Flag Pack 2004 Released

[UnrealGrrl]

These are great playing maps and I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of them online. Thank you for making them.

...

because looks and gameplay are not mutually exclusive, but to be honest, I thought they all looked just fine.

...

We are the winners.

DITTOS!

now... mappers gotta do 2 things:

1. Stop apologizing for Making a map with "gameplay" thats lighter on visuals...

and

2: Stop apologizing for making a map thats graphics, candy intensive or unique and "lighter" on gameplay.

Puh - LEASE... graphics and gameplay do not have to be mutually exclusive!

oh and do something else, make the maps you want to make and stop listening to the whining... Create! MOST of you who have experience and are players too know what makes a good map and dont need to cater to any one audience of complainers to make one. (unless of course you are trying to fit a niche).

now onto the players and wanna be reviewers...

you gotta do 2 things too:

1. Stop criticizing / flaming mappers for making a map with "good gameplay" thats lighter on visuals, if you dont want to play a 'simpler' map, dont play it. but dont diss it for not being full of the most eyecandy evah...

and

2: Stop criticizing / flaming mappers for making a map thats graphics and candy intensive or just unique and "lighter" on gameplay. If you dont like eyecandy or cant run it on your machine, stay away and move onto the simpler maps...

we ALL win when mappers create new environments for us to play in. they wont all be great or to our personal taste but when they are on a higher level like this pack, CBP or those by other individuals that kick mapping butt, then its a score for the whole community! :tup: so geeez lighten up already folks.

and mappers, don't apologize for or explain away your excellent work, its what you intended and you dont have to answer to any forumer or player or even nali war cows


ps. im having alotta fun playing these maps. Thanks again!!

 

[hal]

Great post.

I just want to say:

Mappers can always benefit from listening to criticism from someone with editing knowledge. The little cosmetic touches can make your map so much more special.

Reviewers (and this is really not directed to anyone in particular - just reviewers in general) need to understand that there is a good balance between gameplay and not obsess on one or the other. Good film critics don't rail independent films for not using the latest camera techniques and slickest editing and can understand that the big blockbuster might be a little vacuous in the story telling department, but offers a big, fun spectacle. Not every film need be one or the other.

Getting back to gamers... There are people who, just like reviewers, focus in on (and enjoy) one type of map or another. Some people love eye-candy maps and dismiss the rest and some people love gameplay over graphics. Some people love both. Some people even love Thorns.

 

[Bot_40]

1. Stop criticizing / flaming mappers for making a map with "good gameplay" thats lighter on visuals, if you dont want to play a 'simpler' map, dont play it. but dont diss it for not being full of the most eyecandy evah...

and

2: Stop criticizing / flaming mappers for making a map thats graphics and candy intensive or just unique and "lighter" on gameplay. If you dont like eyecandy or cant run it on your machine, stay away and move onto the simpler maps...

Why? I don't understand this. You know...90% of the mappers out there would still be making cube maps if someone hadn't stood up and told them at some stage "You know...you need to work on your visuals a bit".
And 90% of the mappers would still be making maps with no z-axis and 20 redeemers in if someone hadn't said "hey, your layout isn't very good and you need to think about your item placement more"

If I download a map and I don't like it, I don't have any obligation to go to the author and say "Hey, I really enjoyed the map thank you". If I thought something was wrong, I will tell the author so he can make something better next time. If I did like a map, I will let them know, but I will still look for things that need improving so the author can make better maps.

If everyone was doing what you just said all the time we would still be living in caves living off raw animal flesh. "if you don't like it - tough, live somewhere else, we don't want to know about it"

we ALL win when mappers create new environments for us to play in. they wont all be great or to our personal taste but when they are on a higher level like this pack, CBP or those by other individuals that kick mapping butt, then its a score for the whole community! :tup: so geeez lighten up already folks.

Yes, custom maps are a wonderfull thing. It's great someone goes to the effort to make a custom map for free, but if you are doing so, you have to realise that you WON'T be making a perfect map, and you have to understand that people WILL tell you if they find something they don't like. You also have to understand that 90% of people that critisise something are are also doing it so that the author can make better maps.
Don't you see that that's actually a BIGGER win?

It's nice to be able to tell someone you like their map, it's absolutely brilliant to tell someone you don't like a certain area, then next time they make a better map which you DO like and THEN be able to tell them you really like it and that they actually achieved and learnt something.


And just to finish. I didn't play this map pack yet (56k ). I don't have anything against it at all, I never played it, will do in time, but haven't had a chance yet. My first remark was more because some people suddenly decided to argue against shadowlurker just because he pointed out something was wrong.
Lets say the team releases another pack tomorrow, which is just as good quality as this one, would you be happy?
Lets say the team releases another pack tomorrow, which is as good gameplay wise but has stunning visuals aswell BECAUSE they took note of what shadowlurker said, would you be happier?

If you are a map author, you sometimes have to read between the lines.
If shad said "the gameplay is good but the visuals are average and sometimes messy", think of it as basically being equivelant to:
"Thank you for making a map pack with good gameplay which I can enjoy, but next time, try and spend some more time on making more solid and impressive visuals so I can give you a bigger thank you next time"

 

[Selerox]

Gameplay > All

This pack is atleast 10 times better than the CPB packs... and I realy don't understand why ppl spend so much time in creating a map that nobody will never play.

Maybe it was time that reviewers looked at what the players need for a good map, and not at how good an artist they are

A-****ing-men!

 

[hal]

Well, I agree, bot_40, that reviewers should point out flaws in a map. I believe that some reviewers should go one step further and help point out ways to improve the next map, technically speaking. I just see lots of reviews slanted towards visuals and not so much towards gameplay, which is what - ultimately - most gamers care about.

Most people don't expect artistically flawless maps released from amateur custom mappers. I personally think these guys did a nice job with them. If we get superb looking maps because they are listening to sound advice, I think that's great. I really do. I think most people do.

Now days it's become very time consuming to tweak the visuals in a map. It boils down to how much time does the average person have to spend doing that?

I think what you're seeing here is a backlash against the artistic map critic type. We have here a pack of maps featuring sound layouts and scaling and totally acceptable visuals... in some places very good. People are happy with that versus the typical reviewer skew towards lighting, smesh, and texture perfection.

Everyone loves eye-candy and wants to be impressed with the look of a map. And hey, they make for great screenshots for news sites to post.

You know, when you look at the amount of time spent on retail maps, and given that there are often dedicated teams of people for each phase of the map creation... it's going to be nearly impossible for the average guy to release a map of (or near) that caliber. That's true now, somewhat, and will be so in the future. But what will always be the most played online is not the greatest looking maps... just the most fun ones.

We're all looking at different sides of the same coin here.

 

[Zlal]

Hal, whilst you are right to a degree I think there will still be plenty of non-pro mappers in the future who can produce entirely custom content at a better-than-retail level. For UT it was nearly the norm, now it is still common.

From a reviewer's point of view, there is often more to comment on visually/atmopsherically, whereas gameplay wise there is very little to say. Out of the last ten of my previous reviews I've probably written only two that had more to say about the gameplay that the cosmetic side of the map.
The main point is that graphics can be improved upon more, can show more skill and have the ability to impress more than anything else. Gameplay, to me, is always the same, never changing. Gameplay can only be "good" as making gameplay original is risky and often leads to poor gameplay. I believe that is why there are so many remakes out there - trying to be safe. The problem is that if you remake a map, you really have to focus on the visuals. The remake of terra in this pack achieved this and is one of the better maps in the pack for me visually. The gameplay is good of course, but what do you expect from a remake of terra?

Retail maps are not the standard I judge upon. There are inferior to the best, and even a lot of average, custom maps.

I agree with you though, Hal.

 

[Desp2/ROG]

Overall a lot of great ctf maps in this pack, with the exception of the two horrid DM maps included in a ctf map-pack…

I would have to agree with Shadow on the visual points though; the visuals are basically seen that done that type deal and even the style of these visuals were pretty basic. On game-play I think some of the maps feel too big imo and the bases really have too many paths. I do not know about you guys… Perhaps I am old school mapping but a ctf map usually have very few and visible paths. Some maps not all here have a complicated layout that would make me cringe personally. I really hate long corridors also, that usually leads to a complete death trap. I really enjoyed walking around these maps, but I found various little things that would have been easy to fix with just one more day time. Small useless bugs like CTF-Spider has a blue strip on the red base… small stuff like that make it seem ever so slightly messy.

Layout overall I think these maps are really nice some things make me go wah! But overall cool map-pack!

DM maps… Why did you do that? Sorry to break it to you but those DM maps are by far the messiest maps that are trying so hard to be good but fall far from it. The inclusion of those was also almost like a dirty little secret lol.

Pay no real attention to my jaded self

 

[bobbyboy]

There are about 2 dm servers within reasonable pings in europe that have lots of maps in the map voting list. Others run only retail maps + maybe cbp2. Some servers are deck17-only.
On those few servers that have lots of votable maps the vast majority of ppl always vote for same old maps everyone has played +10 times before.

But what will always be the most played online is not the greatest looking maps... just the most fun ones.

3 maps most voted are...
1. deck17 2. training day (locka lolla) 3. 1-on-1-albatross
And yes, this news was about ctf pack but i was just waiting for a thread to post my winings. I try not to think about the situation with ctf servers - instagib! Most non-instagib servers are faceclassic only. So i don't play ctf a lot. Yes iCTF is its own gametype now but when i select normal ctf from the list half of them are also iCTF.
So many awesome maps are created and every dm-remake gets its own news post in BU but i'm not gonna dl many of them because i can never play them online without my own server. Thanks folks for listening my deep feelings eruption. Now i'm going to blast someone in dm-training day to get off my depression and get pissed again because after the match nobody's gonna vote for aristocracy or goose no matter how noisily i whine. But the majority gets its way and majority is happy but it was still fun to burst my emotions on this fine forum.

 

[Super-Moose]

"average" is harsh? Pfft. Someone needs to look at the mapping scene a little more. Average is a good thing nowadays

You missed the wink?

Some people even love Thorns.

And we call those people scum.

 

[hal]

Well, I am glad there are knowledgeable people out there helping others with the editor. If it ends up raising the bar all-around then we all win.

I guess where I really want to just cry is when I see a great looking map that I know will almost never be played because it has a bad layout or it is too narrow, or some such thing. I imagine that you who are proficient in Ued also want to cry when you see misaligned textures, poorly chosen smeshes, and zone lighting.

Maybe we can all gripe long and loud enough to get both?

Desp2/Rog, I think several of those are Threewave maps. I'm like you in that I like fairly straightforward maps and the classic 3 route maps. But you have to admit that even some of the more complex maps in this pack have some very cool gameplay. :tup: They ultimately mostly wind out into 2 to 3 entries/exits to the central area anyway.

 

[Super-Moose]

To say that visuals are a bonus.... hmmm.

I didn't mean that graphics weren't at all important.
I could have worded that a lot better.
I just meant that if you DL a map which you know is focussed on gameplay, then when you load it up and find it looks good too, that's a bonus.
Just the same as if I downloaded an angelheart or warbeast and found that it played as well as it looks. (that'll happen )
I wouldn't be expecting it, so it would be a bonus.

 

[Super-Moose]

I didn't DL the flag pack expecting it to rival the CBP in terms of looks, so the fact that most of the maps look pretty good, to me, is a bonus.

 

[8-4-7-2]

From a reviewer's point of view, there is often more to comment on visually/atmopsherically, whereas gameplay wise there is very little to say. Out of the last ten of my previous reviews I've probably written only two that had more to say about the gameplay that the cosmetic side of the map.

That's because most reviewers aren't clan players. Many maps seem good in botmatch regarding gameplay, or are even a lot of fun on public servers.
They just suck for competetive games. And there is a severe lack of good CTF maps out there

But I've yet to see a map review sites that evaluates maps that way.
Nor do many mappers even care about it. The guy who did CTF-Deep for CBP told me that he didn't care about good gameplay. It showed. Good looking map that plays like crap

 

[Zlal]

That's because most reviewers aren't clan players. Many maps seem good in botmatch regarding gameplay, or are even a lot of fun on public servers.
They just suck for competetive games. And there is a severe lack of good CTF maps out there

But I've yet to see a map review sites that evaluates maps that way.
Nor do many mappers even care about it. The guy who did CTF-Deep for CBP told me that he didn't care about good gameplay. It showed. Good looking map that plays like crap

I thought that Deep had many interesting ideas, and that with work it would have play ok. The long glass tunnels, done correctly, could have led to some coret style gameplay.

You're right, hardly any reviewers play in serious clans. But then again, most of the people who download and play the maps play in serious clans either. Maybe it would be an idea to have a more visually focused reviewer and a clan player review a map, and then produce an review based on equal grounds. It's an idea, but... hmmmm. There would be problems, and I don't know many clan players who would do that.

 

[Bot_40]

Deep was a mess gameplay wise. Shame really because it could have been good with a little thought

 

[[GOD]Odds]

At the end of the day gameplay > graphics. Graphics are a bonus, and a map with crap gameplay will be played less than a map with crap graphics. There are too many "artists" around trying to label their work as levels when they are nothing more than an interactive exhibit.

Hope you guys like it, hope this wont be our last project.

 

[Desp2/ROG]

It really depends on the view most hardcore players as in "pro" play different maps layout wise when you compare them to normal players. Normal players liked the CBP the only ones pissing on it was the "pro" guys. Some maps chosen for pro players I can understand why it was chosen but sometimes it makes me go wtf.

At the end if I am able to get one person liking my maps that is more than enough. Remember mappers usually do not make maps for the community... that is just the end result. We usually make maps with our likes and keep all the dislikes away from them.

What one group likes is very different from the other. Making an opinion seem as fact is pure stupidity. I respect the opinions but saying one is a clearer winner is down right wrong.

I would rather make my own maps that nobody likes than be a community mapping maid Got me somewhere so far and I have gotten really nice contacts to prove it. Not saying people who work in companies are the best but at least the people who have entered in companies know one clear difference, what is marketable and different. If I would have made pure game-play maps with nice Egyptian crap I really do not think I would have stand out of the crowd like I do now.

I have not seen map designers not make a layout first. No No No it is not Soma who created this concept! He is great map designer indeed do not get me wrong on that just saying that every one seems to be hitting on the CBP and maps that have a few gimmicks that more of the regular players like.

If we were all to make Game-play maps the progression of visual and style would have never reach the height as it has now.

I value great game-play and these ctf maps have it going on.

At the end it is a opinion vs. another opinion nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Like I said I rather make a map I personally like instead of having all my ideas and game-play work being dictated by a community. I leave that to game companies when I get paid not for free work. I do an effort and you guys have seen but I will never ever decided just based on opinion I will instead try out that opinion and if it happens to appeal to me it will change the map to the opinion given by a community member.

Layout is most likely the hardest thing to rate out all the things in UT2k4. You can follow all the rules constructed by well known level designers and still fail. The fact is game-play is relative and depends solely on the experience by a player. If these groups of players start to value one map for its game-play any other map would be compared to that one map. So if the game-play does not feel like this one map the game-play at the end will be called flawed and end up being unused because you the player did not give it the time of day to play it and see all the tricks. The community can be fickle at times because of this.
No map will compare unless it feels very close to that one map. Game-play is relative what one group likes is different from the other. The CBP got a lot of attention from the normal crowed. Pro mappers do not know what great game-play maps are more so than regular players who play day to day. It just depends on the view of things. We the level designers spend time learning these theory things and see what game-play works best but at the end the true level designers try to add something new to the whole mix and I know most of my maps will be called crap game-play just because this new thing I added scared the living wits out of you. No map is perfect game-play wise and will never be.

Just getting tired of this CBP bashing thing. Both map-packs succeeded in different ways do not compared oranges with pumpkins…

 

[hal]

I agree. The CBP was a nice collection of highly polished maps. And along those lines, a map can have only an average layout, but a fantastic atmosphere and end up being just as fun.

It's all relative.

 

[GIdenJoe]

I've been playing games for quite a while now, and I must say my likes have narrowed much during the years. Games cannot keep me interested like it used to when I was younger. I used to play console games all day long, now 30 minutes of console play is too much.

But there is one thing that does keep me interested and that is the competitive feel to it. That's why I very much adhere to shooters and fighting games and herein lies the reason why I myself have trouble to keep playing cbp maps because the game itself doesn't interest me that much, but competition does. So when we play CTF, it's usually orbital2, lostfaith and grendelkeep. In ut it was always coret, face, hydro16 coz these maps just feel right to play team vs team. And that's what I kinda missed in both cbp maps. Great designs, great looks, but no longer played after the first day and I think these maps kinda appeal more to the less experienced or younger player coz he's not grown tired of just playing games.

So once again, I'm not bashing cbp, but those appeal to an entirely different group of players. And I can say with confidence that we filled a gap with our flag pack

 

[sp_lit]

need to say something about CBP seeing as everyone is slagging it

DM-CBP1-Arkansos
DM-CBP2-Kadath

THESE MAPS ARE THE DOGS B***OCKS

These two maps play better than almost any other map i have ever played
The only better are DM-Amon [UT], DM-Agio [UT] and DM-1on1-GardenOfStone [UT2003]

So stop slagging the pack for only having gameplay if two good solid maps came out of it then thats enough.