Sometimes I play on skill 1, sometimes on skill 2, depending on my mood. If it's one of those 150+ horde maps, however, I'll most certainly play on 1.
Player skills have indeed greatly increased (but probably not with a consistent distribution?) so skill 2 has become a lot harder nowadays. This also depends a bit on the playing skill of the map's author. Some maps are still very beatable on skill 2, others are extremely hard. Just don't dismiss a map if the latter is the case without trying a lower skill first (out of false principle or whatever).

And yes, listen to Spirit. Quicksave during a demo recording. If you die, stop the recording and disconnect, then start a new one under a different name without specifying a map, then quickload.
Most people probably don't complete/post their demo because they feel it doesn't look good enough, while in fact it's much more interesting for the map's author to see what the player stops to look at and how he approaches certain situations. And 'cringeworthy' sections can be easily fast-forwarded with a simple host_framerate script (like aguirRe wrote once). 

First run demos are always appreciated I guess. But I noticed that my own playing style on new maps changed drastically trying to finish the map without dying and being very frustated if killed. And that's probably because it became a trend to post demos that complete on the first attempt. I don't hate anyone, I just hate that my playing changed from something like that.
Earlier I used to quicksave and load a lot, when I took too much damage = quickload, when I screwed up something = quickload. And it was more fun! I'll try to return to that. If that means I won't be able to give an easy demo to the mapper, so be it.

Did anyone else notice the same? 

Is it preferable to see fewer monsters on lower skills, or just more health/ammo and earlier weapons? I don't want to do things that punish people who play on medium with less combat but I still feel playing on hard should have some kind of reward besides bragging rights. 

"while in fact it's much more interesting for the map's author to see what the player stops to look at "

Agree++. It lets you know what was worth spending the time on and what wasn't. Helps to facilitate creation of the next map. No point spending time on stuff that nobody seems to like or care about; 

I play most new maps on skill 2. Using skill 1 only if the level seems to be very hard judging from the comments. I have also noticed the same thing spirit is talking about. When I record a demo I tend to play more carefull. But I still enjoy it. I always try to record a demo. Sometimes I die early and stop recording. But if I get far enough and then die I will tend to start a second demo.
Mwh (I think it was him) recorded a first run demo once where he didn't care if he dies playing very offensive and he has managed to survive. It was one of the best demos I have seen here.
Playing on skill 3 would be very frustrating for me. I also think that on this skill the game isn't that fun (ogres and shamblers standing in one place just spamming their projectiles at you and other things). I have beaten quake and other maps on nightmare but i wouldn't ever try it on a new map. This would destroy it for me. 

Most people probably don't complete/post their demo because they feel it doesn't look good enough, while in fact it's much more interesting for the map's author to see what the player stops to look at and how he approaches certain situations.

That's the reason I posted the evil exhumed demo, I knew it wasn't very entertaining, but I thought exactly this and posted it because of that.

The problem is I would normally never play like that... I would die relatively early and call it a day. Are first run demos where the player dies interesting for map authors? I wasn't even aware that you can apparently continue recording a demo after dying, until recently.

I'd normally only replay a map (after dying a couple times) that would get gradually harder, and/or had an interesting atmosphere (cool place to be in). I don't feel inclined to replay a map that is focused on unforgiving battle, or wants to kill the player. I admit it is fun to put 100 monsters in a map, I did it myself, but I won't do that again. What I'm looking for in a map would be atmosphere, sense of accomplishment (gradual increase in difficulty and combat intensity, plus discovering stuff) and movement/layout. I have no problem with a map that has almost no monsters for the first couple of areas. Let it ramp up more gently.

Did anyone else notice the same?

Yes.

Is it preferable to see fewer monsters on lower skills, or just more health/ammo and earlier weapons?

Tough one. Perhaps (almost) no monsters on skill 0, and more ammo/health on skill 1, combined with fewer monsters in the first half of the map. Hard to say though. Haven't really thought about it yet. I guess skill 1 should have an exponential increase of difficulty - it's OK if it gets very hard towards the end, but give me a chance to see more of the map before biting the dust, even if I'm sloppy. You can have a more linear increase for skill 2 then. (Is that a theory or what?)

I think the cringeworthy was the missing of the first secret despite the 5 solid minutes you spent looking at the ceiling but never at the right spot

All right... but shooting a lamp to open a door? I guess it's established in Quake, but this one isn't really the player's fault. It's like in Wallace and Gromit, turning on your radio to make your toaster work... (Not trying to argue here though.) I also play at a relatively low resolution.

I saw the space under the lava walkways, and assumed there was a secret there, but for whatever reason I didn't go for it (I believe secrets should be optional). 

I play on skill 1 and I start to hate that trend of posting firstrun demos that are only about completing maps on the first attempt. There is nothing wrong with loading.

who are you to shoehorn your playing style/opinions onto others ? 

"All right... but shooting a lamp to open a door? I guess it's established in Quake, but this one isn't really the player's fault. It's like in Wallace and Gromit, turning on your radio to make your toaster work... (Not trying to argue here though.) I also play at a relatively low resolution. "

Well, it has a different texture on it and it's the only one in the room that looks like that. It's a fairly standard Quake convention but I do feel bad that you had trouble with it.

And I agree that secrets should be optional. These were. The map is totally doable without finding them. 

It's a bit late, but here's some Cthulhu-oid pronunciation discussion, complete with reference to Egyptian linguistics. Pretty damn geeky, even for this crowd.

http://www.yog-sothoth.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=744

http://www.yog-sothoth.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4880

More, with bonus mp3:

http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontents/2007/03/interview_with_.html 

Read #15262 please. 

Fear my use of compliment sandwiching in the screenshots thread, for example;

wrath, I like your levels. But kek you, you kek. At least I laugh occasionally you miserable cunt. Also, I like how your name is monochrome.

;p

2 birds 1 stone, this internets thing is easy ;) 

nonentity, now with smileys. And self-congratulating... What the hell, have you learned nothing?

I hope you die in a fire. 

I'm sitting in a thai internet cafe surrounded by schoolkids playing counterstrike in the ugliest box map ever. seriously, the only design 'flourishes' are boxes. But they fucking love it. 

Go rape those schoolkids.




In counterstrike, I mean. 

Skill 2 is set in my autoexec.cfg. I've been playing this game long enough that I think I'm pretty good at single player, I know how monsters are going to react and I know how to fight them. I expect a map on skill 2 to be challenging but fair. I expect to die quickly in tough spots if I'm not careful, but that my skill should see me through once I know what to do. I quicksave often, proportional to how scary the map is and how likely I think it might be that I'll die around the next corner.

Dropping the player into an arena with no cover, instantly surrounded by 4 shamblers, 5 vores, and a gug, would not be "challenging," just dumb and unfun. Just an extreme example there, can't think of any specific maps that actually did that.

I only turn the difficulty down when things are insanely hard and I'm frustrated, or I'm getting shitty framerates and can't fight and react properly. Generally I'd expect there to be less monsters, or less difficult types of monsters, on medium/easy. Ammo actually might balance itself out, consider this: a less skilled player on a lower difficulty might be less accurate with his guns, and so need extra ammo, but a player on a higher difficulty will need more ammo to kill the greater number of monsters. So, pending testing, the ammo count could stay the same, or even add a little more on skill 2, if there are large horde fights. 

what metl told me he does is that he just populates the map and puts in enough stuff that it feels okay to him when he plays it, and then makes that Hard difficulty because he's got the home court advantage, then scales it back from there.

when I made that stupid speedmap with the teleporters I didn't have skill levels set at all so I guess the map was technically skill 2 since it felt okay to me. Just to save time on testing I totalled up how many of each monster there was, figured out the total monster hit points in the entire map, then figured out how much damage each ammo item allows the player to do, and then placed like twice that much ammo. And people still ran out. 

The best quote on difficulty I ever read was in Game Developer magazine. They did a special on Half-Life and it's development process. This is NOT the quote but I'm paraphrasing:

"You're good at your game. You just are.

HARD difficulty should be whatever you find to be manageable. It should be a challenge for you but not too bad.

NORMAL should be a little less than that - something you can handle easily.

EASY should be easy. Tune it until you can't believe there's anyone who couldn't finish the game on easy. Then make it easier." 

I don't think skill levels are ALL that relevant in Quake maps these days since the audience is so small and generally they are long time Quake players. But it's still somewhat important I guess. 

See Also: http://www.celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=42640 

I once said on here pretty much what's been said above. I use my own play as a marker for hard, then just scale back monsters.

Adding extra ammo shouldn't be necessary since there's less to throw it at, but I've proved myself wrong so more ammo as well can't hurt.

Having weapons earlier or easier to get is a good idea - don't think I've seen this in a map before, but then I don't usually play on other skills.

One thing that could be good is having secret pointers on easy. So you make a func_wall that only show in easy and basically has a big arrow pointed on it showing where the secret is. I say this because there's not that many who actually use easy now, though that depends on the map.

You could go even further with this for labyrinthine maps and make a series of direction pointers - a bunch of arrows showing which route to take. 

He plays the banana with the mouth.

take that as you will. 

That Scampie and Lunaran's mules are punching each other all the time. 

 

and prosper

may the enchanted qcode entangle our carved editors to rejoyfull gathering
may the broken ruins of map failure rotten for good in their homfilled hallways
may the leaks groan the muddy slime from their infected off grid placement
may the andrenaline quotum from the best maps howl their echoes through the nightmare stage of subconsiousness

may the id of gilgameshes quest to the deeper dwellings of revealment have its detiny. 

pardon my lyrical ofcursion,
must have been mapping to much.