WTF is an "Aim" Map?!

I see these maps that are basically crappy little boxes with guns, ammo and stuff to shoot at. Is this the new justification for releasing utter crap, kinda like "killbox" became its own genre along with "conc" maps for TFC?

I'm not sure what I'm seeing counts as an actual complete map. It's more like lazy n00bs wanting to push their garbage on the world and inventing this new "genre" as an excuse to not learn to make a complete map.

You want to practice aiming? Play the damn game. Shoot at MOVING targets. At best we'd need one or two "aim" maps, not a whole genre of this garbage.

---

(and when is someone going to fix the site so I can add an emoticon in Firefox without all the text disappearing?!)

The aim_ prefix has been around for a fairly long time. And as far as I know, it goes a bit beyond a killbox, as most aim maps I've seen do feature some cover, but that's where the differences probably stop.

Anyway, I agree they're mostly far from beautiful, but on the other hand, these people are all too happy that they're able to create something and they're having fun playing in such maps, so why would I bother? In fact, I quite like the idea of surf maps (but I'm pretty bad at it :wink: ). Thing is, some people just have a totally different taste.

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

Speaking of which, what is a surf map exactly? In fact, is there a glossary for all types of map prefixes out there?

<span style="color: white;">Crap or not, people are creating them and others are enjoying playing them. If they're played, that must mean that they are valued. TBH I don't understand why people keep on bashing these killboxes/aim maps/whatever all the time. Sure, they may look like utter crap, take 1/100 of the time it takes to make a real map to create, and the creators may be "n00bs". But that really doesn't matter at all, and bashing them won't make a difference.
</span>

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

WTF is an "Aim" Map?!

I've read stories of such mystical people, but I never thought I'd actually get to meet one!

ME. SALUTE. YOU.

ME. FRIEND.

ME.TOO.NO.LIKE.AIM.

I.EAT.STEAK.

THANK.YOU.

:razz:

as far as i understand it's cs but with the only objective being killing the other team, no bombs or hostages which is kinda weird
and otzman, lots of people think halo is the best fps ever, but those people also generally think that consoles are better for fps, so their opinion is worth nothing
one other thing, George Bush did get elected, which proves the majority is wrong
:biggrin:

Haha, we're so funny here, aren't we? :razz:

Surf maps take advantage of an oddity with steep surfaces: players slide off of steep surfaces, but gain speed in the process. By steering sidewards along this surface and gaining more and more speed, it's even possible to move up a bit on the surface. Surf maps consist of many steep blocks, often A-shaped (or, a V up-side-down :smile: ), that gradually go down and together form a 'track' which the players must follow.
It's quite tricky to stay on the track, but it's pretty fun when it's going well. I've also heard that surf maps depend a lot on performance, which is why mappers deliberately leave out lighting. But, that's just what I've heard.

Personally I think it's fun to see how many different kinds of 'fun maps', or actually different gameplay modes, have been invented. Think of Warcrafts tower defence maps, it happens in various games.

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

so the majority of aim, fy, conc, surf, etc maps look like s**t, but not all.

i dare say the same is equally true for 'real' maps, or whatever you call them.

---

i eat paint

I've also heard that surf maps depend a lot on performance, which is why mappers deliberately leave out lighting. But, that's just what I've heard.

Personally I think it's fun to see how many different kinds of 'fun maps', or actually different gameplay modes, have been invented. Think of Warcrafts tower defence maps, it happens in various games.

A good mapper can make it pretty and still perform great... and lighting, effecting performance? huh?!

I agree that different types of "fun" maps are a neat idea. I've always toyed with the idea of a "king of the hill" map that had scoring for people who could stay on top, and some other ideas, but none ever really panned out.

I would be much more convinced that these were useful map types if I saw them done by mappers who weren't so sloppy. But like Killboxes, most of these seem like the work of lazy kids who want to slap some crap together to show their friends, and who don't have the patience to really learn the skills.

:eek:
I completely forgot about King of the Hill matches.
Those can be really fun if done right. My favorite one was on N64. The game was James Bond: The World is not Enough. I forget the map name (I know you had to unlock it) but it took place on two flying planes. :smile:

OtZman said:
<SPAN style="COLOR: white">Crap or not, people are creating them and others are enjoying playing them. If they're played, that must mean that they are valued. TBH I don't understand why people keep on bashing these killboxes/aim maps/whatever all the time. Sure, they may look like utter crap, take 1/100 of the time it takes to make a real map to create, and the creators may be "n00bs". But that really doesn't matter at all, and bashing them won't make a difference.
</SPAN>

Good to see that the old pro-killbox argument still holds true today, thanks for defending what should be undefendable if it weren't for the worthless player community surrounding these games. I shouldn't even have to explain why these maps are a cancer on the games they infest.

fishy said:
i dare say the same is equally true for 'real' maps, or whatever you call them.

Thankfully, not as many "real" maps get released. Although, there are still bunches that shoulda been scrapped.

I see several in member # 8's profile.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

yeah, it's relatively easy to set it up so that you get points if you are in an area. I just never came up with a decent map layout for it.

Actually, Revenant was going to be a King of the Hill map- I was going to make it so you all spawned near the bottom, and got points for getting to the top and falling down through the rings.

Hmm maybe I should revisit that idea... :o

Orpheus said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting fishy</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>i dare say the same is equally true for 'real' maps, or whatever you call them.

Thankfully, not as many "real" maps get released. Although, there are still bunches that shoulda been scrapped.

I see several in member # 8's profile.</div></div>

detracting from the point to make personal insults? now there's something we don't see often.

---

i eat paint

fishy being unable to read? is that new or not I don't remember anymore

try looking at who is member #8

LMFAO

so what exactly does personal mean?

---

i eat paint

I don't think it's 'not wanting to learn the skills'. Pretty looks just aren't what they're concerned about, they're enthousiastic about a fun idea so that's what they're doing. Doing a lighting pass probably doesn't even cross their minds, nor that mapping can be an art.

What I believe to be a bigger problem is that most of them just copy an existing idea, without even trying to add something of their own. But, that's a very common problem, and it makes those that do invest some effort stand out, hopefully.

I must say this thread is inspiring. Especially the note about king of the hill. I'm currently testing some idea's - buttons that move staircases and basically alter cover spots and connectivity, perhaps a mechanic like that fits well there. I dunno, just some experimenting. Something like a 'hit the button for points', where other players can hit another button to fill your body with spikes or such. Hmmz...

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

Captain, I may have a test map or two floating around if you want them. I'll have to look.

They weren't much more than rooms, but they might give you a start on the entity work.

Guys, I meant no harm.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Yak_Fighter said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting OtZman</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext><SPAN style="COLOR: white">Crap or not, people are creating them and others are enjoying playing them. If they're played, that must mean that they are valued. TBH I don't understand why people keep on bashing these killboxes/aim maps/whatever all the time. Sure, they may look like utter crap, take 1/100 of the time it takes to make a real map to create, and the creators may be "n00bs". But that really doesn't matter at all, and bashing them won't make a difference.
</SPAN>

Good to see that the old pro-killbox argument still holds true today, thanks for defending what should be undefendable if it weren't for the worthless player community surrounding these games. I shouldn't even have to explain why these maps are a cancer on the games they infest.</div></div>

Undefendable? You make it sound like terrorism. And what makes these players/map creators worthless? Is it that they enjoy maps that you think suck?
It seems to me all serious mappers must hate these killboxes, and they must bash them. If more players play killboxes, that could in a sense mean they are better than all maps that took months to create, with pretty architecture and all.

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting OtZman</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>It seems to me all serious mappers must hate these killboxes, and they must bash them. If more players play killboxes, that could in a sense mean they are better than all maps that took months to create, with pretty architecture and all.</DIV></DIV>

You know that I mostly believe in altruistic thoughts but in this case, I'm going to have to disagree.

I'll be the first to admit that having fun is the number 1 priority where level editing is concerned, but the effort vs. end result factor for a killbox is just so lopsided that its unrealistic to consider that just because a million people have fun playing a killbox, that somehow that makes it noble or even worth considering as a legitimate endevour.

I bash killboxes. Not at every turn, but yes, I feel they deserve just as much respect, as the effort it took to make them justifies.

Its always been my opinion that its not the people bashing them who are doing harm, but the people playing them. After all, if there were no market, there'd be no product.

In the end though, we all must decide if the effort we expend in bashing them truly needs to exceed the effort it took to make the maps. IMO, it only helps them. People will eventually unite to defend the little or insignificant things.

Tis why I haven't commented on a killbox in quite some time.

Tis worth considering methinks.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

That was another project I was considering at one point- making a "good" killbox. It one that looked nice, had decent rspeeds, and enough cover etc. to make it interesting to play.

tosses that in his 'not gonna happen' map ideas pile

Man, I love killbox discussions. I've said this many times in the past, but I don't mind repeating myself on this issue. My opinion can be summed up quite easily.

• from the perspective of craftmanship and through the eyes of artist/architect - Killbox maps are utterly apauling, grotesque beasts.

• Any mapper who doesn't try to understand WHY they are so popular is missing a prime opportunity to understand their player base. There is a very valid lesson to be learned from killboxes. It is this: accessibility is ESSENTIAL to creating a map that 'sticks' with the community.

Ive seen dozens of great maps spill through this community and website over the past 6 or so years that I have been involved in HL1 and HL2 mapping. The majority of these maps have been lost in the void - why? Because the majority of this player base isn't so much looking for the type of quality that we, as mappers are looking for - they are looking for 'FUN'. To Joe-blow player who isn't a member of the Halflife Elite Players CLub, fun does not mean getting lost in a mazelike map while better players pummel them with toilets. These players flock to killboxes, where the minimalist environment gives them much narrower focus to deal with (that being guns, aiming, and basic movement).

So, the bottom line is, the difference between a good mapper and a great mapper doesn't come down to just pixel pushing or architectural flair - it involves knowing every aspect of your craft, inlcuding the user base. This is gameplay 101 - what do your players want, what do they consider fun, how can you TEACH them, while still giving them an accessible map?

Killbox fad = An opportunity for mappers to create simpler environments that are easy to learn, focus more on the fun factor, and offer something for both new and experienced players. There's no reason that these maps cannot look great. There's also no reason to exclude more experienced player, by offering a layer of strategy through movement. New players will see experienced players hopping around the map in ways that they didn't consider, and will most probably try to pick up these moves. In a mazelike map, new players won't as easily see all of the tricks that good players use to get around the map fast.

Anyway, turning your nose to the killbox phenomena only makes you a snob. Embrace the things that are popular yet cheap, and try to inject them with quality, rather than exclude them.

Very good points, Finger.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I'll be the first to admit that having fun is the number 1 priority where level editing is concerned, but the effort vs. end result factor for a killbox is just so lopsided that its unrealistic to consider that just because a million people have fun playing a killbox, that somehow that makes it noble or even worth considering as a legitimate endevour.</DIV></DIV>

I think the end result can be viewed differently. For someone looking for a well-crafted map, with good looks, gameplay ect. a killbox is a faliure. On the other hand, for someone looking for a fun and simple map to have some fun in, a killbox could be perfect.

If a large number of people enjoy playing killboxes, benefiting when they're created, that would mean that the benefit gained from each unit of effort put into making an additional killbox would be relatively high, which would make it a legitimate endeavor. I think the little effort required is the answer to why there are so many killboxes around. For example, if the benefit gained from playing a killbox with your friends for half an hour exceeds the effort put into creating it, it would be correct for many people to create that killbox if thay can expect to play it later with some friends.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Its always been my opinion that its not the people bashing them who are doing harm, but the people playing them. After all, if there were no market, there'd be no product.</DIV></DIV>

Whether of not it is doing harm depends on how you look at it, I think, but I agree that killboxes exist because people play them.

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

If there truly is a lesson to be learned from killboxes, I hope to eternally be ignorant of it.

/discussion for my part.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

People like maps where they don't have to search for other players. Because searching ain't fun.

This benefit goes completely down the drain once there are many players on the server, though. It becomes a mess.

My conclusion :/

---

Why snark works.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Jinx</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I see these maps that are basically crappy little boxes with guns, ammo and stuff to shoot at. Is this the new justification for releasing utter crap, kinda like "killbox" became its own genre along with "conc" maps for TFC?

I'm not sure what I'm seeing counts as an actual complete map. It's more like lazy n00bs wanting to push their garbage on the world and inventing this new "genre" as an excuse to not learn to make a complete map.

You want to practice aiming? Play the damn game. Shoot at MOVING targets. At best we'd need one or two "aim" maps, not a whole genre of this garbage.

---

(and when is someone going to fix the site so I can add an emoticon in Firefox without all the text disappearing?!)</DIV></DIV>

this is why i stopped playing/mapping cs. Too many s**tty maps that get play time and the good ones (like mine) don't.

---

f**k Fun maps!

I liken the killbox popularity to this modern day fad of instant gratification. I think Finger hit on some valid points. But lets look at , say, popular music. I believe the majority of most musical superstars of the day can't even play an instrument. Rappers, hip-hoppers, boy bands, girly girls(like Britney etc.) With todays modern technology, all you need is some tightly looped tracks(either sampled from real music, or made by studio musicians)and a gimmick and bobs yer uncle....your a star. And most people like it.(I don't know why though, but hey I'm old).

This just validates my theory that most people keep their tastes in their mouths. People can't be bothered with craftmanship any more, either from the creators standpoint, or the participators. It's all about fitting in, quickly, and being comfortable. This is the Attention Deficit generation we live in .

reaper47 said:
People like maps where they don't have to search for other players. Because searching ain't fun.

I think some valid points were made all around, but this quote is the crux of it all.

No one wants to play a decently made map because it takes a certain level of dedication and/or skill.

You know though, even though the killbox is the most played deathmatch map, it isn't the most popular played style map. IMO, the total counter-strike, TFC and DOD maps have got to out number them and all of them require a certain amount of brain cells.

Perhaps the main reason for the popularity of the killbox is that the tools required to do so are so readily available. If the editor were made less accessible, there'd likely be less of them.

We can at least be thankful that the ideal of proper mapping is kept alive through other mediums.

I've often asked myself, are the other first person shooter games plagued by these maps? Or is it that their editing has a harder learning curve and this weeds them out?

Could HL benefit from an editor that stupid people cannot learn?

We can hope.

God, I hate stupid people.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

people don't know what's good.

---

Why snark works.

i don't understand how you could hate searching for someone so much, the most fun part of cs for me is when it gets down to 1v1 in a round and you have to look for the other guy all the time worrying if he's right behind you, it's great
i do, however, agree with the points finger made, ease appeals to the youth of today, if it's too hard they don't like it, my brother actually seems to shun games that are difficult and i've never considered him lazy, he just isn't good at the games and doesn't want to be otherwise
this is the same reason Halo is so popular, it's simple, you almost have to try to die sometimes, you have a shield that recharges and you don't have to earn weapons, just find them, a total noob can kick some elitists halo players ass the first time he picks up the controller, and that is why they flocked to these games
it shows that the gaming industry realized this, just look at the nes games, some of them are nearly impossible to beat, by the N64 most of the games became impossible to lose
conclusion: people don't like being challenged [/2cents]

fun maps are a abomination and shouldnt be tolerated..

---

f**k Fun maps!

I think fun maps can be okay.. rarely. I hate them, but I'll play them every now and then when I get sick of all the other maps. I'll play one map like crazy for a week or so and then switch, and then keep going through all of them... then I just want something else to play that I know I can find other people on. It seems like every server I try to join just has bots in it now-a-days.

MJ said:
fun maps are a abomination and shouldnt be tolerated..

I agree. Who wants to have fun anyway? Boring maps ftw.

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

I agree. Who wants to have fun anyway? Boring maps ftw.

(I am quoting Otzman, but I am not picking on him. There is no ill will intended. I am simply commenting on the ideal of his words since they are shared by a lot of people.)

You know, I really have a problem with this type thinking. Considering that "Fun" is so ambiguous and purely opinion based. The very fact that fun is always associated with simple maps truly retracts from the premise to the point where ONLY simple maps come to mind whenever people think of having fun.

I think my maps are crap. Tis true IMO, but I had fun building them, and every time I play them I have a blast doing it. It begs to ask, why if my maps suck, do I have fun?

But seriously people, don't wad all fun maps into a package and stamp "Simplicity" on the wrapper.

I, and many like me, enjoy the spirit of the chase.
I wish more than anything that fun would encompass any map. Not be synonymous with brain dead people.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

IMHO: Making a killbox and calling it an map is the same thing as s**tting on a canvas and calling it art. :smile: Someone might like the result, but it doesn't change the fact that it's s**t.

---

''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires

Killboxes are... well, I don't like them.
I like maps that appear to have a lot of work put into them.
Not something that's made in an hour and claiming that it's a final version.

LMFAO Scythe

The "fun" argument has its flaws. First it's a bit like explaining the joke. All those maps put a lot of "fun" in their BSP filenames, if posted on a website it say something like "this map has been built to be fun". Thanks for letting me know, I could have accidentally downloaded a map which was made to be boring.

I played dm_avalon the other day. And I noticed a while ago that dm_avalon has a lot of layout and gameplay flaws. You always fall down from those cliffs, the spawn on the top must be the most boring overview in any map to date, some parts are awfully dark, the interiors to tight and lack clip brushes, ect., ect.

The only reason people like this map is because they like the steampunk/merlin aesthetics (which I hate btw, but I like the quality of the craftsmanship).

Noone can tell me that gameplay is the main reason for Doom3's popularity.

People just like to be stimulated fast. If it's dazing, beautiful visuals wrapping mediocre gameplay, then it's OK for them.

I know how these kind of maps are created. Some clan-member learns how to map and the others say "Map us a clan-map! Then we can put our clan-tag in the filename and get famous. And you get a better rank! It will have no stupid AWP because they are gay! ke-ke-ke! And yes, we need the map tomorrow..."

That's how it mostly goes. I know what I'm speaking about. Long before the prefix "aim" was so popular I created an aim map for CS for a friend. It was a stupid box, big enough to require sniper-zooming to see the other team, just what they wanted to try out how "cool it is to turn gravity to 0.1". It was one of my darkest mapping moments.

Looking at HL2 mapping I see more maps that focus on visuals too little than maps that focus on visuals too much. And these are the less interesting extremes, what's more interesting are all the maps that are neither of those and have potential for both gameplay and graphics.

So, while discussing the whys of the killbox popularity is important, I think there's no reason to bring much respect towards these kind of maps not to mention encouraging new mappers that want to go in this direction.

People confuse graphics and graphics technology. A killbox can have wonderful DX9 shaders in a puddle of water. But if the design of the architecture around it is plain awful, graphics are not good - they are just very, very bad.

The fear of hyper-realism causing mappers to "focus on graphics not gameplay" simply isn't true. It is, perhaps, for certain big-budget developers. But not for the average mapper. There is no reason for a hobby mapper to "fight the system" by making badly looking maps (that, in the end, don't play that well either). There is no war to be fought. If you create a killbox you have to live with the fact that other mappers call you a lazy un-skilled wannabe mapper. Until you at least try and make something else. You don't have to go over the top and model half your map in Maya. But, for example, there is no reason to not try something interesting with lighting. Maps are lit well since HL1.

---

Why snark works.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting OtZman</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Undefendable? You make it sound like terrorism. And what makes these players/map creators worthless? Is it that they enjoy maps that you think suck?
It seems to me all serious mappers must hate these killboxes, and they must bash them. If more players play killboxes, that could in a sense mean they are better than all maps that took months to create, with pretty architecture and all.

</DIV></DIV>

First, popularity is in no way a marker of quality.

A killbox, by definition, is a big empty box where generally everyone in the map can be seen by everyone else. This means that there is no cover, no way to escape combat, no way to outmaneuver your opponent. Using the 'original' hldm killbox as an example pretty much 95% of the combat is on one plane with no cover and no height differences which requires zero skill or ability to kill your enemy. The other 5% of the combat is campers sitting on the floating platforms waiting to gib respawners. Most of the weapons are useless due to the extreme distances between players so you are left using the pistol over 2/3rds of the available arsenal.

My hatred has nothing to do with graphics, newb authors, effort put in creation, proper compiling, or any of that s**t. It has everything to do with gameplay, which each and every killbox is bereft of. Gameplay is not 2d fighting on a big empty plane. It's being able to outsmart your opponent, get the jump on them, outreact them in unforseen situations, escape them when things are looking bad, use personal combat and movement strategies, and yes, beat them down in a face to face fight. None of these are possible in a killbox besides the most basic 'see person shoot person til he or you die x100', and you can get that same gameplay in a box with the most basic bots that do nothing besides run in straight lines and fire at you if you cross their FOV. Killboxes essentially strip human intelligence, skill and variance from deathmatch.

Killboxes are a cancer on player communities, and nothing more needs to be said. They promote terrible nonexistant gameplay, encourage stupidity in players, and increase the rate in which people stop playing deathmatch. They discourage real mappers, ruin custom map servers and any server that has votemap active, and drive away the legitimate deathmatch playerbase. And that's without mentioning the terrible mapping practices they encourage.

This isn't a matter of thinking they suck, it is a matter of empirical suck and there's no way to escape it.
Oh and Finger, congrats you figured out the mysterious idea of 'big bloody killzone' that has existed since deathmatch was invented. It doesn't take analyzing a killbox to figure that out. Crossfire, 'The Bad Place' for Quake, 'The Edge' for Quake2, scary_one's early HLDM maps... all tremendous maps that have exactly what you are describing. Also, maze-like maps have poor connectivity and too much sprawl, which means they suck for more reasons than 'people aren't willing to figure them out'.

My God that was good. :eek:

/me bows to Master Yak.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Killboxes are a cancer on player communities, and nothing more needs to be said.

• I wouldn't go so far as to call them a cancer. They are artistic abominations , yes, but I don't see them doing that much harm.

They promote terrible nonexistant gameplay,

• as terrible as they are, they do give new players a 'simple' game to focus on, that really only invovles shooting. So, they support the very basic level of gameplay - weapons and very basic movement. When I first started playing DM games, it was hard enough just to circle-strafe and shoot an enemy. Killbox maps seemed appealing because they actually offered the space to focus on such simple things. Luckily, I evolved way beyond that.

encourage stupidity in players, and increase the rate in which people stop playing deathmatch.

• I don't think you have to encourage stupidity; players are, by default, stupid when they enter this game. I think of it as a filter - the players who want to progress beyond such cheap versions of the game, are building some confidence and skills to do so, and probably will mature beyond killbox gameplay. As far as 'stopping' people from playing, I just don't quite get that logic - as terrible and simple as they are, their existance offers a variety of gameplay that lots of players do want. Take that away, and all of those player may leave, and the 5% that would have matured beyond killboxes go with them.

They discourage real mappers,

- Quit the opposite here. They inspire me, because I see such ugliness and am encouraged to create something of quality. Also, most of us created the equivelant of killboxes as our first maps - I know I did. It was a terrible map, but it was my first step into the realm of mapping, and I managed to grow beyond such drivel.

ruin custom map servers and any server that has votemap active,

- I won't argue with you here, but that's just as much an issue with crappy servers who don't promote quality gameplay.

and drive away the legitimate deathmatch playerbase.

• Sure, it drives them to other servers that don't play killbox maps. Are you telling me there are players who experience killboxes, then quit the game completely out of disgust? There's plenty of good servers out there playing stock or custom maps. Most players are pretty good at finding what appeals to them.

And that's without mentioning the terrible mapping practices they encourage.

• Any mapping encouragement is better than none. Some of these people might make it out of the killbox swamp and actually become real mappers.

---

Just so you know, I'm not really arguing 'for' killboxes. They are dogs**t, junk maps, but I think they do serve some basic purpose in this game/community. I just don't really understand why mappers seem so personally offended by them.

Or, maybe I just like playing the devils advocate sometimes.

I agree, too much discussion already on this topic.

dont make me come back there you two...! ***runs////

Doc B... :dodgy:

Heh, I like the discussion actually. Especially Yak's last post. :razz:

I don't think killboxes are such a large problem. I just started playing HL2DM again and all the custom maps I saw coming along (about 10 or so) were (much) better than a killbox ever will be. Some had troublesome navigation and were horribly unbalanced (a maze-like map with an RPG-tower looking down on you...), others were tight and had a lot of action and were easy to learn, but none of them was downright killboxy.

So as far as I've seen, they're not a frequent problem, if a problem at all. When players don't like a map they'll vote for another one or they'll start looking for another server. Then again, that's just what I've seen.

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

I can't wait to make my killbox. JK

anyone play GG (gungame) maps for CS:S? It reminds me of HL2dm without the gravity gun. Everyone starts out with a pistol and as you kill more people you level up and get the next weapon. The last weapon is the knife, whoever kills someone with the knife wins.

I still like deathmatch better, but its an interesting mod. Adds a little longevity to the game, as if it needed any.

I like the CSS gun game, it's a nice way to get rid of the aspect of money in CSS, without taking away the essential elements of the game (de & cs).
The only problem is that the only way to revert back to your favorite gun is by killing a teammate or suiciding.

---

Also change the texture of the dock. Docks are rarely tile. -Facepunch
As I Lay Dying

Except that they pretty much removed money from having any impact on a game past like the first two rounds way back when CS was still in beta. Unless your team is getting totally dominated and you can't kill anybody ever you pretty much have enough cash to buy what you want per round... but if you like to whore the AWP then you can go to hell!