+1
Not all maps, some are utter shit, now obviously it's up to the player base as to what could be defined as "good" or "bad".
What maps would be classified as good to the players?
Outlands for example was (in my opinion) a very fun map, it had multiple different locations to do different events on and there were pretty pre-defined locations where combat was, every class had it's shine on that map.
But a lot of people critiques were the combat was too localized to the middle, sniping, vehicles being annoying, and it being too big.
(note that some of these concerns maybe lessened now then they were before but this is just an example.)
my point is, everyone has different opinions of maps and that could be critical when it comes to player count, which is what sentinels first and foremost concern is.
So unfortunately the maps we have now are what we got, is that subject to change?
Yes, but that depends on the overall opinion of the server, as well as the servers statistics.
In the end, my opinion is that we add some of the maps that balanced player opinion/server statistics back to rotation, since that works to benefit both the server as well as fanfare.
But until then were stuck with c13 but with 400 more sightlines and, unfortunately mainstreet.
Signature:
Director of Personnel
Former Councilman / MSO DvL / Ballista OfC / HECU Major /HVY Major
+1
Me on my way to log on to c13 for the fiftieth time to get sniped by a shield camping a roof
(Two maps just feels really stale imo, generally adding a new map even for a temp time like a rotating map pool would be nice.)
If I put 8 months of work into C13 v3 only for a lot of people to not like it, what makes you think taking on an even bigger project that takes just as long would be a good idea?
As for map edits in general, everyone here is really oversimplifying it as "oh Sentinel can just edit it to fix so and so". For starters; no, I can't. Most of the older maps were not made by me, and I do not have the source VMFs. Decompiling BSPs to get VMFs corrupts and breaks a lot of map geometry, which can widely vary in how long it takes to fix. So even if you're wanting a simple edit to an old map, the time you think is needed is more than doubled from fixing all the things that decompiling breaks.
If the playercount boost from C13 v3 was higher than it was, I'd probably consider it. But clearly, just slapping on a map that someone hasn't seen before won't solve a damn thing. Objectively good maps don't attract people either. If they did, this forum post wouldn't exist.
You cannot simply get someone to like a map just because of its design principles. If someone doesn't like it, they won't like it.
No amount of map edits can fundamentally alter the playerbase's perspective of a map. If it was bad once, it's always bad to them.
The only sort of changes that can alter perspective of a map are massive ones. Not the "oh just change this or that" kind of fixes.
The fact is, if someone sees (X) map on the server they didn't like in the past, there's a very high likelihood they're just not going to log on. They aren't gonna care if something has been slightly tweaked to make it 'more enjoyable'.
Map design and player reception of maps is fundamentally nonsensical. You cannot scientifically quantify who will or won't like something.
Outlands for example; is an objectively terrible map from a design standpoint because most of the CQC combat happens in only 1 area. The rest of the map belongs to vehicles, snipers, or nobody goes to it at all.
Yet people loved it when the points were completely tunnel-centric.
If you tried to apply a 'formula' for good player feedback, then a good map by that standard would be a tunnel with two spawns at either end. It just doesn't work.
Not all maps, some are utter shit, now obviously it's up to the player base as to what could be defined as "good" or "bad".
What maps would be classified as good to the players?
Outlands for example was (in my opinion) a very fun map, it had multiple different locations to do different events on and there were pretty pre-defined locations where combat was, every class had it's shine on that map.
But a lot of people critiques were the combat was too localized to the middle, sniping, vehicles being annoying, and it being too big.
(note that some of these concerns maybe lessened now then they were before but this is just an example.)
my point is, everyone has different opinions of maps and that could be critical when it comes to player count, which is what sentinels first and foremost concern is.
So unfortunately the maps we have now are what we got, is that subject to change?
Yes, but that depends on the overall opinion of the server, as well as the servers statistics.
In the end, my opinion is that we add some of the maps that balanced player opinion/server statistics back to rotation, since that works to benefit both the server as well as fanfare.
But until then were stuck with c13 but with 400 more sightlines and, unfortunately mainstreet.
Former Councilman / MSO DvL / Ballista OfC / HECU Major / HVY Major
but not just 1 massive event but multiple ones through out the map with like hour breaks or something.
Me on my way to log on to c13 for the fiftieth time to get sniped by a shield camping a roof
(Two maps just feels really stale imo, generally adding a new map even for a temp time like a rotating map pool would be nice.)
Imagine Outlands and defn_main combined.
As for map edits in general, everyone here is really oversimplifying it as "oh Sentinel can just edit it to fix so and so". For starters; no, I can't. Most of the older maps were not made by me, and I do not have the source VMFs. Decompiling BSPs to get VMFs corrupts and breaks a lot of map geometry, which can widely vary in how long it takes to fix. So even if you're wanting a simple edit to an old map, the time you think is needed is more than doubled from fixing all the things that decompiling breaks.
If the playercount boost from C13 v3 was higher than it was, I'd probably consider it. But clearly, just slapping on a map that someone hasn't seen before won't solve a damn thing. Objectively good maps don't attract people either. If they did, this forum post wouldn't exist.
You cannot simply get someone to like a map just because of its design principles. If someone doesn't like it, they won't like it.
No amount of map edits can fundamentally alter the playerbase's perspective of a map. If it was bad once, it's always bad to them.
The only sort of changes that can alter perspective of a map are massive ones. Not the "oh just change this or that" kind of fixes.
The fact is, if someone sees (X) map on the server they didn't like in the past, there's a very high likelihood they're just not going to log on. They aren't gonna care if something has been slightly tweaked to make it 'more enjoyable'.
Map design and player reception of maps is fundamentally nonsensical. You cannot scientifically quantify who will or won't like something.
Outlands for example; is an objectively terrible map from a design standpoint because most of the CQC combat happens in only 1 area. The rest of the map belongs to vehicles, snipers, or nobody goes to it at all.
Yet people loved it when the points were completely tunnel-centric.
If you tried to apply a 'formula' for good player feedback, then a good map by that standard would be a tunnel with two spawns at either end. It just doesn't work.
Ancient GRID CmD, prior SU Major/GB COL.
Credit to SEVIN.