Should money maps be taken away or left in?

[chem]

Southern Utah will always be more popular than some of the best maps ever made by map makers simply because its fun to play and has a shed load of tiberium.

Should these maps be taken away from everyone?

If they are not they will always replace the superior maps for the majority of players. (even if you start training noobs on good maps they will still go to the fun instant gratification money maps  further down the line I bet, just like the long term players do)

If you don't believe on banning them out right do you think we should embrace them and make more of them and make them more fun and better?

Where do you draw the line on banning them vs having some vs having many?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by chem

[cn2mc]

I say scrap the redundant/unfinished ones and leave the decent ones in. Maybe move them in a separate category like we have for original/covert ops maps.

I have no problems with money maps in general. Experienced players will always choose a proper map when going for a serious game. The problem is with the new players. If they come to CnCNet and see that 90/100 maps are money maps, they might think it's all there is to it. Then they'd get their asses pounded with mass unlubricated buggies a few times and possibly quit the game for good or perhaps become another dull buggy fiend. There's your instant gratification.

It's not the fun factor that makes money maps popular. It's the volume factor and the fact that many players don't really care to try out different maps or learn different skills. Building a big army and slamming it against your opponent is not the be all, end all of strategy.

[chem]

8 hours ago, cn2mc said:

I say scrap the redundant/unfinished ones and leave the decent ones in. Maybe move them in a separate category like we have for original/covert ops maps.

I have no problems with money maps in general. Experienced players will always choose a proper map when going for a serious game. The problem is with the new players. If they come to CnCNet and see that 90/100 maps are money maps, they might think it's all there is to it. Then they'd get their asses pounded with mass unlubricated buggies a few times and possibly quit the game for good or perhaps become another dull buggy fiend. There's your instant gratification.

It's not the fun factor that makes money maps popular. It's the volume factor and the fact that many players don't really care to try out different maps or learn different skills. Building a big army and slamming it against your opponent is not the be all, end all of strategy.

Strongly and respectfully disagree, the regulars , you cant say they are non experienced players, theve been playing for many years, favour money maps, these are pros, some of them are on your level approximately and a rare few are above skill wise, which takes alot of experience. The money maps are fun because of the high action, high carnage, big battles, etc people love that. Its not just buggy spam,  buggies are a small part of that. Its more about loads of tanks and huge bases. Its not like they havnt played low money technical maps before its that they prefer more money. Also the money maps became more common because they are more popular and enjoyable to most, not the other way around, you try getting the regulars to switch to low tiberium,  they don't like it so much. .  

I agree with removing all unfinished/redundant maps

Edited January 2, 2019 by chem

[cn2mc]

I'm not trying to switch anybody to anything, OK? Nor did I say anything against money maps. I said I'm fine with them, as long as they're done properly and don't clog up the list with endless and pointless variations. Hell, some are even good for 1v1 and 2v2. But they're mostly for mass FFA, and I don't care about that particular kind of mindless fun.

Regulars who only play money maps, as experienced as they might be in playing them, are playing them because it's an easy fix and hardly takes a lot of skill. Now, I didn't say that those players aren't good, but I highly suspect many of them lack essential skills. It takes a lot of experience to play low income maps, navigate actual terrain and be exposed to infantry right at the start too, you know. But anyway, I said nothing about low income maps in my previous post either.

You are kind of proving my point by strongly and respectfully disagreeing with things I haven't said. 

So, to reiterate my two main points:

- (Your) money maps clog up the list and thus give the false impression they're what the game is about by being overly abundant;

- (Badly made) money maps deprive players of the opportunity to practice essential builds and tactics.

[AchromicWhite]

Indeed... I've played good money map players on some of my own maps... they can't even play the early game.

They can play C&C, but there's a list of things they've never had to deal with on money maps. They seem to have little awareness of positioning, too. Especially regarding terrain.

[X3M]

Where does the battery fit in? I thought it was a bit more of an official map that offered loads of tib. Is this a money fanmade map?

Edit: I don't mind money maps if they are clearly money maps. There are also maps where you can get a radar or extra construction yards etc. To speed up the process and create even more chaos.

Edited January 2, 2019 by X3M

[chem]

11 hours ago, cn2mc said:

 

- (Your) money maps clog up the list and thus give the false impression they're what the game is about by being overly abundant;

- (Badly made) money maps deprive players of the opportunity to practice essential builds and tactics.

The amount of money maps is a reflection of what people want and me catering to what they want.  Infact im going against what they want and having less tiberium in the maps than  what they really want which is often an injustice 5 player type game and that amount of tiberium. Im trying to go against everyone a little bit to go along with your opinion and whites because I think you have valid opinions that matter. While there's a difference of opinion here between you and other players I see the validity of your opinion. Its also an easy problem to solve because we can all compromise on well made money maps that are not super extreme with tiberium amounts and allow for more strategy and less of the popular turtling slamming no troop use, and sniping games.

Ive brought your ideas to the maps and people now use troops,  base creep on a regular basis,  and so on, something they didn't do before. I was never told about paths and the strategy they lead to which is the only reason most of my maps don't have them, but  now I know and will update them accordingly.

The number of crumby maps is something I have stopped putting into the system, and I will PM funky to get them taken out if possible, if that's not possible they will go away in time like even good viral maps do.

If I wasn't here people would still be using injustice 5 player FFA ,circle, utah   and HJK and not deviating much.  These are still being used but now players are being more diverse in the way they play and they are getting better thanks to me you and white.

Edited January 3, 2019 by chem

[chem]

9 hours ago, AchromicWhite said:

Indeed... I've played good money map players on some of my own maps... they can't even play the early game.

They can play C&C, but there's a list of things they've never had to deal with on money maps. They seem to have little awareness of positioning, too. Especially regarding terrain.

Things have changed ull be surprised at how good the regulars are getting on any map! Its not like a year or 2 ago they can adapt to any map , any meta and do really well.  Thanks alot to you sharing your experience and knowledge and me changing the maps to create something closer to the proper meta that you guys advised.   

Edited January 3, 2019 by chem

[chem]

15 hours ago, X3M said:

Where does the battery fit in? I thought it was a bit more of an official map that offered loads of tib. Is this a money fanmade map?

Edit: I don't mind money maps if they are clearly money maps. There are also maps where you can get a radar or extra construction yards etc. To speed up the process and create even more chaos.

Yea we play everything the main group are good at cheesing, proper late game playing, extreme tiberium game meta's, low tiberium maps,  base creeping and troop metas the real meta,  mod maps, team games, ffa, 1v1, we do it all and most of us are good at everything.

Good man, you should join us more often X3M you are more than welcome to, everyone is!

That map is probably inbetween, all map makers go through a process of getting more and more skilled just look at manu and his maps, ironically the most popular maps manu made that still go around today are not his most technically advanced maps they were maps like injustice that he made as a novice map maker. It seems the better you get at map making technically and on par with what white and cnc2mc say the less popular the maps get. That's not a negative statement im making its a very objective observation (one that is important to talk about and resolve) . Im not sure why that is. My more technical maps on par with their advice are not as popular either. Some aspects of map design are liked and popular some are not.

(vertical limit 1 and injustice  5 player were and are far more popular than the vertical limit 2 the original, no one played it despite it looking much better, being far more balanced and technical/strategic in design, why is that? )

 

I think it would be a mistake to follow cnc2mc and whites advise 100% but also a mistake to just make injustice style etc maps, the balance is in the middle that is the optimal way imo. Compromise. I can see their ideas are solid but popularity is a crucial variable too, you've got to make what people want otherwise what you make may as well not exist and its a waste of time and effort.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by chem

[Ferret]

I don't mind them. The more the better. I would agree though with getting rid of all the half baked ones and stick with the more quality money maps.

[chem]

.

Edited January 3, 2019 by chem

[AchromicWhite]

IDK... I keep playing them and they're mostly 1-2 trick ponies.

Especially in GDI v GDI. No one even seems to know that you can open orca, and NOT be an all-in.

[chem]

3 hours ago, AchromicWhite said:

IDK... I keep playing them and they're mostly 1-2 trick ponies.

Especially in GDI v GDI. No one even seems to know that you can open orca, and NOT be an all-in.

Yea they didn't have the luxury of learning as much from Lovehandles Ferret you and cn2mc and other more senior members This game is a huge part about knowledge, little pices of knowledge that you gradually accumulate over time, and that knowledge is very slow to be learnt as you go along. Some of the more rare unorthodox builds simply are not known by most people. They don't even know its possible or a realistic thing to do. Ive got tips from you and cn2mc but the other guys are just learning as they go with no help at all.

 

Whats your opinion on making a map that appeals to popularity vs making a map that would score high marks if it was being rated by a game developer? It seems that with a few exceptions  these two variables are inversely proportional and you cant do both very easily!? Especially if you stay true to how the original game played in 1997 ie low tiberium, small narrow pathways,  high map familiarity needed  and so on

Edited January 4, 2019 by chem

[AchromicWhite]

"Especially if you stay true to how the original game played in 1997 ie low tiberium, small narrow pathways,  high map familiarity needed  and so on"

I have no idea what you're thinking of, most people like playing on maps that are completely infested with tiberium.

I leaned from playing people like Ferret and LoveHandles, true, but we were also all crap back then. But we played on reasonable maps more often. We really didn't touch HJK6.

You can't learn if the option to learn isn't there... even if someone was playing myself/ferret, whatever, they're not going to learn off of us if they're playing on mass tib. The early game is simply not there... and you can't even scout to see what they're doing and learn by seeing how your opponent plays... multi-con just makes it even harder.

"Whats your opinion on making a map that appeals to popularity vs making a map that would score high marks if it was being rated by a game developer? "

I like to make competitive maps. They give a better experience the more you play, have better replay value and create diversity in each game. Most people who play games don't understand games. Design is not everyone's cup of tea, but humans are competitive in nature and, almost all, enjoy competition.

[chem]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 11:35 PM, AchromicWhite said:

"Especially if you stay true to how the original game played in 1997 ie low tiberium, small narrow pathways,  high map familiarity needed  and so on"

I have no idea what you're thinking of, most people like playing on maps that are completely infested with tiberium.

I leaned from playing people like Ferret and LoveHandles, true, but we were also all crap back then. But we played on reasonable maps more often. We really didn't touch HJK6.

You can't learn if the option to learn isn't there... even if someone was playing myself/ferret, whatever, they're not going to learn off of us if they're playing on mass tib. The early game is simply not there... and you can't even scout to see what they're doing and learn by seeing how your opponent plays... multi-con just makes it even harder.

"Whats your opinion on making a map that appeals to popularity vs making a map that would score high marks if it was being rated by a game developer? "

I like to make competitive maps. They give a better experience the more you play, have better replay value and create diversity in each game. Most people who play games don't understand games. Design is not everyone's cup of tea, but humans are competitive in nature and, almost all, enjoy competition.

Oh white re the subjective opinion vs objective fact idea, you talked about social science well that's an applied science not a real science it uses the scientific method to reach a goal but it starts with a  subjective premise/goal. So with regards to maps, factually speaking Trichotomy is no better than southern Utah, seems crazy but that's the objective truth according to science.

I would have thought Trichotomy is vastly superior to southern Utah but the truth and objective reality is that they are not.  

Same goes for any other teaching point or opinion you and others have have that isn't factual in nature.

  Its important to make people aware of this point because there's alot of strong opinions and strong group opinions, and people being taught as if these were fact, and they these opinions have absolutely no merit  even if it seems like they do.

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by chem

[AchromicWhite]

I'm well aware. This is why I wrote a massive post explaining the terms upon what I consider to be competitive and why.

I've talked about this multiple times. Let's take the most obvious example of the importance of map making in a older RTS game. Brood War.
The developers didn't make good maps for the game; yet, due to what the Korean's cooked up, to push competition, Brood War became one of the greatest games of all time.
I'm not arguing that any maps are objectively better than others, I'm coming up with how to make a map play better matches more frequently. And we can debate what makes matches better... but what clearly doesn't, is removing the skill ceiling.

We want there to be room to always grow, and for those with better mechanics and strategy to be those who more frequently take victory, so that we all (new and not so new) have room to grow and compete as fairly as we can. No?

Edited January 9, 2019 by AchromicWhite

[chem]

5 hours ago, AchromicWhite said:

I'm well aware. This is why I wrote a massive post explaining the terms upon what I consider to be competitive and why.

I've talked about this multiple times. Let's take the most obvious example of the importance of map making in a older RTS game. Brood War.
The developers didn't make good maps for the game; yet, due to what the Korean's cooked up, to push competition, Brood War became one of the greatest games of all time.
I'm not arguing that any maps are objectively better than others, I'm coming up with how to make a map play better matches more frequently. And we can debate what makes matches better... but what clearly doesn't, is removing the skill ceiling.

We want there to be room to always grow, and for those with better mechanics and strategy to be those who more frequently take victory, so that we all (new and not so new) to have room to grow and compete as fairly as we can. No?

" I'm coming up with how to make a map play better matches more frequently. And we can debate what makes matches better... but what clearly doesn't, is removing the skill ceiling."

You just failed to display an understanding of subjective vs objective again.

That's an opinion. There can be popular opinions and unpopular opinions......

 

 

If you want an applied science style of map making you have to start with a goal and then use the scientific method and scientific knowledge (facts)  to reach that goal.

 

Problem is your goal isn't everyone else's goal, and its not a pure science so its all based on an opinion at the root , so there is no real merit in your opinion/goal over other peoples opinions/goals on these matters. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by chem

[AchromicWhite]

"Problem is your goal isn't everyone else's goal, and its not a pure science so its all based on an opinion at the root , so there is no real merit in your opinion/goal over other peoples opinions/goals on these matters."

 Look, I'm well aware of subjective vs objective, and yes, my goal is not necessarily other people's goal. There's multiple reasons for that;
-Not all people like competitive 1v1 (which is why I don't think that we should get rid of money maps),
-Not all people understand 1v1, which is part of what's required to make compelling maps (which is why I opened a thread about map design, and put the hard yards in to get discussion on the subject).

I'm well aware that map design is more of an art than a science. Doesn't mean there is no structure to it.

If I follow your argument though... we all may as well just not bother with design and just release maps with literally nothing on them. No tiberium, terrain or even start points... because that's just as good as any other map, but would save us time and energy.
You can reply to this, but I'm done with this topic, now.

[cn2mc]

May I, in conclusion to this I-don't-know-which-in-a-row narcissistic thread of chem's, make some very objective observations: bad music is always more popular than good music in the charts, bad TV gets higher ratings than good TV, most bestsellers are bad books, etc. You get the drift. It's Sturgeon's Law.

Quality shines through with time and, as elitist as it might sound, for the most part only for those who have the capacity to appreciate its inner workings and original intent. The others just reap the benefit at will. Approaching mapmaking in C&C the way you have, chem, is akin to twerking to Pink Floyd.

The fact we have old money maps that are still being played, be it the ancient Utah, or much newer ones like Matt's Bushlands or Manu's Circle, means they were done well, struck a cord with players, somehow filled a void in their gaming experience. If we have those maps we don't need an endless amount of clones that are for the most part inferior. 

I'm not against people having their fun on those tiberium slabs you call maps, most of which fit in my scale somewhere between 'visually painful' and 'atrocious'. I am, however, very much against you proclaiming that mass FFA on featureless terrain is the be-all end-all of C&C. It's also a major hypocrisy on your part, you know? With you being an enemy of base-creeping in RA because 'it wasn't how WW intended' and then at the same time neglecting almost everything 'WW intended' for how TD is to be played. 

There are also a lot of players who feel the need to hide from serious games behind this grand FFA ethos you're championing. I can't even remember all the names or count all the times when I joined some supposed 'pro's room and they went 'wait for more' because they can't take a loss if they can't blame it on FFA. Of course, I don't wait around because I'd rather play a couple of 1v1 matches or do something else with my time. And what do you know? When I leave, they go head to head with some poor noob right away. That's fine too, I guess, albeit a bit dishonest.

 

But players who are afraid, uninterested or otherwise unwilling to explore the finer aspects of this game are basically being deprived of variation. If they are depriving themselves of their own will, fine by me. If they are being deprived because of lack of choice or because they are falsely led to believe that this is what the game is about, that is a problem.

The problem is bigger than the maps. I honestly believe that if CnCNet only hosted 1v1 matches like Wchat did back in the day, we'd all play a lot more games and a lot better games.

[AchromicWhite]

I agree with all the above, other than;
"I honestly believe that if CnCNet only hosted 1v1 matches like Wchat did back in the day, we'd all play a lot more games and a lot better games."
Although, it's obviously a "belief".
Many people like the less competitive setting. It's less stressful.
I'd say it's for that same reason that SCII's co-op commanders mode has become their most popular mode (two people with crazy powerful armies and abilities take on AI missions).

The quality would be better, no doubt. And as you stated, the problem is bigger than maps (sandbox settings mislead new players horribly).

Even if we don't have a ladder, there should be a clear "competitive mode" and "sandbox mode", even if you don't call them that. Sandbox would allow any maps/settings, competitive would have most of, if not all, of the settings locked in, and a map pool only consisting maps that meet a certain quality.