If you don't have possibility to actually play map enough times to memorize it, you can always type map "x" in console and run around it freely. Or start ffa with bots, as many of custom maps have frogbot waypoints. If you actually want to learn something, there is always a way.

QL needs new maps to a greater extent though because the game itself is so extremely shallow. :p

This just shows that we are talking about totally different things. I certainly know the layout and items of cmt1b. Do I know what good teams and individuals are trying to do, what I should do from every spawn etc? No, and quite frankly from all the games I've seen on the map, not too many teams seem to know. Cmt3 has a distinct advantage that it has been forced upon still active players a lot more than cmt1b, I would also be inclined to think that cmt3 is a better map and that that would have something to do with it. It's also a better map than cmt4

Anyway, either a new good map is force forced, as in you have to play it a lot in league games(this was not the case with cmt1b) and people can get practice on the map or it will most likely not go far. Still, we have a lot of teams who can't even come near the kind of game play I enjoy on tb3 even when they have great examples to follow. For newer maps, we don't even have those examples, no one knows how to play them nearly as well as older maps. To get even close, a map would have to be played at high level in leagues, in pracs, in mixes for a long time. Personally I have no real interest in that because I see so much room for improvement on my own and in any team I play in on the basic tb3 maps. This especially applies to higher levels of team play. That is the ultimate level for me in internet play.

And I even went as far as to say "I've" and you still have to bring that up in a discussion forum? Certainly I'm only representing my own point of view except when clear proponents and sympathizers exist and I bring it up separately. I have no illusions about being some kind of soapbox king in the scene and surely there are a lot of people that don't agree with me at all or on some points. That's why we're having this discussion, again

niomic: I understand what are you talking about, but if everyone will think the same - no new map will ever be played. But your point is rational and even if i don't like it, i can't say it's wrong.
Also, i think it's easier for duel players to adapt to new maps than for whole teams, as teamplay is more complex thing. So there is no reason why 1on1 or maybe even 2on2 map pool shouldn't be extended.

Ake: I think id should not bother any longer with Q3/CPMA to QL converts, and try to make QL game of it's own. Why restrict chaingun to teamplay? Put it on some duel arenas, it will be great rail counter, like it was in q2. Work with community more, give talented mappers and coders bonuses as exchange for their work. They should learn from valve how to handle stuff like this.

Now you have some more maps to play 4on4 on!
Enter this summers edition of EQLadder, first season ever, to try on some different maps besides good old TB3!

http://eql.quakeworld.nu/ladder/

Why do people want to make the same threads over and over?

Because some people would like to play new maps in a tournament but all they get is tournaments where efficiently only one third of the maps they get to play can be called somewhat "new". New being really strong word here.

why is tennis still played in a rectangular shaped court? :F

They changed rackets though, too make it easier to hit the ball!

Actually, I think tennis benefits from having various surfaces ("maps".

To me that's almost the same variation as playing with different ping Some folks are more used to shittier surfaces than others (go nadal!)

whats wrong with having 1/3 new maps btw? thats plenty imo

Why don't u have all standard maps in your ffa server instead of made up shit maps everyone hate?

Speaking for everyone, aren't we?

takes one to know one

Are you referring to my FFA server?

I think the solution is to have less custom maps but rotate them fairly often and according to feedback. This is what Flepser did for years and years and I think everyone has a few custom maps they enjoy now. Variation is good as long as you always have the old maps with the best gameplay to fall back on.

I agree with this.

I usually change a map or two in the rotation every week and I get no complaints.

Right now I have mostly Kenya maps and nobody seems to mind...

ztndm3
efdm10
dm4ish
spinev2
utressor
p3a
ultrav
efdm5
doomed
dead
ztndm5
aerowalk

Lo there


Soccer, tennis, rugby, don't compare well with qw.

I think a closer match would be Formula-1, or other racing class.
Where the different racing tracks are like the maps in QW.
The different f1-teams are the qw-clans/teams... the drivers are the players, the cars the q-engine

But most important... F1 has different playgrounds, 'maps', tracks. Not just 1 (soccer) field.



Ow, those F1 drivers also don't like all tracks.

I suppose those kind of people are entirely free to start any kind of tournament they want and anyone who wants to play in such a trounament would be free to join.

You've all heard this before but:

Why is football played on the same field over and over?
Why is basketball played on the same court over and over?
Why is hockey played on the same rink over and over?
Why is poker played on the same tables over and over?
etc...


That's your claim. Why don't they compare well?

We all know F1, golfers, etc, are just plain crazy... While quake are only semi-crazy

I guess the conclusion is that whether or not a sport is map/track/court oriented doesn't really make it boring. I guess it's simply a matter of taste if one would group qw rather with hockey than golf.

I guess the conclusion is, some people are bored with maps from 1996, and some people are not.

I think it is the people who are bored with them that owe us an answer. Why are people bored with the maps?

P.S.
All the golf fields still look pretty much the same. Grass, sand, water, trees, done. Same for racing: Wide turn, hairpin, bank turn, straightaway, done.

The point is that there really is not that much variation (especially when compared to quakeworld maps!!!) and yet people still do the sport because it isn't the playa, it's the game!

Because these games offer enough variety in themselves to be really interesting?
Because they don't have the same splendid opportunity to offer a variety of battle grounds in such an easy way?
Because of the strong force of tradition?
Because noone has suggested the possibility of "new maps"?

QW and field/court sports don't compare because the whole point of football pitches, hockey rinks and basketball courts is to be absolutely featureless terrain with nothing but opposing goals. It could only be comparable to Quake if we were playing CTF on speed.bsp. The terrain and its variety is far too important to what makes qw interesting.

An equally meaningless comparison is golf and other similar activities, since they feature no interaction with opposing players. Golf is just a competition between yourself and the course, and that's not what Quake is about.


Name one thing in cmt3 or cmt1b that isn't in dm3, dm2 or e1m2.

Lifts, stairs, quads, water = Grass, sand, water, trees = Wide turn, hairpin, bank turn, straightaway. Obviously each new variation must be built upon existing materials and largely reference existing techniques implemented in different contexts. It's not like you can make an F1 circuit entirely out of flan any more than you can make a qw map solely from lava. Your suggestion that golf and race courses are somehow homogeneous when compared to quakeworld maps seems born of far greater familiarity with the effects of alterations in quakeworld than the implications of changes in the other activies you reference.

[/ninja edit]

oh god not again...

There are times when I regret topics don't get automatically closed after some time.

All of those platforms have significant features: size, shape, texture etc. Hockey for example is played in different size rinks (NA/EU). But hockey doesn't need changing terrain to be interesting and neither does QW. It's about the game, not the terrain.

I'm not saying "QW is not hockey, so we should change maps all the time. QED!". I'm just saying that QW is nothing like those particular sports, therefore using them as an argument for conservatism is as pointless as others using F1 as an argument for enlarging or altering the pool. We should decide quakeworld's map pool based on the actual merits (as we have both been trying to do until now), and not on meaningless comparisons to irrelevant activities. We don't have to disagree on every single point just because we disagree on the overall picture.