TS 500 Quad Vote

[quadz]

Personally, I liked the randomized-quad-spawn idea.

Alternately, if we're doing fusion.bsp, one thing I'm considering is moving the quad into the giant waterpipe -> waterfall room, slightly inside the lip of the pipe, so you have to do a waterclimb to get the quad.

[HabibGoatAss]

Personally, I liked the randomized-quad-spawn idea.

... but takes a few seconds and would leave one vulnerable, so it would add risk.

[console]

So now that the random quad vote has failed, you guys want to edit the map and make it harder to reach?

Since when did this become the TSMOD 500?

I know, it's a travesty of two shams of a mockery.

On the other hand, it was very nearly a three-way tie between "quad off", "random quad", and "quad on."

Well, quad is still "on", just moved it a little...  You can still get it pretty fast... (see attached demo.)

(Note: If you don't install the override file locally, or you don't have r1q2, the demo should still play. You just won't see the quad in the pipe.  But the demo should still make sense.)


Regards,

[console]

GREETINGS AND SALUTATIONS,

In looking at the fusion.bsp spawns with respect to weaps/ammo, it did seem a bit 'underweaponed'.  Actually I mostly added ammo... but did add a couple weaps.

Also, there were some dead spaces, like, for ex. there were three routes to the BFG, all pretty much the same except for length of the route.  There are still the three routes, but i added some goodies so that a couple of the routes are more risky, but more rewarding.

I've attached some screenshots below.  This version of fusion is now running on ts500, pygmy, and also via mymap on vanilla, so we can see how it plays with a crowd.  I think most of the weap/ammo additions make sense.  If I went overkill anywhere it might be the lasers in the circular junction room with all the doors.  (I put them there for a reason, but if they're more annoying than fun, they can easily be toned down or removed.)

Anyway any feedback would be appreciated... e.g.

  a) Seems like an overall improvement
  b) Improved in some areas but needs some tweaks/additions/deletions
  c) Nothing about the new item spawns improves anything
  d) The original item spawns are perfect and/or classic and no additions are needed
  e) ________________ other?

Or whatever...


Regards,

[console]

Well count me out, have fun.

OK, that's: "d) The original item spawns are perfect and/or classic and no additions are needed", i take it?

After all, I'm asking for feedback...

But it would help me to know... Are you against adding ANY ammo and weaps to the map?  Or are you mostly bothered by the quad being a little more tricky to get?

[PANTONE 7717C]

Some guys are against any change, period. I wonder what it is they are so afraid of? Judging from the stickied post on 'various q2 tweaks', he does seem to be very interested in optimizing everything from config's to brightskins, from rate/fps-settings to monitor's refreshrates and whatnot. But when someone is trying to optimize some half assed map or try to give it a twist he doesn't want to hear it. Okay it's a matter of taste and I know more people share this feeling towards edits (before even giving it a try). But shit, Quake games have always been about modding and customizing and now when it's about some match suddenly all has to be stock and same old.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

I guess I just don't understand why it would be such a terrible sin to add a few twists for fun.
It's still a 500 frag FFA Tourney.
Elysium I could certainly understand being upset about unannounced changes right before the Tourney.
But these are completely announced tweeks to add a bit of spice, that's all.
No one is out to change things for the purpose of realing you in, if that's what you think.
Besides, I dout anyone but Defiant or Flesh has much of a chance of realing you in anyhow. And that's a big mabey.
So what's the problem? So there's a few things threw in for fun, BIG DEAL.
Why should that effect your desicion to play or not?

[console]

I'm not afraid of playing maps the way they were designed to be played.

Thing is, who is to say what level of design went into the item placement on each map?  Sometimes it seems pretty clear that mapmakers put great effort into item placement for FFA maps, and sometimes it appears equally clear the mapmaker made a really nice looking map and then sort of haphazardly tossed items around without considering the flow.  And even on maps where great care was taken (Laurelin went through some beta tests of Valmar, and got feedback from daelmun and others before releaseing the final version) -- even on Valmar, the final .bsp has a wall-facing spawn point, and an elevator that rises to meet you so you can't use the shaft as an escape route.  BOTH of these flaws, Laurelin said he would have wanted to fix, but the final .bsp was already released before he was aware of the issues.  BUT, thanks to r1q2's entity overrides, we have been able to repair both of these map flaws (thanks, Panjoo!) 

The point is, not all mapmakers are equally adept at placing items on maps for balanced, fun gameplay.  And even when they TRY to get it right, they still make mistakes.

I'm willing to bet most mapmakers, if you told them, hey, we love your map, but on our server we've rearranged the items a bit to improve the flow through the map and support 20 players rather than 8 players, they'd probably say, "oh... ok, cool."

There is a huge difference between one player trying to optimize his own gaming performance and another player trying to alter gameplay and item placement.

Well, I have to agree there, it seems like comparing apples and oranges.  Or even apples and a Cuisinart.

But, again, look at ware1 on vanilla.  I have yet to hear a single player claim that Panjoo's tweaks didn't significantly improve the flow of gameplay on that map. 

But anyway to reiterate my point: Not all mapmakers put the same level of design into item placement, and even the really good ones still make mistakes.


Regards,

quadz

[console]

BTW, I watched the .override-tweaked version of fusion played on vanilla this morning with over 20 players.  My opinion is it played a lot better on a full server than the version with the sparse weapons & ammo.

And not only did players seem to have no trouble getting the quad, one guy figured out a way to get it faster than my demo. (Jump straight in from nearby ledge.)

Anyway I'm not married to any of these specific tweaks, (I think i overdid it on the lasers), but I most definitely do believe it's possible to have an item layout that works better for 20+ players than the original layout.

So again, what I'm trying to ask is... Is the original item layout as good as it can be for 20+ players?  If yes, well, fine, leave perfection alone.  If not, though, what harm is there in at least making an attempt to make some improvements?


Regards,

[PANTONE 7717C]

I'm not afraid of playing maps the way they were designed to be played.

Right, but I didn't ask what you're not afraid of. I am curious as to why you and others think it's a bad thing in itself to try to alter gameplay and item placement of a map. It just strikes me that you are usually one of the first to be negative about a proposed change. If a change doesn't work out it will be removed, but if it works then it could spice things up. Yes, you are trying to improve your own game and I am trying to improve things on a wider scale. There's a difference but the idea behind it is the same. Only trying to offer some variety here that's all.


 

[{TNP}Dukie]

I've been swimmin around in your new quad pipe for quite some time on pygmy, even though there was nothing in it.
This morning on vanilla though, it was a railgun in there. 

[console]

I've been swimmin around in your new quad pipe for quite some time on pygmy, even though there was nothing in it.
This morning on vanilla though, it was a railgun in there. 

Should be fixed now... (pygmy needed to be rebooted, and vanilla needed to default to +pu for fusion.)


Regards,

[Ghost9]

I don't see any problem with modifying a map so it can accomodate the number of players who are expected to participate in this event.

Console knows what he's doing and Panjoo might be the most knowledgeable mapper left in Q2.

[console]

What I think I'll do is keep the weap/ammo additions, but put the quad back where it used to be, since moving the quad has raised at least one objection here.  (I'll also remove some lasers )

Elysium, if the quad is back to its original position, do you still have problems with added weapons and ammo?  (None of the original weap/ammo spawns have been moved or deleted.)


Regards,

[jägermonsta]

Yes, we must setup everything to Elysium's liking. Why don't we just start Elysium off with perma quad and 499 frags that way he can happily win once again. 

Screw what other people want, the whole thing should basically revolve around him.

I can't wait to play in the Elysium500.