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

[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.