I just want to address a few of the things that you claim aren't design decisions because they really are. This is a core part of what we are talking about. All of these things (+many more) are design decisions that have an overall effect on gameplay.
Sadly most of this is down to engine limitations and not a design desicion by the mapper.
Mappers
need to take into account engine limitations when designing a map. It may be a subconscious decision, but it's a very basic and important decision.
Render distance, viewdistances and stuff like that is stuff that I mostly consider as an engine limitation and not a design desicion by myself, because otherwise I would have set the viewdistance higher on Arad and on that other map even higher, but I just don't want the server to crash so that the map plays smooth.
This is a design decision. It's actually a
huge one even tho it's done almost automatically. It's a decision
dictated by how the FH2 mod is made. This decision is made differently when designing a PR map, because PR is made differently from FH2.
A static popping out and in has nothing to do with planning gameplay, it's just me finding it ugly and avoiding it for aesthetic reasons and has zero impact on whether the player is in charge or not.
It
really does tho. If you have a static popping in and out and a player can or can't see what's happening behind it, it effects their decision on what to do next.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, in every argument I've seen for more "open, player driven gameplay," you give examples of games, mods, or minimods that have different core mechanics (and therefore different design parameters) from FH2.
People in the tourneys created stuff that is from my perspective far better or in some areas far worse, as the rallye point system for example wich really makes the game more enjoyable.
FH2 public (what TS's dev blog is about) =/= FHT. This mod and its minimod play
far differently from each other. Things that work in FHT, don't always work on FH2 public.
You saying, that open, player driven environments with good gameplay are not possible in FH2 is just beyond reality and neglecting the fun, that people had on those player driven maps in FH2 over the years. That this is not fun for you is purely subjective and actually the complete opposite of what I experienced. Saying that FH2 was not designed for this, is pure contradiction in that regard aswell, because people have proven that players can enjoy different approaches using FH2. Or why do you think that tournaments had a chance to establish themself in the world of FH2 or why people tried to establish stuff like mumble? There was a demand from people to get exactly that kind of gameplay within the world of FH2 and they succeeded. Maybe you two guys should simply take a look at the TS server of FHT during the campaigns and you will notice that you are not necessarily a representative majoritiy of how people want to play FH2.
Here you're talking about the FHT. This is a minimod for FH2 that plays
completely different from public play. It has more 'teamwork,' a structure/ chain of command that dictates how the players play the map. This is something
NOT present in FH2 public play. The people who wanted this type of gameplay literally got together and
changed the
game so it could be more fun for them.
And this is what I'm talking about. They re-designed FH2 (albeit to a small extent) because they
weren't having the type of fun that they wanted in FH2 public play. And that's great, there is now a minimod where people who want this type of gameplay can go.
However, the design ideas behind these maps, can not be translated into FH2 public play, because the same parameters don't exist. Your arguments for more 'open, player driven gameplay' would work well if you designed a map for this setting. This same type of gameplay falls short when you jump to public play and there is less 'structure/ chain of command/ teamwork/ etc...'
@Ts: Ofcourse it is pretentious to claim to know that people don't know what they enjoy in a game because it is impossible to cater towards every taste of every person who plays FH2.
This a great quote. "it is impossible to cater towards every taste of every person who plays FH2."
This is absolutely 100% true. You can't cater towards the taste of every gamer. That's what different games are for and that's why FH2 caters towards the taste of a
specific type of gamer by designing their maps (and gameplay) in a certain way. This is what TS presented in his blog.
If you try to cater to the taste of
every gamer you get a heterogeneous mix of maps and gameplay styles that have no cohesive design choices because they are contradicting each other. I'm not going to argue against FH2 having a few of these pitfalls itself. that's what happens when a mix of amateurs (and some professionals) create a mod over 10+ years. However, this doesn't mean that it's a good idea to continue this trend and try to cater to both 'typical fps players' AND 'players who want more open, player driven gameplay.'
This devblog is trying to bring some design cohesiveness to the mod by showing the underlying structure of how map should be made (for this mod's current iteration).
I never said that there is no design idea at all. Far from it and you should know me enough to know, that I design my stuff careful aswell...Arad is what it is because I didn't look through the eyes of a dev but a player
I would actually like to know what your design process is and how it differs from what TS laid out. How would you make a conquest map where the
player is more in charge? as far as I see it, the player is no more in charge on Arad then on Dukla Pass.
If you think that this is your job, then I can't help myself but to call you megalomaniac.
let's seriously try to keep this civil. Having these discussions and debates shouldn't be a bad thing for the mod. Lets have it help to advance the mod to a better state.