News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register | Log in
CPMA: Path Of Destruction For Original Mapping?
This thread is inspired by LvL's CPMA update.
( )

Seems to me more like an update with 1 map that has any originality at all, 1 map that's a reject from q3 and looks the part, and 4 maps that look like boxmaps with custom textures thrown on them and overbright lighting with no contrast.

Is that what CPMA maps are about? Making things that may have been considered awesome years ago for Q1 but with colored light and custom textures? God, I fear for the future of mapping if these 'gameplay only' maps are what people want.

You look at some of these maps, and they've obviously been lit with minlight and are so bland, the only excuse seems to be that 'it's more fair to players'. When Doom3 comes out, I can't wait to see the fury of maps taking advange of dynamic lights come out... and then we just regress back to fullbright maps so it's a bit more fair.

It also appears, from comments made about RPG's latest map, that low halls and areas like the RA in the water slowing players down is frowned on. WTF? Mappers are now suppose to design things without any quirks that deviate from some 'standard' gamers think there? Is this so they can blur through our maps at 1 million miles an hour with as few 'speedbumps' as they can convince us to take out?

I find lower ceilings, interesting 'traps' and dead ends, and other such neat things to give personality to a map. Contrasting light and interesting architecture give maps appeal and should be EQUALLY important to the map as the gameplay. If maps were designed only for gameplay, we could easily have an automated map program just build endless permutations of platforms and rooms with proper scale and ceilings.

What do you guys think?
First | Previous | Next | Last
maps that look like boxmaps with custom textures thrown on them and overbright lighting with no contrast.

that's most cpm maps. Only some CPM only mappers (like swelt and hubster) actually release stuff that looks decent as well as plays good. 
An Alternate Perspective 
...low halls and areas like the RA in the water slowing players down is frowned on.

In respect to the low halls: are you now going to say that we shouldn't clip maps, either? Clipping the maps makes it easier to navigate, too.

In respect to the RA: if it slows the player down too much, the danger of getting the RA outweighs the reward.

Otherwise, yes, CPM maps usually aren't so hot (visually). My own personal explanation for the phenomenon is that it is usually a lot easier to make sure that flat walls are properly clipped, have trick jump potential, etc, than highly detailed walls. But then, if they were good mappers anyway, they could make it work. 
The World In A Grain Of Sand 
What do you guys think?

I think you'd have more success making maps how you want it rather than complaining that no one is doing it for you. Anyways, I don't think anyone complained about RPG's pool slowing the map down. I entirely agree that the latest cpm offerings sucked, but there was a whole string of interesting and quality maps before that. 
ffdm2 - Patibuh's Lair is a pretty sweet looking map ( even if it is predominantly id gothic �_� ) and plays well in CPMA. Apparently. My Quake skills and playing style are exactly what doesn't work in CPMA, i.e. reckless aggression, so I can't comment on the playability of any of the maps. But I don't think mapping for any current or upcoming game is going to be dominated by the hardcore 1337 players. I doubt they account for the majority of players for any game, even creaky-ageing Q3A. Mapping for realism mods/games is always going to have certain aesthetic requirements simply because of the theme. And how many mappers map primarily for the players anyway? All raving egotists, as I've said before :)

Incidentally, on the issue of clipping; I remember arquon posting on Q3W LE months ago with some pointers about promode mapping and he said that excessive clipping was more of a problem - if a feature or detail looks like it could snag the players' bounding box, then it should. 
RPG: If a ceiling is too low to bunnyhop through, then obviously you shouldn't bunnyhop through it. It's not a question of navigation, as there is no problem unless you jump into it and create the issue. So, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't clip maps, as proper clipping fixes seemlessly fixes problems with navigation through areas where a mapper does 'nonstandard' things. CPMA maps seem to be designed to make clips unnessicary.

As for the RA area, I can almost see where someone might argue danger vs. power of the item... but throw a Quad down there, and they'd still bitch because it's a speedbump. It's the same reason dead ends have become less common nowadays. It's not 'fair' for everyone and causes players to become trapped and have to fight their way out. Players don't want to play, just win.

Pushplay: ? I wasn't complaining no one was making maps the way I want... more like, complaining maps are increasingly becoming catered towards pure gameplay, rather than a good mix of it with looks.

My complaints in this thread are more fears of the direction custom mapping and gaming is going. Engines are increasing in polygons, but we as mappers are being more and more constrianed to making neatly built 128x128 unit minimun halls with as little things as possible to force a player to change their tactics or movement. For all that we've gained in years in terms of quality, gamers are increasingly setting their options to make our maps look ugly, while asking us to use less polygons and make the same things only differant. I'm worried mapping is becoming more formulaic. 
Ask Yourself A Question 
who do i map for?

do i map as a personal creative outlet, where it's a bonus if players like it?

or do i map for people to play, and it's a bonus that i enjoyed the mapping experience?

I never shat on anyone for either of these, but never shall the 2 meet. I enjoy the creative process and the li'l smirk I get when I build something that I think is cool.

on the flip side, i've never met a high ranking tourney player (any tourney) where i actually cared what their opinion of my map was. How many different names can you give straight ahead dm?

No i've never mapped for tourney play, and never cared to. During the Q2 days, i happened into some Rocket Arena. In a time when dm authors were doing neat shit, RA homogenized the whole experience. In a so-called 'community' where it's (was) accepted that people bag and pile-on each other "you suck" "yeah he sucks," the maps where homogenizing the entire experience... cuz the experience there wasn't an experience. it was all about winning.

bunch of losers. Cept czg. czg is ok, and for a tourney player that's saying a lot. 
that was a pretty meandering rant there.

Suffice it to say this:

* I don't like tourney mods (how many different names can you give plain dm)
* Tourney maps are ugly, homogenized in the name of gameplay and frame rate
* Tourney players are generally idiots.

supporting that last point:
Again with the Q2 days, i was hunting for someone to drag into a headhunters server. Joined some random clan channel and asked if someone wanted to play. a guy actually said "I don't like hh cuz it's too hard to get frags."

Think, fucker. Expand your brain. Do something different. Start in the middle. Call for pizza and ask em what the weather is like. Whether or not it's harder to get frags in HH isn't the point... the point is that he was so busy liking it the way he likes it that he wasn't about to try something different, gods forbid

dammit... meandered again. 
22:57:24 | <scampie|mapping> yeah just read... czg?
22:57:37 | <sto|empornium> cmpa homer isn't he?
22:57:37 | <scampie|mapping> he's not a tourney player...
22:57:46 | <scampie|mapping> he's a q1sp mapper
22:57:59 | <sto|empornium> i thought he was 'ranked' cpma
22:58:08 | <sto|empornium> reload the page, btw
22:58:14 | <scampie|mapping> nope... doubt he even owns q3
22:58:51 | <sto|empornium> oh. my bad. 
Hasty Generalizations 
Monsto: Back where I come from we call that an inductive fallacy.

Scampie: ok, you're complaining about a trend away from the kind of maps you like. That's not a bad thing. I still think you're reading too much into little things though. Better maps will always be in the minority, pretty much by definition. In LvL's recent offering some of the maps sucked, but there were enough good maps that I see no reason to be concerned. CPM players may prefer a certain style of map, but they're a vocal minority. The general populace may be always interested in what the elite are doing, but in the end they'll still make up their own minds about what maps they enjoy. 
stop wasting time on these threads and give us cookie! 
Bloody great topic m8, best new one for ages, the problem with mapping purely for a specific sort of gameplay, vs. mapping for more diverse gameplay (which the aesthetic can be a part of). I very much agree that it can be a problem and detrimental not only to custom mapping, but also hampering the gameplay potential and diversity that there could be in DM games.

For me, playing DM was always about having challenging fun in new, atmospheric and exciting enviroments. Ones where the gameplay was good AND the aesthetic was intriguing. In fact with most good maps/mappers, I'd check the aesthetic first because I knew the gameplay would have some sort of fun. I mean, if you can move around, pick up some decent weapons, and lay the smack down with them, it's gonna be reasonable fun right?? And there's lots of ways you can do that. Tight/open, jumpy/runny, complex/simple, fast/tactical, shortcutty/trappy. And each has their own merits, it's good to sample a bit of everything and sample the diversity of DM gameplay. 
The simplicity of brushwork in a lot of CPM maps is because they don't like clipping.

The view of the players is that if it looks like they can jump on something then they should be able to, the simplified brushwork is designed to meet that expectations but only allow the 'standard set' of movement skills.

I'd agree that a good mix of aesthetics and gameplay is ideal, but it was the lack of (competitive) gameplay in the majority of custom maps that forced the players to make 'layout maps' (since they have neither the skill nor the inclination to make good looking maps).

If we could design gameplay well enough, there wouldn't have been the split in the community and wouldn't be at this point. 
and we wouldn't.

Of course, there is also the issue that players like to be able to consitantly get high framerates and therefore extraneous detail is 'bad' (this is more of an issue when a game first comes out however) 
Ok Ok. 
Let's forget about cpma for a bit.

Think original Quake now. Think about early maps and how much freedom the mapper had in creating whatever they wanted.

Back then, if you could build a map with some kinda of coherant theme and an amount of looks, you were WAY ahead of the pack. And adding traps, small halls, sniper holes, and other neat features was viewed as something to give a map flavour. We don't see dm2's lava floor, or killme's beartrap doors anymore. 'speedbumps', instant death traps... things that are native to the map and force players to change their tactics for that map, slowly removed through the years. If someone adds thin little brushes to create a window bar, or a hole in the wall for shooting thru, we comment on how the features effect r_speeds and vis, rather than say 'neat idea man!'. I'm sure there are good examples of this for single player as well... I just can't think of any off the top of my head.

Mapper's own persuit for perfection has killed as much innovation as Player's persuit for ease of use maps. I hope alot of the issue can be resolved in Doom3/forthcoming engines. The ability to be able to make what you want with a good bit more detail should stir some imagination. Hopefully people will be awed by the looks long enough to relieze they're accually enjoying something new for a change.

pushplay: CPMA is the most popular way (not a vocal minority) to play q3 nowadays, so it follows that it's a worrisome trend for mappers who want to make neat maps, but will be ostracized if they deviate from what is 'standard'. 
My Name Is In Here Mentioned Why? 
First | Previous | Next | Last
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2020 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.