How many maps?

[Bullet10k]

How many maps do you think is reasonable for UT2007? Notice I said "reasonable" and not "would you like" because with the new engine I think it takes a lot longer to make maps than it previously did because of all the extra detail. We all want 300 excellent looking and playing maps but it just cant happen.

[Strider_Izzy]

the more the merrier!!! although too many maps could have too many decisions and waste memory for an engine thats low-end friendly. but for the rest of us. i think 85+ is ok

[MrSmiles]

don't forget there's gametypes you want atleast 10 for each gametype and there's prolly gonna be a few new games

[Bullet10k]

Dont forget, quality>quantity, and also we dont want maps with graphics (the map art) dumbed down.

[Taleweaver]

Originally Posted by MrSmiles

don't forget there's gametypes you want atleast 10 for each gametype and there's prolly gonna be a few new games

Actually, UT2007 is going to have less gametypes (thread). It won't have assault, bombing run or domination, so there shouldn't be maps for it either. Only conquest is new.

I don't know about you guys, but ever since map voting showed up, everyone voted for the same maps over and over again (can you recall much online games of maps like Desolation, Moondragon or Rrajigar?). You can't change ppl's atitude, so I'd say that it's better to put more focus on the maps you have, rather than have lots of maps that don't do more than take up hard disk space...Or rather: that take up lots of disk space (Desolation takes up 50 MB, and I doubt newer maps will be much smaller).

Hmm...4 different types of maps (DM, CTF, ONS, CONQ), 5 gametypes (add in TDM), about 10 decent maps for each gametype...50 should be a reasonable total

[EL BOURIKO]

about 15 maps per game types.

for instance 15 for DM -->

3 of them Low Grav
(1 map designed for 8 or more players, 1 map for 3 to 7 players, 1 map for 1on1)

3 of them Long range maps (with wide open areas)
(1 map designed for 8 or more players, 1 map for 3 to 7 players, 1 map for 1on1)

3 of them Close combat (with tight rooms and corridors)
(1 map designed for 8 or more players, 1 map for 3 to 7 players, 1 map for 1on1)

3 of them where technical moves becomes a real advantage to pick up bonus
(1 map designed for 8 or more players, 1 map for 3 to 7 players, 1 map for 1on1)

3 of them a mix of some of the 4 previous aspects
(1 map designed for 8 or more players, 1 map for 3 to 7 players, 1 map for 1on1)

that s how I see the thing, but of course I may be totally wrong.

[Almost]

I totally agree with Bullet. Quality over quantity. If that means we won't get more than 3-4 maps for each gametype, so be it. There are plenty of very talented mapmakers in the community.

[Selerox]

Map breakdown that I hope/expect there to be in UT2007:

25 DM
10 CTF
10 ONS
5 CON

Conquest will have huge and complex maps, so I don't expect that they'll be vey many of them.

As far as I remember, UT99 had around 50, and that was more than enough. As has already been said, quality > quantity. Maps with solid gameplay as the top priority are what we want. Make them good as good as possible, but never at the expense of gameplay.

One thing I do hope is that Epic will make sure that there are very few "gimmick" maps in there. That includes maps with deformable terrain. If they do include them, I hope they're in addition to, rather than instead of gameplay maps.

[Bullet10k]

IMO I think 60 is PERFECT. 15 for each gametype. Considering that some of the maps will be ported over from previous UT's (the best ones) I think 60 is possible.

[Bullet10k]

Originally Posted by Selerox

Map breakdown that I hope/expect there to be in UT2007:

25 DM
10 CTF
10 ONS
5 CON

If were going to have UNEVEN number of maps for each gametype (thats fine) then I think CTF should get almost the same priority as DM. So say about 20 CTF would be great (which would bring it to 60). Or make that 15 CTF and 8 CON and 12 ONS (which would bring it to 60 once again ). Neways I think of CTF as Deathmatch with objectives and its a bit more fun (IMO ofcourse), so CTF cant have less than half the number of maps of DM.

[Vault]

its really funny....... Bullet, i assume you were the one who posted this in the Atari Forums. At the Atari forums, most people voted for less than 40, while here at BU most of us vote for 90+

[NeoNite]

100.000

Almost, nice avatar. Kind off looks familiar...

[Vault]

Originally Posted by NeoNite

100.000

Almost, nice avatar. Kind off looks familiar...

thinks it's from that Alan Wake trailer

[Bullet10k]

nvm

[T2A`]

I voted ~50. With less gametypes and no "copy-paste" jobs like going from UT2003 to UT2004, there's no need for there to be near 100 maps. Besides, there are more votes for 60 or less than 85+ in this poll...

[Defeat]

>I hope they rethink and add in bombing run, it was one of the coolest gametypes. What Epic could do is let you pick the stuff you want to install, like gametypes and maps, then only them.

[Vault]

Bombing Run with vehicles.... hmmmm

[Nosnos]

I would gladly see just 8 DM-maps if they are all good... it's not the number of maps that matter, I think UT2003/UT2004 proved that a little bit to well ^^

[Sahkolihaa]

Not too many and not too few I say.

[Selerox]

Originally Posted by Nosnos

I would gladly see just 8 DM-maps if they are all good... it's not the number of maps that matter, I think UT2003/UT2004 proved that a little bit to well ^^

Agreed, UT2004 had a lot of real nigtmares in there. Here's the list (IMO) of the DM maps which should never have seen the light of day:

Serpentine (it's also a rip-off of a Quake2 map)
Curse4 (not better than 3)
HyperBlast2
Icetomb
Inferno
Injector
Insidious
IronDeity
Leviathan
Oceanic
Plunge
Sulphur
TrainingDay (Shouldn't have been included as playable outside of the SP game)
Most of the 1on1 maps.