User panel stuff on forum
  110 posts on 4 pages  First page1234Last page
European Quake League
2010-09-01, 21:19
Member
174 posts

Registered:
Nov 2006
To Ake:
EQLro will be tb3 only, so this doesn't affect in anything else than the upcoming "regular" eql.
2010-09-02, 12:24
Member
1433 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
I have gathered data from last Ownage (3) and last EQL with 5 maps (EQL10). EQL has these stats on the web, Ownage needed some simple wget | sed | etc.. I've counted how many times each map has been played compared to the total amount of maps played in the tournaments. Let's see what I got: (Teamplay = EQL10, Duel = Ownage 3) I'm not going to show which bar represents which map - it's irrelevant for my argument and it's obvious to anyone following the tournaments a bit.
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6495/mapspopularity.png

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/2678/mapspopularity2.png


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
What do I conclude from these numbers?
- the least popular map in duel is even less popular than the least popular map in teamplay (!)
- even if cmt1b is perceived as "very new", it is still more "established" than the least popular map in duel
- the "distribution of popularity" of standard maps in duel and maps in eql10 is very similar, the greatest difference is by just 2.61 percent for the most popular map
-> the maps from last EQL10 work as good as the standard duel maps work in duel
- the non-tb3 maps in duel have huge time advantage in these stats; there is a high chance that if maps from EQL10 get some more time to "settle", they will become even more accepted than they already are

Edit: TP Base = EQL10 without playoffs
2010-09-02, 13:41
News Writer
1267 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
Perhaps you should have a look at which clans played cmt1b most...
It was the home map for 2 clans and thus other clans were forced to play it.
Thats pretty much the only reason cmt1b was played. Osams played it vs chosen because they knew i didnt like it

Most criticism against cmt maps revolve around them being built on tricks and speed and I agree.
Tricks are more fun when they are discovered by the players and not built-in in order to have a cool trick. Also its better when a trick gives an advantage but still isnt a must to be able to get around.

The interest still seem pretty low for new maps but i guess we can try new maps a few more times and see what happens.
Chosen
2010-09-02, 13:49
Member
485 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
If you want to investigate further, see how vast majority of the cmt1b plays were tVS or TKs picks. Also, Ownage didnt have playoffs (16 matches minus WOs) with all maps in BO5.

A proper popularity statistic would be based on voluntary choices.
2010-09-02, 14:30
Member
1433 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Included separated base groups stats now too.
2010-09-02, 19:02
Member
371 posts

Registered:
Dec 2006
JohnNy_cz, if I've interpreted your analysis correctly one 'flaw' (ok maybe not a flaw per se, but something at least worth mentioning) with your map stats (as well researched and presented as they are) is that Ownage3 was a double-elimination knockout tournament, whereas EQL10 was (initially at least) a league system. This means there is a key difference - in a league system clans get to play a fairly large number of games no matter what their ability, whereas in a duel tournament, players (especially the weaker ones) will only get to play 2, 3, 4 games or whatever.

The implication of the above, and I have no data to back it up, is that "kenya" maps will be better represented in a league system because clans that have it as home map will pick it many times. Whereas in a duel tournament, you might expect players with kenya as home maps to be the weaker players, who get knocked out earlier, and hence those maps don't get so many picks.

A better comparison might be Ownage3 winners bracket vs EQL10 playoffs, if you can do that.

I do agree with your earlier post about map voting however. I'm strongly of the opinion that leagues should announce the rules prior to signup - by all means canvas opinion first however.
For what it's worth in the Smackdown league we DID use map voting during signups (at least in some seasons).

A key flaw with the "1 clan, 1 vote" approach (AKA "first past the post" is that you get a lot of 'wasted' or even tactical votes and it does not let you rank maps in order of preference. So for example you could get a map with only 30% of the vote winning even though 50% of voters actually believe another map is better (if their votes were split between other, less popular maps). Some kind of elimination voting system (although harder to administer) is far superior.
2010-09-02, 20:05
Member
284 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
JohnNy_cz wrote:
What do I conclude from these numbers?
- the least popular map in duel is even less popular than the least popular map in teamplay (!)
- even if cmt1b is perceived as "very new", it is still more "established" than the least popular map in duel
- the "distribution of popularity" of standard maps in duel and maps in eql10 is very similar, the greatest difference is by just 2.61 percent for the most popular map
-> the maps from last EQL10 work as good as the standard duel maps work in duel
- the non-tb3 maps in duel have huge time advantage in these stats; there is a high chance that if maps from EQL10 get some more time to "settle", they will become even more accepted than they already are

Edit: TP Base = EQL10 without playoffs

Based on those numbers, sure. But you are leaving out so many factors (some of which HT touched upon already) that it doesn't really matter what some statistics might imply. For example my statistics show that I played something like 4 rounds of cmt1b all last kenyaeql season, the level of play was horrible all around(not just me, cos that's to be expected), so there you go.

cmt1b is _definitely_ not more established or as good in terms of level of play as the least favored duel map. Something like Skull could be a bit closer, but even that has seen a lot more play and has been featured on many FFA servers. It is also totally different to develop 1on1 game play level compared to 4on4.

Most cmt-maps are much too big and open and/or complex for qw, there's just no use for that space most of the time. Sure, even tb3 have some bigger rooms, but most of the battles are being fought at reasonable distances and with almost always some walls you can hit as well, the map is supposed to play a big unbiased part in those battles, emptiness just doesn't contribute much to that. It has huge effects on spamming, rushing and all kinds of tactical things that play big roles in tb3.

Personally I don't think e1m2 is all that good of 4on4 map, or dm2 a great 1on1 map. Having said that, at least people have reached a level of play on those maps that actually makes them a lot better than many decent replacement maps that one might think of.

I would really like to welcome some maps and maybe I'll just humor myself and go jump around maps that I've got, although from what I can remember, most of them are unbalanced, too complex, too big, too artsy, too something. Like someone mentioned about dm2, it has a lot of tricks in a sense, but the basic game play on that map is so simple that they don't matter.
2010-09-02, 20:45
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
JohnNy_cz wrote:
-> the maps from last EQL10 work as good as the standard duel maps work in duel

What on earth does the popularity of a map in a tournament has to do with how well it works. If by works we mean how good and interesting games it produces. If anything those stats prove that it doesn't matter at all what maps you insert into the pool in addition to the tb3, the distribution stays the same. In other words, no matter how bad some map actually is, people are still going to pick it to gain competitive advantage.

If I wanted to know which maps work I would see what maps are played most after major tournament has ended when the effect of competition is at minimum.
2010-09-02, 21:23
Member
284 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
And about voting. Pretty much all of those problems go away when you have a shorter time to vote compared to when the season begins?
2010-09-02, 21:32
Member
57 posts

Registered:
Apr 2007
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/1490/facepalm2.jpg
2010-09-02, 21:58
Member
371 posts

Registered:
Dec 2006
niomic wrote:
Most cmt-maps are much too big and open and/or complex for qw, there's just no use for that space most of the time. Sure, even tb3 have some bigger rooms, but most of the battles are being fought at reasonable distances and with almost always some walls you can hit as well, the map is supposed to play a big unbiased part in those battles, emptiness just doesn't contribute much to that. It has huge effects on spamming, rushing and all kinds of tactical things that play big roles in tb3.

I don't see what is wrong with having a bit of variety in scale; some people don't like big open areas where hitscan weapons can dominate, but equally I'm not much of a fan of excessive tight choke points with people spamming rox and pines and knowing you can only enter through a precise small range of pixels. In my view dm2 is as much too small as cmt maps are too big. Yes tighter maps may permit different tactics (rushing etc) but that works both ways; if it's harder to rush it's also harder to help teammates being rushed, I've played plenty of games on tb3 where we dominate the killed/dropped rl stats but still lose, you know how it goes, you flood some guy at dm2 tele but even if you bring him down you've got stacked dudes with armour/rl/quad/etc just seconds away from you. Also making it harder to just spam and shoot walls arguably helps the viability of rush tactics (by which I mean attacking with boomstick and moving in a smart fashion to avoid taking damage, not the mindless +forward we see in situations where there is no other option). Dm3 is a nice example with a more balanced approach; you've got some tight areas around the armours, but also places like the centre where guys can cess quad from ring, bridge area etc.
2010-09-02, 22:13
Member
284 posts

Registered:
Oct 2006
HangTime wrote:
niomic wrote:
Most cmt-maps are much too big and open and/or complex for qw, there's just no use for that space most of the time. Sure, even tb3 have some bigger rooms, but most of the battles are being fought at reasonable distances and with almost always some walls you can hit as well, the map is supposed to play a big unbiased part in those battles, emptiness just doesn't contribute much to that. It has huge effects on spamming, rushing and all kinds of tactical things that play big roles in tb3.

I don't see what is wrong with having a bit of variety in scale; some people don't like big open areas where hitscan weapons can dominate, but equally I'm not much of a fan of excessive tight choke points with people spamming rox and pines and knowing you can only enter through a precise small range of pixels. In my view dm2 is as much too small as cmt maps are too big. Yes tighter maps may permit different tactics (rushing etc) but that works both ways; if it's harder to rush it's also harder to help teammates being rushed, I've played plenty of games on tb3 where we dominate the killed/dropped rl stats but still lose, you know how it goes, you flood some guy at dm2 tele but even if you bring him down you've got stacked dudes with armour/rl/quad/etc just seconds away from you. Also making it harder to just spam and shoot walls arguably helps the viability of rush tactics (by which I mean attacking with boomstick and moving in a smart fashion to avoid taking damage, not the mindless +forward we see in situations where there is no other option). Dm3 is a nice example with a more balanced approach; you've got some tight areas around the armours, but also places like the centre where guys can cess quad from ring, bridge area etc.

Nothing wrong with a bit of variety, I think we just have to understand and admit what kinds of maps work for our game and certain game types. DM2 gets a bit tight every now and then, but I think it's a great benefit for actually understanding tactics in tight spaces, a good humping sg player can do a lot of damage compared to if it was more open. I would imagine that you would give more credit to maps really enabling rushing as you guys have good tp. In tighter spaces it really matters that you know how to use that space whereas in really big rooms, you have a lot less choice both ways.
2010-09-21, 02:17
News Writer
266 posts

Registered:
May 2006
wow

Im turning 39 tomorrow and just strolled down memory lane here in this discussion. Maybe i should fire up qw, hehe. Dont even ask me how i got to read this page again. Still arguing about maps...this is truly awesome

Everyone is still using the same arguments, tho HangTime is still #1 when it comes to backing up his opinion with good solid arguments. Paradoks is also right about the eXmXtdm maps, as we solved most of the "lame" things about those maps that made them "bad" for 4on4 compared to dm3/e1m2. But i guess only oldschoolers like those. How many oldschoolers left anyway?

Anyway it all comes down to taste, you can use all the arguments in the world but in the end it all comes down to if you think its FUN or not, no matter what makes it FUN for you: random penta takeovers, maplock rapes or any other good/bad argument you got. And you can use arguments both ways on all maps.

I understand both sides of the dispute, some only want tb3, some want a little change from time to time. When i played 4on4 i wanted to play on many maps, coz i liked the diversity of all the many layouts and different tactics it gave me. I would rather loose playing more different maps than getting a 100% record on only just 1 map. For me that was boring. For someone else that would be what qw was all about dm3 dm3 dm3!

I think a player who likes to play on many different maps would have the best objectivity to say what map is good or bad for 4on4, coz he doesnt play only to win. But again, doesnt matter if its good for 4on4 if someone just hate it.

So then youre back to square 1

I dont think i will ever understand the problem of playing 20 mins of qw on the opponents kenya map as long as you got a tb3 map as a decider. Why cant you just take it as a good sport/laugh and do the best of it?

Its clear that qw-players never will agree 100% on this, so you got different tournaments/leagues.

Well, my favorite maps for 4on4 will forever be:

schloss, cmt2, e1m5tdm, e3m7tdm. That is the drug for me. TB3 is nice, but its like a marriage....same ol same ol....i need variation :-)

I think perhaps schloss is the best map ever, I could play mix games on this until my eyes shut down. The action on this map is so frantic that it even puts dm2 in the shadow. Again, this is my personal opinion.

Well, fun to be here again, been a long time. Cool to see ppl still love the best game ever made

Oh btw: You want another lame-ever update?
I am sure Roboslime wants one
Link, we are not even oldtimers anymore, we are dinosaurs. - Hooraytio
2010-09-21, 03:18
Administrator
871 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
wow, Link in the house, that wasn't yesterday! Must be strange to return here after so much time to see the same discussions still running . . .
let's hear about this lame-ever update!
Join us on discord.quake.world
2010-09-21, 06:33
Member
459 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
Link: Come back! The Norwegian QW scene needs you! How about QHLAN 4. - 7. November? Were a small crowd (2 norwegians, 1 swed living in Oslo) heading up there on Thursday (4.11), and we probably got room for one more if Timmi / TCO / Pre doesn't accept the offer :-)

Or drag Effie along with you. He signed up for EQL this season, you know?

Map whine never gets old, in contrary to you it seems
2010-09-21, 06:55
News Writer
1267 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
Well Rikoll, quakers never really die. They just respawn.
Chosen
2010-09-21, 08:49
Member
459 posts

Registered:
Mar 2008
, and get spawnraped
2010-09-21, 11:13
Administrator
2051 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Both Link and Sassa for QHLAN? Imagine the drama factor...
www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
2010-09-21, 12:28
News Writer
266 posts

Registered:
May 2006
bps wrote:
wow, Link in the house, that wasn't yesterday! Must be strange to return here after so much time to see the same discussions still running . . .
let's hear about this lame-ever update!

lol i dont think so

Anyway its hard to belive that your premier qw league still is debating about maps. As for making new maps i think that it would be a big waste of time, coz when it comes to maps its all about personal taste. Like the quote "better with a kenya i know than a new one", that says it all really: these players wont play anything but tb3, coz that is tdm for them.

You just have to accept that. It really doesnt matter at all if you made a great map or not. I remember SR and CMF played cmt1b 4 times in the NQR-CMT final. The spectators (and even some of the players) really enjoyed this, as the elite players of these clans improved their tactics and skills on these maps every time they played it. That was the development i was looking for in a new map project. I guess they eventually got bored with it because the map did not offer them anything much different than they already had (tb3), so why waste time on learning this map 100%? I guess that also tells you something about the map....that it was good for 4on4. I guess that is proof enough that those maps works for 4on4. You just do not want to learn them 100% like you do with tb3

The argumentation were also the same:

"Well this is just like dm3, its balanced like dm3 and you even got penta in a big room. We dont need another dm3".

Then you also had:

"You cant have penta there, too easy to guard, it will almost be impossible to do a penta take over".

Both arguments from the same players

I wont even try to hype myself up as a dude who knows everything better than someone else (ive done doing that), but from my experience of trying to break in new maps to the scene i can tell you that its all about what players really want for their personal taste. If the map is "good" or "bad" got nothing to do with it. A good map for you is if you like it or not. I think dm2 is the living proof of that But hey, everyone played it (regardless of what reason), so they know the map. Sure dm2 got issues, but in its own way it also got its charm. Just like every other map.

Im just happy i played in a clan like The Axemen where everyone in the clan had fun playing any map, coz we all liked variation (i guess we all were oldschoolers). But playing e1m5tdm in div. 1 was not very popular amongst the other clans, they said it was a tactical thing from us, just to get points. Well, from my view it was not so, we all wanted to play something else than tb3, and that map was what we agreed mostly on. Hell we could have picked any map, cmt2, e3m7tdm, e1m3tdm. We just wanted variation. How cool was it to watch e1m5tdm demos being played by div. 1 players? Much more refreshing than demo #4569754 from dm3 And we couldnt play a kenya map vs a div. 2 or a div. 3 clan coz then it would be a total rape. And div. 1 hated it. So there we were, in the middle of fucking nowhere.

If you ask me what's the best way to break in new maps I would do this:

1. FFA tournaments. FFA is the best way to learn a map. But you need a strong organizer. It worked ok with qw4ever, it just lacked a good website and work from me, ppl were interested to play FFA. They could even fakenick You should respawn Ride My Rocket and go kenya.

2. As things doesnt change, i would say its much easier to learn just 1 "new" map. So you just bring in 1 map. Then you got 4 maps. And you make a simple rule that if it's a 3 map game you need to play the new map....unless both clans agree on a tb3. Then you dont force tb3 lovers to play it, if it comes down to a decider.

You could also make different ladders/mini leagues. From my experience it was like this:

Dm2 lovers tend to like schloss more than other maps. For obvious reasons. The same for dm3 lovers towards cmt1b and cmt3. Grim was like e1m2 and so on. Or you could just make a mini league from 1 single map. Then get on to the next map.

The players are there, what you need is a dedicated admin.

Oh, and im not old, i still play div. 3 football, and im getting payed for it
Link, we are not even oldtimers anymore, we are dinosaurs. - Hooraytio
2012-12-22, 15:43
News Writer
266 posts

Registered:
May 2006
Zalon wrote:
HangTime wrote:
CMT1b was a tweaked version of CMT1, a map designed for 4on4
CMT4 was a tweaked version of androm9, a map designed for 5on5 (which was the preferred TP mode in those days in the UK)
CMT5b was a tweaked version of CMT5, a map designed for 4on4

What are you talking about? Most CMT maps were maps already made, Link picked out maps where he liked the design. He then contacted the designers and got them to make changes so they would better fit for 4on4. All maps was then re-released as CMT1-5, the 'b' versions was made later, the name CMT comes from Link's project.

Some might have had their first release as a CMT map, I don't remember... But I doubt any of them was created from scratch.



Cmt1 was from scratch...by Zaka. Made for 4vs4.

Cmt2 was from scratch...by Gromm. SD map project that i took over from Apollyon...so yeah made for 4vs4. Hail .ru for this map...this is the map you want B1aze...you just dont know it yet! Get demos from AQ vs SR and FS vs SR...and your eyes will open.

Cmt3 was halfway from scratch...by BabyRoo. The design was from his FFA map: naked6. I loved the design on it and talked with Baby Roo to extend the map. The map was about 60-70% larger when it was done.

Cmt4 you all know about...

Cmt5 was from scratch...by Qurnel. An amazing map with defined areas to guard. Different from all other maps because of all the different options/ways to get from A to B. And QW players dont like that Also the ever ever ever best teamkill in the history of FPS gaming was done on that map
Link, we are not even oldtimers anymore, we are dinosaurs. - Hooraytio
  110 posts on 4 pages  First page1234Last page