I think we can see each other's position. I understand, and can very much sympathize with, the fact that you and other CS mappers would like nothing more than to get more "forced" exposure (for lack of a better term :)). I wish you all the best and hope that you make billions of great maps for T:V, and hopefully I'll still have a way to mindlessly start playing maps without consciously downloading so I can waste the hours away happily.

And here's to a good conversation/argument, I certainly appreciate your stand on the issue.

m19


This comment was edited on May 13, 22:59.

"I'm sorry, but I just can't ignore the incredibly niche attitude that implies! Getting rid of a good thing so something else can grow makes no sense whatsoever."

I'm not the greatest at expressing myself through text, lol. I'm not trying to come off as an elitist, nor do i want to get rid off a good thing. Ideally they will just retain and maybe expand on Unreal's existing autodownloading features, and CS/SS won't be an issue since you could download ALL new map copntent in-game.

I agree, except in this case. The "choice" of CS/SS maps ensured that many AWESOME CS maps in t2 were completely ignored.

I'm sorry, but I just can't ignore the incredibly niche attitude that implies! Getting rid of a good thing so something else can grow makes no sense whatsoever. Honestly, if you or others think CS maps need more rotation or exposure, get out there and lobby for it, but don't think closing off options will make it better! If these maps are so great, they'll be played. If they need more exposure, start posting like crazy on message boards so people play them. Oooooor, as many others have done, use the SS options and make great maps with those! Just because something's a dev-produced prefab or otherwise locked into place doesn't mean there aren't creative ways to use them. If anything it'll annoy people (like me ;P) that once had SS maps and then didn't. It's no solution.

m19
This comment was edited on May 13, 22:39.

Aaaaaaaaaaand once again, you're completely missing my point: I don't care about how many zillions of wonderful CS maps or mods there are, I'm a good example of how a couple mods (Rengades, Shifter, etc.) and a diet of 95% SS maps hasn't jaded me a bit nor turned me off to T1/2. I've been playing T1 since the week it came out, T2 a couple months after the release (letting the bugs die :)) and in all that time I've been thoroughly happy with the SS maps. I'm sure people like me really irritate you and are somewhat of an affront to all the hard work you put into the maps, but just because you want SS maps to go away doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I don't like baseball; that doesn't mean it should be exterminated. (Lots of good comparisons tonight, lol.)

So stop trying to argue with me on an unrelated subject. SS maps are a good thing, and you've made your point clear that you want them to be ditched so CS maps get more rotation. I get it. But for the dozenth time, all I was hoping for is the option of SS maps to be available. Whoo!

m19

I just think the level designing community in Tribes never reached its full potential due to the SS/CS distinction.

When you look at other games like Q3A and UT2k3, and the mapping communities in them... one can clearly see a large diference in the quality and effort put forth in the average map. I think the same would be true in Tribes if we didnt have CS versus SS.

And yes, obviously I am very biased towards CS mapping in tribes This again is all just my opinion, but I think the T:V modding and mapping community will be much better off without the CS/SS distinction.



"More options and choices is better, bottom line. That was my original & continuing point, and I hope that's cleared up now."

I agree, except in this case. The "choice" of CS/SS maps ensured that many AWESOME CS maps in t2 were completely ignored.

This comment was edited on May 13, 22:34.

You're arguing a completely different point. You seem to be saying CS maps aren't popular because of SS maps. That's great, but I couldn't care less about how popular CS maps are, and that was never the point of my first post. All I was saying in the first place is that having the option of utilizing SS maps is a great thing, period, and that I really hope they integrate it into the UT engine. How is having more mapping options a BAD thing? So what if "new" players end up appreciating SS maps better, all that means is that there'll be more people playing! Last time I checked, that's not a bad thing. You're going at it from a mapper's standpoint (*see below), I'm from a players. That's why I think your logic, in my eyes, doesn't make sense. I'd rather have more "easy" map options available for playing & more players online; you'd rather have more CS mappers getting noticed. That's where we differ.

*I popped into T2 briefly and finally recognized your name; just never paid much attention to who's name was on the maps. No offense, but not everyone pays attention to who does what. =P And now that that's cleared up, you know what? I think you're more than slightly biased towards CS maps. It makes sense you wouldn't like SS maps, otherwise you wouldn't have much of a name, eh? (No offense intended, but I think it's an obvious assumption.)

what I said is entirely accurate imo.

Again, that's your opinion, and it does seem somewhat biased towards the mapping rather than playing community. Your argument boils down to this: "SS maps have made CS maps less popular in Tribes so, therefore, eliminating SS maps would make CS maps more desireable." Well, yeah... Duh. If you don't have the option of SS maps, then of course CS maps will get more play. But what you're saying sounds like a gaming form of censorship, in a way: if there are two options and the community favors one over the other, take away one to leave them no choice but to use the other. It's akin to a big phone company taking out a smaller one because it wants its services to be "more used" by the community. More options and choices is better, bottom line. That was my original & continuing point, and I hope that's cleared up now.

m19


This comment was edited on May 13, 22:25.

How is my logic backwords?

Belive me, I've been involved in the Tribes mapping community for Tribes for a long time... what I said is entirely accurate imo.

If you dont belive me, look at the server list for Tribes 2 right now. The only Client Side maps you will see are from the xpack2.

Don't you know who Nefilim is?

Nope, sorry.

Re: #7

Personally I think your logic is backwards and not at all accurate. But that's my opinion.

m19


This comment was edited on May 13, 22:00.

Yes, I've played a little Tribes before

The SS/CS distinction is a double bladed sword imo. It's cool that you can make seemingly endless variations of the base terrains/interiors... without having clients need to download anything out of the game..

But that makes CS maps, with new interiors/terrains/textures etc, very undesirable to players. Who wants to exit the program and download maps when you can play on an endless variety of SS maps? A lot of newer players probably had no idea the distinction even exists, and just assume it autodownloads all maps. This makes designing a truly custom level not very desirable, as it will likely not get played very much, if at all.

The only CS maps in rotation on any populated T1 or T2 servers are those that are officially sanctioned map packs (Open Call T1 maps, Classic Mod maps in T2), or map packs embraced by the competition community (Xpack & XPack2 in T2). There were TONS of awesome client side T2 maps that NO ONE played because of the SS/CS bs.

I think without the Server/Client side map distinction that Tribes Vengeance will see the kind of truly awesome custom levels and mods that nearly every Quake/Unreal powered game communities enjoy. People will likely put a lot more effort into their maps and mods, and we wont see so many of the lame SS mods and SS maps that do no more than add tons of weapons, or move around a few bases.

Just my $0.02

Don't you know who Nefilim is?

I'm curious, have you played T1 or T2, or is your opinion based off client-side map games like Q or HL? Yes, client-side maps mean mappers can do different things, but that doesn't mean a client map is better than server-side, hands down. There have bene plenty of server-side maps that I'd rather play on than the boatloads of drudge that some mappers can do.

How someone wouldn't want the option of server-side maps is beyond me.

m19

You had to download maps in T1/2 sometimes. Those were the good ones with custom buildings and such. Even the server side maps were downloaded, but they were only like 100k so it only took a few seconds.

Tribes Vengeance just took a noseplunge in desirability, by simple virtue of this sentence :

with some of the folks at Sierra and Vivendi Universal involved in the production of the next installment in the TRIBES series of multiplayer shooters.

In other words, yes, development of Tribes 3 has been farmed out to one of the most respectible developers in the business, but we at Sierra and Vivendi are still going to make sure it gets raped in the ass as much as possible.

Attention, morons at Sierra. You guys don't know fuck about making games, and you wouldn't recognize a good game if it came up and shagged your sister. For the love of all that's Holy, please keep your damn hands off this game, and perhaps it will actually turn out to be alright. Otherwise, I smell a repeat of Tribes 2.

Creston

I completely disagree.

Without a SS/CS distinction, real level designers will be putting real effort into map making. You won't find hundreds of server side "maps" that are nothing more than re-arranged base maps. People will be putting real effort into map making, and it will show.

Mmmm, excitement! That's the first I've heard of the T:V-pertinent issue of Computer Games Magazine I'll be keeping my eyes out for that. In case anyone's interested and hasn't visited yet, there's also a dev Q&A thread about T:V here that's very good (not sure if the IRC chat has the same stuff or not):

http://www.bittah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3974

(EDIT-) Oooo... This has me worried though:

>> Mapping in T1 and T2 divides into "client-side" and "server-side" maps... will there be some better way to distribute map objects like buildings to the client?

>> KineticPoet - We currently support what Unreal supports, but we'll re-evaluate that as necessary. Unreal supports maps packaged up in pieces, which can be delivered accordingly, but it doesn't have the Tribes concept of server-side maps<<

I really hope that by "re-evaulate" they mean they're coding in support for server-side maps. For anyone who's a T1/2 player, you know the importance of the server-side map. Other FPSs (Q/U/HL) were almost always (if not always) client-side, from what I know, and one of the best things about the Tribes games was that you could hop on a server and be playing a brand-new map without downloading anything.

Here's to hoping they keep SS maps.

m19

This comment was edited on May 13, 10:53.