Patch: March 17th, new maps, demo change, bug fixes

[lamster]

================================================== ===============
March 17th, 2011

We're experimenting with a new demo model. The demo is no longer time limited and includes all 5 planes (1st red perk, rubber hull, heavy armor, turbocharger). We may need to roll back this change in the future, but assuming no problems we prefer a generous demo to maximize Altitude's player base.

New official maps
Creators:
1) if there is a newer version of your map, please email the updated file to support@nimblygames.com
2) to redeem your community points, contact support@nimblygames.com with your nickname and VaporID
1de_asteroids
1de_mayhem
ball_arcade (thanks Polio and Nikon)
ball_atmosphere (thanks Nikon)
ball_cross (thanks BlueMoon)
ball_factory (thanks Polio and Nikon)
ball_funnelpark (thanks Mandrad)
ball_hardcourt (thanks Elixir and Nikon)
ball_ice (thanks Nikon and Dyno)
ball_pixelized (thanks Nikon)
ball_pulse (thanks tgleaf)
ball_sewer (thanks Polio and Nikon)
ball_swarm (thanks Polio and Nikon)
ball_ufo (thanks TRUEPA!N)
ball_volcano (thanks innerlyte and Elixir)
tbd_assembly (thanks pig_bomb)
tbd_chamber (thanks Stack)
tbd_chess (thanks silent skies)
tbd_justice (thanks pig_bomb)
tbd_origami_park (thanks Mandrad)
tbd_poseidon (thanks Wing Eraser)
tbd_scrapyard (thanks Hartz)
tbd_volcano (thanks innerlyte and Jayfourke)

Bug fixes

[Evan20000]

Demo includes trick/HA/turbo? Time for some smurfin

Seriously though, great update with the maps and all.

[MajorPayne257]

Awesome! I was a tad confused when I was playing arcade on Official 3 earlier.

Nostalgia to the 300+ hour demo loopy accounts.

[Mandrad]

What was the criteria on the maps choice? I ask it because i find stange the fact that my tbd_hivepark isn´t in the list.
Anyway im very gratefull for this patch. TY

[Hollywood]

You should probably do some sort of steam event or another way to advertise about the demo. So people know about it.

[Tekn0]

Whenever I get the chance I'm telling my friends about Altitude, hopefully some of them get into it

Keep the great work going guys!

[nobodyhome]

sweet stuff. hopefully having these maps on official (and thus more played) will make it more obvious which of these maps can be put in the ladder pool.

[Nikon]

Awesome update, I think it will be awesome to have this many different maps to play on. Nice update.

[Demuyt]

Time for some demo fun with leggo

[elxir]

maybe this will revive ball hard walls 4!

[nobodyhome]

actually, are there any server options to restrict the use of demo accounts? if demo times are unlimited that means we might see some level60+ or even ace 10 demos around, and i'd like to have a server option to allow only paid accounts to join ladder (for smurf prevention purposes).

[lamster]

I don't think there's a good way to detect demo users at the moment. In the next patch I'll add a demo=true/false attribute to the JSON clientAdd message and an option in the server configurator (Disallow demo users).

[Flexio]

Lots of wiki updating to be done, I suppose.

[Demuyt]

I'll probably get to editing some Wiki stuff tomorrow evening I guess.

[mikesol]

So while I think it's great we're releasing new maps, many of the maps put on the official list I don't feel are ready. There are numerous maps that I feel have graphical bugs as well as serious game play flaws. In other words, the very basic requirements that were posted for making maps official were not met in some of them (at least in my eyes).

I mean no disrespect or anything to you or the map makers - but I really feel you should consider removing some of these maps from the official list.

While I'm not a ball player, many of the ball players I've talked to have expressed dislike to most of the ball maps (such as sewer, swarm, factory, and arcade). I can't really comment on them so I'll leave that up to them.

As far as tbd maps go:

* tbd_poseidon needs some changes in the base area of the map. The bases are angled too steeply and i'm not a fan of the way pushes end up happening.

* tbd_chamber has some graphical bugs as well as balancing issues. There are too many turrets up top and none in the ground route. The middle area seems clunky and the pipes should disappear in para false (imo). Furthermore, the para false color is harsh on the eyes.

* tbd_assembly doesn't have any of the flaws that the previous two maps do but I still am not a fan of it. I am not sure what other people think of it and I could be in the minority here - but I really hate the game play that's created with the two bombs appearing in the center.

[Nikon]

I agree with you mike on some things. But I haven't herd any hating on factory OR arcade. Sewer and swarm yes but factory and arcade we've gotten a lot of great feedback about those.

[mikesol]

Originally Posted by Nikon

I agree with you mike on some things. But I haven't herd any hating on factory OR arcade. Sewer and swarm yes but factory and arcade we've gotten a lot of great feedback about those.

I mean as I said I don't know anything about ball really - just telling you what people have complained to me about.

[Picklegnome]

Originally Posted by Nikon

I agree with you mike on some things. But I haven't herd any hating on factory OR arcade. Sewer and swarm yes but factory and arcade we've gotten a lot of great feedback about those.

Nikon, although I think a lot of the maps you and Polio have done are great - and I like swarm's different play style and don't see any fundamental problems with it - I do think arcade markedly favors the lower half of the map, and the design of the lower half tends to bottleneck action right in the middle.

[Rainmaker]

Originally Posted by mikesol

tbd_assembly doesn't have any of the flaws that the previous two maps do but I still am not a fan of it. I am not sure what other people think of it and I could be in the minority here - but I really hate the game play that's created with the two bombs appearing in the center.

I agree with mikesol on assembly (can't make an opinion on the others as I haven't test them).
1. The map is not wide enough. The run from bomb to base-detonatios in too short.
2. Bomb accesibility should be easier. Also display should be even (like mayhem). In assembly it consists of holding top middle of map.

My suggestions:
+ remove neutral bombs, each bomb should spawn in base
+ map should be wider (do not stretch, proportions seem right as they are)
* Maybe it would be wise to check turret placement

[mlopes]

Is there a way to add all official maps into rotation but ball_football, without specifying the maps on rotation1 by 1?
I'm trying to find how to do this so my server would start using the new maps as soon as it restarts without requiring any additional changes to the configuration file.

[Pieface]

It's nice that we have so many new maps, but I agree with mike that unless we're going solely by graphical quality some of these aren't ready. I personally hate the way assembly plays and poseidon took over an hour in a competitive 5v5 - I shudder to think what it could be like 7v7. I'll try to test some of these and provide feedback soon.

I went ahead and edited the wiki to reflect the new official maps, still need to get around to adding ball_volcano and tbd_chamber.

Edit: also, 1BD_Fallout didn't make the cut? O:

[trendy11one]

tbd_chamber is awful. Before update i dont even know about this map. Huge pipes should be at least transparent, obstacles should be symmetrical

[silent skies]

It would appear I posted in the wrong patch thread -_-

The version of tbd_chess on the official servers is horribly outdated. It has a few graphical glitches and a lot of the layout has been completely reworked from what ppl are seeing on the off. servers.

SSD was kind enough to reupload the latest version which he had sitting around (as it is on the ladder server, I believe) here.

[Karl]

About official maps... Here's loosely what went down when I convinced lamster to add 23 maps to the official map list.

As I was testing advertising and new auto created demo accounts one thing I noticed was that by default we turn on the filter official maps only. This led to frustrating situations where you either couldn't join a server or worse you would get kicked from a server as a demo user that didn't modify their account settings.

So my thought here was that hey, we already have a ton of maps in the official map list maybe official map should just mean that the map isn't hideously ugly and plays OK... not great but you can still have fun on a non competitive level. The other novel idea was to not automatically filter unofficial maps for new demo users.

The other reason I was thinking generally decent looking maps and fun to play on maps should become official is so they are hosted on the super fast amazon cloud so that anyone who plays on them for the first time gets a high speed download.

It's also easier for those who host servers.

All around i think it's best even if the maps aren't "perfect". As I figure it will also encourage map editors to perfect them .

Also for those server hosters that are a little lazy like myself I added a |premium| category that will never consist of more than 10 maps of each game type. Basically premium will be the "best" look and most "fun"... where I define fun to be balanced and not have annoying chokes or lead to stale mates. For example, tbd_lostcity is not a premium map even though it's graphics are really nice. Anyways I chose the "premium" maps so I look forward to your hate mail ... although I don't really expect any server hosters to use it anyways as you all are already on top of picking great maps for your servers

[Ribilla]

Good point. Please remove Poseidon though, it has wonderful graphics, but its not just bad, its goddamn awful. I haven't yet seen a game take less than 31 mins.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Ribilla

Good point. Please remove Poseidon though, it has wonderful graphics, but its not just bad, I haven't yet seen a game take less than 31 mins.

If you have some constructive criticism please let the map creator know in their thread http://altitudegame.com/forums/showt...light=poseidon

[Ribilla]

Originally Posted by Karl

If you have some constructive criticism please let the map creator know in their thread http://altitudegame.com/forums/showt...light=poseidon

My thoughts have already been posted in that thread, I don't feel I could articulate them any better than has already been done.

[mikesol]

While I understand your intentions with the maps, I believe there are some flaws with your points. Many of the maps that we've complained about have already received very solid feedback from many players. Some map makers clearly have no interest in changing those maps regardless of all the negative feedback received. I question whether some of the map makers even read the forums or play altitude anymore. We might be forced to stick with many of these poor maps, which really isn't cool.

I'd further contend that this makes official servers less enjoyable. I don't believe that adding maps that aren't fun is the way to go. Sure, maps like poseidon are pretty and that's kind of "fun" - but only for like the first few minutes. After that, the gameplay flaws make it not so fun - even at the non competitive level.

In the past, many map makers were forced to make changes to their maps in order to make them official, despite the fact that many of them thought their maps were "good enough." I guess I see that motivation changing when maps can still be pushed through against the feedback of the community (although I realize this is the weakest of my points).

All-in-all, sure we can play on servers that eliminate certain maps - but I really hate how the official servers have these maps on them. I play there because there was still some remote level of competitiveness and I didn't have to deal with the poor maps found elsewhere. Perhaps you could offer an official 4 that only has those maps which met your standards prior to this update?

[Pieface]

Or at the very least, keep all official maps on the server list but only put the most tested ones in the automatic rotation?

[Dyno]

Originally Posted by Pieface

Or at the very least, keep all official maps on the server list but only put the most tested ones in the automatic rotation?

That's a good idea. Then maybe if there is one that everyone likes. Or the one that gets voted for the most can move up.

[Wing Eraser]

Request: please remove my map tbd_poseidon from the official. It's way not done! I don't even redeem the cp's until it's done.

[classicallad]

I have to say that i feel Karls' decisions were good ones. There is nothing stopping people modifying existing maps take Loco2 for example, it was changed from a poor map into a pretty good one.

Besides altitude was in dire need of some new maps and personally i was getting very bored of the few that were official. I actually find myself enjoying those original maps more now that they come around less often.

Sure, some changes and tweaks need to be made to some of the new maps, and i can't believe that some map makers refuse to change them thats just silly, i suggest a vote is held on a thread for specific changes, that way the changes that need to be made are laid out plain and simple with obvious majority votes.

Good patch imho, and great to see the devs still adding to this beautiful game =)

[protest boy]

Minor edit needed for tbd_chess:

The red turrets are not placed the same way as the blue turrets. The red turrets appear to be placed behind the obstacles instead of in front. As a result, there is less surface area available to damage them and red has a slight advantage.

[dr. carbon]

Okay, I know I originally suggested to increase the demo time limit, but can you guys enlighten me on the benefits of buying the full game right now?

[silent skies]

Originally Posted by protest boy

Minor edit needed for tbd_chess:

The red turrets are not placed the same way as the blue turrets. The red turrets appear to be placed behind the obstacles instead of in front. As a result, there is less surface area available to damage them and red has a slight advantage.

Yes, this is because the version of chess on the servers is an outdated beta version that was released ~6 months ago. The latest release, released ~4 months ago, which SSD reuploaded here, fixes that problem and makes some important layout changes.

All my old upload links expired after a few weeks, so the file wasn't available, I guess.

I'm sure karlam will make the switch ... eventually.

[TwistedDuck]

is it me or you cant pick up the bomb during defuse.
well for me it is
maybe cant do that for red pings anymore

[classicallad]

Originally Posted by dr. carbon

Okay, I know I originally suggested to increase the demo time limit, but can you guys enlighten me on the benefits of buying the full game right now?

A) You didn't read his post properly and B) What makes you think you will get a reply to a post like that?
tsktsk

[Polio]

Originally Posted by mikesol

While I understand your intentions with the maps, I believe there are some flaws with your points. Many of the maps that we've complained about have already received very solid feedback from many players. Some map makers clearly have no interest in changing those maps regardless of all the negative feedback received. I question whether some of the map makers even read the forums or play altitude anymore. We might be forced to stick with many of these poor maps, which really isn't cool.

I'd further contend that this makes official servers less enjoyable. I don't believe that adding maps that aren't fun is the way to go. Sure, maps like poseidon are pretty and that's kind of "fun" - but only for like the first few minutes. After that, the gameplay flaws make it not so fun - even at the non competitive level.

In the past, many map makers were forced to make changes to their maps in order to make them official, despite the fact that many of them thought their maps were "good enough." I guess I see that motivation changing when maps can still be pushed through against the feedback of the community (although I realize this is the weakest of my points).

All-in-all, sure we can play on servers that eliminate certain maps - but I really hate how the official servers have these maps on them. I play there because there was still some remote level of competitiveness and I didn't have to deal with the poor maps found elsewhere. Perhaps you could offer an official 4 that only has those maps which met your standards prior to this update?

As one of the map makers who no longer reads the forums or plays, and refuses to make any changes to layouts, I'll just give you my long-winded spin on the situation.

I've put Altitude on a back burner for the time being, I still occasionally look over the forums but I rarely have time to play. I don't intend on abandoning this game entirely or the maps I've worked on.

With regard to changing layouts I don't believe in making a change to a layout every time someone has a criticism (ask Nikon about this), and the fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter how many changes you make to a map some people are still going to find fault with it. Also when I'm working on a layout I don't just randomly place obstacles and hope for the best, I seriously consider how each piece is going to effect gameplay and flow. It's not as though when someone suggests a fix I think "whoops that's not supposed to be that way". A lot of the feedback I receive for my layouts is that the maps should be bigger and more spread out and fewer obstacles; changing all of these is to create an entirely new map. I'm more than aware that my layouts are tight, that's intentional. I create layouts because I enjoy doing it, and the layouts I create are ones which I want to play on. I have no interest in making layouts that are perfectly balanced and satisfies everyone's preconceived notions about how a layout should be, to me this just results in bland and repetitive maps.

In regard to maps being imbalanced in terms of specific planes. This would be concerning if this weren't a team game (FFA aside), but it is, and team composition is just another strategic aspect which should take the map being played into account. (I realize this wasn't specifically addressed in this thread, but it's another common complaint of my layouts and I felt I may as well address it.)

The fact that Karl and Lam decided to make some of the maps me and Nikon worked on official is great, and I trust their judgement. However, if a majority of the players don't enjoying playing a map that I've worked on, I don't think they should be subjected to that, and quite frankly I don't care whether the maps I've worked on are official or not. What I am interested in is the quality of Altitude, and the player base that makes it great, and if a map I've worked on is a detriment to the quality of Altitude then I agree that it shouldn't be official.

Please forgive what I feel like is a lengthy personal rant. But I needed to say it.

Originally Posted by classicallad

I have to say that i feel Karls' decisions were good ones. There is nothing stopping people modifying existing maps take Loco2 for example, it was changed from a poor map into a pretty good one.

Besides altitude was in dire need of some new maps and personally i was getting very bored of the few that were official. I actually find myself enjoying those original maps more now that they come around less often.

Sure, some changes and tweaks need to be made to some of the new maps, and i can't believe that some map makers refuse to change them thats just silly, i suggest a vote is held on a thread for specific changes, that way the changes that need to be made are laid out plain and simple with obvious majority votes.

Good patch imho, and great to see the devs still adding to this beautiful game =)

A camel is a horse designed by committee.

[classicallad]

Originally Posted by Polio

As one of the map makers who no longer reads the forums or plays, and refuses to make any changes to layouts, I'll just give you my long-winded spin on the situation.

I've put Altitude on a back burner for the time being, I still occasionally look over the forums but I rarely have time to play. I don't intend on abandoning this game entirely or the maps I've worked on.

With regard to changing layouts I don't believe in making a change to a layout every time someone has a criticism (ask Nikon about this), and the fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter how many changes you make to a map some people are still going to find fault with it. Also when I'm working on a layout I don't just randomly place obstacles and hope for the best, I seriously consider how each piece is going to effect gameplay and flow. It's not as though when someone suggests a fix I think "whoops that's not supposed to be that way". A lot of the feedback I receive for my layouts is that the maps should be bigger and more spread out and fewer obstacles; changing all of these is to create an entirely new map. I'm more than aware that my layouts are tight, that's intentional. I create layouts because I enjoy doing it, and the layouts I create are ones which I want to play on. I have no interest in making layouts that are perfectly balanced and satisfies everyone's preconceived notions about how a layout should be, to me this just results in bland and repetitive maps.

In regard to maps being imbalanced in terms of specific planes. This would be concerning if this weren't a team game (FFA aside), but it is, and team composition is just another strategic aspect which should take the map being played into account. (I realize this wasn't specifically addressed in this thread, but it's another common complaint of my layouts and I felt I may as well address it.)

The fact that Karl and Lam decided to make some of the maps me and Nikon worked on official is great, and I trust their judgement. However, if a majority of the players don't enjoying playing a map that I've worked on, I don't think they should be subjected to that, and quite frankly I don't care whether the maps I've worked on are official or not. What I am interested in is the quality of Altitude, and the player base that makes it great, and if a map I've worked on is a detriment to the quality of Altitude then I agree that it shouldn't be official.

Please forgive what I feel like is a lengthy personal rant. But I needed to say it.



A camel is a horse designed by committee.

oh right, that's that then. 0.O

Im grateful that you had a hand in making maps, ok so i know where you are coming from now.

[mikesol]

Polio-

I'm confused why you've bolded my post and responded to it in the way you did ^^;; (Perhaps I'm mis-interpreting what you're trying to say) My point is exactly what your last statement is: certain maps, which might interest some people, are not balanced or designed in a way that i feel improves the quality of altitude. Hence why I feel that many of these maps should be removed from the official list - and added to whatever servers people decide.

Incidentally, I'd contend that making a map balanced or suitable for the official map list does not necessarily make the maps bland. Furthermore, not making them balanced doesn't necessarily make the maps boring. I'm not sure if you were around for the bloo moon maps - they were absolutely stunning and meant for 20v20 game play - but they were some of my favorite maps of all time. The co-op, king of the hill, and ctf sub-modes offer a lot of interesting maps that are quite fun as well. However, they simply are not suitable for official play and I would speak out if they were put into the official rotation.

In my speaking out against any of your maps - I'm not trying to offend you or imply like your maps are worthless - I'm simply saying that I feel the qualifications for an "official" map aren't met