ATTENTION MAPPERS!

[Maximus]

We need a map with square rooms, no more than five textures and obj's to complete. Get on it people!

Hence the appeal of Cargo.

[Laser]

I think there's a market for 90% of the pug community for a good new map, but as Tensor said, it can't have every other door being a miget door or a miget coridoor, and the objectives have to be fun, maybe even original, something fresh and new.

[Maximus]

Because every custom map either the objs suck, the spacing is way too small, or people put more into looks than gameplay. Every screenshot I see is gay looking maps. They all seem too dark, unless your gamma is just really low. But I don't want to play siege in a dungeon.

Tensor identified several specific issues.
1. The objectives are deficient.
2. Areas are too small aka midget effect.
3. More attention is put into visuals than gameplay.
4. Insufficient lighting/Maps are too dark.

I don't know how many custom maps he's played, but Cargo certainly has 3 out of 4 of these issues (I can't say too much work was put into visuals, it's one of the most drab looking maps I've played).

All of these are solvable problems, and do not in my opinion indicate that maps should not be created, only that the emphasis needs to be changed.

More explanation is needed in regards to #1. How are the objectives deficient? Length? Number? Originality? Complexity?
In the average siege game, do you think there needs to be more emphasis on objectives, or on shooting? Offense has to worry about completing objectives and shooting, while defense pretty much just shooting. Is offense too busy or defense too boring? Should offense have less to worry about? Defense more to worry about? On base maps, most especially Hoth, there's an optimal way to complete the objectives, i.e. 2nd obj rush etc. Is this desirable, or undesirable?

[tens0r]

Well then prove me wrong people. You guys have been talking about mapping for years and not even one has been put out yet. Tri makes maps in 1-2 weeks at a time and some of them are actually good. Don't need to put in sooooo much effort into one map and make a few, we're bound to put up with at least 1 out of 10.

@ Bob, yes I realized this years ago that cargo sucks balls. It's a map full of midget doors/hallways.

[j3rk]

My new goal has become making a map that tens will actually play, heh. That's one of the reasons I'm begging you to design the community map here: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=890

Generally though, I think it's safe to say that a map designed with pugs in mind, and that's actually pugged, will have a better chance to be played/adopted in pubs as well (instead of the other way around). But yeah, if I had given up mapping based upon how often my maps are downloaded/played, I would have stopped years ago.

[Turky]

Well then prove me wrong people. You guys have been talking about mapping for years and not even one has been put out yet. Tri makes maps in 1-2 weeks at a time and some of them are actually good. Don't need to put in sooooo much effort into one map and make a few, we're bound to put up with at least 1 out of 10.

@ Bob, yes I realized this years ago that cargo sucks balls. It's a map full of midget doors/hallways.

CTF maps are probably far easier to make than siege maps. Objectives are the same in each ctf map whereas siege requires a lot more deliberation and testing to see what works, and what doesn't, both with classes and overall map structure.

That's what the difference between the two kinds of maps boils down to. Tri probably doesn't test his maps too much, maybe with a few of the whoracle members if anything but he mostly just says "hay doods here's a map, glhf."

[j3rk]

trk speaks truth. I don't know this Tri guy but it sounds like he's a CTF mapper. I'd wager that the most basic of Siege maps would take 10 times longer to complete than a CTF map. They're quite complicated to make/test, especially if they have side routes and crap. The actual map (environment) is probably only 65% of the work/time.