cRPG

cRPG => Scene Editing => Topic started by: POOPHAMMER on June 17, 2012, 04:41:22 pm

Title: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: POOPHAMMER on June 17, 2012, 04:41:22 pm
This map

(click to show/hide)

This stupid fucking laggy piece of shit map. I have never seen attackers win it, never. It is imbalanced, has HUGE FPS drops, and is all around unenjoyable.

Please do us all a favor and remove it, and fire whoever made it from ever making another siege map again.
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: agile on June 17, 2012, 05:21:51 pm
Please remove it. Also if you think about it, in siege mode aren't you suppose to capture a castle? In this map you capture a rock.
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Saatana on June 17, 2012, 05:45:56 pm
I agree. This map is fucking weird, doesn't even look like siege map, and the flag placement is just dumb... Also as far as I know, the maps are suppoused to be realistic and this is unrealistic as hell.
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: dynamike on June 18, 2012, 06:49:06 pm
I haven't played on the map, but it looks pretty creative and a nice change from the usual castles. Maybe just work with the creator to fix flag positions/add additional attacking ways for the defenders.

Map making is not easy, give the guy a chance before burning him on a bonfire.
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Elindor on June 18, 2012, 06:57:31 pm
^This.  More constructive criticism in general on maps would help mapmakers.  Having just started making maps it is challenging to navigate the editor, etc...and hard to test without putting it up with 40+ people on either side "testing it".  Basically when a map goes up, its being beta tested by the players.  If you don't like it, downvote it and/or mention it CONSTRUCTIVELY :) here....with specifics and screenshots if possible.  Most mappers would love the chance to make changes and please the community as that is usually their goal in making maps.
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Saatana on June 18, 2012, 09:19:59 pm
Okay, constructive feedback... So be it. This map is totally unplayable, the flag position is very bad, the idea is not good, it doesn't even look cool or realistic. Better just start again from scratch.
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Peasant_Woman on June 18, 2012, 09:33:49 pm
Here is an example of actual constructive feedback;

Played sorrows anchorage last night on EU2. A lot of the attackers didn't know where the flag was but we figured it out in the end. It would be helpful if there was some kind of visual indicator that the castle on the left of the attacker spawn is NOT where the flag is. We could not get close to the flag due to archers having sight lines that encompass much of the playable area - some more props breaking up line of sight would be helpful, especially around the big bridge which is a pain to cross with more than a couple of archers watching it.

Not once did I bash the map or the maker, but I outlined some problems that I felt while playing and even gave ideas on how to fix them.
What is this 2nd grade english?
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Branches on June 19, 2012, 07:20:11 am
Hey guys this "stupid fucking laggy piece of shit map" is my doing I'm afraid. I'm aware of many of these issues already as I asked for player suggestions while I played the map on the official server. Believe it or not I did attempt to make a good map...

Not that it bothers me particularly much, but I think crpg needs more new maps and being so aggressively critical isn't going to motivate anyone to start making them. It seems like some of you who are so active on the forums should be aware of the importance of a helpful community. The last thing we want to be doing is scaring people away from participation.

That being said it is clear that my map is widely regarded as being very poor quality. I don't feel like I should have to apologize to you for this but I'm sorry if it is as distressful for you as it appears to be.


I reorganized my design very late in mapping and moved the flag from inside the back castle (where everyone assumes it is) to on the rock. I did this to cut down on the attackers walk distance to flag(which I was very concerned about). This really isn't much of an excuse and it is now obvious to me that this positioning is very unintuitive and problematic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm currently making significant modifications to the map (though I'm a little afraid to resubmit it now). PLEASE feel free to offer any suggestions as I am dedicated to making this map enjoyable and balanced. I really appreciate all your suggestions so far and I'm really glad you presented this topic POOPHAMMER as this information is very helpful. Thanks! ^^

==============================================================================================================================
So far the modifications will include:
-A complete remapping of the defender's island removing all current structures and adding in a new flag location within some semi-defensible stucture (I was thinking castle ruins).
-The ladder which crosses the middle is removed.
-There are now two bridges spaced apart from one another taking the place of the pre-existing single bridge design. This will (hopefully) mitigate the bottleneck.
-I have removed many of the archer perches overlooking the bridges to reduce archer authority in this area.

*As for the fps drop, I didn't notice this but perhaps it would help if I were to remove many of the torches and other objects with effects and set the background to something other than open water? [Please tell me if you have also experienced this issue so I know how prevalent and severe it is]

*As for realism I suppose I may be walking the line depending on how strictly you interpret this rule. I was hoping to make something that was different from the other siege maps on rotation... for obvious reasons variety is a good thing. However, if you feel this is an issue you want addressed PLEASE tell me so I know how common this concern is.
==============================================================================================================================

I really appreciate your posts and I'm glad you guys took the time to make a topic for this map instead of just down-voting it and moving on.
Perhaps it is simply because you felt that this map was uniquely terrible, nevertheless this response is infinitely more helpful to me. Thank you! ^^
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Elindor on June 19, 2012, 07:42:40 am
branches i think those are all good changes that address the issues with the map.

for optimization, yeah limit torches etc, and look at removing any extraneous items that are out of the main paths of view.

good stuff..

and i back you on the community thing.  this community needs mappers and they treat them like shit.
2 things need to happen

1 - people need to support their mappers and help them make good maps not rage at them like 10 year olds
2 - our mapping guides need to get more concise and more complete....to help more people get into the mapping process.
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Branches on June 19, 2012, 07:59:42 am
Quote from: Elindor on June 19, 2012, 07:42:40 am
for optimization, yeah limit torches etc, and look at removing any extraneous items that are out of the main paths of view.

Yea I actually have a whole worthless Island I just added in for scenery, so I guess I could remove some things lol. Thanks for your posts I really appreciate them! ^^

Quote from: Elindor on June 19, 2012, 07:42:40 am
1 - people need to support their mappers and help them make good maps not rage at them like 10 year olds
2 - our mapping guides need to get more concise and more complete....to help more people get into the mapping process.

I couldn't agree more, well put
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Saatana on June 19, 2012, 12:43:52 pm
Well, I haven't noticed any kind of FPS drops on this map. My biggest problem is that this isn't really realistic map, I mostly enjoy the realistic maps myself...
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: dynamike on June 19, 2012, 03:54:57 pm
(click to show/hide)

A very mature response, Branches, and props for not getting discouraged and trying to make the map enjoyable. We need more people like you on the forums!
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Branches on June 19, 2012, 07:26:06 pm
Quote from: Saatana on June 19, 2012, 12:43:52 pm
Well, I haven't noticed any kind of FPS drops on this map. My biggest problem is that this isn't really realistic map, I mostly enjoy the realistic maps myself...

Thanks for your response! I will lower the mountains and try to make everything look a little more reasonable. Hopefully this adequately addresses the issue.

I will be posting a "Sorrow's Anchorage Modifications" thread before resubmitting the map. This will allow for me to benefit from more input before the map goes
live again. I will make sure to do something like this for all my maps from now on.

================================================================================================================
Quote from: dynamike on June 19, 2012, 03:54:57 pm
A very mature response, Branches, and props for not getting discouraged and trying to make the map enjoyable. We need more people like you on the forums!

Thanks for this! ^^
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Ozin on June 19, 2012, 07:29:35 pm
You get a +1 for originality. Need more varied siege maps. And that's also the problem with the current siege mode, to retain the balance, you can't really be creative with the layout of your map. It's all about number of entrances/choke-points and distance to flag, not a lot more.
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Penitent on June 19, 2012, 07:38:34 pm
I think the main issue is the flag is in a field, not a fortification.  You cannot lay siege to the top of a cliff! :)  So in that sense, it is fundamentally flawed.  The other ideas (large chasms, bridges to be crossed) are cool.

This map and its criticism and actually inspired me to make maps. :)  I want to give my interpretation of what a good siege map is!
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Branches on June 19, 2012, 07:56:12 pm
Quote from: Garison on June 19, 2012, 07:38:34 pm
I think the main issue is the flag is in a field, not a fortification.  You cannot lay siege to the top of a cliff! :)  So in that sense, it is fundamentally flawed.

Yea, I'll make sure to fix this.


Quote
This map and its criticism and actually inspired me to make maps. :)  I want to give my interpretation of what a good siege map is!

I'm glad my failures could inspire you!  :mrgreen:


Thanks for your post! ^^
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Froto_the_Loc on June 20, 2012, 04:32:25 am
Makes me laugh when offense runs up to the distraction that is a castle while we have a moved our banner to a flat rock on a cliff.
Title: Re: Sorrows Anchorage
Post by: Branches on June 20, 2012, 04:38:08 am
Quote from: Froto_the_Loc on June 20, 2012, 04:32:25 am
Makes me laugh when offense runs up to the distraction that is a castle while we have a moved our banner to a flat rock on a cliff.

lol... yea... oops x_x

I guess they should just sail away with that thing and ensure everlasting victory ^^