Have We Lost Sight?

[Fox]

I think the community has advanced. I have never thought the Community Maps are mundane or lacking. Although, yes you make your point, I don't think the game would be as interesting and exciting if all the maps shared the same features.

Nonetheless, it definitely wouldn't be bad to have more adventurous, survival maps, such as Survival Games 2 or Survival Games 1. I think everyone likes different things, thus 'survival' maps are, indeed, lacking. It could comfort some old players which prefer that theme.

 

[I_love_desk]

My opinion is that the whole survival games concept has developed as people realise that it's actually better if a server doesn't base everything off the movie. Because of this the only thing which is really parallel between the movies and MCSG (as well as other servers) is the concept of 24 people, corn being risky, last person standing, etc.

Because of this, I agree with the direction in which map making is going. When I look at a new map, I shouldn't be thinking 'would this be happening in the original hunger games book?', but rather 'will this be fun to play on? Is it a good build?', and so whether there are ruins or not doesn't matter to me.

 

[Twee]

As long as the maps don't look like nexus maps im fine with them.... Ew....nexus.....

This

 

[jonnysurvives]

I do think you make a good point. The maps today don't really seem aligned withy the original vision and way to play the Survival Games gamemode. And I know from experience that it's hard nowadays to make a map that keeps the original ideals of exploration and survival that is well-received by the community. Vida Cova tried to bring back a feel of exploring, tense anticipation, and being thrown into the wilderness and having to survive, and it just wasn't popular enough to stay on the 24 player servers. Even if map makers tried to keep with these themes, it would be difficult to get enough support to make these kinds of maps popular again.

The way people like to play the game has definitely been changed, and I must admit that the way I like to play is that new way. I think the problem is that the fun of exploring wears off faster than the fun of action. Exploring a new map can be really fun, but how many times can you explore a large map before it starts to get drawn out and boring? Maps would need to cycle faster to make a game based on survival and exploration fun. Overall, the game has changed, likely permanently, although it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Another thing worth mention is people's want for "PvP areas" in the map. If you make a map with a lack of flat ground, you are likely to be met with this request. I feel like people aren't willing to think about PvP in a different way other than flat, lateral combat. But what about vertical strategy? Ambush tactics in busy, uneven areas? Once again using Vida Cova as an example, there wasn't a ton of flat ground to fight conventionally. But I always thought that that was kinda the point. Vines on the sides made vertical strategy an option, and corn had unique combat with water and a second level. If I remember correctly people didn't like that the map didn't have good PvP; to be more correct, it didn't have the PvP they were used to. I quite enjoyed fighting in unconventional areas, but others didn't.

I completely agree. People talk about good and bad PvP in a universal sense, but what makes PvP on flat ground 'superior' to PvP on uneven ground? Like you said, nothing does. It's just easier because it's what people are used to and there are fewer things to consider.

As for the OP, you make a good point but there's not much we can do about it. In order for map makers to have their maps accepted they need to be fairly original, and the run-down city and forest themes are all but exhausted.

 

[Thapple_]

I agree, I miss playing a maps and it being an adventure and finding secrets and all that jolly good stuff. I think one reason all the map styles have changed is because it is so much easier to get good loots and become stacked now, in V2. The old v1 chest system made it so the games were longed and you had to actually try to get stacked. So maybe this is the reason some maps seem less adventurous.

 

[Sepyz]

I liked Vida Cova because it was more about survival than PvP .-.

 

[Harris|DareDevilMan1]

I have to agree with you, but it's not like this is not entertaining. You are right, but it's not boring to play all these maps. If you want to play the v1, you can go to SG Classic (that no one ever goes ;-

 

[Beardy]

I personally love the destroyed maps as they were much more fun. I say that because I like to screw around with my friends, and those maps were beautiful, especially when there are no routes. For example, I love Insanity Cause. One of the great things is that there are no landmarks. You just fun somewhere and have fun.

Basically I like overgrown maps like SG 2 and insanity cause. I also like cleverly destroyed maps like SG 5 and Teweran 1. Nobody has quote that level of creativity were they can make their own map, then destroy it with some new apocalyptic world in mind.

 

[MCGamerzism]

I'm glad that you are confident in voicing your opinion, as I feel are some what scared of doing so. You are so correct. In my entire career at mcsg, only one person I've heard say, I like maps with the sg feel. Which says something, we live in a modern society, things change, things in real life affect what we do! Such as building mcsg maps and developing a modern mind. This may sound weird, but I'm all for psychological reasons behind this! I don't know an exact reason to why urban maps are so popular, and rural ones aren't, but maybe one day someone will come up with a detailed logical reason for it!

Sorry if I didn't make sense!

 

[smashmaster]

I like the new maps

 

[boboy1999]

Yes!

 

[OhFancy]

I totally agree with you here- with all these maps totally going off the original 'Hunger Games' theme, we have been lost, The only original maps we have that aren't active imo is the SG's apart from SG4 and possibly Solar Frost/Breeze Island.