Slaughterfest WADs: Pro or Anti?

1 minute ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

just play ribbiks maps that aren't slaughter

Which ones aren't slaughter?  Crumpets is coming up soon on my to do list.

28 minutes ago, guitardz said:

Which ones aren't slaughter?  Crumpets is coming up soon on my to do list.

There are non-slaughter maps by ribbiks in SunLust or the Stardate sets, obviously I'm not gonna go through all the mapslots here for the sake of being lazy :P

4 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

There are non-slaughter maps by ribbiks in SunLust or the Stardate sets, obviously I'm not gonna go through all the mapslots here for the sake of being lazy :P

Sunlust looks amazing, I might just go through the whole thing on HMP, I'm sure it will still be plenty hard...it's ribbiks.

I mentioned in a previous post that I generally think that enemy placement makes gameplay more interesting (for better or worse), but I don't mind slaughtermaps if they're done well. 

Take Map09 of Vanguard (one of the best fan made levels ever, BTW). It incorporates design that makes it super replayable: enough space to maneuver, not an overload of ammo (which makes ammo management a key aspect in terms of strategy), great use of enemies (he doesn't spam the shit out of AVs, sorry Ribbiks), and the level also seems made to have benefited speedrunning. 

On the other hand, if you make a slaughterWAD, the gameplay becomes extremely redundant and soon it's just boring (Slaughterfests 2011 and 2012, especially the former). Also, if the level consists simply of a BFG, tons of energy cells, LOOOOOOOOADS of room and suffers from a serious case of "dumb-monster-density" syndrome, then it's usually gonna suck (a couple of partial exceptions are the Twilight Massacre levels from SOD and Resurgence).

That's my two cents. 

1 hour ago, Poncho1 said:

I mentioned in a previous post that I generally think that enemy placement makes gameplay more interesting 

Agreed! That's why slaughtermappers do lots of enemy placement :D

I'd also like to note that if slaughtermaps made by people who don't normally make (read: have experience making) slaughtermaps are your intro to the genre then you've done yourself a great disservice.

2 hours ago, Poncho1 said:

I mentioned in a previous post that I generally think that enemy placement makes gameplay more interesting (for better or worse), but I don't mind slaughtermaps if they're done well. 

 

Take Map09 of Vanguard (one of the best fan made levels ever, BTW). It incorporates design that makes it super replayable: enough space to maneuver, not an overload of ammo (which makes ammo management a key aspect in terms of strategy), great use of enemies (he doesn't spam the shit out of AVs, sorry Ribbiks), and the level also seems made to have benefited speedrunning. 

 

On the other hand, if you make a slaughterWAD, the gameplay becomes extremely redundant and soon it's just boring (Slaughterfests 2011 and 2012, especially the former). Also, if the level consists simply of a BFG, tons of energy cells, LOOOOOOOOADS of room and suffers from a serious case of "dumb-monster-density" syndrome, then it's usually gonna suck (a couple of partial exceptions are the Twilight Massacre levels from SOD and Resurgence).

 

That's my two cents. 

Would be wary of generalizing personal preference into principles that are meant to stand on their own -- a lot of people will have different opinions based on their own preferences and capabilities and experience, and their principles will look the opposite of yours.

To enumerate a bunch of ways tastes can vary:

So in sum, that you like what you like is fine, but don't present it as objective truth about what constitutes good or bad design. 

P.S. 'SF11 and SF12' is a really loose category. Not too far removed from saying 'a bunch of slaughtermaps made in 2011 and 2012' -- because there is a wide range of styles and quality in there. 

2 hours ago, Poncho1 said:

Take Map09 of Vanguard

Wait, is this considered slaughter?  I just played through that last week, I spent a lot of time getting through that map but it was really great, highly enjoyed.

1 hour ago, Fonze said:

I'd also like to note that if slaughtermaps made by people who don't normally make (read: have experience making) slaughtermaps are your intro to the genre then you've done yourself a great disservice.

This is an important point I think.  At first glance Slaughtermaps might look quite easy to make: a room and 500 enemies.  So there's a lot of pretty poor examples of the subgenre out there.  But the reality is making a really good Slaughtermap is hard.  I plan to one day, and am under no illusions how difficult it's going to be.  There's a lot of things you need to balance: ammo, space for movement, choke-points, cover, kiting, space to herd (being a sheepdog is a brilliant Slaughtermap analogy!), potential for in-fighting, power-up use, health rationing etc. etc.  

It's a very different skill to building normal Doom maps, and one that requires a lot of planning, forethought, and a lot of play-testing. 

I might do some slaughter map someday too, though it will definitely suck haha *gotta hide these 500 revenants behind some corner*

21 minutes ago, Bauul said:

 

This is an important point I think.  At first glance Slaughtermaps might look quite easy to make: a room and 500 enemies.  So there's a lot of pretty poor examples of the subgenre out there.  But the reality is making a really good Slaughtermap is hard.  I plan to one day, and am under no illusions how difficult it's going to be.  There's a lot of things you need to balance: ammo, space for movement, choke-points, cover, kiting, space to herd (being a sheepdog is a brilliant Slaughtermap analogy!), potential for in-fighting, power-up use, health rationing etc. etc.  

 

It's a very different skill to building normal Doom maps, and one that requires a lot of planning, forethought, and a lot of play-testing. 

One tip: learning how to play slaughtermaps, at least at a minimally serviceable level, will narrow the disparity a lot. Small-scale slaughter, as well as conventional maps with an occasional slaughter fight, is worth looking at as well. No need to jump straight into macroslaughter with big arenas and monster counts measured in the thousands. Trying to make a good slaughtermap with a few hundred monsters is a good, modest starting point.

10 hours ago, rdwpa said:

 

Would be wary of generalizing personal preference into principles that are meant to stand on their own -- a lot of people will have different opinions based on their own preferences and capabilities and experience, and their principles will look the opposite of yours.

 

To enumerate a bunch of ways tastes can vary:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

If I were to list things that make maps replayable, I'd sooner list qualities like 'variability' and 'non-linearity' and 'conducive to problem-solving' and so on (those are just examples -- the list goes on), rather than all those.

 

Having space to move can be fun, but cramped stuff can be fun too.

 

Tight or measured ammo can be cool, but so can ammo spam (also, even when maps spam ammo, e.g. cells, there is still a strategic and tactical element in actually picking it up midfight while firing the BFG.)

 

Also I'd say that Vanguard 09 is pretty liberal with ammo (which is fine). You won't come close to running out unless you basically try to split up the infighting that more or less automatically breaks out with the cybs. 

 

As far as enemy usage, Vanguard 09 is a satisfying fodder slaughterlite map if you are into that but hardly anything nuanced in terms of enemy placement. More suited to run 'n' gun fun. 

 

And a lot of people like archvile spam. 

I am a speedrunner, but I draw a distinction between maps I like for runs and those that I just prefer to beat saveless (or use for practice) at my leisure (there are only 24 hours in a day, so running hard maps (or maps that are highly variable like slaughtermaps can be) for me is like 'okay I'll do that when I decide not to do much of anything else Doom-related over a certain time period').

 

So in sum, that you like what you like is fine, but don't present it as objective truth about what constitutes good or bad design. 

P.S. 'SF11 and SF12' is a really loose category. Not too far removed from saying 'a bunch of slaughtermaps made in 2011 and 2012' -- because there is a wide range of styles and quality in there. 

Yeah, I'm sorry. I should've made it more clear that this was my personal opinion. Good level design is different to different people. 

woah, rants about other people's preferences

3 minutes ago, Pirx said:

woah, rants about other people's preferences

Just an average day on Doomworld.

15 hours ago, Sparktimus said:

Just an average day on Doomworld.

I would say that this thread is wholeheartedly not average for Doomworld, at least given the history of discussions about the merits of slaughter. And that is a pleasant surprise.

So far, we're about at the midpoint of page 4 and this thread has yet to devolve into a flamewar between the people saying that slaughterwads are horrible unplayable pieces of garbage that should be buried and the people saying that slaughterwads are the levels that are the pinnacles of human creation and should be held up as the things that give life meaning and without which life is utter meaningless darkness.

I'm being a bit over the top intentionally, but the fact remains that other than the briefest of diversions (which was quite mild and quickly self-regulated), this discussion has stayed very reasoned.

^ Indeed, considering past threads you could say it's a record that this one has remained mostly civil for 4 pages now.

Let's keep that going.

^{(Until someone makes a highly inflammatory statement and everything goes downhill afterwards).}

24 minutes ago, Agent6 said:

^{(Until someone makes a highly inflammatory statement and everything goes downhill afterwards).}

kys fagit XDDDDDDDDDDD

^{Seriously though, I agree.}

This is a question mostly for those most familiar with slaughter: would Speedmaster be considered slaughter? Some of its maps are insane, like map 30 (which is still one of the best maps I have played.)

I'm anti. It's artificial difficulty meant for you to trial & error all the way & bore you to death by constant BFG or rocket spam into the crowd. Other weapons are deemed useless automatically.

DooM is meant to enjoy the aesthetics, music, fair challenge, core gameplay & other cool designs. Not fighting 100 revenants in tight huge rooms that luck depends on your survival. Fuck that.

i think you're mixing two things here: good slaughterwads, and monster spam wads. first require skill and tactical thinking, while later is mostly luck-dependent. that is, creating good slaughter map is way harder than creating a normal map: simply put alot of tough monsters and some plasma won't work at all.

also note that i HAET slaughterwads with passion. but it doesn't mean that i should simply dismiss 'em as trash -- it is just not my cup of tea.

^ This.

There are indeed worse slaughter maps out there that literally only have enemies swarming around, very little to no thoughtful enemy usage, and without requiring any thinking or employing any kind of tactic on the player's part.

I'm all for debates and discussion, especially on more "maligned" topics, still, it's best to do your homework before making any kind of statements, otherwise you risk looking like a moron who has no idea what he's talking about. Generally speaking, not implying you are one.

6 hours ago, The_SloVinator said:

DooM is meant to enjoy the aesthetics, music, fair challenge, core gameplay & other cool designs.

When I make a Doom map, then the map is supposed to be what I want it to be, and it's not supposed to be what you arbitrarily dictate it should be. Get that out of your head real fast, because it reeks of entitlement. Nobody gets paid to make maps, it's all a recreational spare time effort, and you are in no position to decree what somebody else's spare time should be spent on.

6 hours ago, The_SloVinator said:

Not fighting 100 revenants in tight huge rooms that luck depends on your survival.

Show me a room that is both huge and tight.

I really don't mind Slaughter maps. I'm sort of in the camp of live and let live. If people enjoy it and there's demand for it then why not. I actually like it when a typical mapset has some sort of a tough challange map in it somewhere, heck it can be even something brutal and I won't be bothered by it as long as it's fair and looks decent.

Slaughter maps are as important as any other genre of Doom maps available, they keep the community fresh and productive.

Slaughter is good and I'm glad it gained enough traction as a gameplay style for people to take a critical look at it and make it good. OG slaughter is rough around the edges

Oh my, how could I have missed this thread.

Yea I'm pro.

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 4:27 PM, guitardz said:

I'd love a thread on very challenging wads that aren't considered slaughter as well.  Got any of those?

Skepland, Disturbia, Abyssion, Elysion, NoChance.

If you play disturbia I recommend replacing the chaingun sound

If I have to say something about slaughter gameplay style and maps (yes, a tad late for this heh), I'd say that I'm neutral...neither pro nor anti.

I don't have anything against those maps to be honest and those exists to improve your skills further...if you're up to it of course. And yes, I tried some of those like SF2012, Okuplok, Sunder, Sunlust (some maps are like that, not all) and others that I sadly can't remember :'(

I've come to realise that this discussion is a nightmare hydra and that chopping off any of its heads won't prevent it from always showing up here again and again. I think it would be easier for all of us in the long run if a mod stickied this thread. 

I don't really like slaughtermaps, with a few exceptions here and there. I prefer maps with low enemy counts that focus heavily on exploration, so slaughtermaps are pretty much the opposite of what I'm looking for in Doom.

It's not a matter of those maps having a high difficulty either, but I guess the kind of difficulty. Like others have pointed out, they require time and planning, and I'm not willing to spend too long on a handful of maps; time is finite and I also want to play and do other things.

I feel like a good metaphor for this question can be found in rock climbing.

In climbing, there are longer, more spacious routes that have easy grips, and many possible ways for the climber to reach the top. Here, it's possible to stop and think, enjoy the scenery, rest for a bit where the wall leans in on itself, and a strict strategy isn't really necessary on a first try. They are more of an endurance task, and those are the "regular" maps. 

The slughtermaps are more like the notorious boulder problems, which rarely can be finished in more than one way. They are a lot more compact, and shorter in distance, but the wall is often overhanging, and the grips are almost always extremely small or big and slippery, very hard to hold on to. Some routes have only been completed once, and it's not rare to see someone try at least dozens of times to complete a route that's not even graded that difficult. Everything is on the edge, so they require an explosive focus to power through.

Coming up next on the Doomworld nature channel: Why do chaingunners always move in herds?