Knights Reborn

I'm usually not bothered by maps (I hate most of them, even ffa3), but the yavin duel map is just terribad.

When I last was on and this map popped up, I asked everyone on at the time if they liked the map.


I'd sell my soul to the devil again if it meant getting rid of this map. plz.

t2_rogue Yay I support it

All Yavin all the time great if you like Yavin me.. not so much.

Make KR great again impeach Yavin!

Le bump. Can we please replace yavin with t2_rogue?

I hope that's duel6, coz that's the one I changed!

It is indeed duels6 x)

Jawfin wrote:I hope that's duel6, coz that's the one I changed!

Was duel6 simply removed or replaced with t2_rogue?

The map physically exists on the server and can be loaded with Council admin ammap, but it was swapped out of the cycle with t2_rogue.

The map cycle now sits at: -
mp/t2_rogue
mp/ffa3
mp/ffa1
vjun3
mp/ffa3
mp/ffa4
mp/ffa5
mp/ffa3
kor2

Jawfin wrote:The map physically exists on the server and can be loaded with Council admin ammap, but it was swapped out of the cycle with t2_rogue.

The map cycle now sits at: -
mp/t2_rogue
mp/ffa3
mp/ffa1
vjun3
mp/ffa3
mp/ffa4
mp/ffa5
mp/ffa3
kor2

When you say you swapped it out of the cycle and it is only accessible through Council amdin ammap, are you referring to the now absent duel6 or its replacement (t2_rogue) as well? Cuz t2_rogue doesn't ever actually appear in the map cycle on the server. Is t2_rogue only accessible through Council admin ammap?

At the moment the way the cycle appears on the server is:

mp/ffa3
mp/ffa1
vjun3
mp/ffa3
mp/ffa4
mp/ffa5
mp/ffa3
kor2

Oops, re-reading my post showed me a typo. t2_rogue is not in the mp directory, map loop fixed!

Thank you! Stoked for this.

Hey, since we are in the spirit of bring great maps back, I have another suggestion.

Could we replace ffa4 with rift? I'm talking about the other blue indoors map that is much larger with the bridge hanging over a chasm, and various teleport locations.

I just feel like the current blue indoors map is dull and getting old, why not replace it with a larger, more diverse one instead?

Thanks for listening.

Uscari wrote:Hey, since we are in the spirit of bring great maps back, I have another suggestion.

Could we replace ffa4 with rift? I'm talking about the other blue indoors map that is much larger with the bridge hanging over a chasm, and various teleport locations.

I just feel like the current blue indoors map is dull and getting old, why not replace it with a larger, more diverse one instead?

Thanks for listening.

Oof Uscari I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I do agree that T2_rift is interesting and more diverse but its critical weakness is that it doesn't have a solid ffa area, which ffa4 does. Are you still in support of t2_rift after taking that into consideration?

I actually thought today that I wanted to propose replacing vjun3 with the original t2_rancor (not the ice one). How do you guys feel about that?

I would be against either t2_rift or t2_rancor personally

@Blab I feel that the temple area on the other side of the bridge is a large enough ffa area, roughly the size of ffa3's main area, and definitely still support it over ffa4.

With respect to vjun, I do prefer the old rancor map over vjun, and would be fine with that replacement.

MasterM wrote:I would be against either t2_rift or t2_rancor personally

Why? Just curious.

Uscari wrote:Hey, since we are in the spirit of bring great maps back, I have another suggestion.

Could we replace ffa4 with rift? I'm talking about the other blue indoors map that is much larger with the bridge hanging over a chasm, and various teleport locations.

I just feel like the current blue indoors map is dull and getting old, why not replace it with a larger, more diverse one instead?

Thanks for listening.

Great idea imo

I do love rift and any excuse it bring it back is good enough for me. Just be aware some computers may have difficulty with the draw distance still...

Jawfin wrote:I do love rift and any excuse it bring it back is good enough for me. Just be aware some computers may have difficulty with the draw distance still...

Thanks!

Now all you need do if find the jetpack I hid in it!

First one who finds it gets merc for life?

NOTE: I've bold the main points for your skimming pleasure.

I do appreciate the time your putting into adjusting maps for us JF. So thank you for that! As a working man myself, I am grateful that you set time aside and are able to be as responsive as you are to us here on the forums.

With that being said, can I ask that we switch to something less gigantic that first and foremost caters to those who wish to FFA and/or duel (assuming most come for these core aspect of JKA). T2_rogue did not have an adequate FFA area, there were giant pillars going up and down the temple area inside taking up a lot of the central space all the way through it. In the duels6 map, we had the same issue of an area that failed to provide sufficient room to satisfy more than 2 players (narrow bridges at an awkward height with grassy hills surrounding either side). Players would all seek refuge in the temple (a smaller room added as a mod I think).

The new replacement (T3_rift) is gigantic, exceptionally difficult to navigate, and doesn't have an obvious main area. In fact, a large portion of it is decorated with bridges that have their mid-section removed. I felt like I should say something given the almost complete drop-off in players whenever this new map comes around. Let's move rift on to KR2 for those who wish to explore or jump around on it, and look elsewhere for a replacement (or maybe even just remove this slot in the map rotations altogether).

Based on what regulars like Blaboobee have said above and the players I've spoken with (including the only two at this very moment playing on KR1), I think this is not what people are looking for. We have rather long rotation times (90 minutes/map) which mean our server is more prone to people leaving if something is bothering them or causing them enough difficulty.

You know, another solution to these constant request for new maps in the rotation would be to lower the admin rank for having the ability to change maps. As things stand now, most of the very active members I see playing don't have this ability to do so. I could very well be missing some important security concern or otherwise, but perhaps if players like Uscari and Saki were able to also next maps this whole rotation thing would be resolved for good! Anyways, just some thoughts.

Found the jetpack btw...sneaky jawfin!

I personally think that t2_rogue and rift are perfectly fine maps and we should give them a chance before immediately requesting their withdrawal. It's only been a few days with Rift, and that's not enough time to determine how everyone else feels about the map.

I also reject the notion that every map needs a perfect ffa area. Its true that rogue and rift don't have a central area optimized for ffa, but you could still easily ffa there if you wanted to.

Beyond that, we already have ffa-optimized maps taking up 80% of the rotation, so having large, unique, and diverse maps, at least for a month or two, would benefit our server more than hurt it. Just my opinion.

Uscari wrote:I personally think that t2_rogue and rift are perfectly fine maps and we should give them a chance before immediately requesting their withdrawal. It's only been a few days with Rift, and that's not enough time to determine how everyone else feels about the map.

I also reject the notion that every map needs a perfect ffa area. Its true that rogue and rift don't have a central area optimized for ffa, but you could still easily ffa there if you wanted to.

Beyond that, we already have ffa-optimized maps taking up 80% of the rotation, so having large, unique, and diverse maps, at least for a month or two, would benefit our server more than hurt it. Just my opinion.

Large and diverse =/= good large and diverse.

Kor2 is good large and diverse because it has actual solid distinct features across the map: It has a main FFA area, it has a throne room, it has a duel pit, it has a cave, it has a spaceship, it has a laboratory, it has a cave, it has mountains, etc.

Rift is just large but certainly not diverse. It's essentially just a bunch of broken bridges and platforms?

While a good FFA area is technically not a necessary condition it certainly helps the server more than not having a good FFA area. 90% of the player population comes on to FFA/duel or a combination of those. While a map's priority shouldn't necessarily be the FFA area (for example, plenty of people are down to get rid of vjun3 even though it has -the- ideal FFA area) just being "large and diverse" isn't sufficient justification for replacing FFA4 which is (1) large, (2) diverse, AND (3) has solid FFA areas.

I honestly feel that disregarding the importance of a great FFA area is basically disregarding what the vast majority of the playerbase comes on to do. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

I have to push back on this idea that FFA4 was large or diverse. I found it was quite cramped, with a series of fairly small rooms, many of them looking quite similar. In fact I would have times where when traveling throughout the map, I was disoriented by how homogeneous the map structure really was.

It is true that it had solid ffa areas, and I certainly don't mean to discount that, but take a look at our other maps:

mp/ffa3(occurs several times in rotation)
mp/ffa1
vjun3
mp/ffa5
kor2
t2_rogue

5/6 of these have excellent ffa areas, and it's not disregarding the importance of FFA to request a little diversity by replacing a cramped, used, map with an open and fresh map.

Uscari wrote:

MasterM wrote:I would be against either t2_rift or t2_rancor personally

Why? Just curious.

Sorry, just seeing this. Rift is large, but too confined. It's hard to get around to find where the action is, and there's not much room for it when you do find it. Same with rancor. Everything looks the same and it's too closed off.

It's worth noting that generally, the single player maps are meant to be linear experiences where you go through a level, hence the narrow, closed off nature. On the other hand, the stock multiplayer maps are meant for large numbers of people moving around and interacting. I just feel like those are usually a better choice. There are obviously exceptions.