I hate reviving topics but I just have this one thing on my mind.

There seems to be a rising trend of more complex levels. Is it because jj2 players are finding it easier to learn layouts? Oddly, most layouts of old (levels that were considered good at their time) levels are fairly complicated and are considered bad by todays standards, or at least they were until now. As long as I've known, ease to learn has been an essential standard, albiet a limiting one as you can only put so much into a level. However, there seems to be a trend where you just have to play long enough to learn the level. I guess we are finally learning to be patient! or something like that.

I support this change, even though it may be frustrating to learn a complex layout, in say, a JDC event.

If you ask me people are just desperately trying to invent something new. Something no one has ever done before. And they need to, in order to keep it interesting. Maybe they also want to give others a reason to play their level. Also keep in mind that the people in this community are growing up, and have less problems to make complex constructions now.

I guess PreSenT PaST was ahead of its time then. :P

Or perhaps you're just old

Or the levelmakers stopped creating good levels...

Complex levels often go hand in hand with large levels, and I have no problem with that since I don't favor playing in smaller levels with 9 other players. The added complexity also creates more opportunities for strategy, which I can't argue against. I usually support anything that means less chaotic gameplay.

MiniDW is great for 3vs3. ^^

Oh, and no one spends enough time on jj2 to learn complex levels.

Originally Posted by Grytolle

Oh, and no one spends enough time on jj2 to learn complex levels.

Speak for yourself >O.

I actually spend time playing CTF/Battle levels in SP mode to learn the layout.

My levels are usually not complex, but they're very simple. But some levels aren't very hard to learn, thus they're not complex. I don't think they're lots of complex levels that are still played.

Easy to learn levels are more fun.

Originally Posted by Grytolle

Easy to learn levels are more fun.

Originally Posted by Cooba

Speak for yourself >O.

I prefer easy to learn but difficult to master.

I read this entire thread again. Most of it doesn't include anything really controversial. I didn't want to make a reply to these threads since they are too specific, and I have no problem reviving old but good threads. By the way, I rambled a bit.

I've figured a little while ago that most key ammo and powerups should be placed where they are least useful to discourage camping--this counters what I said in a previous post. I still think different types of ammo should go in different places though. If a powerup requires EBs to get it, I support placing those EBs on the other side of the level. I support any idea that encourages players to use the entire level.

I now want to bring up layout issues. Specifically narrow versus open. I used to like PurpleJazz's Condemned a lot more until I realized how frustrating it was to try to actually kill a specific person (on a side note, it would've been nice if Codename: Alliance was hosted on J2O so that I could've found the pack by searching "condemned"). The level plays a bit better than PurpleJazz's other epically big levels when only few players are in the server, but the gameplay isn't as good as I expected. It's too open for starters. And the bouncer powerup and nearby bouncer ammo is poorly placed--makes it easier to camp and shot opponents climbing to the top of the level; see previous paragraph. I've been pushing levels to be more open than narrow for some time now, but I'm now going back on this considering how much I still like levels like EvilMike's Evil Fortress and Abandoned Robotics Factory.

Secrets: don't make them impossible to find. In fact, make everything in the level easy to figure out the first time it's played. Pits: need to be more obvious. I may make JJ2+ help point out pits in the future, but I don't know how just yet. Here's something I don't see too often: using the same powerups on both sides of a CTF level. It shouldn't hurt to make gameplay even more balanced.

So most of us probably agree that spamming shots is a cheap tactic and shouldn't be rewarded. This is part of the reason why I decided to use less seeker ammo and no seeker powerups in my levels. I'm now thinking about removing seeker ammo entire and making seeker powerups take minutes to respawn in levels like E. Prime and Security Breach . And I plan on replacing the seeker powerup in Security Breach with a harder-to-access RF powerup. Tell me what you think of these ideas.

I'm still not sure how to punish spamming and reward ammo conservation further. I have no problems with making provisions to make a custom limit for ammo through JJ2+ (it would only affect JJ2+ users), though I wonder how much it would help. One way to reward ammo conservation would be to have less ammo in a level, but then spawning players will have a hard time getting ammo. To counter that, I may make a JJ2+ add-on so that players can start with ammo after spawning--some time after I fix JJ2's net code... Though you could just place ammo right next to start positions or make some ammo only accessible by spawning players.

Now, for some extremely late replies:

Originally Posted by EvilMike

Also note that pepper spray is a very useful weapon in some levels, despite what some people think.

I'm finding pepper spray too awkward to fire and way too inaccurate. I'll take my noisy RFs any day.

Originally Posted by EvilMike

Despite what logic may dictate, using a lot of carrots can make a game faster paced in battle mode.

I'm still blindly following this logic. It definitely depends on how many people are playing in the level if Quickz's Sandstone Ruins is any indication.

There's stuff in that post I made 4 years ago that I'd say differently today, but on the point of pepper spray I still think it's useful. RFs are usually better, but in a level with a lot of long, flat corridors, pepper spray tends to work better than RFs as a chasing weapon, due to its range and speed. For situations other than chasing its a pretty useless (and actually slow) weapon though. Its one of the more specialized weapons in the game.

As for carrots, a battle level with 10 carrots is probably going to be a slow and tedious duel. But I think a decent amount is still a very good idea... certainly more than 1 or 2. It depends on the size of the level really. Also, respawn time is a good thing to consider: I think with carrots, faster is probably better. 15 or 20 secs.

Originally Posted by BlurredD

If a powerup requires EBs to get it, I support placing those EBs on the other side of the level. I support any idea that encourages players to use the entire level.

I'm beginning to shy away from this whole idea altogether now. Personally, I think powerups should be easy to get, as that adds to the whole fun of it, rather than making it frustrating. I'm beginning to stop placing powerups in walls now, unless there is a way of getting it both manually and cleverly with electro blasters.

While I also encourage usage of the entire level, I really think if you want to place a powerup in the wall, place the way of getting it nearby (in this case EBs), because that way it's less annoying. Another really annoying thing is when you see the powerup and think, "ooh I should get that." So then you make all the effort to run along and get the gun, and then you come back and it's gone. While one can argue that you should have gotten the EBs in the first place, it's still kinda less fun, or even so, if there's only one place with EBs, someone can just be annoying and camp it just to spite people who want the powerup or something. Okay, call me random and a bit crazy but still.

Another really annoying thing is that you only get +20 of the powerup if you get it from the wall, and if you already have the gun, it's not even any more. I find this, in most levels, to be a rediculously low amount of ammo to be able to barrage enough to do something useful. Yeah, I may waste my ammo, but I think it's more fun that way too.

Again, my theories on fun are possibly wrong, as my levels aren't the most popular.

I'd just like to add: I hate peppermints, while I think they're good for chasing and if youre clever enough you can do it up hill too, but you need to adjust that. If only there was a way of doing it while like, holding up and running at the same time. However EBs, they are truly a great gun as their possibilities are just really cool if used/applied right. You can shoot through walls; but think about what may be behind the wall... A camp-spot, a carrot which may drop down making it easier for you to get from your current location, a powerup which someone may have been about to kick. I'd probably change my opinion on these two guns critically if they both had the possibility of doing two damage powered up. They'd be probably amongst my favourite guns, though I dunno if I'll still favour RFs, as I tend to RF hop while I'm chasing, to gain speed and get closer and stuff.

This post is pointless.

Originally Posted by EvilMike

There's stuff in that post I made 4 years ago that I'd say differently today, but on the point of pepper spray I still think it's useful. RFs are usually better, but in a level with a lot of long, flat corridors, pepper spray tends to work better than RFs as a chasing weapon, due to its range and speed. For situations other than chasing its a pretty useless (and actually slow) weapon though. Its one of the more specialized weapons in the game.

Too specialized for my tastes, though I still may use it as filler ammo in future levels, even though filler ammo is a lack of effort on my part. I often don't think of what is the most ideal ammo and powerup selection for the level I'm building and instead go with the weapons I like to use the most or simply include every type of weapon. Now I realize there's nothing wrong with including the same powerup multiple times and maybe I don't need to include seeker or pepper spray ammo.

Originally Posted by EvilMike

As for carrots, a battle level with 10 carrots is probably going to be a slow and tedious duel. But I think a decent amount is still a very good idea... certainly more than 1 or 2. It depends on the size of the level really. Also, respawn time is a good thing to consider: I think with carrots, faster is probably better. 15 or 20 secs.

I can't say this for sure since it's my impression from reading comments from duels, but a longer respawn time may actually be better for some levels. Quickz made Sandstone Ruins - Lite, and it appears to play faster for duels when he changed the carrot respawn times from 20 seconds to 30 seconds. The change was needed probably because of all the safe routes and the larger playing area compared to levels like Abandoned Robotics Factory and EvilMike's Evil Fortress.

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I'm beginning to shy away from this whole idea altogether now. Personally, I think powerups should be easy to get, as that adds to the whole fun of it, rather than making it frustrating. I'm beginning to stop placing powerups in walls now, unless there is a way of getting it both manually and cleverly with electro blasters.

While I also encourage usage of the entire level, I really think if you want to place a powerup in the wall, place the way of getting it nearby (in this case EBs), because that way it's less annoying. Another really annoying thing is when you see the powerup and think, "ooh I should get that." So then you make all the effort to run along and get the gun, and then you come back and it's gone. While one can argue that you should have gotten the EBs in the first place, it's still kinda less fun, or even so, if there's only one place with EBs, someone can just be annoying and camp it just to spite people who want the powerup or something. Okay, call me random and a bit crazy but still.

There shouldn't be a major camping problem if a powerup is only accessible by EBs located in one spot of the level. And even if there is, just make multiple areas containing EBs. Players attempting to hog ammo and powerups tend to follow a predictable pattern anyway. Personally I don't find not having EBs when I see a powerup in a wall frustrating enough to want to use this combination less often. I find it more frustrating when I never get a powerup because it's too accessible.

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Another really annoying thing is that you only get +20 of the powerup if you get it from the wall, and if you already have the gun, it's not even any more. I find this, in most levels, to be a rediculously low amount of ammo to be able to barrage enough to do something useful. Yeah, I may waste my ammo, but I think it's more fun that way too.

I find not always getting +20 ammo fairly annoying myself, and I have no problem making this a permanent fix in JJ2+ when Plus Only is on, assuming no one minds.

Anyway, if the level is designed well, you shouldn't be accidentally getting ammo you don't want. This is why I usually try to make ammo easily avoidable such as by not putting it directly on the ground and requiring players to jump to get it.

Originally Posted by BlurredD

It's too open for starters. And the bouncer powerup and nearby bouncer ammo is poorly placed--makes it easier to camp and shot opponents climbing to the top of the level.

I tried making the level really open as I feel it gives players a lot more freedom of movement during fast paced matches. This level was intended to be played in more casual games, so I thought giving a lot of room to blast others would make things more fun. As Ragnarok said, I was under the impression that if the PUs were placed more convieniently, players would feel more comfortable getting them in midplay. However, this just became an annoyance in a couple of JDC events, it seems players always try to get to that spot first and then just fire away. I should have probably swapped the Bouncer and Toaster PU around, or something along that context. At least I made sure not to have a Seeker PU, which the beta had and that just killed the gameplay. I've learned from my mistake, and in my future levels I'll try to discourage this kind of camping.

One issue I feel like bringing up are key items being placed too close to CTF bases. Take a level like BBlair for example. Players camping the blue base have to make very little effort to get the two power ups surrounding the base above and below. This means that players feel completely comfortable hanging around there for lengthy periods of time, and since they have a consistant source of firepower they have plenty of fend off enemy players. The problem this causes is that for other players it's too difficult to approach the base as the defenders have a constant supply of ammo and so are not likely to be shifted any time soon. To counter this kind of camping I feel that PUs should be placed as far from the bases as possible, or at least in a way that makes it so players have to temporairly leave the base unguarded so that they can load up, and in that time players can attack the base unharmed.

Yet, I'm also feeling that these kind of cheap tactics can make a level more fun. Players naturally, as Blur said before, like levels they can win in; and will probably do anything they can to do so, no matter how cheap it may seem. Levels like BBlair and Semi have several so called "cheap tactics", however they're only called "cheap" by the victims of them. If a player knows he can do something that will give him a likely victory, he is obviously going to do it. I think that although players should be discouraged to try and win soley on simple tactics and be required to use more strategy and planning to win, but they should not be completely discouraged so that they feel too restricted by the level design so they can't play how they like to, and I feel that levels that are too restrictive on a player's personal choices are not very fun. I do agree that Seekers are often overused during gameplay though, and while it can be extremely annoying for some, others find it more fun when they can use them easily, and most of the popular levels I find allow easy use of them.

This a difficult issue - do we force players to play more strategicaly and conservative with their ammo, or do we allow them to play as prefered and give them the chance to spam seekers if they wish?

Only way to counter that on bblair is to make lots of use of the bouncer-box (giving the red team basically unlimited unpoweredup bouncers)

The main reason I like semi so much (besides knowing all the trick jumps by now) is that the design doesn't allow seekers to travel very far. That prevents lots of airhits, which ofc makes jj2 a lot more fun

Gry pretty much nailed it there.

Since Carrotade was released I've felt like games have become more lag based somehow, and now that JJ2+ came out it's become quite clear to me. I dunno if I'm crazy or what but that's quite honestly how it feels like.
More often than not there's some player who I just can't hit no matter do I spam seeks all around them or do I shoot 20 rfs at them while chasing them, they just bounce and don't get hurt, then they turn and shoot a couple of times to hit me without problems.

This didn't happen (at least, not so often) a few years back. I have no idea what's the definite cause for this change.

That was ...slightly off-topic, now to adjust... I've never liked how some players pretty much rely on seekers to win games (not to bring up the talks about Gry using some infinite seeker ammo cheat or whatever, which I never believed he did) but a lot of people spam seeks a lot when they're present in the level and particularly lately this has become quite a nuisance, since I've started averaging around 10 airhits per game.

I suggest that whatever standards some people have for including seekers in their levels are discarded for the sake of less lag-based gameplay.

I used to like bblair a lot. I always knew the level is unbalanced/not perfect, but I tolerated the flaws, because I liked the tricks involved. It was the only level most players would duel in besides Battle1 and DW. When I think back, some players have won duels solely because of the start position that allows red to recapture after being killed; blue team does not have this advantage.

I still like to play the level for fun at times.

I now dislike using seeker powerup - fullstop.

I'm curious how important we consider balance when it comes to levels, ctf levels especially. There are a few levels that would be so good if there are adjustments, like replacing or moving a +1 carrot, a powerup being placed somewhere else, or even a slight layout adjustment. Small things can matter a lot, especially in a 2d game such as this. However lots...actually scratch that, MOST popular levels are imbalanced. I can think of one reasonably balanced popular level at this moment, and that is sbv2. Even sbv2 isn't as popular as some other levels. In the past, I considered balance to be important, but there was very little chance of having your levels played, and level making was more of an art, so I made stuff for fun, and I didn't put too much focus on making balanced levels. Completely symmetrical ctf levels were (still is?) considered boring, and making them was discouraged. I find symmetrical layouts boring if they aren't designed in some way I consider interesting. There's another way I know to make balanced ctf levels, which is making the bases accessible at one point with teams using the same spawns . I'm not sure if ctf levels that use non-symmetrical layouts can be truly balanced. Admittedly, unbalanced levels can be more fun than balanced levels, but the fun is because it's easier to exploit the imbalance and dominate your opponent(s).

I stopped making CTF levels a long time ago but I always cared about making levels balanced. I usually went for an asymmetrical style, since I think those types of levels are more interesting, but I always tried to make it so both sides have a good balance of advantages and disadvantages. I think I was successful with most of my levels. None of them are perfectly balanced, but I don't think any of them have serious flaws. Or, for the ones that did, I fixed them in later versions. My most balanced level is probably Helldome because it's the only perfectly symmetrical one (aside from the RF and toaster powerups).

I think the key is not to make a level that is PERFECTLY balanced but rather make a level that is balanced enough so that a player who is skilled can win over a player who is less skilled, regardless of team. And if the two sides are evenly matched, maybe one side gets an advantage, but it shouldn't be big enough to be decisive.

I say this because (a) it is very difficult to make a perfectly balanced level, unless it is perfectly symmetrical, and (b) levels are usually more interesting if there is SOME difference between the two sides.

I think it's a bit pointless to worry about a level being slightly skewed. Consider that pretty much every game that's played (video game, sports, board games, etc) tends to give one side an advantage. For example in sports the home team gets a bit of an advantage, and in chess white has an advantage over black due to moving first.

Think about it; games play more fun with balance. I'll bring a load of examples to the stand just to represent my point:

In world of warcraft-burning crusade, [yes totally different], rogues are able to kill everyone, except for healers and warriors. And even so, they can beat some healers. This is imbalance if you ask me, and this is just stupid if you ask me. It's annoying to be on the losing side because of stupid inbalances, and there are very few counters, making this such a "great class".

In Diablo II, some characters do rediculously high damage and can finish off other players in a matter of hits, while other characters are so easily countered, such as the sorceress as it is easy to pocess a high resistance to her specialty. Furthermore, characters such as the assassin appear very quirky and fun, but in reality are really underpowered, in terms of skills, and their horrid equipment. This is another inbalance, again, annoying.

In games such as WC3, certain maps have been realtered about 200 times just to perfect the balance, and each time, it's clear that the map is getting better.

Moving in, levels such as BBlair, red team usually always wins, because they:
A) Have a carrot directly on their base, making it easy to RTS etc.
B) Have two good powerups on the opposing side, which can be obtained while attacking, whilst on the other side there's a meagre EB powerup.
C) Some of their start positions place you almost on the other base, preventing some crucial scores for the other team.
Personally, I think skewing balance can annoy gameplay, and is therefore stupid. Some people like it when they're on the dominating side of it, but personally, that shows no skill. It just shows you're able to take advantage of flaws in levels, and that you were lucky enough to be on the side with the advantage.

In terms of different powerups being on both sides, in JJ2, in most levels it's justifiable due to the abilities of the powerup and the structure of the level. For instance, in my level [I'm only using this example because I know how I made this clearly], Starlit Summit, there's a bouncer powerup on one side, and RF on the other side. Now, you can easily attack from above using the bouncer powerup, and that can allow you to dominate the game if you do so correctly, as the level is quite large and easy to come in from above. Furthermore, they are empowered by fast fires. Since there's no seeker powerup, there isn't a completely equal counter. However, on the other side, there's RFs. These are good for chasing in the various corridors, and also are effective near the bases, as the RF impact is very annoying and can blast other players into pits, with ease. In my opinion, the two powerups on opposing sides allows balance here. This causes the symmetrical level to be balanced.

However, a powerup balance that I have seen before but to be honest is never pulled off correctly is the Seeker vs Blaster combination. I think the general argument is that seekers... well you know what goes here. And then blasters, never run out, making the powerup everlasting [till you die]. However, this is pointless in many levels without fastfires, as fastfires are the only things that power up blasters enough to make them match to seekers. And even then, it's still arguable if it's equal. Also, blasters will require you to gather the fastfires too, wasting extra time and therefore making further inbalance.

Now I'm gonna bring up some other examples of inbalanced levels. One of my first levels, TCS, RagCTF05 or whatever. It takes 4 seconds to get from one base, to the other, but the other way round, it takes 5. While you can argue it is only a second, but this effectively means that one team is 25% faster than the other team. To recompensate, I put the bouncer powerup near the base, but in reality, it's actually equally hard to access it from this base without sufficient ammo, as it needs a good jump with RFs, or an entry from above. This is another type of inbalance I hate.

Another one? Semi. Haha. Right, the carrot. Yeah, it's in the middle. Yeah, its attackable from both sides. Say you're going from your base to the carrot though. Here's an overview of what happens from red base: You'll go down the hole, and go straight to the carrot. Now here's what happens from the blue base: You'll fall down, and then have to fit through some annoyingly small slits in the floor. This can waste a lot of time, unless you have perfected the annoying fall. Then, you can run to the carrot. Is it major? No, but it's enough to make someone lose, even if they're better than someone else. You can argue that you should have perfected the fall, but why does the other side not have to do it?

BBSwing! What happens here? Well, one team [on the right] will have a carrot in clear view near their base. On top of this, they have another carrot towards the middle of the level. The other team however, only has quick access to the middle carrot. This carrot isn't even on view, and is equally close to the other base. This means, that one team has two options, while the other does not. You can argue, that to balance, there is a seeker powerup closer to the left base, but every player wants the seeker powerup, while players usually leave carrots only to flag holders. This still gives an advantage to the team on the right in my opinion.

If you do not see the point I am trying to get across, levels should be very close to balanced, or perfectly balanced, otherwise, they are annoying to play in my eyes. Quite a load of levels have achieved this, sadly few of the ones that are commonly played. I hate the thought of "if we were on the other team, I woulda nailed these guys", because it just shows one side is lucky. You may not agree, but that's my view.

agreed on semi (although for slightly other seasons) and bblair (it's even worse in CTF events since you can't stay alive close to base and red has a warp at the bottom to theirs)

bbswing, no i've never noticed any imbalance there when playing - i feel that the better team wins regardless of colour

TCS pwns but yeah that's a major flaw


A seeker powerup is way more powerful than a blaster powerup, imo.. except when the server lags a lot, you can always dodge blasters in open areas (move away and drop the occasional seeker)

I do enjoy the challenge of beating someone as blue on bblair though, you just have to think out of the box (or rather, into it ). In 2on2s or duels you can move around the entire level, so really only the blue spawnpositions are a problem. In 3v3 you can compensate well with teamplay.

I usually have a symmetric placement of events (although not always exactly the same weapon type). Second to that is a mostly symmetric placement of masks (meaning platforms, corridors etc.) so that the ammo isn't just spread equally, but that it is also equally accessible. I usually vary a lot with platforms, but for corridors and more "solid" ground/mask parts, I stick to a rather strict symmetric schedule (see KMC, NiN). It's because I do believe that symmetry is important and "fairer" indeed.

To the named examples: in BBLair, I always preferred to play as blue actually because I liked to have the seeker ammo (20 from repeated powerup getting) close to me. However, that was in the old days when duels there ran a lot different (that sounds stupid but it's just like that), e.g. many people didn't know about blasting the red carrot down with TNTs etc. etc.
Semi: I think semi sucks anyway (I guess that's not a secret :P) and I totally suck there myself, no matter which side. If I'd have to decide for which side I hate playing less, I'd definitely go for red though. Easier navigating around your base, more immediate access to the seeker powerup from a position close to your base (don't have a two seconds delay through the tunnel) and such stuff.

Originally Posted by Unhit

Semi: I think semi sucks anyway (I guess that's not a secret :P) and I totally suck there myself, no matter which side. If I'd have to decide for which side I hate playing less, I'd definitely go for red though. Easier navigating around your base, more immediate access to the seeker powerup from a position close to your base (don't have a two seconds delay through the tunnel) and such stuff.

It owns despite/because of its flaws! I agree that red is the better side, but on the other hand, you can rush more easily as blue (only 2 exits from your base making it easier to keep an upper hand). Red has the advantage of the perfect DD-spot at the red powerup which still is quite close to their base. Then again, blue has slightly better spawnpositions. Basically, it's easier to RTS as red, but you can compensate for that by not really RTSing as blue, for example you can keep laming at the seeker PU and let someone else clear base. It seems to me that the best team wins also on semi, atleast in 3v3. 2v2 is a bit imba because of the DDspot at red, and 1on1 because of the blue spawnspot

Have you ever played vs CzEcH in semi? The amount of rushes he does on the red team is amazing...

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Have you ever played vs CzEcH in semi? The amount of rushes he does on the red team is amazing...

Yeah, but I never let him score in the first place No, but seriously, it has never happened so much that it bothered me. The thing is that it's easier to block two exits (blue: up, down) than three (red: left, right, up). It isn't that much harder to rush from red to blue in my experience

Another thing that bothers me is the issue of rating levels based on their size and/or complexity. Levels of all sizes can be fun depending on the amount of players or the game-type. While size and complexity don't mean everything, they are very considerable: For example, sanguis may be considered to have the best eye-candy of dark reign, because of the complexity of the tile-set use.

I've always designed multiplayer levels mainly for duels to 3vs3s (perhaps larger, since ms and je have been used in jdc events). Duels and 2vs2s are played more often, so the levels are more likely to be played.

I've often considered large levels that use original concepts with decent eye-candy to be great; For example, I rated Rag's "Err.. More CTF Levels?" 9.0, because of the original concepts, tactics, and size of the levels. While perhaps not suitable to smaller games like duels, I thought the sheer size of the levels was enough of a justification for the rating. When Rag uploaded Starlit Summit, I thought it had good gameplay and nice ec, but it didn't have outstandingly original concepts, or a certain 'wow' factor I was looking for.

Another thing I take into consideration is rating game-types, like sp vs mp. I always considered mp levels to be worthy of high ratings if designed well, simply for the fact they are designed for you to play other people in them.

Originally Posted by FireSworD

the issue of rating levels

is void.

It beats me why do people still aim for high J2O ratings rather than people's actual opinions. The rating's validity is compromised by being able to be changed by anyone in anytime. Why does everyone feel bad about their levels if they're given a 4 by a newbie without any idea about level design? I'm not even going to mention levels getting deleted because that's a retarded extreme.

I no longer have a good handle on what ratings are suitable or not. All the new levels made by the active good designers are rated from inbetween 8 to 8.5 - which leads to a sloppy (in my opinion) level and a solid, well designed level getting a similar rating. Did the lame level get overrated, or did the good level get underrated? It took me ages to figure out a proper rating for plunk's domination level (I'm still unsure if I gave one) purely because of this.

Can "fun", "tactics" or "concepts" be measured in a scale from 1 to 10? Figure out yourself.

I stopped caring about the ratings I get a long time ago and I recommend that everyone does the same. I'm making levels for my own enjoyment now. If someone likes the eyecandy or the micro tactics, that's a nice bonus. If someone doesn't like the level, tough nails, I'll just try something else next time. If someone doesn't like the "something else" I made later, then TOO BAD.

I don't believe so, it all comes down to personal opinions, and I already knew this. The reason I posted, is because I feel a lot of opposition towards mine, and other people's reviews, and would like to discuss it. Obviously, nobody is going to rate a level like zappo egypt over 8 unless it's a joke review. Although there is no solid ground to the 'quality' of a level, I believe that there are standards a level has to comply to.

Originally Posted by FireSworD

I feel a lot of opposition towards mine(..)reviews

That could probably stem from the fact that you raise ratings on some's levels just to make them "happy", and then you rate Summit lower than VSFC because of "no wow factor". Why wouldn't you rate Summit higher to make Rag happy? Why would you raise a rating of a level that apparently did not have the wow factor?

If there are standards, I'd like them to be universally applied.

Making properly sized reviews, instead of quick reviews, also helps if you're willing to go into detail about tactics and whatever the hell.

I admit that I have raised ratings on levels, but only a few times. I've actually done more than that, I've even rated levels just to raise the overall ratings. I am more concerned with the overall rating, and getting the level spotlight, so that it'll be noticed and possibly even played. I believe had it not been for me, levels like atom heart would not have been played as often. You see, if people want me to rate absoloutely stricly, then I will by all means be 100% consistent with all my reviews. However, I am concerned with playability and popularity of levels.

Originally Posted by Grytolle

It owns despite/because of its flaws! I agree that red is the better side, but on the other hand, you can rush more easily as blue (only 2 exits from your base making it easier to keep an upper hand). Red has the advantage of the perfect DD-spot at the red powerup which still is quite close to their base. Then again, blue has slightly better spawnpositions. Basically, it's easier to RTS as red, but you can compensate for that by not really RTSing as blue, for example you can keep laming at the seeker PU and let someone else clear base. It seems to me that the best team wins also on semi, atleast in 3v3. 2v2 is a bit imba because of the DDspot at red, and 1on1 because of the blue spawnspot

That's cool and all, but I still think Semi sucks D: <3

Originally Posted by Unhit

That's cool and all, but I still think Semi sucks D: <3

I want to marry you.

How do you guys feel on camping? I really thought about it and I've concluded, various areas shouldn't be campable, such as full NRGs or +1 carrots or seeker powerups or whatever you want.

On the other hand, I think CTF doesn't play as fun if the base is too uncampy. It should be campy to some extent. This is because of the tactic of "R"ing and "RTS"ing. It's very annoying to be on 3 health but so easily vulnerable when you are at an advantageous position of being able to score, say if the enemy is at 1 health.

However this idea flips in terms of levels like Zaitox. In Zaitox, I find that you usually HAVE to take a hit in order to get past to the flag if there's a good camper/defender. I find this very irritating and since there is no counter, it means you either have to play two players to one, or take the hit and take that chance. However there are those ever so lucky occasions where the player can hit you back down and then by the time you get back up you're dead because you stopped blinking.

Personally, I find that levels with 3 routes into the base work best, because its often the case where you can defend at least two routes from one position. I think base areas can work in open spaces, but at the same time, can work in slightly more confined or limited areas too. While I like the idea of defense, I also like counter defense. I think levelmakers should strike a balance between the two, but probably skewing it slightly towards one or the other ever so slightly.

In my opinion, it is best to place key items so that they are fairly accessible, which makes them easier to get but in turn makes them harder to camp. In CTF I often like to put the most important items like Full NRGs/Power Ups out where they are easily reachable, which can lead to people fighting over them but in turn makes it harder to camp there safely. I also have lesser items like +1 Carrots/Ammo containers in slightly more sheltered areas so you feel safer to go ahead and get them, although you get less of a bonus for doing so.

A good way to deal with camping if you think it really an issue is to try and punish those who attempt to camp. For example, let's take City of the Sn00zE. The Undergroud route at the bottom of the level is the safest route in the level to take, and contains a rather convienient Seeker PU. While yes, it is very easy to camp and is hard to approach someone camping there, it is a potential death trap for the camper as the only way out of the Underground is to take either two of the warps on the side walls, which your opponent could camp either of the targets and get an easy kill. It is possible to RF climb your way out of the manholes though if you possess the skill, but since there is no RF in the Underground you only have what you picked up earlier. Camping by the Full NRG can be countered as it is very vulnerable to Bouncer/EB fire. Camping any other item in the level simply isn't worth it.

One really sneaky tactic is to have something like a hidden crate that creates a suprise pit to catch out unsuspecting campers. (DnC is an example of this) Or, you could have an area which has a pit open up if a player camps there for too long. (Undulation is an example of this)

I don't really mind periodic camping if it serves as a temporary option for defense. I am really starting to dislike levels that players can camp almost all the time. It's boring, frustrating and cowardly. In fact, I'm starting to dislike battle1 for this reason.

I agree on the defense/counter defense being as balanced as possible, but I disagree on a minimum of 3 routes to base. I believe a minimum of 2 routes is all you need, then again it all depends on the design of the level. Generally, it seems most players like levels where they can gain an upper hand and take control. Often taking control means there will be a lot of limitations in the level, which means camping will take place.

Another thing that's on my mind is toastering ammo, carrots or other items below floors. In some levels you can take items out of the game. I don't see a real problem with it, since if you do this, it also affects you and not just your opponent(s). So does anyone see this as a problem, or is it another "DON'T USE SHIELDS" or "DON'T EXPLOIT THE CTF BUG"?