Sleepwalker

[Heartsong]

I've played video games for roughly 10 years. Granted, this isn't a long time compared to many in this community, but it is half of my life span.

I've played RTS, TBS, FPS, TPS, Racing, and Adventure games. I've enjoyed some in every category and disliked some in every category.

I'm making this post because, in my honest opinion, Sleepwalker is the single worst map I have ever played in the 10 years during which I have been playing video games. The only suggestion I can honestly give is to scrap it and never bring it out again. There is no single improvement that can be made that would not be better made by simply opening a blank map in the editor.

The map is just a shooting range. There is no thought in the terrain beyond, "Well, it's TDM, right? How do we make a TDM map? *dance* if I know, just make it flat."

I understand that you guys don't have a lot of experience making maps - especially of the TDM variety- and that's fine. Know, however, that there is a lot more to a proper map than just giving them an arena in the middle and sniping towers around the edges. There is no flow in Sleepwalker. There is only flat. It is a bad map for any game, but it is especially bad for Legions. As previously stated, I hope you take to heart my suggestion to scrap it from the lineup before it has the chance to go to live servers.

 

[mario]

I didnt see this map yet but I wanna see the map made by you.

 

[OmniFilt3r]

I agree, the current version of Sleepwalker is pretty bland. Adding some changes in elevation would significantly improve the feel. For example, Zenith's terrain gradients makes for interesting TDM - maybe this could be used as a form of metric.

The most entertaining TDM match i've ever played was on Forgotten (surprisingly). 2 teams fighting over the middle bridge is alot of fun - maybe this would be an interesting idea for a map? Some form of mutli platformed bridge suspended over a fatal drop.

 

[OmniNept]

Mario, you've committed what we call the "Genetic Fallacy".

From the Fallacy Files page:
"The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past - rather than on its present - merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value."

Now that there's some fancy talk, but we can break it down. Essentially, one commits the genetic fallacy when they evaluate an argument not on its strength, but on its source. In other words, Heartsong's mapping ability has nothing to do with his position.

Congratulations Mario: you've learned something today.

P.S. Before someone gets cute with casuistry, no, you can't claim Heartsong's inability to map prevents him rendering an accurate judgment of existing maps. Not only has he had map/gameplay experience through multiple games (over the course of a decade), but he has no map editor access. So, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW.

 

[RainPilot]

So, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW.

" YOU DON'T KNOW ME, YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE'VE I'VE BEEN, WHAT I DID!" - Floks, the other night.

I'm sort of in between with Sleepwalker because for some reason I like it.

You might scold me for this, but without the hills - you don't have to worry about calculating your shot too much. Usually when you play TDM on a CTF map you have to try to shoot the player as he ski's down the hill. You still have to account for MA's and stuff but it's easier when you know when you absolutely know when and where the player is going to land. If it was a CTF map, the player could ski down a hill as you fired or simply stop and trick you.

Even if your team stays at the base on a CTF map, the other team will eventually do the same and one person from the team will have to leave their base and eventually attack. Soon after, the one player would either lure them into the midfield or his/her whole team would decide to help and attack the base as well.

I like it for it's simplicity and I hate it because it's really slow-paced and boring, unlike Stygian and CTF maps where there are hills.

 

[Mabeline]

[snip]

I'm loving this post.

 

[Gheist]

[...]

You're talking about Stygian, not Sleepwalker.

 

[Heartsong]

You might scold me for this, but without the hills - you don't have to worry about calculating your shot too much. Usually when you play TDM on a CTF map you have to try to shoot the player as he ski's down the hill. You still have to account for MA's and stuff but it's easier when you know when you absolutely know when and where the player is going to land. If it was a CTF map, the player could ski down a hill as you fired or simply stop and trick you.

I'd scold you, but I'd feel bad about it since you knew it'd happen. I find that to be one of the great things about Legions: countering someone's assumptions and making them miss the easy splash shot. I can understand why not having to think is appealing, but I'd prefer that it stay out of the game.

I like it for it's simplicity and I hate it because it's really slow-paced and boring, unlike Stygian and CTF maps where there are hills.

I'd be okay with simplicity if it didn't come as a result of the second point.

we played the map today in a PUG as CTF version and it was really good game imo.

okey it was fkign hard to get the flag without OD or without llamaring it ...
but its nice to have a map in tribes style where you can turntle in the tunnel behind the flagstand
also, the hills are very nice for caproutes and the map just looks sick.

so keep it running, i like it
and maybe make the flagstand a bit more open (or the train just bigger) so that its easyer to get the flag

Turtling the flag sounds like a very thing to me, but, as always, I suppose that's a personal preference thing.
I've honestly not tried the hills that are way out on the extremities of the map since I've not played anything but DM on the map (frankly, I didn't realize that it even had a place for flags, unlike Stygian).

Edit: Oh, apparently you were talking about Stygian. I like Stygian.

 

[Fissurez]

I have to say, stygian has to be one of the most interesting small maps I have been on, while sleepwalker almost the opposite.
Sleepwalker definitely needs work. Lots of it. Along with hills, although I like the bases.

But great job on Stygian and tdm, you guys are awesome.

 

[Lepidopterist]

Without going to extremes and suggesting to scrap the map (which I completely support), if there were changes made, the map needs to be condensed. The central tower is too far away when there are no hills to get to it from spawn. The distance between buildings and the spawn in that map needs to be reduced. And of course, hills need to be added.

 

[Aki]

I like Sleepwalker. It breaks up the usual beat, which is nice. That said, there does need to be some mechanism by which people can get out of those bases faster than 42 km/h (or m/s or whatever). Having things flat keeps the fights compact and really forces you to manage your energy or die. God forbid anyone should learn that very crucial skill the hard way .

Personally, I think that weaker jump pads could solve most of this map's problems. If they boosted you to about 70, that would get you out of the base faster but not move you so fast you overshoot the action in the middle.

Let's cut the devs some slack: this is the first seriously asymmetrical map they've given us, so it's bound to have balance issues and the like. Remember the applications developer's creed: if at first you don't succeed, call it v1.0a .

 

[Redvan]

I like Sleepwalker. It breaks up the usual beat, which is nice. That said, there does need to be some mechanism by which people can get out of those bases faster than 42 km/h (or m/s or whatever). Having things flat keeps the fights compact and really forces you to manage your energy or die. God forbid anyone should learn that very crucial skill the hard way .

Personally, I think that weaker jump pads could solve most of this map's problems. If they boosted you to about 70, that would get you out of the base faster but not move you so fast you overshoot the action in the middle.

Let's cut the devs some slack: this is the first seriously asymmetrical map they've given us, so it's bound to have balance issues and the like. Remember the applications developer's creed: if at first you don't succeed, call it v1.0a .

I'd rather see more movement from hills and skill based on hitting MAs and quicker movement, since that'll require energy management just as much as a flat map would. In addition, flat maps encourage the "wait for it!!! WAIT FOR IT!!!!! HE'S ON THE GROUND!!!" SPLASH SPLASH SPLASH SPLASH SPLASH!

Anyone can learn to do that.

 

[Aki]

Well, I just like having the different pace. On Stygian, you have more or less the same dynamic as any other map, only faster because the hills are a lot more severe. It's friggen fun, but still essentially more of the same (until you get into the creepy tunnels ). Sleepwalker forces everyone into a new rhythm by encouraging splash damage and more careful energy conservation. I argue that energy is more important on a flat map because you get nailed as soon as you hit the ground. Furthermore, the same fact encourages more MA shots because you get hit on the ground invariably so you need to take out your target before your feet find the hard stuff. With hills, if you run out of energy over a slope you need only keep your jets on and juke a bit to get out of the way.

I remember a time, long ago, that no one bothered with RL MAs. Air to air was dominated by the CG and EVERYONE was a ground pounder. At least in Pubs, anyway. I think I played for about a month before I started seeing people go for the MAs, another two before swapping between RL and GL became a problem. The point is that there is nothing wrong with groundpounding. The only reason to insist on MAs is practice, or else you're an elitist of the worst kind. Everyone has to start somewhere, and if that's groundpounding then perhaps we can think of Sleepwalker as a training ground. I still say that MAs are every bit as necessary on SW as any other map.

None of this is to say that I don't also feel that the map could benefit from a couple more places to pick up some speed like a large mound in the middle and some hills in Beta base. It is just my opinion that the character of the map as-is is interesting and fun and would be harmed by putting in too many hills to make a smaller ZC.

 

[DOS4/GW]

I'd scold you, but I'd feel bad about it since you knew it'd happen. I find that to be one of the great things about Legions: countering someone's assumptions and making them miss the easy splash shot. I can understand why not having to think is appealing, but I'd prefer that it stay out of the game.

I don't see how any less thought is needed; having limited opportunities to hide behind terrain or do quick downjets can force you to be a bit more creative when maneuvering.

 

[Karnage]

I think it's a nice balance personally - one flat and one hilly map. Really loving Stygian though. I also think it would be a great CTF map.

 

[Battelstar]

I think it's a nice balance personally - one flat and one hilly map. Really loving Stygian though. I also think it would be a great CTF map.

We played a ctf pug on it, and it doesn't work for ctf like it is now.

 

[A2]

I think it's a nice balance personally - one flat and one hilly map. Really loving Stygian though. I also think it would be a great CTF map.

Definitely would be a great CTF map, maybe with some difference to the terrain.

 

[Abandoned]

Sleepwalker = Snipefest + Combofest.

 

[OmniNept]

The point is that there is nothing wrong with groundpounding. The only reason to insist on MAs is practice, or else you're an elitist of the worst kind.

Aki, we call this type of assertion "poisoning the well". From the Wikipedia page: "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say".


Essentially, you've presented a false dilemma by stating that people either agree with you, "or else [they're] an elitist of the worst kind". Of course, it's entirely possible that valid positions opposite yours exist, a truth that remains regardless of your false dilemma.

Now I'm aware you're arguing the virtues of one map in particular, but for my own purposes (as well as for community-education purposes), I'm going to examine your stance in detail. I'm also aware you're not advocating decreased movement re. physics changes, but your post has provided an opportunity to write this in advance.


In the gaming community, your stance is classical: "Skill is as much movement as it is shooting; poor tactical movement decisions ought be punished, so maneuverability shouldn't permit escape from such situations". I've seen this argument used in Tribes many-a-time - I've seen it used in Unreal Tournament, even. The position's flawed, of course, and for a couple reasons:


1) It's almost always self-serving. You very, very rarely see top players demanding decreased maneuverability. Instead, it's always those community members that aren't the best fighters and have trouble hitting their targets. Were movement restricted, you wouldn't suddenly see excellent players descend into mediocrity, either: they're simply better at shooting and moving. When Legions' movement was nerfed, for example, you didn't see Omnis suddenly lose their place on the pecking order.


This point treads borderline genetic fallacy, but avoids it by providing "real-world" examples. This is one occasion where an argument's origin carries weight. Just to be sure though, let's thoroughly peruse your argument and its assertions with reason #2.


2) The assertion that slowed movement increases tactical demands is simply not true, a fact made salient by extending situations to their extremes. If reducing maneuverability necessitates increased movement tactics, then increasing maneuverability must nullify movement tactics. I'm assuming a linear relationship, of course, as do advocates of this argument.


Let's look at two fast-paced games abounding in maneuverability options: Unreal Tournament 2003 and Unreal 2 XMP. In fact, let's look at only UT2k3, since U2XMP is simply more of the same - and then some.


In case you're unfamiliar, I'll explain UT2k3 maneuverability options:
1) You have a fast (constant) run speed.
2) You have a jump, and a double jump that sends your character into a flip.
3) You have a dodge - a rapid lunge to the sides, back, or front.
4) You have a dodge jump/double dodge, allowing a second dodge (while you're traveling on the first) in the form of a flip/boost.
5) You have a "boost dodge", providing significant distance and height gains over the dodge jump.
6) Maps are indoors, and quite cramped, dramatically increasing game pacing (by increasing relative speed and providing you less time to react).


You've a myriad of maneuverability and “escape” options, in other words. Assuming your movement stance, there ought be little in the way of tactical maneuvering. But is that the case?

No. It is not.

I'll illustrate with an example: If you were to fight me in UT, the both of us using rockets only, you would never hit me. We could play for hours, and the most you might accomplish is a slight splash. Conversely, were I attacking, you'd find the assault inescapable. Why though? Is it aim? Partially, but even accounting for disparities there wouldn't make much difference. In our example, two factors are forefront: 1) my reaction times + defensive maneuverability; and 2) my offensive positioning + tactical movement and map knowledge.

More movement options – options I can near-instantly activate – allow me to avoid rockets, even at point blank range. To counter someone whose reaction times allow such evasion, your movement must be tactically excellent. Rocket-heavy UT players are extremely aggressive, utilizing z-axis advantages, map tricks, and near prescience to gain advantage. These advantages are fleeting, transitory, providing them only brief firing opportunities; against skilled opponents, they need not only vantage, but rapidity of mind.

In Tribes, you might float toward a tower.

Ironically, Tribers often use this argument when espousing the virtues of their games: "Tribes is harder because it's so fast and tactical, with ever-shifting battlefield conditions". Then, presenting with classical confirmation bias, they argue against maneuverability increases - ostensibly to preserve dueling "tacticality".

No.

In a similar sense, Christians often argue against the validity of carbon dating and geological science. They then turn round and present carbon-dated wood as evidence of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood. One or the other, guys: Logic isn't selective.

The faster a battlefield's conditions shift, and the more options there are, the faster and more adaptable must be its combatants. That applies not only as a gestalt, but to individual encounters. Here's the difference between fast-paced games and slow-paced games: in fast-paced games, the skill ceiling for both movement and shooting is increased, preventing people from winning with simple, one-time positional advantages.


Slow games aren't inherently tactical, and neither is slowed movement.

All that aside, I'm not against a flatter map for variety's sake. Sleepwalker's current iteration, though, is cumbersome and ugly as hell. (Don't do it Ala – too mean)


Confirmation bias, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

[GReaper]

Less bullshit walls of text, just focus on the map itself.

Thanks.