The Observatory feedback megathread!
Re: The Observatory feedback megathread!
by Drakona » Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:05 pm
Calling something competition grade just means it's appropriate for a serious competition.
One of the things that makes it appropriate is not admitting degenerate strategies. Rules are competition grade if the harder you compete, the better the experience is. They're flawed if competing harder results in a miserable and degenerate experience. The home and home rule is a good example of the latter. Competing hard under the rule involves playing and creating unintersting levels to maximize luck (as a lesser pilot) or maximize exotic skills, and results in a situation where no one has any fun and the results don't mean much. So this is a rule that might be appropriate in a friendly context, but which can't handle the pressure of serious competition. Not competition grade.
You can have a conflict anywhere, but you wouldn't want to have a competition anywhere. You can always play hard under the given rules and see who wins, but that doesn't mean the result is meaningful or interesting or that the process is rewarding. This is one difference between a war and a competition. In a war, the rules are not up for question -- you do whatever you have to to win, which results in things like lying in the mud for hours. In a competition, the rules are set so that trying your hardest to win *happens* to be an enjoyable process. You train for an unavoidable war in order to win it regardless of the circumstances and suffering required. You voluntarily sign up for a competition in order to learn something intersting, to improve yourself, to acquire a skill you enjoy exercising.
Hence, a competition grade experience will be one which is deep enough to be satisfying, where doing your utmost to win makes the experience more interesting and enjoyable (not less), and one where we feel winning and losing represents something meaningful.
Descent levels can have features that make them inappropriate venues for competition, and some of these features are well-known.
A level with the topology of a dumbbell -- two large dogfight rooms connected by a long one-wide tunnel has a problem with degenerate strategy: if the two pilots are in the opposite rooms, whoever takes the tunnel to engage will get killed. So the correct strategy for both pilots is to stay put and not engage . . . forever. A level like this is not competition grade because the game can only proceed when the pilots agree not to take it seriously.
Dogfight rooms which are too large are known to be inappropriate venues for competition. I actually played a Total Chaos 3 game with Kiln on LAN a year or so ago. TC3 was my favorite level back before Kali, but boy is it a miserable experience at this point in history. We literally couldn't hit each other in that giant dog room. We both ran out of energy and still had nearly full shields. Even vulcan would run out of ammo before you could finish a kill. You can mitigate that somewhat by agreeing to get closer, but it doesn't help that much because whenever you find yourself in a tight spot, you just fly away. The only way for the game to proceed is for the pilots involved to take strategically incorrect risks. Not competition grade.
These days I would criticize levels that are too large and too poorly interconnected for the runner-vs-runner game to be interesting as not competition grade as well. Nysa is a great example -- if you're having a bad time in the dogfight, you can just leave, and whichever direction you go, your opponent is pretty ill-advised to try to follow you. So you can catch your breath and force a slowdown and a transition to the camp/countercamp game. This defect in Nysa was known even back in the day -- it was a terrible place to deal with someone who liked to run and to camp, because those strategies were degenerate and uninteresting, and also hard to counter. If you are engaging someone on the ramp and retreat down the hall to the reactor area, there is nothing they can do to press the engagement further. Well, almost nothing. Close enough to nothing that it sucks. You get what I'm getting at. Somewhere like logic, you don't have this problem. Simply running doesn't work. If you simply run, I can force a reengagement within a few seconds, or even get a cheap kill. If you want to get away, you have to be clever, and it doesn't last. Playing hard results in a cleverness arms race, rather than a patience contest. Competition grade.
Ostrich Farm actually has all three of these problems. If you're in the upstairs or the downstairs area, the correct play is to not leave. Ever. The central room is too big for a meaningful dogfight between skilled contestants. And the connecting tunnels are sparse and long, which makes running a successful and difficult to counter strategy. You could have a war there, but it's an inappropriate venue for a competition. People who actively compete at a high level know this, even if they wouldn't say so in as many words, and this sort of thing is why being an active competitor is necessary to be able to comment on what conditions are appropriate for competition.
This is a change in eras. IDL-era competition featured rules and settings which were not competition grade by this standard, and the result was a community that made certain gentlemans' agreements so the game could proceed, and certain players that derived advantage by ignoring those agreements and the drama that generated. DCL is not run that way, and even in a non-DCL oriented tournament, pilots don't naturally think that way. We see rules that don't stand up to competition as defects, and we fix them, and the result is a community that expects competition grade rules and venues. We want you to be able to play your heart out, and if doing so results in a degenerate game . . . you are not the problem, the game is.
There are other possible defects in a level than what I mentioned. I think a level being a worthy setting is sort of an emergent thing, something you discover over time. You don't know how interesting it's going to be as the meta evolves over the years. It may go somewhere great, it may go somewhere crappy. That's why I take more seriously competion in a level that is well explored. People complain about playing the same levels a lot, and there is a staleness that results from that, and we as a community should continue to evolve and look for new awesome things. I don't think we've squeezed all the interesting stuff out of this game yet, not by half. But at the same time, the things that we have discovered already that are awesome have a depth of play to them that you don't get in a new level. The rules of chess haven't changed since the middle ages, but the way the game is played -- oh man, that's still interesting. The good moves are known, and a contest where both players know them all is interesting and strenuous in a way that a contest with a new game, with new rules, isn't. Good Descent levels are like this. I've played over 150 matches in Logic, and in my opinion, it is more interesting venue for the experience. A competition featuring only new maps would hence be less interesting to me. That's semi-subjective; some people see learning a new map quickly as a valid and interesting thing, but it's something I see as less interesting and less enjoyable than evolving a deep meta on a known map, and also more prone to accidentally become degenerate. Opinions vary, I suppose. I respect it as something some people care about, but don't care much about it myself.
Worthy venues change over time, too, as tactics and circumstances evolve. Vamped used to be worthy, but I consider it to badly fail the runner condition now. Minerva used to be the most popular level for ladder competition, I kid you not! Early IDL! Not so much anymore.
Missiles have come and gone and come back; 20 homers used to be normal in an competition grade map, and the game evolved to where more than two was intolerable and damaged competition; we are back now to where a lot is considered by some to be interesting and worthy, and the counts in popular maps are back up to 4-6. Newer ones have 10; we'll see if it catches on. The game evolves.
And on the other hand, who expected that we'd still be playing Ugh, and still find it interesting and worthy? Every so often, a level author comes along and says, "What a terrible map, I can do much better." And everyone agrees. And yet their creations wither and Ugh endures. No one knows why.
This emergent property of competition worthiness is why I don't trust anything but what people play, by the way. People will compete in settings they see as interesting and fun and worthwhile, settings which can take the heat of competition they want to bring. Which settings those are is impossible to know in advance, and what the community enjoys playing is impossible for any one person to judge. You can lie to yourself about which maps you think are good, but there's no lying in what you like to play and come back to over and over.
One of the things that makes it appropriate is not admitting degenerate strategies. Rules are competition grade if the harder you compete, the better the experience is. They're flawed if competing harder results in a miserable and degenerate experience. The home and home rule is a good example of the latter. Competing hard under the rule involves playing and creating unintersting levels to maximize luck (as a lesser pilot) or maximize exotic skills, and results in a situation where no one has any fun and the results don't mean much. So this is a rule that might be appropriate in a friendly context, but which can't handle the pressure of serious competition. Not competition grade.
You can have a conflict anywhere, but you wouldn't want to have a competition anywhere. You can always play hard under the given rules and see who wins, but that doesn't mean the result is meaningful or interesting or that the process is rewarding. This is one difference between a war and a competition. In a war, the rules are not up for question -- you do whatever you have to to win, which results in things like lying in the mud for hours. In a competition, the rules are set so that trying your hardest to win *happens* to be an enjoyable process. You train for an unavoidable war in order to win it regardless of the circumstances and suffering required. You voluntarily sign up for a competition in order to learn something intersting, to improve yourself, to acquire a skill you enjoy exercising.
Hence, a competition grade experience will be one which is deep enough to be satisfying, where doing your utmost to win makes the experience more interesting and enjoyable (not less), and one where we feel winning and losing represents something meaningful.
Descent levels can have features that make them inappropriate venues for competition, and some of these features are well-known.
A level with the topology of a dumbbell -- two large dogfight rooms connected by a long one-wide tunnel has a problem with degenerate strategy: if the two pilots are in the opposite rooms, whoever takes the tunnel to engage will get killed. So the correct strategy for both pilots is to stay put and not engage . . . forever. A level like this is not competition grade because the game can only proceed when the pilots agree not to take it seriously.
Dogfight rooms which are too large are known to be inappropriate venues for competition. I actually played a Total Chaos 3 game with Kiln on LAN a year or so ago. TC3 was my favorite level back before Kali, but boy is it a miserable experience at this point in history. We literally couldn't hit each other in that giant dog room. We both ran out of energy and still had nearly full shields. Even vulcan would run out of ammo before you could finish a kill. You can mitigate that somewhat by agreeing to get closer, but it doesn't help that much because whenever you find yourself in a tight spot, you just fly away. The only way for the game to proceed is for the pilots involved to take strategically incorrect risks. Not competition grade.
These days I would criticize levels that are too large and too poorly interconnected for the runner-vs-runner game to be interesting as not competition grade as well. Nysa is a great example -- if you're having a bad time in the dogfight, you can just leave, and whichever direction you go, your opponent is pretty ill-advised to try to follow you. So you can catch your breath and force a slowdown and a transition to the camp/countercamp game. This defect in Nysa was known even back in the day -- it was a terrible place to deal with someone who liked to run and to camp, because those strategies were degenerate and uninteresting, and also hard to counter. If you are engaging someone on the ramp and retreat down the hall to the reactor area, there is nothing they can do to press the engagement further. Well, almost nothing. Close enough to nothing that it sucks. You get what I'm getting at. Somewhere like logic, you don't have this problem. Simply running doesn't work. If you simply run, I can force a reengagement within a few seconds, or even get a cheap kill. If you want to get away, you have to be clever, and it doesn't last. Playing hard results in a cleverness arms race, rather than a patience contest. Competition grade.
Ostrich Farm actually has all three of these problems. If you're in the upstairs or the downstairs area, the correct play is to not leave. Ever. The central room is too big for a meaningful dogfight between skilled contestants. And the connecting tunnels are sparse and long, which makes running a successful and difficult to counter strategy. You could have a war there, but it's an inappropriate venue for a competition. People who actively compete at a high level know this, even if they wouldn't say so in as many words, and this sort of thing is why being an active competitor is necessary to be able to comment on what conditions are appropriate for competition.
This is a change in eras. IDL-era competition featured rules and settings which were not competition grade by this standard, and the result was a community that made certain gentlemans' agreements so the game could proceed, and certain players that derived advantage by ignoring those agreements and the drama that generated. DCL is not run that way, and even in a non-DCL oriented tournament, pilots don't naturally think that way. We see rules that don't stand up to competition as defects, and we fix them, and the result is a community that expects competition grade rules and venues. We want you to be able to play your heart out, and if doing so results in a degenerate game . . . you are not the problem, the game is.
There are other possible defects in a level than what I mentioned. I think a level being a worthy setting is sort of an emergent thing, something you discover over time. You don't know how interesting it's going to be as the meta evolves over the years. It may go somewhere great, it may go somewhere crappy. That's why I take more seriously competion in a level that is well explored. People complain about playing the same levels a lot, and there is a staleness that results from that, and we as a community should continue to evolve and look for new awesome things. I don't think we've squeezed all the interesting stuff out of this game yet, not by half. But at the same time, the things that we have discovered already that are awesome have a depth of play to them that you don't get in a new level. The rules of chess haven't changed since the middle ages, but the way the game is played -- oh man, that's still interesting. The good moves are known, and a contest where both players know them all is interesting and strenuous in a way that a contest with a new game, with new rules, isn't. Good Descent levels are like this. I've played over 150 matches in Logic, and in my opinion, it is more interesting venue for the experience. A competition featuring only new maps would hence be less interesting to me. That's semi-subjective; some people see learning a new map quickly as a valid and interesting thing, but it's something I see as less interesting and less enjoyable than evolving a deep meta on a known map, and also more prone to accidentally become degenerate. Opinions vary, I suppose. I respect it as something some people care about, but don't care much about it myself.
Worthy venues change over time, too, as tactics and circumstances evolve. Vamped used to be worthy, but I consider it to badly fail the runner condition now. Minerva used to be the most popular level for ladder competition, I kid you not! Early IDL! Not so much anymore.
Missiles have come and gone and come back; 20 homers used to be normal in an competition grade map, and the game evolved to where more than two was intolerable and damaged competition; we are back now to where a lot is considered by some to be interesting and worthy, and the counts in popular maps are back up to 4-6. Newer ones have 10; we'll see if it catches on. The game evolves. And on the other hand, who expected that we'd still be playing Ugh, and still find it interesting and worthy? Every so often, a level author comes along and says, "What a terrible map, I can do much better." And everyone agrees. And yet their creations wither and Ugh endures. No one knows why.
This emergent property of competition worthiness is why I don't trust anything but what people play, by the way. People will compete in settings they see as interesting and fun and worthwhile, settings which can take the heat of competition they want to bring. Which settings those are is impossible to know in advance, and what the community enjoys playing is impossible for any one person to judge. You can lie to yourself about which maps you think are good, but there's no lying in what you like to play and come back to over and over.
-
Drakona
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:35 pm
by Jediluke » Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:16 pm
So you do NOT remember playing Sirius in Wrath x5 immediately after? [/quote]
He was punished...sure..... just not HARSHLY enough imo
[/quote]He was punished...sure..... just not HARSHLY enough imo
-
Jediluke
- Posts: 1879
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:00 pm
by LotharBot » Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:27 pm
Building off of Drakona's comment -- something is Competition Grade if the harder you play, the better the experience is. "Playing to win" improves the tactical depth, introducing more strategies and counterstrategies. Something is not competition grade if "playing to win" leads to uninteresting stalemates. Three observations:
1) "Competition Grade" is not a mere expression of preferences. It's a recognition of the consequences of design decisions. I don't like Take2 or Ugh or Blubird, but they're competition grade -- when people play hard, certain tactics emerge, and counters to those tactics, and counter-counter-tactics, and so on. Those levels get better when the stakes are higher and the pilots are trying harder. On the other hand, I've played levels with just a handful of primaries and no missiles and no energy centers, and had fun, but that's not competition grade -- it degenerates into a single tactic with no incentive to do anything different, and no viable countertactics. There are plenty of levels and games that aren't competition-grade because the design is such that both players have incentive to just wait forever, and the only way to break the stalemate is to agree not to compete all that hard.
2) "Competition Grade" is contextual. For brand new pilots, Total Chaos 3 is a competition-grade space. You can shoot at each other from across the big room and land hits. It takes the shots long enough to arrive that you might be able to react and dodge, sometimes. The big powerups like invulns and mega missiles mean you can break into a defensive position. A pilot who decides to run isn't going to be able to outrun the mega missile that's chasing them. But an average Kali-era pilot would find the space incredibly dull and the game degenerate, and prefer something "small" like Minerva. A ladder pilot from Kali would find serious competition in Minerva to be unplayable. And so on.
3) A level can have a lot of "Competition Grade" spaces without being Competition Grade as a whole. Because the things that make a level *not* competition-grade are elements that lead to a total breakdown of gameplay under the pressure of competition, and even one of those elements will (under enough pressure) make the entire competition break down into a degenerate case. And sometimes those things are discovered, not immediately, but over the course of time as people try to compete and discover abusable elements. Likewise, had any of our higher-level pilots decided to abuse the rule about home levels, the entire tournament could have devolved into a contest of who could come up with the most ridiculous home and 20-0 the other pilot. As such, the tourney as a whole wasn't competition-grade, and it was only (unspoken) communal agreement to keep home levels semi-reasonable that kept the whole thing from collapsing under its own weight.
1) "Competition Grade" is not a mere expression of preferences. It's a recognition of the consequences of design decisions. I don't like Take2 or Ugh or Blubird, but they're competition grade -- when people play hard, certain tactics emerge, and counters to those tactics, and counter-counter-tactics, and so on. Those levels get better when the stakes are higher and the pilots are trying harder. On the other hand, I've played levels with just a handful of primaries and no missiles and no energy centers, and had fun, but that's not competition grade -- it degenerates into a single tactic with no incentive to do anything different, and no viable countertactics. There are plenty of levels and games that aren't competition-grade because the design is such that both players have incentive to just wait forever, and the only way to break the stalemate is to agree not to compete all that hard.
2) "Competition Grade" is contextual. For brand new pilots, Total Chaos 3 is a competition-grade space. You can shoot at each other from across the big room and land hits. It takes the shots long enough to arrive that you might be able to react and dodge, sometimes. The big powerups like invulns and mega missiles mean you can break into a defensive position. A pilot who decides to run isn't going to be able to outrun the mega missile that's chasing them. But an average Kali-era pilot would find the space incredibly dull and the game degenerate, and prefer something "small" like Minerva. A ladder pilot from Kali would find serious competition in Minerva to be unplayable. And so on.
3) A level can have a lot of "Competition Grade" spaces without being Competition Grade as a whole. Because the things that make a level *not* competition-grade are elements that lead to a total breakdown of gameplay under the pressure of competition, and even one of those elements will (under enough pressure) make the entire competition break down into a degenerate case. And sometimes those things are discovered, not immediately, but over the course of time as people try to compete and discover abusable elements. Likewise, had any of our higher-level pilots decided to abuse the rule about home levels, the entire tournament could have devolved into a contest of who could come up with the most ridiculous home and 20-0 the other pilot. As such, the tourney as a whole wasn't competition-grade, and it was only (unspoken) communal agreement to keep home levels semi-reasonable that kept the whole thing from collapsing under its own weight.
-
LotharBot
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:11 pm
by roncli » Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:14 pm
-
roncli
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:05 pm
- Location: Belmont, CA
by Sirius » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:51 pm
For all its flaws, Nysa D2 is actually fun to play hard. As long as you don't go into the basement, that thing's a deathtrap. Now, whether it's fun to watch might be a whole different story. It's like super-slow fencing - short bursts of action, and most of the time just trying to angle for an opening.
I do kind of feel that my taste in levels diverges a bit from the main crowd these days though. Logic, Ascend, Mindtrix... it's all action action action, and I kind of like a little suspense and scheming. Fortunately Lurk and Flea give a few options for that.
I do kind of feel that my taste in levels diverges a bit from the main crowd these days though. Logic, Ascend, Mindtrix... it's all action action action, and I kind of like a little suspense and scheming. Fortunately Lurk and Flea give a few options for that.
-
Sirius
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:09 am
- Location: Bellevue, WA
by Big Rat » Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:44 pm
OK Lee - I am going to weigh in here (on the assumption you will be checking in to see replies to your post) from the perspective of a moderately prolific level creator who likes to experiment with layout ideas rather than try to make levels that are guaranteed or even likely to "please the masses" (or even come close).
I have been a part of the Descent community for about 20 years - making levels for maybe 12 years - and have experienced many of the same frustrations as you describe, at least partly because I go for the unconventional. I had one of my first attempts at level design verbally and viciously torn to shreds by one of my best friends on Kali at the time, and while it wasn't a very good level, all that did was make him look like an asshole from my perspective - certainly did not stop me from designing levels or asking my friends to check them out. I make maps because I want to and enjoy the process. Similarly, as a composer and performer of avant-garde jazz and experimental classical music (among other genres), I learned long ago (partly the hard way) to select material for the audience I (learned to) expect. A no-brainer example: if I am playing a gig in a traditional-jazz club I do not bring out my latest free-form experimental work - I save that for the right time and place. Failure to do so is at my own peril - and can negatively affect my income on a long-term basis (ie. negative reputation).
Bringing what I would refer to as "rumble maps" (big layouts for 5 - 8 players say) to a 1 v 1 event is similar - the players who are there are not there for that. There are enough of us around who ARE interested in new rumble maps though (I am definitely one of them, as you should have noticed) and there is a time and place. I have attempted several times to get you to join the Rangers, at least partly for that reason - big games is one of the things we like, and I notice most of your levels are on the large side. Mine were too when I first started making them - only in the last few years have I focused on 2 - 4 player maps (but still with my experimental approach. I have only ever made one or two levels that just about everyone has liked - mostly the reactions to a new level are the same as with being a creative artist: someone loves it, someone hates it and someone doesn't give a shit. This is the landscape of the world I have chosen to do my life's work, so maybe I am more used to this reality than the average person. I am not only aware of it and expect it, but sometimes also manipulate it as part of my artistic approach. Sometimes the reaction IS the art.
but I digress...
The Rangers are almost always willing to fly a new level and give feedback... or not. The usual spectrum of responses usually happens (which I ignore); instead I look for constructive criticism. I sometimes follow advice for improving a level but not always - sometimes it goes against the specific intent of a particular layout and I attribute it to individual taste rather than having a better idea. Similar to with being a composer, I have experience with the "effect" of using certain devices and sometimes use them anyway because I feel like it, understanding some people will not like it. Similarly, I try to keep my level-building advice along non-judgemental lines such as: "it depends what you are trying to achieve..." or "you might try something like..." or "that's interesting - have you thought of..."
Once I know who likes and does not like a particular map, when it is my turn to pick the next level, I tend to suggest one that (most of?) those present will like or at least be OK with, but sometimes I will pick one that I want to play and if someone wants to say "I am not playing that one" that can be their problem. This doesn't happen often, because we all play maps we do not like specifically because someone else does. We sometimes bitch about it and get laughed at for doing so. To take the "fuck this" approach basically accomplishes one thing: reduces the size / functionality of our already tiny community. Some people do this anyway - their privilege...
Remember that Descent pilots are also people - they have good and bad days, fluctuating motivations, lives outside of Descent, different / fluctuating levels of patience for what they (in the moment) perceive as a waste of their time (etc). Recently, after a three-player game of one of my favourite maps of my own creation (because it caters to a specific preference - only lasers & concs), one of my good Ranger friends said at the end of the game "what a stupid level!" I just laughed at him and said "you're not the only one who thinks so" and left it at that. This was a nice example of a very common human inclination: stating an opinion as fact - we all do this - ALL of us. I have even heard Zen Master Sirius do it Some pilots will authoritatively disparage a level that requires piloting skills they do not have. Others will simply say: "it is not to my taste"... the polite approach. Some will take the time to learn a new map and others will not - for whatever reason.
There are also always exceptions that prove the rule. Lots of DCL players like to rumble once in a while, and some of us rumblers also love 1 v 1. There is a level of mine called "Grey Matter" which I always thought of as a 5 - 8 player level (had many great fights in there), and Behemoth surprised me by challenging me to a DCL in there (he won of course, but I did reach double digits, and it was surprisingly fun. Some people want to be open-minded, others do not, and do not have to explain why. This is the reason I never really pushed when you declined to join the Rangers, by the way.
SO - point is, you can get your levels - even the huge convoluted ones (like Ostrich - I have played it) played sometimes if you want to, but there is a skill to knowing when and how to go about it without pissing others off. Always expect a variety of responses to your original work - ALWAYS. Even DKH misses the popularity mark once in a while, and there are definitely a few of his I am not fond of, a number I am indifferent to, and a few I greatly admire.
I would liken the DCL folks who only want to play core levels to formula 1 drivers who want to race on known tracks. They might like going off-road, but probably don't want to race there. Some do both.
Get to know your community better and adapt (rather than trying to move an immovable object). Pick your mode(s) of playing and figure out who likes to do what and engage them on some kind of middle-ground and work outward from there - both directions is usually best. Also know that there are some of us who are interested in moving DCL in new directions - not by replacing what is already there but by adding. I personally would love to see a DCL multiplayer ladder (I haven't thought out yet how the mechanism for scoring might work) - might promote more multiplayer activity. I suggested an idea to Skywarp recently for making DCL more interesting: agree on two games with each player selecting a level with no arguments from the other even if it is a blind match. We actually started this casually the other day with Warp challenging me to a DCL in a level of mine he had never seen - great sportsmanship. In this situation I would only call a large level if the opponent agreed ahead of time it was OK... common sense. One thing to REALLY NOT DO: ask someone to play a map that has tricks built in and use those to wipe them out when they are learning the map... bad idea unless you want to be thought of as a total wanker. Similar with a complex layout - ALWAYS ease off until your opponent displays aggression - unless, of course, in an agreed-upon blind match.
Lastly -
The trash talk is just that - trash. Take it seriously only at your own risk. It is either someone who considers you a friend and is teasing you (like friends do or someone just being an asshole for whatever reason, or possibly trying to intimidate you into losing a game - in which case not worthy of a response, better to ignore. It can take a while to tell the difference - good luck 
SOOO...
Get your butt back in the mines! I will play your big unconventional maps just about anytime, and encourage others to do so as well, as long as you do the same - quid pro quo buddy. I may defer a DCL if it is during one of my busy work times that interferes with maintaining my Descent skills, but otherwise will 1 v 1 you anytime.
You owe me a revenge match
PS. and join the Rangers - more big games to be had.
I have been a part of the Descent community for about 20 years - making levels for maybe 12 years - and have experienced many of the same frustrations as you describe, at least partly because I go for the unconventional. I had one of my first attempts at level design verbally and viciously torn to shreds by one of my best friends on Kali at the time, and while it wasn't a very good level, all that did was make him look like an asshole from my perspective - certainly did not stop me from designing levels or asking my friends to check them out. I make maps because I want to and enjoy the process. Similarly, as a composer and performer of avant-garde jazz and experimental classical music (among other genres), I learned long ago (partly the hard way) to select material for the audience I (learned to) expect. A no-brainer example: if I am playing a gig in a traditional-jazz club I do not bring out my latest free-form experimental work - I save that for the right time and place. Failure to do so is at my own peril - and can negatively affect my income on a long-term basis (ie. negative reputation).
Bringing what I would refer to as "rumble maps" (big layouts for 5 - 8 players say) to a 1 v 1 event is similar - the players who are there are not there for that. There are enough of us around who ARE interested in new rumble maps though (I am definitely one of them, as you should have noticed) and there is a time and place. I have attempted several times to get you to join the Rangers, at least partly for that reason - big games is one of the things we like, and I notice most of your levels are on the large side. Mine were too when I first started making them - only in the last few years have I focused on 2 - 4 player maps (but still with my experimental approach
. I have only ever made one or two levels that just about everyone has liked - mostly the reactions to a new level are the same as with being a creative artist: someone loves it, someone hates it and someone doesn't give a shit. This is the landscape of the world I have chosen to do my life's work, so maybe I am more used to this reality than the average person. I am not only aware of it and expect it, but sometimes also manipulate it as part of my artistic approach. Sometimes the reaction IS the art.but I digress...
The Rangers are almost always willing to fly a new level and give feedback... or not. The usual spectrum of responses usually happens (which I ignore); instead I look for constructive criticism. I sometimes follow advice for improving a level but not always - sometimes it goes against the specific intent of a particular layout and I attribute it to individual taste rather than having a better idea. Similar to with being a composer, I have experience with the "effect" of using certain devices and sometimes use them anyway because I feel like it, understanding some people will not like it. Similarly, I try to keep my level-building advice along non-judgemental lines such as: "it depends what you are trying to achieve..." or "you might try something like..." or "that's interesting - have you thought of..."
Once I know who likes and does not like a particular map, when it is my turn to pick the next level, I tend to suggest one that (most of?) those present will like or at least be OK with, but sometimes I will pick one that I want to play and if someone wants to say "I am not playing that one" that can be their problem. This doesn't happen often, because we all play maps we do not like specifically because someone else does. We sometimes bitch about it and get laughed at for doing so. To take the "fuck this" approach basically accomplishes one thing: reduces the size / functionality of our already tiny community. Some people do this anyway - their privilege...
Remember that Descent pilots are also people - they have good and bad days, fluctuating motivations, lives outside of Descent, different / fluctuating levels of patience for what they (in the moment) perceive as a waste of their time (etc). Recently, after a three-player game of one of my favourite maps of my own creation (because it caters to a specific preference - only lasers & concs), one of my good Ranger friends said at the end of the game "what a stupid level!" I just laughed at him and said "you're not the only one who thinks so" and left it at that. This was a nice example of a very common human inclination: stating an opinion as fact - we all do this - ALL of us. I have even heard Zen Master Sirius do it
Some pilots will authoritatively disparage a level that requires piloting skills they do not have. Others will simply say: "it is not to my taste"... the polite approach. Some will take the time to learn a new map and others will not - for whatever reason. There are also always exceptions that prove the rule. Lots of DCL players like to rumble once in a while, and some of us rumblers also love 1 v 1. There is a level of mine called "Grey Matter" which I always thought of as a 5 - 8 player level (had many great fights in there), and Behemoth surprised me by challenging me to a DCL in there (he won of course, but I did reach double digits
, and it was surprisingly fun. Some people want to be open-minded, others do not, and do not have to explain why. This is the reason I never really pushed when you declined to join the Rangers, by the way.SO - point is, you can get your levels - even the huge convoluted ones (like Ostrich - I have played it) played sometimes if you want to, but there is a skill to knowing when and how to go about it without pissing others off. Always expect a variety of responses to your original work - ALWAYS. Even DKH misses the popularity mark once in a while, and there are definitely a few of his I am not fond of, a number I am indifferent to, and a few I greatly admire.
I would liken the DCL folks who only want to play core levels to formula 1 drivers who want to race on known tracks. They might like going off-road, but probably don't want to race there. Some do both.
Get to know your community better and adapt (rather than trying to move an immovable object). Pick your mode(s) of playing and figure out who likes to do what and engage them on some kind of middle-ground and work outward from there - both directions is usually best. Also know that there are some of us who are interested in moving DCL in new directions - not by replacing what is already there but by adding. I personally would love to see a DCL multiplayer ladder (I haven't thought out yet how the mechanism for scoring might work) - might promote more multiplayer activity. I suggested an idea to Skywarp recently for making DCL more interesting: agree on two games with each player selecting a level with no arguments from the other even if it is a blind match. We actually started this casually the other day with Warp challenging me to a DCL in a level of mine he had never seen - great sportsmanship. In this situation I would only call a large level if the opponent agreed ahead of time it was OK... common sense. One thing to REALLY NOT DO: ask someone to play a map that has tricks built in and use those to wipe them out when they are learning the map... bad idea unless you want to be thought of as a total wanker. Similar with a complex layout - ALWAYS ease off until your opponent displays aggression - unless, of course, in an agreed-upon blind match.
Lastly -
The trash talk is just that - trash. Take it seriously only at your own risk. It is either someone who considers you a friend and is teasing you (like friends do
or someone just being an asshole for whatever reason, or possibly trying to intimidate you into losing a game - in which case not worthy of a response, better to ignore. It can take a while to tell the difference - good luck SOOO...
Get your butt back in the mines! I will play your big unconventional maps just about anytime, and encourage others to do so as well, as long as you do the same - quid pro quo buddy. I may defer a DCL if it is during one of my busy work times that interferes with maintaining my Descent skills, but otherwise will 1 v 1 you anytime.
You owe me a revenge match
PS. and join the Rangers - more big games to be had.
-
Big Rat
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:43 pm
by Jediluke » Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:19 pm
Both memory and demos confirm that if 2 'dogfight' preferring pilots were playing a game/match then they more often than not seemed to ignore the rest of the level and met up over and over in the dog room to battle it out in their preferred style.
This is not even unreasonable.
Were there runners? Sure there were. I was a hit'n'runner and I seemed to have been in the minority.
The other thing I have often said is... A dogfighter can't make a hit-n-run player dogfight them. Even DJCJR remembers learning this first hand vs me. We were in vamped years ago and he would sit up in the corner above the door in the dog room waiting for me to come dogfight him....but all I would do is pop my head from around one of the many corners I could choose from and hit him with a little Vulcan then disappear. He realized he could not force the dog fight engagement and ultimately adjusted his strategy accordingly.
These were my personal experiences which don't speak to myth but speak to the reality I experienced.
This is not even unreasonable.
Were there runners? Sure there were. I was a hit'n'runner and I seemed to have been in the minority.
The other thing I have often said is... A dogfighter can't make a hit-n-run player dogfight them. Even DJCJR remembers learning this first hand vs me. We were in vamped years ago and he would sit up in the corner above the door in the dog room waiting for me to come dogfight him....but all I would do is pop my head from around one of the many corners I could choose from and hit him with a little Vulcan then disappear. He realized he could not force the dog fight engagement and ultimately adjusted his strategy accordingly.
These were my personal experiences which don't speak to myth but speak to the reality I experienced.
-
Jediluke
- Posts: 1879
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:00 pm
by Mark392 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:52 pm
I would say that it is not so much (but definitely not excluding) that we would run to the dog room all the time, it's partially that we were all younger and preferred action in one of the best 6dof action games and "agreed" to rush to the *confrontation*.
Also, "Dog Room" is very subjective. I dogfight in hallways all the time. So, the hallway becomes a dog room for that purpose. Yet again, we dictate dog rooms by how we all play, not by the constrictions of the level. Lots of subjectivity goin' around.
Also, "Dog Room" is very subjective. I dogfight in hallways all the time. So, the hallway becomes a dog room for that purpose. Yet again, we dictate dog rooms by how we all play, not by the constrictions of the level. Lots of subjectivity goin' around.
-
Mark392
- Posts: 728
- Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:41 pm