Discuss: Should the Old Maps be Replaced/Graphically Overhauled?

[Wraithlike]

I think with the 1.5.1 beta there's been some upset at the replacement of some old favorites with new more graphics intensive, or simply modified versions, we'd like to hear what you think.

Thanks, and we await your replies.

[Boots]

I'm with a yes and no.

Maps that have been changed both game play wise, and graphically wise should be either re-named; or just played as custom maps. This includes laos, which in my honest opinion didn't needed changed at all. Sure, some new graphics to look at is a change, but when the game play is affected and changed around or ruined, its just annoying. Also these new maps have a lot of details in them which causes a lot more people to lag. Telling people to "stfu, get a new computer" doesn't help the problem, because there playing this game for enjoyment, that's why it's called a game right?

I really like the new snakebite, it's much more tactical than the old one, and who ever re-made it was thinking in the right direction.

I think the problem is, is that the mappers that have changed the old maps haven't thought about there popularity, where as they should be thinking about improving maps that haven't been played as much, or have lost popularity. The new b2b looks really unfinished and ugly, and in my opinion didn't need another change graphic wise. It probably needed to be shorter, for more people to like it, but the new graphics weren't needed.


I would love to see Laos have some new colour, but changing every single thing including game play isn't good.


I haven't seen dropdown2 re-make, or run, but I've heard good and bad things about them. Run needs a change because it's way to big and horribly boring for a 3v3 cw. I've seen viet, and it looks absolutely horrible.

[ElephantHunter]

They look great. It was much needed and long awaited. New players will see that Soldat isn't all about looking like wannabe-retro junk. Best of all, those new and/or modified maps will level the playing field as the veterans spend time to study the environment.

[As de Espada]

old laos should stay
old equinox COULD stay, because it's very different from the new one, but the new one is a lot better
old ruins should stay, it's roundness is very different from the new one

I think that all remakes should have other names... can you explain why this name change?

[Suowarrior]

I think that all remakes should have other names... can you explain why this name change?

The decision is based on keeping default map names simple by keeping the "root name" only. If we'd go with adding numbers in the end, we might got some ctf_Ash12 maps in official default list, which is basically the same map.

In my opinion, it's pretty pointless question. Public servers can change easily old Run or Equinox into Run_old or whatever they like that's what happened with B2b years ago, when this b2b version overwrote the old (in ver. 1.2). It's true that it wouldn't be much pain to keep adding numbers, but meh whatever. However if you got good argument to support for not using original name, I'd consider speaking enesce for it.

[Geoffrey]

In my opinion, on maps where there were no gameplay issues, like Laos, the changes shouldn't have been made.If you could keep the polys exactly the same position-wise and maybe look a bit nicer on the whole that could be ok so long as it does not compromise the gameplay of those with shite pcs (like me and many many others).

Mappers shouldn't just make all these flashy new maps and then force on everyone else who plays the game by making them defaults just because they like what they look like in polyworks. I don't think that soldat needs every map to look flashy. The style of the old maps is really nice the way it is.

Best of all, those new and/or modified maps will level the playing field as the veterans spend time to study the environment.

I really think that point has little worth to it.

[ElephantHunter]

Best of all, those new and/or modified maps will level the playing field as the veterans spend time to study the environment.

I really think that point has little worth to it.

LMAO... and I really think you need to explain your opinion, Geoffrey, especially if you plan to bash mine. You seem like the intelligent type. Give me something good. I'm not gonna let you walk away that easy, so here's some solid logic:

Fact: The old maps were ugly (not gonna budge on this one.)
Fact: The new maps are flashy and quite playable.
Fact: The new maps will temporarily lower the skill threshold as vets relearn the intricacies of game play.
Hypothesis: Vets, such as Geoffrey, only want to keep the ugly old maps because they've wasted ridiculous amounts of time studying the details to gain an edge over newbies.

Fact: Newbies leave if the skill threshold is too high.
Fact: Newbies also leave if they think the game maps are ugly.
Fact: Most vets aren't going to leave because of a few flashy new maps. They'll just complain (which is normal.)
Fact: We want as few people to leave as possible.
Conclusion: The flashy new maps help the game more than the ugly old maps.

It makes me angry that veterans are willing to hold back the progress of the game for selfish reasons. Knock it off and learn to play a new map already.

[Geoffrey]

I don't think it's studying maps that gives me an advantage over someone who has played for say a year or less casually. If I were to play against a newer player than myself in ctf or whatever on a new map I reckon that I would still beat them because I have more experience in other areas that can reapplied to any map. The best players will still dominate a newer player on a new map and will become more familiar with a new map faster as well.

I suppose it is important that our ideas of experienced players may well differ. To me I'm thinking league players as opposed to pubs. You may well be referring more to pubs and I think the point is more applicable there. Either way I think 'vets' would adjust much faster although people entering the game at the time of introduction could find themselves on a leveler footing than they would have before. As you say though those recently joining the game (few months perhaps) could well find encouragement from the change.

Wanting to keep an edge over newer players doesn't come into my own opinions I have to say. I have always liked to feel of soldat from when I myself was a new player (1.3.1). It did nothing to deter me.

Of course what also got me into the game was that my pc was (is) shit and such a simple game could still just about run at a smooth rate (30-40 fps). Flashy maps could hurt the game by cutting off the lower band of system requirements with loads of sceneries in maps. I'm not involved enough on the tech side to be aware of what the limits on a low end pc for smooth play would be but yeah, I hope it is being taken into consideration.

Since I myself am happy with the graphics of the old maps and their style as well as the gameplay of the classics generally I just find myself wanting the gameplay to stay as it is and maybe have some small updates in the looks. I think changing the maps to draw in new players, disregarding what older players think isn't what is best for the community as a whole.

You could say: looks are more important to a player browsing for a new game to play and coming across soldat whereas keeping true to the old gameplay and the visual themes of soldat (soldat's classic style present in most old maps). Changing maps to level the gameplay just doesn't seem like a deciding factor since a new player isn't going to come into a server and be surprised at all to find their are players much better than themselves.

I have probably contradicted myself a few times or whatnot up there but essentially I just want the gameplay to remain the same as it was with maybe some minor tweaks to the visuals if you really think it is that deterring to a new player although everyone in this community was drawn into the game nonetheless. You could say the graphics are falling too far behind the times, but that means it includes all those, such as myself, who can't access any other level of game due to the system they are using.

[Poop]

Elephant hunter, I think a few of the new maps are uglier than the old ones. Adding a bunch of sceneries and clutter does not make a map look good. I prefer a crisp clean look, because to me that not only looks better, but its better for gameplay as well.

[Snow]

In my honest opinion, old defaults such as Laos, Snakebite, B2b, etc, etc should never be replaced by themselves unless there is an overwhelming call from the community to have them removed OR the replacements prove themselves and retain the character of the original.

As for what Elephant Hunter pointed out...

Fact: The old maps were ugly (not gonna budge on this one.)

50/50 on this one. Some were. Others reflected Soldat's simplicity and did not have anything distracting in them.

Fact: The new maps are flashy and quite playable.

True.

Fact: The new maps will temporarily lower the skill threshold as vets relearn the intricacies of game play.

Er.. well, if that's one of the intentions behind their design, yes, that does help out newbies.

Hypothesis: Vets, such as Geoffrey, only want to keep the ugly old maps because they've wasted ridiculous amounts of time studying the details to gain an edge over newbies.

Completely disagree with this thought. Even though I myself haven't played as much as Geoffrey has perhaps, I guess I could consider myself a vet at this point. Personally I don't find it fun at all trying to gain an edge over newbies. I actually have more fun playing against moderate to pro players.. even if most of the time I'm at the bottom of the list and have had my ass handed to me several times. It's fun to one-up a pro. I've played on a lot of the old maps for years and after this long, there are still areas I forget about. I myself have never studied a map for the purpose of gaining advantage over anyone. The only time, I've ever studied a map, was when I was designing one of my own ctf maps (which won't see the light for another 2 years maybe).

Fact: Newbies leave if the skill threshold is too high.

Very true. I agree that we do need some maps that are newbie friendly.

Fact: Newbies also leave if they think the game maps are ugly.

Also true.

Fact: Most vets aren't going to leave because of a few flashy new maps. They'll just complain (which is normal.)

Sorry EH, I find that a little ignorant, but can't fully disagree. It depends on what kind of maps the new ones are and what's been taken out as is very apparent with the whole present default map issue.

Fact: We want as few people to leave as possible.

True.

Conclusion: The flashy new maps help the game more than the ugly old maps.

It makes me angry that veterans are willing to hold back the progress of the game for selfish reasons. Knock it off and learn to play a new map already.

I agree that new (and possibly) better looking maps will help with attraction to the game. I disagree for the most part that vets are being selfish. These maps didn't stay in Soldat for years for no reason, they stayed in because they have excellent layout, reflect the simplicity of the game, many players old and new like them.

I can understand that there was shock when seasoned players saw the new maps. The old ones that they had played on for years that had also been favorites were suddenly overhauled and changed - changing the dynamic of each map. Yes there was an outcry and anger that old favorites got affected. Yes, some players will get pissed that they have to get used to the new layout, but one thing you have to understand is that, it's a fresh new layout for all the remakes. This means that it could be a while before we know whether the maps are improved, or the layouts lessen the playability. Just because they may look improved, doesn't mean that the layout IS improved.

Anyhow, for now as long as they are in the beta and the beta will last for a few months for sure, it's our obligation to test them out. I just hope that if they stay for the next official release, that they at least be given their own extension or identity. Of course we are trying to attract new players, but no one stays a newbie forever and those who stay with Soldat should still have a chance if they wish to experience play on the old maps.

I know I'm on the verge of talking in circles and putting my foot in my mouth. I am 50/50 sitting on the fence about this. It is true that Soldat should definitely look better. Yeah, we invested hundreds of hours into old maps and so there is nostalgia in a way on them, but we can't be closed-minded about giving the game a facelift. People have faster computers now and what was considered fast a while ago is very cheap now, so it is time that Soldat start looking a little better. Having new default maps does NOT limit anyone's ability to keep playing on old maps. I guess, all I can say for now is that the new maps really need to prove themselves to be worthy of being an official replacement.

[Boots]

Elephant Hunter, Where did you get these facts from? No offence, but they seem very, very biased.

[ElephantHunter]

Elephant Hunter, Where did you get these facts from? No offence, but they seem very, very biased.

Ah, well, so were yours! You didn't cite a single source in anything you wrote. Funny that I can make the same argument. Although seriously... seems like a rather weak attack, so additionally I'm just going to point out that you fit the "Veteran who's angry with game play changes" profile. Sorry if I offended you. Just pointing out your hypocrisy and selfish bias.

[Boots]

I didn't post any "facts" I posted my own opinions.

Get where I'm coming from? It just seems like these facts that you've generated were from your own mind.

[ElephantHunter]

I didn't post any "facts" I posted my own opinions.

Get where I'm coming from? It just seems like these facts that you've generated were from your own mind.

So you're admitting that everything you said is not "fact", but "opinion". I'm assuming you're trying to say this has some effect on the merit of your argument. If that's the case, then I wholeheartedly agree that your argument is without merit and should be discarded.

[jerich]

Elephant Hunter, Where did you get these facts from? No offence, but they seem very, very biased.

Ah, well, so were yours! You didn't cite a single source in anything you wrote. Funny that I can make the same argument. Although seriously... seems like a rather weak attack, so additionally I'm just going to point out that you fit the "Veteran who's angry with game play changes" profile. Sorry if I offended you. Just pointing out your hypocrisy and selfish bias.

Not that I'm agreeing, nor disagreeing with what you said, but "You also didn't cite a single source in anything you wrote."

P.S.
I don't remember if it was you but im pretty sure it was a guy from -[ILOA]-(something like that) and your name seems to be really familiar with making this game mode...

I used to love the game mode with going through the level with all the bots trying to reach the flag and working with a team to navigate through. I loved that jungle one and I was in what I believe was your server a long time ago playtesting a new one. Where's that map at(if it was you)

[ElephantHunter]

You are correct. I was co-founder of the International Legion of Autos (with Leo Da Lunerfox) and administrator of the site. The clan is now defunct, but here's an archived copy. The special game mode you are referring to was cooperative INF. There was a server script that spawned a number of bots for every player. inf_JungleStrike, created by several members of the SML team, was one of the more popular maps we created for that game mode. Please note this was before the days of Polyworks

[jerich]

I usually disagree with any game mode with bots(I mean it IS a multiplayer ONLINE game), why bother with them...

but yea that game was fun as hell, and that proves that ugly maps(no offense, but compared to these new ones, much nicer) can be amazing, and one should never judge a book by its cover...had so much fun playing this with a whole bunch of people.

[Biggles]

They look great. It was much needed and long awaited. New players will see that Soldat isn't all about looking like wannabe-retro junk. Best of all, those new and/or modified maps will level the playing field as the veterans spend time to study the environment.

Agreed, but I will only disagree with one map, Viet, the looks are good but the polygons could be smoothen out, just like the looks, It's a cartoon map so stick to cartoon, just smooth out the colours

Also rotten needs a mega bugfix if noone noticed it yet, it's bad

[Colonel ONeill]

I think some "new" maps are nice but some of them weren't needed.

Also, Guardian should have a bugfix too with the bridge, you always jump a little after falling on it and that's very annoying.

[Suowarrior]

Also, Guardian should have a bugfix too with the bridge, you always jump a little after falling on it and that's very annoying.

That happens since you drop down on it at 90 angle with speed. However I found small polybug in center of bridge (which causes higher jumps than normally, since polycorner will boost it). It'll be fixed.

[Bugs Revenge]

Some changes are welcomed (like dropdown),
others realy upset (I think most of the community) like Laos - It's one of the most admired map ever, you can't just replace it.

[L[0ne]R]

I think that all remakes should have other names... can you explain why this name change?

The decision is based on keeping default map names simple by keeping the "root name" only. If we'd go with adding numbers in the end, we might got some ctf_Ash12 maps in official default list, which is basically the same map.

The new maps aren't really just "updates". Like Boots said - they're different both visually and gameplay-wise, and IMO they deserve a slight difference in the name.
There no need for name change if the only differences are a few minor polygon/scenery tweaks here and there, but those aren't just minor tweaks - they're complete remakes. Even I named my INF map remakes a bit differently by adding _rw at the end (which stands for "rework"), and with inf_Rise i even changed the name to inf_SunRise. You spend a lot of time picking and testing new candidates for default map list, so why not to spend a little more time to decide on new names?

In my opinion, it's pretty pointless question. Public servers can change easily old Run or Equinox into Run_old or whatever they like that's what happened with B2b years ago, when this b2b version overwrote the old (in ver. 1.2). It's true that it wouldn't be much pain to keep adding numbers, but meh whatever. However if you got good argument to support for not using original name, I'd consider speaking enesce for it.

Why this won't work: If there's no "official"name for older versions of maps - it will be named differently on other servers. So it might be Laos_old on one server, LaosOld, Laos1.5, oldLaos, etc on others.


-----------

As for maps themselves - I really like some, but some are just too different (while new equinox is nice by itself, comparing to its previous version it's tiny and there's no way it can be played the same way as before).
Whether new maps should be replaced or not - the answer is more complex than just yes/no.

-----
also, there's a small polybug on new B2B - the leftmost part of the map, where reds spawn. Try running backwards and backflipping along the curving wall. You'll get stuck on one of the polygons, instead of rolling along it.
It doesn't happen in blue spawn.

[As de Espada]

The new maps aren't really just "updates". Like Boots said - they're different both visually and gameplay-wise, and IMO they deserve a slight difference in the name.
There no need for name change if the only differences are a few minor polygon/scenery tweaks here and there, but those aren't just minor tweaks - they're complete remakes.

agree
even death was renamed when was added a top route...

[Suowarrior]

Yes we did name them different: There were RunS, LaosZ, Mayarevamp, Stardrop etc.

However:

Q: Why the map version numbers are gone? Death2 = Death
A: The decision is based on keeping default map names simple and consistant by keeping the "root name" only.

Read the FAQ.

[L[0ne]R]

I read that in the FAQ, but I still think that's not a good enough reason why completely different maps (even though remakes) should completely replace the old ones.

If you want to keep map names consistent and simple - you should rename them to something else that is still simple and consistent but is also different. Even if it's something completely different from original name, I think many players would prefer that instead of replacing default maps with something very different just for the sake of "pretty" filename.

[As de Espada]

when I said

even death was renamed when was added a top route...

I ment that it was ctf_Death, and becomes ctf_Death2. THAT renamed.

[jerich]

My opinion: I completely agree with this. Infact, I think mapmakers should always follow a rule not to add background sceneries EVER. To make the map look good, use a nice contrast of colors, use some trees and bushes (These actually add to the gameplay by letting people hide in them), and use nice shading on the maps. Don't use background sceneries.

EXAMPLE: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/928/examplen.png

That screen pretty much says it all. The original is crisp, clean, you can see everything in the background, theres no clutter. In the 2nd, theres a shadow jungle in the background, the polygons have sceneries, and in general there is just way too much clutter.

I think Poop's comment is right. As a casual map maker, I know were artists and we're trying to attract people with nice overviews and what not. But we got to understand that soldat is not some newgen game. It is a retro game and should have retro looks. Trying make it all fancy just reaps the game of its simplicity and its beauty.

I was also a competitive gamer back a bit and I can assure you the gamers care about shooting people down, and having a balanced game...not commenting on how the sky looks. "Wow, the beautiful bright orange sunset over the exotic rainforest is spectacular."
How about no?

I've noticed alot of people here are more concerned with decent looks as opposed to the "other" players who just care about having a decent game.

[Dusty]

But we got to understand that soldat is not some newgen game. It is a retro game and should have retro looks.

Sadly not many undestand this.

[Squakingcow]

My opinion is this:

Game play changes were needed, for some of the maps however this is just the wrong way to go about it. All that needed to be done was open the old maps in whatever map creator/editor tweak the polys where needed (ie. make the entrance/exit to low on laos slightly larger) and leave everything alone. Fix what is broken (or needs fixing) but leave everything else as is.