It would be better suited to a Q3 mapping wiki. A promode mapper would hardly likely turn to OA resources for Promode mapping tips, it wouldn't make sense. [...]
This is a *very* interesting comment, to me anyway. At first I was pretty
sure I did not agree, because I don't think Q3 mappers and CPMA mappers
have the same goals.
But, since the subject in this forum is OA, I wondered if a rephrasing
"better suited to a Q3 mapping wiki *than an OA mapping wiki*" might
sharpen a distinction you're trying to make between Q3, CPMA and OA.
Not to say that the document is particularly well suited to a Q3 mapping
wiki, but even less so for an OA mapping wiki. Am I reading you as
Here I don't mean Q3 the iDTech engine, since all three more or less
share that, but the intended audience and game experience that audience
enjoys using the base Q3 content and 3rd party maps, vs the CPMA mod
and content, vs the OA/IOQuake engine and content.
Given the above, a first effort at preservation might be as you may
be suggesting, to encourage the Q3/CPMA crowd to preserve their own
documents. That failing, we could reconsider. There are some other
interesting and useful documents by Geit and Hoony as well as some
interviews that relate to CPMA mapping that also ought to be preserved.
IMO the CPMA boys and girls, those few who are left, should get busy
finding a new home for that stuff too.
There might be a good reason to post the document, with proper
attribution, as a *wiki* document, with all that that means in terms
of it being a living, collaborative, changing document, the intention
being that it serve as a starting point for commentary, guidelines,
etc. for mapping *for OA*.
Back when I thought I had time to think about such things, I made a lot
of notes about the CMPA guide, Lunaran's Encyclopedia, etc.. Given the
sorry state of those notes, it seems I didn't have enough time then
either. Anyway, the commentary, once added to the document, might be
useful to the active mappers here, not that I'm an expert (I have *no*
credentials!), but as a stimulus to thought.
Here's a fun note, not necessarily the juiciest or most controversial,
From the Guide:
"2x25h vs. 50h - With a 50h in there, players can deny their opponents
health easier. With 2x25h, if the player has >75h, he can only take one of
the 25h's, therefore leaving the other one for his opponent. Therefore,
if in testing, the up player is denying the down player health too often
by picking up the 50h's, change them to 25h's."
Makes sense, huh? My comment:
"... or if he wishes, he can 'waste' health with the PG, shooting his
feet then taking the remaining 25H. [...]".
So, it turns out that 2 25Hs might be better not because they prevent anything,
but because they give the player more options.
Perhaps the Guide isn't the final word on mapping, but *only* a guide. :-)