Should Bungie Downloadable maps be mandatory? (Via update.)

[William Wallet]

See I dunno, I'd be more inclined towards making the stock TFL maps mandatory. Maybe not all of the variants and 3rd party maps included in the mappack, but the stock stuff? Absolutely!

But I'm warped, see. If it were up to me, I'd make 1.7 so that there's no vTFL button - that is, you can't turn it OFF.

[The Elfoid]

I wish there was a third option, the indifferent option. Sure having some maps added to the default removes that one step of activating the plugins and makes sure everyone has it. However, if people are that lazy, well... there is a plugin filter now. Type a few letters and the list of plugins only includes the ones that have those characters you typed.

A better idea would be some sort of favorite plugins. Where players somehow have tagged certain plugins as their favorites and show up in the list with the default maps without having to activate them. Then if they load that map, then only that plugin is loaded.

Favourite plugs is a good idea.

However, the indifferent option....well, if people aren't that fussed, then clearly downloading the larger patch can't be TOO big of a deal to them surely?

[Graydon]

yes Baak i ment cryptic, im just going by what its called in fear and loathing. ~8^)

I hear ya, but I'm still not with you on Gothic/Cryptic being somehow bungie/badlands related? Seems like Gothic was an Idiots update to Cryptic Wightings?

I think the confusion comes in, because in the myth 2 tag set included on the CD (in my Myth Total Codex edition at least, which was much after all of these other maps were actually developed. it included stacks of 3rd party maps that had been created already from the early days), somewhere in the collections, there's a pregame image for a map that appears to be Cryptic Wightings. It was called Gothic in the pregame. On the myth 2 CD (bungie content).


The way I see it, for the 'unfinished' maps (Gothic and Going to Town), some map makers should get together, and make 2 varients of each mesh. We find the best version of mesh to start with, tweak any remaining bugs, and do it up bungie style - poll the community even, and pick unitsets that way. I dont think adding 5-6 variants per new mesh is a good idea. With the stock Bungie maps, if two maps share a cmap at all, there's a max of 2 versions. On many maps there are only 1 variant.

What do people think of this proposition?

[vinylrake]

Regardless of how many or few meshes Bungie included, I don't see any disadvantage to having more meshes if there is something unique about them. e.g. While we don't need blinding light, light, slightly less light, grey, dark grey, dark, really dark meshes, I don't have a problem with (for example) a map with easily indentified meshes like Light, Dark, Grey (aka Venice), Slugfest. Also, Bungie maps are not known for their variety of starting locations but I think maps benefit (where practical) by having more than one fixed set/number of starting locations. There's nothing wrong with a properly designed mesh having a 4 and 8 start mesh. So you might have a Light (4 start) and a Light(8 start) mesh - same for dark, etc. If you keep to a simple naming convention it's easy enough to figure out what is what. If a player says "Can we play the 8-start Light Gothic map?" a host isn't going to have any problem finding it when it's name is "Gothic Light ( 8 )".

In regards to remaking the lost/unfinished Bungie maps, for the maps that have already been updated it seems like an incredible waste of time. If someone has already gone to the trouble of fixing all the (for example) problems with water depth/passability, why would anyone want to do the same thing again? Since Baak already volunteered to change mesh names to Bungie like names and make the map look more like standard Bungie maps, unless there's some good reason to NOT use the version he's modified and that has been played/tested HUNDREDS of time, I can't see any reason not to just use that.

[Jon God]

I agree with both Gray and VR.

[haravikk]

I say just the Bungie ones, with the originally released version only unless there were some glaring issues with them in which case I'd say just fix those issues.

I know it's fun to add new stuff to things, but it would be unwise to go the route of adding what are essentially 3rd-party maps as then we'll get people asking us to add WW2, SF2 etc. etc. by default and the 1.7 update will end up bigger than the game itself

[Tireces]

Sure, they should be added.
"Cryptic Wightings" and "Going to Town" hmmm they could wait till 1.8

[The Elfoid]

Like I said, lets start small and try deciding on a few maps to DEFINITELY include - ones that no one debates inclusion of. I think we'd started to make progress there before getting sidetracked.

And lets get a poll on MariusNet.com and either tws.vitalsinerecords.com/tourney or the MWC09 forum which is where everyone on the TWS forums will migrate to very soon. That way we can have a more widespread opinion. I'm not informed enough to be terribly specific, someone else should do this. Ideally someone closer to the Magma boys, if not the Magmas themselves.

Any maps that take longer to debate on the inclusion of can be included in 1.7.1. It could be a purely map-based update with no other extras. Rather like the Myth II demo it could be set to be compatible with 1.7.0 but only if the maps included in 1.7 (if any) or the "stock" Bungie maps were hosted. I think fairly quickly everyone would upgrade to 1.7.1. Since currently any debate on adding maps only extends to multiplayer ones this would mean co-op players don't have to do the update to 1.7.1. And I'd guess that as less competitive players, they're more likely to be the ones without 1337 gaming PCs...if anyone objected to the adding of more maps I'd expect it to be them.

[Pyro]

And I'd guess that as less competitive players, they're more likely to be the ones without 1337 gaming PCs...if anyone objected to the adding of more maps I'd expect it to be them.

So because they like coop, they must have old computers, but if they like multiplayer more they have newer computers? I'm sure there are both coop and multi players with old and newer computers. Besides, the coop players are likely the more open to additions than purely multi players.

[The Elfoid]

And I'd guess that as less competitive players, they're more likely to be the ones without 1337 gaming PCs...if anyone objected to the adding of more maps I'd expect it to be them.

So because they like coop, they must have old computers, but if they like multiplayer more they have newer computers? I'm sure there are both coop and multi players with old and newer computers. Besides, the coop players are likely the more open to additions than purely multi players.

Oh I was generalising, I wasn't making assumptions about everyone.

I'd say the only "standard" maps people are expected to have are the tournie ones that get used in every 2-team/MWC. They get played more than any other.

We're just talking Bungie stuffs for now tho

[qwerty2]

why are we having this discussion again? There was discussion and votes about including the Bungie maps in 1.5, 1.5.1 and 1.6 and the eventual decision all 3 times was to leave them out.

If any maps are going to be included it really should only be the three post release maps by bungie:

leagues from nowhere
boil and trouble
Phoenix rising

going to town, cryptic wightings and raising barn are all incomplete and/or unbalanced. Starting to include other maps, such as 3rd party maps, TFL ports, edited version of bungie maps etc... will make the patch too big.

[William Wallet]

A line ought to be drawn; I say leave it as it is. If people want easily accessible post release maps, make another map pack.

[vinylrake]

It think the idea of mappacks is a good one, as long as the mappacks are available from more than one site.

e.g. I think a Bungie PRASP mappack would be good though kind of small - maybe it could be padded with the different 3rd party versions of unfinished Bungie maps that are out there.

A Magma-mappack would be nifty (including of course the TFL stuff) - or maybe just a combo if the Fallen Levels and the TFL multiplayer maps), but it should be mirrored on udogs, on the Tain on anyone else's site who wants to provide popular dls. A 2Team Tournament Mappack would be good - could have standard/popular tournament maps like Lichen, Great Divide, Caer Cadern, Smells..., Fosgarith Ruillick(sorry for bad spelling), Hveglimir(ditto), etc. A FFA/multiplayer-team pack would be good too - collect some of the funky maps like Myopia, Stoneheart, Knuckle, Green Paradise, Twister, etc...

There are other mapmakers or groups prolific enough to deserve their own packs, these are just a couple of ideas of the top of my head.

[Graydon]

Fully disagree wallet.

I know from working retail, with the public every day, that people, in general, are fucking lazy.

If we want those 3 maps to get more play time, I promise you releasing 'another map pack' wont make that succeed.

Including them IN THE LIST, will. Nuff said.

And qwerty, who's to say that the dev team just didnt have the on-hand help at the time to get it done right? Who's to say they don't have that help now? Don't be a downer.

[The Elfoid]

If there IS a map-pack I suggest that like the TFL multis it be a single plugin that compiles a lot of maps. Rather than something like the OOH map-packs which contain lots of plugins. If you can turn on all the maps in one go, it makes people MUCH more likely to bother. As Graydon says, they're dead lazy.

Like I said, we could perhaps try a few maps in 1.7 and if it proved popular subsequently do 1.7.1 which could be identical bar the addition of new maps?