FMPONE

What I'm Working On, 2014-2015

366 posts in this topic

I know ;) I actually like maps that differ from the typical 3-lane-layout with a set number of paths / entrances and so on. But I think the timings (rush / rotate)  combined with the layout choices can lead to a heavily ct-sided map. Couldnt attend the playtest yesterday over on reddit but i think ive read "too ctsided" more than one time in the comments. 

I really like the overall layout - the heavy focus on mid control is a nice touch - but I think the timings will break its neck if they stay like they are right now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SirK said:

I know ;) I actually like maps that differ from the typical 3-lane-layout with a set number of paths / entrances and so on. But I think the timings (rush / rotate)  combined with the layout choices can lead to a heavily ct-sided map. Couldnt attend the playtest yesterday over on reddit but i think ive read "too ctsided" more than one time in the comments. 

I really like the overall layout - the heavy focus on mid control is a nice touch - but I think the timings will break its neck if they stay like they are right now. 

 

Balance stats were 48% CT, 52% T. 

Smart analysis. He has some ideas that will be tested/implemented.

SirK likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I guess I was wrong on this one. Hope Ill get to play this one in a 5v5 someday :)

FMPONE likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SirK said:

Hope Ill get to play this one in a 5v5 someday :)

I hope so too!

48 minutes ago, Roald said:

Mmm I personally think it's CT sided aswell. I don't know how you got those numbers? I played two competetive matches with balanced teams and both matches resulted as CT sided.First matches was 13 - 2 when I was CT and we ended up 18/17 on overtime. Second match was like 9 - 6 as CT and we ended losing the match when we were T's. 

The numbers are the average of all the playtest round scores. You've mentioned 13-2 and 9-6, for instance. That's a pretty large variation in and of itself -- there were plenty of matches played where the numbers went in the opposite direction (more matches, in fact!)

Regardless, I really enjoyed your feedback and the thought put into it.

SirK likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you know my thoughts already but hey let's share them with the community so they can be discussed. 

Mmm I personally think it's CT sided aswell. I don't know how you got those numbers? I played two competetive matches with balanced teams and both matches resulted as CT sided.First matches was 13 - 2 when I was CT and we ended up 18/17 on overtime. Second match was like 9 - 6 as CT and we ended losing the match when we were T's. 

On the analyse in the video I agree everything since I analysed almost the same thing before I playtested the map. I gave my feedback on Reddit:

 

Spoiler

 

I like the theme and location of the map. But for the layout I don't have much good things to say. I guess it's a very early blockout version?

-I like the height variation, especially on B site for CT's to defend. - BUT some angles are really weird, so yeah.. I hoped to see that fixed - And you used 3 ladders, that's alot, better reduce it to one (because of call outs), I should keep the one at CT spawn I guess.

  • Overall the map feels to be too small.
  • On the bombsite B I could hear people on midle. I think u should push T spawn abit backwards and also extending the midle of the map and make it abit longer. So the timing on midle will be fixed aswell.
  • The choke points are too soon and it's hard as a CT to setup a defence and there is only one way to defend, back on the bombsite or deep in the spawn/connector.
  • As a CT I feel to rush a site when there is no enemy in seight, because the map is this small. Easy to get behind the T's but I don't know if you want people to play like this?

  • The bombsites are a litle small and there is almost no cover at all. A has the container where the CT has to expose his self fully, there is lack of hip height cover and B site has no cover at all... Also B site has this long main path that is really boring without any cover or anything AND CT's can see from the site trough the window and all that.

  • T's have almost full control on midle.

  • They got like multiply/different height angles to camp at.

  • When they rush and/or smoke off one connector CT's are screwed.

  • Simply CT peeking midle is a huge risk, too much of a risk I think. This means they have to camp back into the connector but like I said, one smoke and ur done so.. it's pretty hard to hold midle as a CT, even if you defend with two. Thought I guess the idea could be a nice one, but it's should be executed differntly I guess.

  • The fact T's has mid control and acces to CT spawn to attack CT from behind worries me..

  • There is a really long seightline from T-hall (midle) watching the main path to A bombsite.

 

  •  

BUT during the test it I found out some things and experienced the map as CT sided. Maybe it's because the map is new and it required more teamwork, not sure.

General feedback: 

 

Analyse of how the map played and what to change: 

 

SirK and Furiosa like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a quick run around the other night.  Felt mid was pretty boring and flat even with the T window bit. Could do with some elevation to make it less mundane.

Edited by Quotingmc
Vaya likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now