seriously, nothing stops you from playing caged. I don't know if it's in the competitive rotation, i don't play competitive. Just go to the workshop, download it an play it if you want it so much. There is no need for it to be official. UWE can probably not handle it (as in: ensure quality, testing etc.), anyway.
They gave you the tools, so take them. Do it by yourself. Or be happy that there's community mappers building maps for you.
@F0rdPrefect
It's like you're immune to logic..
You've gravely misunderstood everything I've said, and i'm not too bothered anymore for that to continue being the case.
For almost the past year or so, one of the biggest demands from the comp community along with performance was for more comp viable maps to play on. Summit tram veil rotation was boring everyone to death.
It was from that environment that Jambi sprouted into the mainstream acceptance it has now. Following that, the next two maps descent and biodome were accepted into common rotation. Descent has/had problems, but people like fana were incredibly optimistic and constructive at the time about trying to get it into a viable state.
Eclipse and kodiak are the exceptions because of reasons specific to those maps, and not the community mentality.
Also, just look at b1 himself asking for a new comp map in this very thread.
PelargirJoin Date: 2013-07-02Member: 185857Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, WC 2013 - Silver, Forum staff
B1 isn't he only one open-minded. I know him, and most of the NSL teams with the job I'm doing with these teams. Eclipse isn't playable because too unbalanced. As someone already mentioned, maybe a good map for NS1, but no really for NS2 even if I like its layout and aesthetic. Kodiak, that's an issue, more or less balanced, but players keep thinking they don't want to play on this map, reason? I don't really know, they think, it's an unbalanced map, that's wrong, and don't want to play on because this is an original map, very different than Summit, Veil or Tram, that's all. I would like to see Kodiak in the rotation, that's right, not sure that will happen one day. As you said, Jambi is the best example for custom maps, only present on matches and unknown for public servers, sad, because even for public, this map is fun enough. Biodome and Descent were accepted, sure, but competitive don't like this map for competition, they are in rotation because 1: they're official, 2: they're balanced enough, 3: if we remove them, we only have 4 maps.
Playing a map for competition doesn't mean every competitive players like to play on, that's two different things and I guess you know it.
@F0rdPrefect
It's like you're immune to logic..
You've gravely misunderstood everything I've said, and i'm not too bothered anymore for that to continue being the case.
As we have a misunderstanding, could you please shortly summarize your point, then? Because I don't think I understand...
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited May 2014
@elodea Do you think you could write up the qualities that a competitive map should have? Something like a set of mapping guidelines?
IMHO, eclipse works great in pubs if you have a decent number of clueful players. If the marines don't push, or if the aliens get boxed in early, then yes, it's a waste of a game, but I've had a lot of great rounds on it.
So my point of view why it's not "fun" playing competitive on certain maps:
Eye clutter, disrupting your gameplay. "A confused multitude of things", meaning unnecessary stuff all over your screen. Sure it's fucking awesome looking and if I was only into public games I probably would think different, but the fact is this doesn't translate well into competetive gaming scene. Look at the maps played in competetive and then look at the pub maps and you'll know what I'm talking about. Also dropping the arguement "Well then you have to adapt, play differently and learn how to position yourself, cause these lights and boxes are all up in your face" Dude no :P It shouldn't be an annoyance to adapt your gameplay because of map design. You should alter your gameplay and enjoy it. Eclipse is a good example of this. The same goes abit for kodiak with the "but its balanced cause nobody can see through the trees" fun times. I did enjoy the map so far, but in a public way. Instead, I did really like the room "Lobby" on Derelict with the hanging leaves, that's a perfect example of having awesome props, but not frustrating the player.
Also, just look at b1 himself asking for a new comp map in this very thread.
If we're going to be calling names out for argument validity; Hi my name's Wob from iMagine!
Kodiak has massive potential. People want to eat their cake AND still have it. They want a new map AND not have to learn it. I think that's the biggest reason biodome/descent got added to competitive rotation (despite biodome's imbalance, and descent's misconceptions)
Far too many people play this game on past experience rather than learned skills. People play summit/tram/veil because they've played them before and are comfortable with them. People are scared to play new maps because they simply can't transition skills like positioning and ambushing, they can only use moves and positions they've learnt from experience. Obviously this is a paradox and stupid; but it's a high barrier for a map to enter a regular, popular cycle.
I don't see "stubborn and irrational" anywhere ... stop reaching / self victimizing.
Also, reread Jona's post again and tell me UWE didn't want to construct competitive maps.
Baseless claims like that are easy when you ignore what actually occurs. :^o
@elodea Do you think you could write up the qualities that a competitive map should have? Something like a set of mapping guidelines?
Here are some things I would keep in mind if i could make a map.
General fundamentals
Keep the room shapes/outline sharp, simple and clean. A room that feels cluttered or claustrophobic needs to be opened up to provide movement options and a variety of engagements situations. You should be able to quickly understand the shape and extents of a room. Kodiak doesn't do this well. If you want to have claustrophobic areas, they need to be in the minority and implemented with alot more consideration and scrutiny.
You should be able to look at the minimap and easily understand how to get to places from where you are. Avoid detailed rooms with complex paths appearing on the minimap as a big blob of grey.
You should be able to look at a room and instantly understand how you will interact with the collisions therein especially with walljump. Movement has to be predictably smooth and relatively open. The quickest way to make a map feel good for competitive is to have the walljump flow feel good.
Tram is in part a great map now because of a major iteration in it's past that simply 'opened up the space'. No funky invisible walls from immersive looking rock corners, no random buckets of lava that do collision checks and jitter my model etc.
As much map space as possible must interact with gameplay in some way. No gimmicky laser drills taking up half a corridor just to look pretty. Absolutely everything should have a gameplay related purpose.
For example poles/supports in the middle of the room. If they arn't there to facilitate walljump, they most likely shouldn't be there at all. Keep it clear and out of my face.
Keep props to a minimum, especially props on the floor. Collision and movement must flow and there should be a healthy variety of positioning options. If there is a 'balance' problem, some other solution should be found.
If i make a vent entrance, and then block it with several crates (i'm looking at you eclipse), maybe that vent shouldn't be there in the first place.
Healthy and interesting line of sights at any position. This is hard to explain other than that there is a goldilocks zone between limited line of sights, and long line of sights everywhere. You don't perfect this without play testing. Although if you have good comp experience, it's easy to simply walk around a map and get a good head start on this.
Eclipse as an example really understood line of sights and you could tell props were placed specifically to block certain very specific positions. The problem was there was too much of it. Literally as if the map dev was deliberately giving you the finger at every corner.
Also take into account a built RT or CC when considering LOS. ns2 triad is a good example of what to avoid.
Powernodes should not be in positions that offer zero LOS (eclipse). You should be able to cover at least 1 entrance/exit/corridor length while building.
No fake doorways/corridors, and no unintuitive blind corridors like almost everywhere in kodiak. The map must be intuitive in signalling entrances and exits.
Minimum of glass windows separating spaces in-map as they do not interact well with av
Clear lighting and a minimum of holographic or smoke cinematics. If you do use these cinematics, for god's sake don't use them in the middle of the room or somewhere in the line of sight to entrances and exits.
Add the death triggers and damage trigger zones last. You don't design around them (like refinery). They support the map, not the other way around.
Design around 100ms interp up to ~150ping. Don't make unavoidable death traps, and certainly not all over the map. Try not to make short corridor stretches into blind corners that allow easy interp abuse. And if you do, there should always be room for the marine to maneuver and position with these blind spots in mind.
Gen mon is a great example of what to avoid. You should not literally need someone to split off all the way to another area (core access) just to actually be able to take gen mon. Neither player can cover the other. It's just all kinds of clunky.
Glass hallways is an example of how to do it well. There are movement options - marines can jump up and down from the ramp and use the ramp angle to affect skulk movement.
It should be clear that If i see something and shoot it, it should hit. Avoid problematic railings, grilles, and invisible rock geometry that block bullets from hitting things you can clearly see in crosshairs. There should be zero instances of this.
Macro level
There are no guidelines, other than to choose between 4 or 5 tp, and 9-10 rt's. If you can make a layout work and play great, then good for you. I'm not going to presume that a quality comp map has a certain layout style i.e. the summit style, because it can't possibly be the only viable option.
TL;DR Step 1: Design for good movement and engagement flow. The map needs 'breathing space' as a stage for player interaction. Step 2: 'balance' the macro level and tweak siege spots.
There is no point having a 'balanced' map that has constipated play. You can start from having an awesome looking room, but it should still feel like it provides a depth of interesting movement options and line of sight positions.
Also, just look at b1 himself asking for a new comp map in this very thread.
If we're going to be calling names out for argument validity; Hi my name's Wob from iMagine!
Kodiak has massive potential. People want to eat their cake AND still have it. They want a new map AND not have to learn it. I think that's the biggest reason biodome/descent got added to competitive rotation (despite biodome's imbalance, and descent's misconceptions)
Dude, you and that other fjord prefect guy never seem to understand context. Please follow this step by step
1) Several people suggested the competitive community was close minded and only wanted to stay with what they knew. That this was why they did not adopt otherwise perfectly viable maps. That they did not want new maps at all.
2) b1 is a great player from ns1 and also part of the ns2 comp community. I 'name dropped' him simply because he happened to say exactly the opposite of the above in this very thread.
My entire point here has been to dispel this cloud of belief that the comp community is at fault in regard to maps not being adopted. Jonascrab said there was no 'rhyme or reason' to it, and i disagreed.
No gimmicky laser drills taking up half a corridor just to look pretty. Absolutely everything should have a gameplay related purpose..
Welcome to the future of gaming, complete with rooms that have more than 4 walls and 2 textures.
While i agree with many of your guidelines, you are being wholly unrealistic in regards to visuals by essentially suggesting a reversion of modern game environments, in order to go back to this:
Very few people would actually pay to play something that looks like that today. You would be making NS2 appeal to an even smaller customer base.
Just look at Shootmania, it comes pretty close to adhering to your mapping guidelines, is accommodating towards hardcore FPS crowds like NS2, yet has a lower player count despite being newer.
I propose that modern gamers are now adapted to cluttered environments.
Hell even the worst COD player can distinguish players in those insanely cluttered environments and vast amounts of visual obstructions.
I am all for proper flow and placement and space in rooms.. but you need to be a bit more realistic in terms of the visuals - gaming is never going back to white walled, gamma washed out, forcemodels in Q3... because we really don't have to in order to have a map that plays well. (there are quite a few boxes, props and pinch points [Log -> Repair or NT -> Ore] in Tram that you failed to mention or notice, for instance.)
Far too many people play this game on past experience rather than learned skills. People play summit/tram/veil because they've played them before and are comfortable with them. People are scared to play new maps because they simply can't transition skills like positioning and ambushing, they can only use moves and positions they've learnt from experience. Obviously this is a paradox and stupid; but it's a high barrier for a map to enter a regular, popular cycle.
I don't see "stubborn and irrational" anywhere ... stop reaching / self victimizing.
Also, reread Jona's post again and tell me UWE didn't want to construct competitive maps.
Baseless claims like that are easy when you ignore what actually occurs. :^o
Jonas said he didn't believe there was any logical reason why maps were played or not by the comp community. This implies irrationality.
Many other posters like nacho echoed this by suggesting that people didn't want to move out of their comfort zone. This is stubbornness
So much work was put into trying to make eclipse or docking competitive, but they don't get picked up. The easy conclusion reached by many in this thread is that comp players are essentially close minded and not willing to pick up otherwise perfectly viable maps. This is wrong and counter-productive to what comp players actually want.
I didn't say UWE didn't want to make comp maps. They might have wanted to, but they made the wrong decision, unsurprisingly.
I swear to god i need to stop replying to you. It's always about the stupidest most inane things that you don't seem to have understood.
Inb4 20 more back and forth posts trying to clarify the same exact point.
Also, just look at b1 himself asking for a new comp map in this very thread.
If we're going to be calling names out for argument validity; Hi my name's Wob from iMagine!
Kodiak has massive potential. People want to eat their cake AND still have it. They want a new map AND not have to learn it. I think that's the biggest reason biodome/descent got added to competitive rotation (despite biodome's imbalance, and descent's misconceptions)
Dude, you and that other fjord prefect guy never seem to understand context. Please follow this step by step
1) Several people suggested the competitive community was close minded and only wanted to stay with what they knew. That this was why they did not adopt otherwise perfectly viable maps. That they did not want new maps at all.
2) b1 is a great player from ns1 and also part of the ns2 comp community. I 'name dropped' him simply because he happened to say exactly the opposite of the above in this very thread.
My entire point here has been to dispel this cloud of belief that the comp community is at fault in regard to maps not being adopted. Jonascrab said there was no 'rhyme or reason' to it, and i disagreed.
You know, it would surely help if you could give me context. I never blamed the competitive community for anything, I merely have problems with the ridiculous idea that UWE should include ns2_caged as official map "if they care about the competitive community" (again, sorry Flat.).
I propose that modern gamers are now adapted to cluttered environments.
Hell even the worst COD player can distinguish players in those insanely cluttered environments and vast amounts of visual obstructions.
Far too many people play this game on past experience rather than learned skills. People play summit/tram/veil because they've played them before and are comfortable with them. People are scared to play new maps because they simply can't transition skills like positioning and ambushing, they can only use moves and positions they've learnt from experience. Obviously this is a paradox and stupid; but it's a high barrier for a map to enter a regular, popular cycle.
I don't see "stubborn and irrational" anywhere ... stop reaching / self victimizing.
Also, reread Jona's post again and tell me UWE didn't want to construct competitive maps.
Baseless claims like that are easy when you ignore what actually occurs. :^o
Jonas said he didn't believe there was any logical reason why maps were played or not by the comp community. This implies irrationality.
Many other posters like nacho echoed this by suggesting that people didn't want to move out of their comfort zone. This is stubbornness
So much work was put into trying to make eclipse or docking competitive, but they don't get picked up. The easy conclusion reached by many in this thread is that comp players are essentially close minded and not willing to pick up otherwise perfectly viable maps. This is wrong and counter-productive to what comp players actually want.
I didn't say UWE didn't want to make comp maps. They might have wanted to, but they made the wrong decision, unsurprisingly.
What the hell really. How does this point even matter to the discussion and why would you want to bring it up other than to find some stupid point of arguement.
I swear to god i need to stop replying to you. It's always about the stupidest most inane things that you don't seem to have understood.
Inb4 20 more back and forth posts trying to clarify the same exact point.
That's irony, right? Please tell me you see the irony there. Right?
I propose that modern gamers are now adapted to cluttered environments.
Hell even the worst COD player can distinguish players in those insanely cluttered environments and vast amounts of visual obstructions.
Far too many people play this game on past experience rather than learned skills. People play summit/tram/veil because they've played them before and are comfortable with them. People are scared to play new maps because they simply can't transition skills like positioning and ambushing, they can only use moves and positions they've learnt from experience. Obviously this is a paradox and stupid; but it's a high barrier for a map to enter a regular, popular cycle.
I don't see "stubborn and irrational" anywhere ... stop reaching / self victimizing.
Also, reread Jona's post again and tell me UWE didn't want to construct competitive maps.
Baseless claims like that are easy when you ignore what actually occurs. :^o
Jonas said he didn't believe there was any logical reason why maps were played or not by the comp community. This implies irrationality.
Many other posters like nacho echoed this by suggesting that people didn't want to move out of their comfort zone. This is stubbornness
So much work was put into trying to make eclipse or docking competitive, but they don't get picked up. The easy conclusion reached by many in this thread is that comp players are essentially close minded and not willing to pick up otherwise perfectly viable maps. This is wrong and counter-productive to what comp players actually want.
I didn't say UWE didn't want to make comp maps. They might have wanted to, but they made the wrong decision, unsurprisingly.
What the hell really. How does this point even matter to the discussion and why would you want to bring it up other than to find some stupid point of arguement.
I swear to god i need to stop replying to you. It's always about the stupidest most inane things that you don't seem to have understood.
Inb4 20 more back and forth posts trying to clarify the same exact point.
That's irony, right? Please tell me you see the irony there. Right?
edit: Ah, you edited...
I edited it out because i didn't want to inflame any more wild back and forth with ironhorse.
There is no irony. It is an important point that UWE understands that there is a fault with the way they designed certain maps which is why they are not in any comp rotation. They cannot simply say "well I guess the comp players just don't recognise good things when they are infront of them".
@IronHorse
Sorry, but if you want a quality competitive map, all space needs to have a purpose. If you want pretty things like that laser drill, they belong out of the map. Behind a glass window, in the skybox etc.
Another alternative would be for the laser drill to serve a gameplay function and be a part of the movement of that corridor. However, it doesn't do this.
as to why they wont play some maps and will others, there seems no rhyme or reason. .. and there may or may not be any logic to it..
He clearly expresses his lack of understanding of why and makes no claim, leaving it open to discussion with "may or may not" and is not calling comp players irrational.
Many other posters like nacho echoed this by suggesting that people didn't want to move out of their comfort zone. This is stubbornness
So if i don't want to use my mouse with my left hand because its highly uncomfortable does that make me stubborn??
Again.. stop reaching.
Plenty have gone into why Eclipse didn't work out, to include meatmachine and others.
You appear to be the only one keeping the flames fanned for an allegation that doesn't exist.
I propose that modern gamers are now adapted to cluttered environments.
Hell even the worst COD player can distinguish players in those insanely cluttered environments and vast amounts of visual obstructions.
Far too many people play this game on past experience rather than learned skills. People play summit/tram/veil because they've played them before and are comfortable with them. People are scared to play new maps because they simply can't transition skills like positioning and ambushing, they can only use moves and positions they've learnt from experience. Obviously this is a paradox and stupid; but it's a high barrier for a map to enter a regular, popular cycle.
I don't see "stubborn and irrational" anywhere ... stop reaching / self victimizing.
Also, reread Jona's post again and tell me UWE didn't want to construct competitive maps.
Baseless claims like that are easy when you ignore what actually occurs. :^o
Jonas said he didn't believe there was any logical reason why maps were played or not by the comp community. This implies irrationality.
Many other posters like nacho echoed this by suggesting that people didn't want to move out of their comfort zone. This is stubbornness
So much work was put into trying to make eclipse or docking competitive, but they don't get picked up. The easy conclusion reached by many in this thread is that comp players are essentially close minded and not willing to pick up otherwise perfectly viable maps. This is wrong and counter-productive to what comp players actually want.
I didn't say UWE didn't want to make comp maps. They might have wanted to, but they made the wrong decision, unsurprisingly.
What the hell really. How does this point even matter to the discussion and why would you want to bring it up other than to find some stupid point of arguement.
I swear to god i need to stop replying to you. It's always about the stupidest most inane things that you don't seem to have understood.
Inb4 20 more back and forth posts trying to clarify the same exact point.
That's irony, right? Please tell me you see the irony there. Right?
edit: Ah, you edited...
I edited it out because i didn't want to inflame any more wild back and forth with ironhorse.
There is no irony. It is an important point that UWE understands that there is a fault with the way they designed certain maps which is why they are not in any comp rotation. They cannot simply say "well I guess the comp players just don't recognise good things when they are infront of them".
@IronHorse
Sorry, but if you want a quality competitive map, all space needs to have a purpose. If you want pretty things like that laser drill, they belong out of the map. Behind a glass window, in the skybox etc.
Another alternative would be for the laser drill to serve a gameplay function and be a part of the movement of that corridor. However, it doesn't do this.
...you do realize that I was talking about the irony of saying an argument is stupid and irrelevant and at the same time posting even more stupid and irrelevant things in the very same post?
@elodea Do you think you could write up the qualities that a competitive map should have? Something like a set of mapping guidelines?
Here are some things I would keep in mind if i could make a map.
That's a great list. Thanks! ("As much map space as possible must interact with gameplay in some way" <- This is never going to happen, but everything else seems like really good advice.)
as to why they wont play some maps and will others, there seems no rhyme or reason. .. and there may or may not be any logic to it..
He clearly expresses his lack of understanding of why and makes no claim, leaving it open to discussion with "may or may not" and is not calling comp players irrational.
FFS..
Many other posters like nacho echoed this by suggesting that people didn't want to move out of their comfort zone. This is stubbornness
So if i don't want to use my mouse with my left hand because its highly uncomfortable does that make me stubborn??
Again.. stop reaching.
Plenty have gone into why Eclipse didn't work out, to include meatmachine and others.
You appear to be the only one keeping the flames fanned for an allegation that doesn't exist.
Someone may find it completely rational and logical to wear their socks on their head because of aliens. To me, I will never understand this and I find it irrational.
And yes, it is implied stubbornness. You're missing the part where people are telling you that once you learn to play with your left hand, it is just as awesome if not awesomer.
You really want to go into semantics? If uwe was serious about competitive maps. I can want to do something, but my actions will always depend on how great that want is, and how good I am at knowing how to satisfy that want.
In regard to Caged, I am still working on it (as we speak, even---maaaybe an update for Sunday) and am hoping to balance it further. I would welcome competitive playtests and feedback on it, as I always have. I recently moved Generator south slightly, and shortened That One Hallway, but I have yet to get any real feedback on the effects.
No gimmicky laser drills taking up half a corridor just to look pretty. Absolutely everything should have a gameplay related purpose..
Welcome to the future of gaming, complete with rooms that have more than 4 walls and 2 textures.
While i agree with many of your guidelines, you are being wholly unrealistic in regards to visuals by essentially suggesting a reversion of modern game environments, in order to go back to this:
I think for example CS:GO does a pretty decent job in combining the modern look and demanding gameplay. It looks good, but it also looks pretty damn purposeful and clean.
Very few people would actually pay to play something that looks like that today. You would be making NS2 appeal to an even smaller customer base.
Just look at Shootmania, it comes pretty close to adhering to your mapping guidelines, is accommodating towards hardcore FPS crowds like NS2, yet has a lower player count despite being newer.
Obviously Shootmania being a rather dull game has nothing to do with the player numbers. It's supposed to be a hardcore game, but is missing 90% of what makes hardcore gaming interesting. Surprisingly enough it doesn't really attract anyone.
I propose that modern gamers are now adapted to cluttered environments.
Hell even the worst COD player can distinguish players in those insanely cluttered environments and vast amounts of visual obstructions.
CoD also works with gamepad and all that. You can get away with surpringly much stuff when the gameplay is as simplistic as CoD's. NS2 is probably almost as far on the other end as it can get in terms of dependency on clean visuals. On NS speeds and situational gameplay you want to have the information clearly there.
Sorry, but if you want a quality competitive map, all space needs to have a purpose. If you want pretty things like that laser drill, they belong out of the map. Behind a glass window, in the skybox etc..
Why though? What's the argument for this?
This is the part I don't understand.
Is it as simple as "realistic visual clutter creates too many uncontrollable variables which may potentially create a biased scenario due to object or color palette differences effecting target acquisition"??
If so.. I find that to be a poor reason, as it relegates gameplay environments to pong / clean room simplicity for fear of a micro and minute impact which is basically negligible.
Does this mean debilitating and unrealistic battlefield 3 lens flares and "suppression effects" are OK? Hell no.
But a crate here and there, some debris on the ground and some lava effects are no more impactful than your obscuring HUD.
Lastly, I find target acquisition in a visually busy environment to be just as skilful as traits like tracking or prediction.
Far too many people play this game on past experience rather than learned skills. People play summit/tram/veil because they've played them before and are comfortable with them. People are scared to play new maps because they simply can't transition skills like positioning and ambushing, they can only use moves and positions they've learnt from experience. Obviously this is a paradox and stupid; but it's a high barrier for a map to enter a regular, popular cycle.
I don't see "stubborn and irrational" anywhere ... stop reaching / self victimizing.
Also, reread Jona's post again and tell me UWE didn't want to construct competitive maps.
Baseless claims like that are easy when you ignore what actually occurs. :^o
What are you even...? Why are you searching for "stubborn and irrational" in my post and I'm not self victimizing or deprecating, I'm saying that this is a big problem in many players both casual and competitive. Are you caught up in your debate with elodea? (Also I'm just saying that I distinctly remember the vocal majority saying it wasn't going to work competitively)
Also, just look at b1 himself asking for a new comp map in this very thread.
If we're going to be calling names out for argument validity; Hi my name's Wob from iMagine!
Kodiak has massive potential. People want to eat their cake AND still have it. They want a new map AND not have to learn it. I think that's the biggest reason biodome/descent got added to competitive rotation (despite biodome's imbalance, and descent's misconceptions)
Dude, you and that other fjord prefect guy never seem to understand context. Please follow this step by step
1) Several people suggested the competitive community was close minded and only wanted to stay with what they knew. That this was why they did not adopt otherwise perfectly viable maps. That they did not want new maps at all.
2) b1 is a great player from ns1 and also part of the ns2 comp community. I 'name dropped' him simply because he happened to say exactly the opposite of the above in this very thread.
My entire point here has been to dispel this cloud of belief that the comp community is at fault in regard to maps not being adopted. Jonascrab said there was no 'rhyme or reason' to it, and i disagreed.
b1 being a good player doesn't mean he's all clued up about map balance (no offence buddy). The very fact that he was unaware of the map testing going on currently demonstrates that he doesn't know what's in the pipeline. He also said he can't say why kodiak isn't one of the maps acceptable/playable in comp.
IMO kodiak is ready to be played, even without my proposed mesh over bridges to help with lerks. Just in my opinion AND experience a vast number of competitive AND casual players do not want to play kodiak because they don't find it fun. When I've asked people about it, they just throw vague comments about like "aliens OP" and "Aliens win 90% of the time" when I've experienced no such walkover. I've both won marines and aliens and lost.
Refinery - long lines of sights
Mineshaft - RT overkill and relative marine friendly.
Docking - Super small map for pressure.
Eclipse - Super small map and difficult to establish marine RTs but then can really snowball if marines win a couple of important engagements.
These maps all have their own problems in why a 6v6 community doesn't adopt them; I agree that these are map issues and not competitive stubbornness or irrational.
However, kodiak has a real sweet balance between all of these without being a summit re-make (in my opinion it's very close to meeting the golden standard you proposed of PvP and Player vs Map). The only reason kodiak isn't being accepted by the community is fear of new things. People look at it and it's different. So different from summit that they can't discern how they think they should play it, so they blame something else. It's a classical behaviour that you can find in almost any public server even, when players blame stack instead of learning from mistakes and improving so they can make use of their skills and beat the "better" players. NOTE: This behaviour is not limited to the 6v6 competitive scene either; a large number of YOclan pubbers hate the map too.
It would be nice if you could post exactly what is so wrong with the map that is stopping it getting played. (If its fps, mendasp will fix it when it gets added to the season)
Comments
UWE boasts so much about creating assets for maps, creating concept art for maps, helping create beautiful maps. Yet somehow all that support doesn't seem to apply to caged?
...
please point me to where i demanded UWE cater to my 'style of play'.
I said IF UWE wanted to construct competitive maps. It's all good and well to create general maps and release them. It's another thing entirely to then go out and accuse the comp community for being stubborn and irrational for not adopting it.
I think, players, and I mean old players, the ones who played NS2 with many hundred of hours, not the beginners, don't like the idea to play on new maps. For sure, that's pretty cool to discover new maps like Biodome, Descent, Eclipse or even Kodiak recently, but that doesn't mean they like to play on these maps. NS2 players, some of them believe in the fact this is only fun to play on regular & classic maps, because, yes, they know everything they have to know, that ventilation, that hidden corner, that position to ARC such place, etc. That's easier indeed to fight when you know the entire map, skill is good enough on new maps, but you can easily defeat someone just thanks to your knowledge of the map itself.
I like new maps, originality, new layout, new strategies, new ways to play on, etc. But you have to train on these maps, you cannot play as you want, because you don't know what way I can use, what's the better idea to ambush people... I remember Descent, Biodome & Eclipse when they released, especially Eclipse which one nobody loves to play because it's too unbalanced in favor of Aliens, but if everyone wants to play on these maps, just after their release, with time, they're not the most playable maps, you can ask people, the latest maps aren't the favorite ones, clearly. In competitive, that's exactly the same, an accentuated degree perhaps. The goal of 6 vs. 6 is to prove your team is better than the opponent one, that means better strats, better skills, everything you can use thanks to the map to win a game. New maps = new gameplay, you have to find new strats, learn the map itself to ambush, I don't know. And players, most of them, don't like that, boring & long, why playing on new maps if we already have the last ones, no fun for us. I don't share this opinion, but that's a fact, most of them think the same. And I don't talk about unbalanced maps, worse, no need to play if we know there's nothing to do because that's a pro-aliens map, or pro-marines map, this is not fun, I can understand that.
I agree for the feebacks too, that's an issue for the current maptesting on the custom maps. You have to say what's wrong? How can we change that? What can we do to improve this? But generally, if mappers know there's a problem there & there, he can correct it himself, and just keep going with new changes and see if that's better or not.
Because it's not done yet. If you want to incorporate a non finished custom map, you can either use one of your already hired mappers, who presumably has to abandon one of his own projects, or hire a new mapper (e.g. the guy who made the custom map in the first place). Both are expensive.
Or you just wait until the map is done. (Like they did with Kodiak)
"*If uwe was serious about competitive maps, they would have adopted caged a while ago."
(I noticed you posted a new post while I was writing mine. I will respond to it later on.)
This implies they should value the competitive scene over a whole bunch of other factors, like money, or pub play. Furthermore you are clearly coming from the competitive side of this game.
Ergo, you say they should cater more about you (and your kind) than about money, or pubbers.
Now you are mixing stuff up. First, neither me nor UWE ever claimed the competitive community to be "stubborn and irrational".
Second, yes, you said "if". But it reads like "If uwe was serious about competitive maps -which they aren't-, they would have adopted caged a while ago. But they haven't, and that's wrong."
If that's not what you meant we have a misunderstanding here.
Now YOU say the comp community is stubborn? I'm confused.
Seriously, I do not like the idea to have something like a separation between competitive & public maps, especially for the last ones (Kodiak, Eclipse). But personally, my goal is only to make some custom maps playable for competitive, we haven't got enough maps on the cycle for Season 4. Wait & see.
EDIT: in my opinion, at the current state, Caged isn't good enough to be a balanced & competitive map, we need to work on, so to be official, that's the same I guess.
I think the same. elodea, apparently, doesn't.
It's like you're immune to logic..
You've gravely misunderstood everything I've said, and i'm not too bothered anymore for that to continue being the case.
@Pelargir
No. Just no.
For almost the past year or so, one of the biggest demands from the comp community along with performance was for more comp viable maps to play on. Summit tram veil rotation was boring everyone to death.
It was from that environment that Jambi sprouted into the mainstream acceptance it has now. Following that, the next two maps descent and biodome were accepted into common rotation. Descent has/had problems, but people like fana were incredibly optimistic and constructive at the time about trying to get it into a viable state.
Eclipse and kodiak are the exceptions because of reasons specific to those maps, and not the community mentality.
Also, just look at b1 himself asking for a new comp map in this very thread.
Playing a map for competition doesn't mean every competitive players like to play on, that's two different things and I guess you know it.
As we have a misunderstanding, could you please shortly summarize your point, then? Because I don't think I understand...
IMHO, eclipse works great in pubs if you have a decent number of clueful players. If the marines don't push, or if the aliens get boxed in early, then yes, it's a waste of a game, but I've had a lot of great rounds on it.
Eye clutter, disrupting your gameplay. "A confused multitude of things", meaning unnecessary stuff all over your screen. Sure it's fucking awesome looking and if I was only into public games I probably would think different, but the fact is this doesn't translate well into competetive gaming scene. Look at the maps played in competetive and then look at the pub maps and you'll know what I'm talking about. Also dropping the arguement "Well then you have to adapt, play differently and learn how to position yourself, cause these lights and boxes are all up in your face" Dude no :P It shouldn't be an annoyance to adapt your gameplay because of map design. You should alter your gameplay and enjoy it. Eclipse is a good example of this. The same goes abit for kodiak with the "but its balanced cause nobody can see through the trees" fun times. I did enjoy the map so far, but in a public way. Instead, I did really like the room "Lobby" on Derelict with the hanging leaves, that's a perfect example of having awesome props, but not frustrating the player.
If we're going to be calling names out for argument validity; Hi my name's Wob from iMagine!
Kodiak has massive potential. People want to eat their cake AND still have it. They want a new map AND not have to learn it. I think that's the biggest reason biodome/descent got added to competitive rotation (despite biodome's imbalance, and descent's misconceptions)
Read what he said: I don't see "stubborn and irrational" anywhere ... stop reaching / self victimizing.
Also, reread Jona's post again and tell me UWE didn't want to construct competitive maps.
Baseless claims like that are easy when you ignore what actually occurs. :^o
General fundamentals
Tram is in part a great map now because of a major iteration in it's past that simply 'opened up the space'. No funky invisible walls from immersive looking rock corners, no random buckets of lava that do collision checks and jitter my model etc.
For example poles/supports in the middle of the room. If they arn't there to facilitate walljump, they most likely shouldn't be there at all. Keep it clear and out of my face.
If i make a vent entrance, and then block it with several crates (i'm looking at you eclipse), maybe that vent shouldn't be there in the first place.
Eclipse as an example really understood line of sights and you could tell props were placed specifically to block certain very specific positions. The problem was there was too much of it. Literally as if the map dev was deliberately giving you the finger at every corner.
Also take into account a built RT or CC when considering LOS. ns2 triad is a good example of what to avoid.
Gen mon is a great example of what to avoid. You should not literally need someone to split off all the way to another area (core access) just to actually be able to take gen mon. Neither player can cover the other. It's just all kinds of clunky.
Glass hallways is an example of how to do it well. There are movement options - marines can jump up and down from the ramp and use the ramp angle to affect skulk movement.
Macro level
There are no guidelines, other than to choose between 4 or 5 tp, and 9-10 rt's. If you can make a layout work and play great, then good for you. I'm not going to presume that a quality comp map has a certain layout style i.e. the summit style, because it can't possibly be the only viable option.
TL;DR
Step 1: Design for good movement and engagement flow. The map needs 'breathing space' as a stage for player interaction.
Step 2: 'balance' the macro level and tweak siege spots.
There is no point having a 'balanced' map that has constipated play. You can start from having an awesome looking room, but it should still feel like it provides a depth of interesting movement options and line of sight positions.
Dude, you and that other fjord prefect guy never seem to understand context. Please follow this step by step
1) Several people suggested the competitive community was close minded and only wanted to stay with what they knew. That this was why they did not adopt otherwise perfectly viable maps. That they did not want new maps at all.
2) b1 is a great player from ns1 and also part of the ns2 comp community. I 'name dropped' him simply because he happened to say exactly the opposite of the above in this very thread.
My entire point here has been to dispel this cloud of belief that the comp community is at fault in regard to maps not being adopted. Jonascrab said there was no 'rhyme or reason' to it, and i disagreed.
While i agree with many of your guidelines, you are being wholly unrealistic in regards to visuals by essentially suggesting a reversion of modern game environments, in order to go back to this:
Very few people would actually pay to play something that looks like that today. You would be making NS2 appeal to an even smaller customer base.
Just look at Shootmania, it comes pretty close to adhering to your mapping guidelines, is accommodating towards hardcore FPS crowds like NS2, yet has a lower player count despite being newer.
I propose that modern gamers are now adapted to cluttered environments.
Hell even the worst COD player can distinguish players in those insanely cluttered environments and vast amounts of visual obstructions.
I am all for proper flow and placement and space in rooms.. but you need to be a bit more realistic in terms of the visuals - gaming is never going back to white walled, gamma washed out, forcemodels in Q3... because we really don't have to in order to have a map that plays well. (there are quite a few boxes, props and pinch points [Log -> Repair or NT -> Ore] in Tram that you failed to mention or notice, for instance.)
Many other posters like nacho echoed this by suggesting that people didn't want to move out of their comfort zone. This is stubbornness
So much work was put into trying to make eclipse or docking competitive, but they don't get picked up. The easy conclusion reached by many in this thread is that comp players are essentially close minded and not willing to pick up otherwise perfectly viable maps. This is wrong and counter-productive to what comp players actually want.
I swear to god i need to stop replying to you. It's always about the stupidest most inane things that you don't seem to have understood.
Inb4 20 more back and forth posts trying to clarify the same exact point.
You know, it would surely help if you could give me context. I never blamed the competitive community for anything, I merely have problems with the ridiculous idea that UWE should include ns2_caged as official map "if they care about the competitive community" (again, sorry Flat.).
+ they don't even have alien vision!
That's irony, right? Please tell me you see the irony there. Right?
edit: Ah, you edited...
There is no irony. It is an important point that UWE understands that there is a fault with the way they designed certain maps which is why they are not in any comp rotation. They cannot simply say "well I guess the comp players just don't recognise good things when they are infront of them".
@IronHorse
Sorry, but if you want a quality competitive map, all space needs to have a purpose. If you want pretty things like that laser drill, they belong out of the map. Behind a glass window, in the skybox etc.
Another alternative would be for the laser drill to serve a gameplay function and be a part of the movement of that corridor. However, it doesn't do this.
So if i don't want to use my mouse with my left hand because its highly uncomfortable does that make me stubborn??
Again.. stop reaching.
Plenty have gone into why Eclipse didn't work out, to include meatmachine and others.
You appear to be the only one keeping the flames fanned for an allegation that doesn't exist.
...you do realize that I was talking about the irony of saying an argument is stupid and irrelevant and at the same time posting even more stupid and irrelevant things in the very same post?
edit: spelling
That's a great list. Thanks! ("As much map space as possible must interact with gameplay in some way" <- This is never going to happen, but everything else seems like really good advice.)
And yes, it is implied stubbornness. You're missing the part where people are telling you that once you learn to play with your left hand, it is just as awesome if not awesomer.
You really want to go into semantics? If uwe was serious about competitive maps. I can want to do something, but my actions will always depend on how great that want is, and how good I am at knowing how to satisfy that want.
In regard to Caged, I am still working on it (as we speak, even---maaaybe an update for Sunday) and am hoping to balance it further. I would welcome competitive playtests and feedback on it, as I always have. I recently moved Generator south slightly, and shortened That One Hallway, but I have yet to get any real feedback on the effects.
Obviously Shootmania being a rather dull game has nothing to do with the player numbers. It's supposed to be a hardcore game, but is missing 90% of what makes hardcore gaming interesting. Surprisingly enough it doesn't really attract anyone.
CoD also works with gamepad and all that. You can get away with surpringly much stuff when the gameplay is as simplistic as CoD's. NS2 is probably almost as far on the other end as it can get in terms of dependency on clean visuals. On NS speeds and situational gameplay you want to have the information clearly there.
This is the part I don't understand.
Is it as simple as "realistic visual clutter creates too many uncontrollable variables which may potentially create a biased scenario due to object or color palette differences effecting target acquisition"??
If so.. I find that to be a poor reason, as it relegates gameplay environments to pong / clean room simplicity for fear of a micro and minute impact which is basically negligible.
Does this mean debilitating and unrealistic battlefield 3 lens flares and "suppression effects" are OK? Hell no.
But a crate here and there, some debris on the ground and some lava effects are no more impactful than your obscuring HUD.
Lastly, I find target acquisition in a visually busy environment to be just as skilful as traits like tracking or prediction.
What are you even...? Why are you searching for "stubborn and irrational" in my post and I'm not self victimizing or deprecating, I'm saying that this is a big problem in many players both casual and competitive. Are you caught up in your debate with elodea? (Also I'm just saying that I distinctly remember the vocal majority saying it wasn't going to work competitively)
b1 being a good player doesn't mean he's all clued up about map balance (no offence buddy). The very fact that he was unaware of the map testing going on currently demonstrates that he doesn't know what's in the pipeline. He also said he can't say why kodiak isn't one of the maps acceptable/playable in comp.
IMO kodiak is ready to be played, even without my proposed mesh over bridges to help with lerks. Just in my opinion AND experience a vast number of competitive AND casual players do not want to play kodiak because they don't find it fun. When I've asked people about it, they just throw vague comments about like "aliens OP" and "Aliens win 90% of the time" when I've experienced no such walkover. I've both won marines and aliens and lost.
Refinery - long lines of sights
Mineshaft - RT overkill and relative marine friendly.
Docking - Super small map for pressure.
Eclipse - Super small map and difficult to establish marine RTs but then can really snowball if marines win a couple of important engagements.
These maps all have their own problems in why a 6v6 community doesn't adopt them; I agree that these are map issues and not competitive stubbornness or irrational.
However, kodiak has a real sweet balance between all of these without being a summit re-make (in my opinion it's very close to meeting the golden standard you proposed of PvP and Player vs Map). The only reason kodiak isn't being accepted by the community is fear of new things. People look at it and it's different. So different from summit that they can't discern how they think they should play it, so they blame something else. It's a classical behaviour that you can find in almost any public server even, when players blame stack instead of learning from mistakes and improving so they can make use of their skills and beat the "better" players. NOTE: This behaviour is not limited to the 6v6 competitive scene either; a large number of YOclan pubbers hate the map too.
It would be nice if you could post exactly what is so wrong with the map that is stopping it getting played. (If its fps, mendasp will fix it when it gets added to the season)