Your favourite TYPE of level?

[Spectre01]

Setting: It's very hard to pick just one as they strongly depend on execution. If I had to pick two I'd go for abstract techscape (Speedo Doom/Valiant map31) and flesh-tech Hell (Sunder map08, Hellbound map31).

 

Difficulty: Hard, although I also enjoy easy maps.

 

Chaingunners: Yes please. I love well-placed Chaingunners that pose a real threat and force you to use map geometry/cover.

 

Long or Short: Longer maps tend to be more memorable than something you blast through in 5-10 minutes.

 

Detail/Gameplay Focused: Detail doesn't have to be super high, just as long as the maps are pleasing to look at. Something like Scythe 2 with nice clean visuals is a good example. 50k sidedefs not necessary. Gameplay is the main focus, although I also enjoy wads carried by their atmosphere where gameplay doesn't seem like the primary focus (Hellbound, A.L.T.). 

[leodoom85]

1 hour ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Heh.. playing Miasma blind on UV is only going to work when you save relatively regularly. Most people won't be able to beat it on their first attempt just like that.

I think that I'll record the map in parts, I only saw the amount of monsters to realize that.

[SavageCorona]

-your favourite map setting?

Dark and gothic aka. Blood

-favourite map difficulty?

fuckin HARD baby

-chaingunners?

fUCk no they're everything wrong with Doom 2 and any WADs based off it

-long or short?

I like to say long but I never finish them

-detail-focused or gameplay-focused?

Gameplay > graphics though I'd prefer it not to look like I'm playing in a McDonald's slaughterhouse

[Nine Inch Heels]

16 minutes ago, leodoom85 said:

I think that I'll record the map in parts, I only saw the amount of monsters to realize that.

The map will take you more than 30 minutes to finish if you want to see everything, just saying...

[leodoom85]

Just now, Nine Inch Heels said:

The map will take you more than 30 minutes to finish if you want to see everything, just saying...

ok, thanks.

[Deadwing]

-your favourite map setting?

Tech bases, plutonia and green stuff

 

-favourite map difficulty?

Challenging (plutonia-like), non-slaughter

 

-chaingunners?

Yes

 

-long or short?

Short

 

-detail-focused or gameplay-focused?

Gameplay

[CorianderCastor]

Abstract and outdoorsy

 

Medium to easy I guess

 

A fun challenge, usually

 

Short, definitely short

 

Neither, I like Petersen maps

[Remilia Scarlet]

3 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Give this a read, and consider playing Miasma. I'm sure there's something in it for you.

Eh, I'm not a big fan of Miasma.  I prefer it when difficulty can be achieved with fewer monsters and more "gotcha!" traps.

[Nine Inch Heels]

16 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

Eh, I'm not a big fan of Miasma.  I prefer it when difficulty can be achieved with fewer monsters and more "gotcha!" traps.

It's less than 1.500 things in more than 30 minutes of playtime... That being said, I don't understand the argument you make.

[Remilia Scarlet]

Well, to put it a different way, I prefer it when fewer monsters are used to create a difficult map.  More monsters isn't the only way to create difficulty.  You can starve the player for armor, health, or heavy weapons, all of which I greatly prefer to higher monster counts.  Even that's not an exhaustive list of ways to increase difficulty.  In the end, I'm not saying one gameplay design is better or worse than the other, just that I prefer one over the other.

 

I'm also not sure if time spent is not necessarily the same as difficulty.  They're related, no doubt, but I don't see them as being the same.  SoTNR map 03 (which I obviously know by heart) takes me approximately 20-25 minutes on average to beat according to the time on the score screen, yet only has a bit over 230 monsters and obviously isn't as difficult as Miasma.

[SOSU]

-your favourite map setting? Gothic,egypt and everything that isn't techbase or urban

-favourite map difficulty? Medium

-chaingunners? in small groups

-long or short? SHORT

-detail-focused or gameplay-focused? why not both?

[Nine Inch Heels]

6 minutes ago, YukiRaven said:

I'm also not sure if time spent is not necessarily the same as difficulty.  They're related, no doubt, but I don't see them as being the same.  SoTNR map 03 (which I obviously know by heart) takes me approximately 20-25 minutes on average to beat according to the time on the score screen, yet only has a bit over 230 monsters and obviously isn't as difficult as Miasma.

No, it's obviously not the same, but you can't tell me, ever, that a map which takes an experienced top-tier speedrunner around 28 minutes to max, while it has less than 1500 monsters placed on UV (Quite a few of which are actually low-tiers), is designed so that its only way of being difficult is "lots of things", when at the same time, some slaughtermaps involve roughly 1000 things, and can be maxed in significantly less than 10 minutes. That's why I brought up time as a factor. I'm pretty sure that Miasma will take slower paced players up to an hour or even more, if they go everywhere. If anything, Miasma is a prime example of how to use as few things as possible, yet still create interesting gameplay without being sluggish at any given point in time. I'm not telling anyone to like anything, but the "subtext statement" that Miasma relies mostly on numbers in order to be difficult is plain false.

[Remilia Scarlet]

Uhh, I never said that it was the only thing that made Miasma difficult, and to imagine that I meant that as a subtext is totally incorrect.  I just said that I prefer it when maps don't always use large monster counts to increase difficulty, with the implication that there are of course other ways, and Miasma absolutely does use other techniques.  But you also can't tell me it doesn't use large groups of monsters to increase difficulty in some areas, and that's the main reason precisely why I wasn't that fond of it.

Edited August 11, 2017 by YukiRaven : forgot two words

[nxGangrel]

-your favorite map setting? Gothic/abstract 

 

-favorite map difficulty? UV

 

-chaingunners? hahahahahahahahaha no

 

-long or short? shortish

 

-detail-focused or gameplay-focused? gameplay first.

 

My favorite types of maps are the kind I design. I always create what I want to play. My typical style is the gothic E4 American McGee type design. Other wise I might make a Tom Hall style tech base level, or a Sandy Petersen dungeon like level. But I like my Quake-esque levels the best, filled with various monsters from every direction forcing to the player to dodge fireballs in every corner. That's my style.

[silentzorah]

Not much a fan of wooden or marble levels.  Unless the marble uses that sexy custom red and black texture set, in which case, give me more.  Though, generally, I prefer techbases.  No preference on the monsters that inhabit them.

 

I typically prefer a moderate difficulty setting.  UV should be challenging, HMP should be lighter on the baddies.  We've got problems is HNTR is UV in any other wad.

 

I don't mind heavily detailed maps if 1.) the architecture is beveled in tight areas and 2.) there aren't massive areas that are highly detailed.  With the latter, my framerate chugs to shit, so if I'm getting 15 FPS when I go outside, I guarantee you I'm not gonna play your map.

 

Bonus points if the wad has an episode select.

 

If a map takes 15-30 minutes to complete, and has around 300-ish monsters, I'm generally good.

 

 

 

And as far as chaingunners go, bring 'em on.  You just keep those Pain Elementals away from me.

[Optimus]

I like medium sized maps, I am fine with chaingunners, not with slaughtermaps, especially when they throw 50 revenants or very frequent archviles.

I prefer maps dispatching a few bunch of monsters every once a while, mix between exploration and action, not having always to run around endlessly.

Detail is nice, but I can also have a map with minimalistic detail that is somehow designed that still evokes some interesting spaces or atmosphere.

[Doomkid]

Have really not been playing much SP or Coop at all lately, so.. Here's an answer about deathmatch maps!

 

Favorite theme is easily somewhere between E1 of Doom1 and E1 of Doom2. Simple and basic - good on the ol sightballs. I guess that's an answer to the detail question as well. Basically everything in duelpack.wad :)

 

Difficulty doesn't generally apply when talking about DM stuff, but I do love maps featuring a BFG and well placed spawn points.

 

Favorite size = small. Maps designed for 2-4 players are my jam.

 

Now, this is just my favorite stuff, what clicks with me the most. The truth is I love a wide variety of themes, levels of detail, approaches to layout and gameplay, etc etc etc.. I'm happy to jump back and forth between a dwango5 server and an AeonDM server at any time. Too much of just one thing gets boring!

[NaZa]

Setting - techbases

Difficulty - easy-medium but satisfying to plow through walls of zombies. Not many mapsets do that these days. 

Chaingunners - not too much

Length - short, bite sized, punchy

Detail or gameplay - golden middle

[Roofi]

I currently love weird and abstract maps. It's even better when maps are huge and use only the official doom textures.

[Nate River]

Setting: Abstract, impressive architecture, colorful

 

Difficulty: Challenging but consistent once you figured out a good strategy for each encounter

 

Chaingunners: Depends on the situation. They can be annoying but I still prefer the pyramid structure in Stardate 20X6 Map07 with like 50 of them on each side over any random ones on pillars out of range.

 

Length: I don't mind longer levels when they are action-packed and have some variety but preferably I'd like them around 5-20 min for UV Max

 

Detail-focused or gameplay-focused: Gameplay-focused. Nice detailing is a welcome bonus when the gameplay is good.

 

To name a few concrete examples that I like very much: Swim With The Whales, Sunlust, Sunder, Stardate 20X7

[scifista42]

Setting: Any setting has a potential to make me fully satisfied if I see it as well executed, though if the setting is a techbase or a space base, I'm apparently inclined to (sub)consciously give it bonus points in my view of how well executed it is.

 

Difficulty: Usually, I prefer when difficulty is high-enough to require me to put actual effort into what I'm doing in order to win, but not high-enough to prevent me from winning even after I put as much effort as I possibly can. Other times, though, I'll enjoy a map that can be effortlessly blasted through or a map that just can't be won with my skill (where the fun lies in trying to get as far as I can before inevitably losing).

 

Chaingunners: They are among my favorite monsters. In a proper map terrain, avoiding their line of sight/fire while eliminating them fast can make a really exciting challenge. Even in simple scenarios, they're good at testing the player's quick reactions.

 

Map length: Absolutely any, as long as its content appropriately keeps it fun, or as long as I remain in the mood for playing, which can vary. Again, though, I have an apparent inclination to naturally favor maps that take between 30 and 45 minutes to beat with 100% stats - this might be just the average amount of time before I start feeling that I have played just enough, neither too little nor too much.

 

Design: First, gameplay-focused - as gameplay is, IMO, the one true main appeal of games, and I want it to be as good as possible. Second, structure-focused - map structure (layout + architecture) may overlap with both "gameplay" and "detail". Third, aesthetics-focused - which certainly isn't about mere amount or complexity of detail, but about style, consistency, contrast, etc. In regards to inventiveness / uniqueness / inspirativeness, I see those as positive aspects of each of the previously mentioned focuses, so while I always appreciate them, I do so with a similar priority as their corresponding focuses themselves.

Edited August 11, 2017 by scifista42

[Rosh Fragger]

Open-world kind of levels I really enjoy playing in. Big open areas, not necessarily city-like, but giving a sense of non-linearity in the design. Also, levels with rocky cave systems; lush vegetation and trees decorating the outside areas, with a few waterfalls cutting through the mountainous caves just the right way.

[Yuki Senmatsu]

-your favourite map setting?

🎃 Techbases, hell, and horror

-favourite map difficulty?

🎃 UV

-chaingunners?

🎃 They're alright 

-long or short?

🎃 Long

-detail-focused or gameplay-focused?

🎃 Both, buy mostly gameplay

[Endless]

I like dark, bloody or medieval themes.

Ultra Violence

They... are ok I guess.

Well, medium maybe, I like short but fun maps tho.

I like action but I also love special rooms where you just can admire the place. 

[[McD] James]

- Dark fantasy castles

 

- Ultra Violence

 

- I have no problems with them

 

- Medium

 

- Why not both? 

[MTF Sergeant]

Map setting: More like the City levels in Doom 2, there has to be the outdoor view texture.

 

Difficulty - HMP

 

Long or short - I need a whole clusterfuck.

 

Chaingunners - Yeah, I can handle some of them, unless I'm running Brutal Doom.

 

Detail focused or gameplay focused - I'd prefer more detail. But a significant amount of gameplay has to be there.

[loveless]

-Setting:  Anything well thought out.  Meaningful and useful architecture, fitting lighting, an atmosphere that can drag me in(midis can help with this).  I'm not a huge fan of techbases but if it's done well I can appreciate it.  

  

-Difficulty:  I like to be engaged, experiencing a good amount of pressure.  Sunder, most Slaughterfest2012/3 maps, and Combat Shock 2 hit a sweet spot for me.  

  

-Chaingunners:  They have their uses but when they appear en masse as part of an instapop, teleport behind, or are in some random closet requiring foreknowledge to not die/take massive damage is when I get irritated.  Kama Sutra map 11's opening is a fine example of how not to use them.  

  

-Long/short:  I don't mind longer maps and short maps can be quite fun(think Scythe/Scythe2).  For me, there's an upper limit to how long they can be before the fun stops.  I think after 2-3 days of playing okuwad was where the fun stopped.  There has to be a feeling of tangible progress at some point before a sense of dread starts to develop.  

  

-Detail/gameplay:  This really depends on how well the mapper accomplishes either one or a mixture of both.  A fantastically detailed space is fine and all but if the gameplay is lacking then there's no point.  Being visually stimulated is great and all but that alone won't make me want to play something.  On the other hand, give me an ugly ass map with solid gameplay(like some of gggmork's stuff) and I'll be satisfied, too busy to notice there's only 3-4 textures total being used.

[loveless]

On 8/10/2017 at 7:16 PM, YukiRaven said:

Well, to put it a different way, I prefer it when fewer monsters are used to create a difficult map.

Check out the first 5-6 maps of Stardate 20X7 and play on UV,  I think it's something you'd enjoy.

[42PercentHealth]

5 hours ago, loveless said:

I think after 2-3 days of playing okuwad was where the fun stopped.  There has to be a feeling of tangible progress at some point before a sense of dread starts to develop.

Given the fact that oku2v31.wad is so linearly structured and has so many "points of no return," it seems to me that it could have easily been broken into smaller levels. The only reason it wasn't was because of that 23,211 monster count.

[kaleb.]

i love big sprawling nonlinear tech bases. like vela pax, and the first level of junko.