Well, I was just browsing the Heutau, and the title sayed "what did you like about Heutau". My answer was simply: that I could play it in 3.1, now I cant.

I still have no clue as to why this map was taken out of the list. Whatever the reason or whoever decided, that they were no longer the what the DoD boyz wanted in there game, I must say that this was a pretty bad move for DoD in general, taking out 2 - 3 different styles of gameplay with the 1.0 transition.

Schwetz/assualt,

heutau/advancing, &

Hedgerow/para-style

A large step backwards if you ask me. EVEN if the MAJORITY of players didnt like one or the other, it WAS NICE TO HAVE THE OPTIONS. It was nice to have different gameplay modes you could switch between if you didnt like Schwetz or Hedgerow.

Since Im a fan of the WWII genre, it makes games like CoD appealing. What really chaps me is the fact that CoD has a closer gameplay diversity to DoD 3.1 did, yet, the NEWEST version of Day of Defeat does not. Makes no sense. The kicker is I want to play DoD for these gameplay types but have to look elsewhere to find them.

If this would've been left in, we'd have, Assault, Advancing, Para, Ctf, Obj style maps. We'd have more mappers and generally a larger audience because of the different appeals of gameplay types.

As is, DoD is not very competitive and will lose it edge because of the brand spanking total of 2 different types of maps. Glider (obj) and Caen (ctf), not to demise the maps in the least. I doubt this will stop the growth of the mod, but rather, curve the overall popularity and curve the growth to the slower side.

Well all I can say is that I hope the DoD mappers and team implement new gameplay types somewhat soon. Im not interested in hearing, wait till HL2 or Download custom maps.

Stick by your guns, get resolve. I challenge mappers to work together to create new types of gameplay. I know that I wont be seeing that the new 1.2 map additions, but perhaps IR, Fuzzdad, Izuno, etc read this and try to make something new, like that "instant combat" scenerio. DO IT!!! Merderet and Glider are beautiful now, move on and lets get some new stuff rolling.

You guys get tired of hearing that we want 3.1 back, but I think there has been an overall failure to see that a lot of that lied in the diversity of the maps.

your thoughts welcome

Heatua was left out because the guy who made it wasn't available to update it.

There are currently 3 types of gameplay:

1. Flag cap (Flugplatz)
2. Assault (Glider)
3. Objective (Jagd)

But, yeah, some variations on those themes would be nice.

That was a very nice post. And your right, the reason behind removing those game play was well,.. was there even a reason.?

Para gameplay shouldve stayed.

As for new gameplay. We could borrow from CoD. Its obvious they borrow some stuff from DoD..

That HQ gameplay. Thats the only way I play CoD.

Part of the problem is that there's so much taboo and snootyness from players who insist that DoD be "different than TFC quake and CS" so that any good idea from those mods can't be brought in or they'll whine. One of the types of gameplay I always would have loved to see in DoD was a closed, tight, circular city or forest map where the objective would be to eliminate the enemy, operating under a pretextual scenario of two advancing squads meeting up in a forest. Sort of like CS without the bombs or hostages. People don't want this because they have a really broken system of logic where:

CS is horrible and a cancer (no reasons or justifications given.)
DoD has to be the opposite of CS and be this paraspiritual intellectual experience (you know, because running over flags and mgs that can cover the whole base are the alpha and omega of strategy. yeah.)
Therefore we can't have a squad based elimination map.

Sad thing is this type of map would work perfectly in DoD without the MGS and snipers and would be a breath of fresh air in the land of bombed out cities and flags. I guess I can always dream...

Originally posted by Silverghost
Para gameplay shouldve stayed.

FYI, its still there. They just removed/changed the para maps.

There is a custom para-version of glider out there.

My opinion is directly in line with yours Voodoo. It was sad and disappointing to see the Dod team lessen the variety. I hope they've learnt a lot from that and will take it into consideration with Dod2. Variety=good.

When something is underplayed or not very popular there's this mentality that it has to be removed! TAKE IT OUT!! GoGo! Despite the fact people have and always had a choice not to play maps or para mode. They had a choice to play on servers that offered what they wanted.

As for new gameplay types i think it's already there...just not in the game!!

Heutau and Zafod for the advancing spawns.

Schwetz for the team switching/allocated amount of time to cap objective

Zalec which feels the most like a campaign, with incrementing spawn implemented. Yes, it's obviously in the game, but this is the only map that gives you a break from the endless flag capping we get.

If 1.2 brings more flag capping and objective maps....mOaN moaAn whinge!!! 3.1 had a great balance of maps. 1.1 does not. The variety of gameplay is somewhat lacking.

You guys get tired of hearing that we want 3.1 back, but I think there has been an overall failure to see that a lot of that lied in the diversity of the maps.
Precisely.

Actually, I hear a vocal minority wanting the old maps back. I grant you that the vocal minority are our long-time players but then again, that's what you would expect from guys who have been here the longest. In some sense the argument has merit in that you'd think that the dev team should listen to the more dedicated players...but the forums here are a lot like sports talk radio ("I can't believe they traded away <insert map name here> for that piece of crap <insert map name here>", "Ok...I'll give you five Hedgerows for one Dog1...deal?"). In the end it's really not about what maps are in or what maps are out...it's the fun in talking about it and then thinking you might have some kind of impact on a decision.

There's a great article I continually go to when these type threads come up...it's not intended to put dedicated fans down but I think many folks here need to understand where the industry views "fans":

http://www.firingsquad.com/features/the_firing_line_13/page3.asp


BTW...One of the things I find most refreshing about DoD is it's capability to re-invent itself w/every release...I like that we sometimes throw out old maps...I like that the dev team is willing to experiment and move on. I like how they want to add classes or weapons occasionally...I'm comfortable with the changes release-to-release. It might tick off guys who want things to remain the status quo...but for me every release is like Christmas...sometimes we get nifty things...sometimes new socks...but it's always refreshing and new.

It doesnt really matter to me what maps are in the "official" list, so long as we can still play the old official and custom maps. (many of which we cant). It was a complete lack of objective style maps in 2.1 that drove me to make dod_hochburg, my first released map, that a few servers picked up. So go ahead and make a map where gameplay is different, just dont expect everyone to like them.
With some creative entities the hl engine can still do a few tricks, but please can someone tell me why the func_tracktrain seems to be broken in dod only?

Heutau was removed as Sector-Effector was in the German Army at the time and could not update it

Schwetz was removed as it was too tough for the average player, not to mention complicated. Whilst fun to the experienced player, to the new one, the idea of running out to capture a bridge almost certainly etting killed a few times is not appealing, doing it for 15 mins doesnt help either.

Dog1 was removed because it was too heavy on the texture memory and the Author did not want to lower it to the new official standards

Para gameplay is there still, just the official maps were removed as well people thought it was too CS like, it was a pain just sitting for 3 mins whilst two AFK players did nothing in the spawns.

If you don't like how DoD plays at the moment, stop whining and go play CoD if you like it so much.

The new and updated 1.2 maps should definatly bring some life back into DoD. 1.0 killed a lot of fans, 3.1 isnt coming back no matter what do lets get on with playing 1.1c and 1.2

I recently re-added a couple old maps to our server and it firmly convinced me that the cries for the old maps are nothing more than nostalgia.

I miss para too, but we can't blame the team for removing the para maps. They were taken out because many of the narrow-minded people in the dod community couldn't stand the idea of having something that even nods to CS at all so they ranted/raved/*****ed and, thus, para maps went away (the gamestyle is still there if you want to make a para map, you can).

Anyway, Ginger/FD are right. 1.2 will have a few new maps, 1 of which has a few innovative features. Plus, I think that a lot can be done by being creative with what exists.

For instace I think you could have a gameplay, let's call it "Alamo" style, that blends current spawn system and para. The defenders ahve to hold a point or object for, say, 3 minutes. They can't respawn. The offense respawns traditionally. They win by taking the object or eliminating the defenders.

You could also take a flag cap map and make the flags have to be captured sequentially (think of the tfc map warpath).

Its possible, we just need some innovative mappers willing to try these things. Fortunately, we do. Just not enough of them. :)

Actually, I hear a vocal minority wanting the old maps back. I grant you that the vocal minority are our long-time players but then again, that's what you would expect from guys who have been here the longest.

Well, of course! ... How can all the new players want the old maps back if they were never there to experience them? ... I gaurentee you that if you were to bring back some of the older maps, they would love them.

Schwetz was removed as it was too tough for the average player, not to mention complicated. Whilst fun to the experienced player, to the new one, the idea of running out to capture a bridge almost certainly etting killed a few times is not appealing, doing it for 15 mins doesnt help either.


It's a single map. And, IMO, getting rid of it for a reason such as: "well, new players won't like it" is plain out rediculous. People would have played it... more than Vecenza (sp), I bet. Nobody plays that map.... are you going to get rid of it next release? Having nothing but "newbie friendly" maps is a bad idea. Think about it, folks! ... newbies are only newbies for a set amount of time... by removing the more challenging maps, you are reducing the replay value incredibly... after awhile, Pvt. Average is gonna say "man, I'm tired of playing the same maps over and over, I wish there was something a bit more challenging to do" ... and I can tell you right now, Pvt. Average WILL NOT DOWNLOAD CUSTOM MAPS... alot of people won't. So, using the excuse "well, just play customs"... though it may work as a fix for us older players, the newer guys (which are the very people you guys have been obviously aiming to please the most), will not want to go through the trouble of downloading custom maps. Apparently, the "newbie" is the majority of the DoD population... so, that means the majority of people will eventually get tired of playing.

If you don't like how DoD plays at the moment, stop whining and go play CoD if you like it so much.

DoD is DoD.

CoD is something else.

CoD is good and all, but we like DoD. Obviously, we do. We're concerned about how the dev team seems to be deminishing variety in an attempt to make the game more "newbie friendly"... but in reality, it's hurting DoD more than it's helping.

Look, I haven't been playing DoD for a few good years for nothing. When I see something I have enjoyed for that long... something I have investing much time into.. start to make some bad moves, I naturally want to help out.

In no way am I dogging on the dev team, you guys have done an excellent job at everything you've done... but that doesn't mean you don't make mistakes... and I think, as do many of us, that you've made a big error by lowering the variety of gameplay/map styles. We're not doing this to complain. We're hoping that someone on the dev team will realize that it isn't a good move, both in a playability sense, and in a marketing sense... Because we want to see this mod flourish.

So... some might go play CoD or CS when they dislike a change to DoD... but all of us oldies will simply grunt, bring up a topic such as this, tell you straight out what a problem is, and play DoD anyways. That's what being a true fan is all about, isn't it?

... IMHO, I think the dev team needs to listen more closely to those of us who have been around DoD for a long time... we're just trying to aid our "little slice of heaven".

I would like to see some more map-styles integrated into future releases. I would like for some of the old styles to return (Schwetz-style attack and defend then switch sides, and Zafod-style push maps) though I wouldn't miss some others (para). Even if the original maps couldn't be included (for reasons mentioned above), I would still like these styles and maybe some others to show up in coming releases.

There was no reason to take maps out, If anything, dod needs more non-terrible maps, and more diverse maps.

Instead of updating maps, the dev tema should be adding new ones. Thunder could be played alongside donner, koln could make a comeback, hentau, etc.

I don't think anyone is opposed to having more of a variety of maps to play.

Gents, your appeals for bringing back the old maps amounts to nothing more then wishful thinking. The DoD team is going to include maps that they feel the MAJORITY will enjoy.

Your best bet is to campaign the custom map servers. If the map still runs under DoD 1.1 then there's a good chance that a custom server will run it. Remember that the "custom" guys, like myself, cater to the MINORITY of long-time and experienced players that want more variety.


:cool:

Okay, now I know along with our arguments, we're asking for the return of older maps. However, that isn't what this topic is about. We're mentioning alot of the older maps because they prove our point very well... more variety = more fun.

... this topic is about adding more variety to the current map list... one way of doing so is re-adding older maps... but it doesn't have to be done that way. We just want some of the old styles of gameplay back... because, you can ask anyone who played 3.0-3.1 why they liked it so much, and these will be the most common answers:

- something about weaponry (the Garand, usually)

- THE MAPS. Ever since 1.0, all the maps seem to have become TOO similar.

So...similiar...

Flash and Kalt are similiar...small linear maps
Charlie is in a class by itself
Jagd and Escape and both-sides-have-missons-maps
Glider is all-out allied attack/Axis defend
Avalanche and Anzio are relatives
Forest is..well...Forest
Flugplatz is a wide-open spagetti map w/deathmatchy feel
Merderet is a classic flag map
Zalec is an allied attack map
Chemille is a close-holds SMG flag map
Switch is a large linear map in the Huetau (sp) mode
Donner is a large linear map with multiple routes

Where's the similarity? Actually...I think I know why some of you guys might think so...maybe because you only play one or two of the maps in clan play and are bored to death by now playing anzio or chemille all the time. So...as with all else...this is a matter of perception. The core group of dev team members like these style of maps...so expect to see this variety in the future...although I think the new 1.2 maps are all kinda flag-cap maps (there's no objective-type map in the group yet).

I happen to think that's a huge diversity in maps.

I don't know why so many maps had to be removed. We could have a rather large number of official maps to play on if we hadn't kept removing some. Obviously in the Beta 1.3 to Beta 2.0 transition a lot had to be lost because of the huge shift in gameplay paradigm, but since 2.0 there's been a lot of great maps. Zafod, Schwetz, Dog1?

i don't think its just the Dev teams fault that the current maps are all 'newbied', where do most of the maps come from? The mapping community right? Its also a failure on part of the mapper to not add 'new' or 'older' styles into the game play. We have what 1-2 maps with advancing spawns? Where as in 3.1 etc there were at least 2 of them. With the release of 1.0 came the mentality from mappers that we must make them similar to whats in the offical release weather we released this or not we did it.

Anyway thats some of my thoughts on this subject and I mean no disrespect to anyone either :)

All I'm saying, FD, was that it was a bit more diverse in the past.

Or, maybe, it was just the way each map looked? I dunno.. but it is true, that if you ask, the majority of people who've played 3.0-3.1 will argue that what made those versions so great were the maps.

... if it isn't because of diversity, I dunno what it is. Maybe I've just played DoD for too long?

More flag cap maps in 1.2?

Excellent. Now I can sleep soundly at night.

Some older maps would be cool though, granted, most of them can be downloaded as custom and played regardless.

Yea...i can't make any promises because I don't vote for these things but:

1) There are at least three flag maps up for serious consideration (all have single person and multiple person flags)and a few other maps still in the works. Playtests have been ongoing and the maps in question are still being tweeked.
2) Major reworks on merderet, glider, flash, caen, and mebbie switch.
3) We're paying particular attention to model clipping although I can't promise you we can be as good w/the clips as you might want us to be.
4) But...the new and the redone maps clipping will be a lot better than what you've seen in the past.
5) We're trying to reduce epoly (models and see-through textures) on all of the new ones and the old ones being redone...too many models and the inability of the engine to deal w/them effectively causes a lot of the lag on low-end systems...so we're trying to do our best here.
6) I've personnally asked Waldo to re-clip the Donner tank and the tanks, vehicles, and lightposts in Chemille but I'm not sure if there's time to get those in right away.
7) I've heard that we'll get better server efficiencies...on par with cs...so my uneducated thought is that will help with hitbox and "I shot you but you didn't die" issues plus make server admins happier...but since I really don;t know anything about the code I can;t confirm any of this.
8) I do not know when 1.2 will be released and I don't know what else to expect so don't ask me about anything to do w/the engine, the code, fps, the hitboxes, the weapons, or anything other than the maps.
9) Gameplay on all the new maps has been fun, fun, fun (also very, very fast in some cases).
10) We're trying to make sure the flags on the hud match up with their order in the map file (so the tick scoring cland deal is easier to figure out)

That enough info?

If I could, I would e-mail you a kiss.:)

Unfortunately, I use hotmail with a 2MB attachment limit. :(

Thanks for replying Fuzzdad, But I believe you and some others misinterrupted my original statement and point of the thread.

At no point did I say "bring x map back", I was merely referencing the fact that 3.1 had a good set of diverse maps that felt "different" from each other, and that at the current state it doesn't feel the same. The same meaning, diverse. NOT the same meaning "3.1" it is hard to stay on subject though.

Im not trying be nostalgic, Im merely pointing out the "Pro's" My intention is not to make a 3.1 arguement, rather, we want more unique stuff from you and the other mappers :) thats all, please dont feel too defensive.

Just trying to envoke some thought about the maps with fellow mappers rather that the "general forum" to avoid the flamming or overboard hardcore 3.1 nostalgia. So lets.

If you guys expand the gameplay types, you will see the community do it x2. You have the power to do so, and it is my suggestion, not demand, or request, etc etc, to use it. But Im just 1 person, my opinion is null.

Voodoo

btw-
The entire point of the thread is to discuss pro's and con's of gameplay types. We are DoD players talking about DoD. The point is to bring ppl in and not tell them to take a hike.

So leave it out of my threads, you cant talk without telling someone to play something else or get lost, save your breath.

I've been thinking about this topic on and off today and heres some thoughts on how to expand the diversivity (sp?) in Dod.

Fuzzdads idea of instant combat; this would make maps feel different for sure.

Para maps; Maybe instead of recreating the whole para set of maps, when someone releases a new map they could 1) make it with unlimited lives 2) Make it as a para map also and then release both and give admins/players a choice of which one they want.

Advancing spawns; Introduce this into more of the bigger type of maps.

Defending maps; Something I thought about today was to give one team a position thats surrouned by the enemy, but the defending team only gets say 50 respawns total for the team and if/when they run out of respawns and the last person is killed the other team wins. Also the other team has unlimited spawns as per usual.


I think if we constructivly put our heads together we could come up with something that will work.

Did some people not bother reading my post about why those maps were removed? Cos there were about 5 posts afterwards saying "Why did X get removed?"

I just fricken told you foo'

After Density and Arch I might have a try at an Alamo style map (1 team para, other not, short rounds 1 objective to defend)

Originally posted by Ginger Lord
Did some people not bother reading my post about why those maps were removed? Cos there were about 5 posts afterwards saying "Why did X get removed?"

I just fricken told you foo' Oh right, and you're so very much the authority on why. You have your biased opinions and we have ours and we each think the other is wrong. The fact that I am right is something you'll learn sooner or later.:cool:

Originally posted by FuzzDad
In the end it's really not about what maps are in or what maps are out...it's the fun in talking about it and then thinking you might have some kind of impact on a decision.
Sadly that last part is very true.

Growing up with democratic ideas pounded into you at a young age you get a sense that you can make a change. Oh how far from the truth it is. Damn crappy truth is annoying.

Consumers in other areas of business hold a lot of power over the decisions made towards the product/service. It would appear that in the computer gaming world we hold very little power.

Despite knowing this i still sit here and make suggestions....

What a steaming pile of hypocrisy!! ARGHH!! Stab me!!

lol.

Point taken. =b

Originally posted by Ginger Lord
After Density and Arch I might have a try at an Alamo style map (1 team para, other not, short rounds 1 objective to defend)

Density should be a sweet sweet lady when you're finished with it! That said, I'd love to see someone make an Alamo map.

An Alamo map like:

A old farmhouse on a hill with a small company of Axis Paratroopers (w FG42's) surrounded on all sides be a much larger (respawning) Allied force. They must hold out for 2 minutes.

Something like that?

If so.....:D

@ Cheeto, the reasons why those maps were removed are THE reasons as told by the Dev team on here numerous times

@ Shane, Density is just waiting on textures and then its playtest time again!

Originally posted by Ginger Lord
An Alamo map like:

A old farmhouse on a hill with a small company of Axis Paratroopers (w FG42's) surrounded on all sides be a much larger (respawning) Allied force. They must hold out for 2 minutes.

Something like that?

If so.....:D

Yeah. Something like that. I had envisioned this scenario: Axis holding country estate that houses a vital radio link. Re-inforced Allies are en-route. Allies need to capture the radio or kill all Axis. Axis must hold the radio, down to the last man.

I figured a 3 minute round, but be open in playtesting to shortening/lengthening as needed.

A variant would be to switch sides at round's end. :)

The defenders would need some very defensible spots that allow them to really rain down fire toward the advancing team. I would give the defenders a mortar, or 2, and even give them a box of, say 6 hand grenades. :)

I keep deluding myself that I'll have time to take up mapping to create such a map at some point... But.... RL has a funny way of saying "NO!". :)

Pretty similar to what I have atm.

I have a 3 storey farmhouse, first two floors have 8 windows out each floor, 4 a side and a attic with 4 windows in it.

Its just 1 building atm on a hill, I'm gonna add some outhouses for some cover and some mortars in the roof.

I tell ya, even in this basic stage being in that house is scary with shots coming in, going through walls, particles flying all over the place, its raining too, rain coming in holes, grenades rolling in....:eek:

2 Minutes is plenty enough!

Originally posted by Ginger Lord
Pretty similar to what I have atm.

I have a 3 storey farmhouse, first two floors have 8 windows out each floor, 4 a side and a attic with 4 windows in it.

Its just 1 building atm on a hill, I'm gonna add some outhouses for some cover and some mortars in the roof.

I tell ya, even in this basic stage being in that house is scary with shots coming in, going through walls, particles flying all over the place, its raining too, rain coming in holes, grenades rolling in....:eek:

2 Minutes is plenty enough!

Oh goody! I thought up a very similar idea but the farmhouse was in the middle of a field of chest high grass/wheat/corn etc. I'm glad someone is making it! I look forward to this map! :)

Originally posted by FuzzDad
Yea...i can't make any promises because I don't vote for these things but:

1) There are at least three flag maps up for serious consideration (all have single person and multiple person flags)and a few other maps still in the works. Playtests have been ongoing and the maps in question are still being tweeked.
2) Major reworks on merderet, glider, flash, caen, and mebbie switch.
3) We're paying particular attention to model clipping although I can't promise you we can be as good w/the clips as you might want us to be.
4) But...the new and the redone maps clipping will be a lot better than what you've seen in the past.
5) We're trying to reduce epoly (models and see-through textures) on all of the new ones and the old ones being redone...too many models and the inability of the engine to deal w/them effectively causes a lot of the lag on low-end systems...so we're trying to do our best here.
6) I've personnally asked Waldo to re-clip the Donner tank and the tanks, vehicles, and lightposts in Chemille but I'm not sure if there's time to get those in right away.
7) I've heard that we'll get better server efficiencies...on par with cs...so my uneducated thought is that will help with hitbox and "I shot you but you didn't die" issues plus make server admins happier...but since I really don;t know anything about the code I can;t confirm any of this.
8) I do not know when 1.2 will be released and I don't know what else to expect so don't ask me about anything to do w/the engine, the code, fps, the hitboxes, the weapons, or anything other than the maps.
9) Gameplay on all the new maps has been fun, fun, fun (also very, very fast in some cases).
10) We're trying to make sure the flags on the hud match up with their order in the map file (so the tick scoring cland deal is easier to figure out)

That enough info?

Thanks for the info. I really appreciate that you take the time to tell us these things. :)

Alamo style --

Shane your Idea is brilliant im working on it right now. In fact one of the maps Im making is PERFECT for that. SA-weet

Originally posted by VoodooChild
Alamo style --

Shane your Idea is brilliant im working on it right now. In fact one of the maps Im making is PERFECT for that. SA-weet

Cool :) Let me know if you need some testing.