WIP in WIP, post your level screenshots!

    I'd argue removing that makes the game less dynamic. You're removing the positioning aspect of CS:GO with that and reduce it to 50/50 aim duels.

    Quote from Soldat Du Christ

    1 hour ago, Soldat Du Christ said: CSGO is all about optimising very repetitive engagements and using every inch of leverage you could possibly squeeze out of the few options you have. And people seem to like this i guess

    If you think CS:GO engagements are repetitive, it's actually possible to create CS:GO maps that can change its layout round-to-round. I actually made a guide on how to do just that using logic_case and func_brush entities.

    Just make sure these variations are simple and very obvious, or else you'll get a situation like Havana where the variations caused the map to be confusing instead of interesting and exciting.

    Quote from Nakroma

    5 hours ago, Nakroma said: I'd argue removing that makes the game less dynamic. You're removing the positioning aspect of CS:GO with that and reduce it to 50/50 aim duels.

    I wouldn't remove anything, the idea is to add on the experience established not take away. The only difference is that you wouldn't HAVE to buy equipment just to break through a chokepoint. This would mean you can engage in much more liberating ways. Trust me, nobody enjoys being bait, dying at the start of a one life based match, and watching your teamates clean up after you.

    Quote from Soldat Du Christ

    12 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said: What if a checkpoints where balenced enough so that you don't HAVE to purchase equipment to even the odds?

    Then purchasing them will move the odds the other way around. If the choke point is balanced by default using smokes will easily create an advantage for one team or another...

    Quote from Lizard

    4 hours ago, Lizard said: Then purchasing them will move the odds the other way around. If the choke point is balanced by default using smokes will easily create an advantage for one team or another...

    Are you saying that balancing chokepoints would make it too difficult for CTs to defend or something?

    Quote from Soldat Du Christ

    8 minutes ago, Soldat Du Christ said: Are you saying that balancing chokepoints would make it too difficult for CTs to defend or something?

    Of course. How do you want to balance a chokepoint anyway? Default strar for most cs maps is 2 - A, 2- B and 1 mid player. CT team is always harder because T's can just outnumber them on bombsites (full rush). This is why chokepoints are designed... to compensate advantage of player count on T team. And obviously that is why buying utility is a crucial part of tactics on T side.

    Quote from Lizard

    6 hours ago, Lizard said: Of course. How do you want to balance a chokepoint anyway? Default strar for most cs maps is 2 - A, 2- B and 1 mid player. CT team is always harder because T's can just outnumber them on bombsites (full rush). This is why chokepoints are designed... to compensate advantage of player count on T team. And obviously that is why buying utility is a crucial part of tactics on T side.

    Within the context of Dust 2, I can see your point. The map is room based and heavely segmented, even between both bomb sites. So CTs don't really know which bomb site they will have to defend. This is why you guys need to start thinking outside the box. Most of the time in CS maps: where you can MOVE is synonymous with where you can SEE and where you can SHOOT. An exception to this i've seen very rarely is your standard window that you can SEE and SHOOT through but you can't MOVE through it.


    You can do a lot of cool stuff by segmenting these fundamentals. Like opening up the lines of sight while still having linear pathing to empower players who want to gather intel by taking up certain advantageous positions.


    Alright this is for real my last off topic post in waywo, but i just want you guys to open your minds and think backwards for a change, and not forwards off of what little you've been provided with. You don't know what you don't know right? In order to have new ideas you need to look outside of the map design you are familiar with and re think the fundamentals :)


    Or just keep remaking Dust 2, its up to you!

    Quote from Soldat Du Christ

    5 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said: Or just keep remaking Dust 2, its up to you!

    Oh god, this is Tynnyri when he doesn’t drink energy drinks

    Quote from Soldat Du Christ

    10 hours ago, Soldat Du Christ said: You can do a lot of cool stuff by segmenting these fundamentals. Like opening up the lines of sight while still having linear pathing to empower players who want to gather intel by taking up certain advantageous positions.

    A lot of good maps do do this. Look at B cat on Mirage. This is a powerful central position, that dynamically shifts in purpose depending on area of control of each team. Good map makers do rethink the fundamentals, but an original twist needs to be implemented in a way that the player doesn't feel like abusing it is the only way to play the map. A lot of good ideas in a single map does not make a map good. Careful, well thought out maps can be beautiful.

    Most maps in the competitive map pool right now are completely different from each other. Inferno has three lanes leading to A and only one leading to B. It's a wacky design but for many people it's their favorite map. Why is that? Because if you really break it down it is still a simple four lane map that feels different not because it throws out the fundamentals, but because it puts them in a new perspective and orientation. Even nuke, the wildest map of all, has the same principle design philosophy behind its layout. Yet nobody would even think to call it a Dust 2 clone. Ultimately there is no specific rule that creates 'great' csgo maps, but keeping the fundamentals in mind is what ensures that you create a balanced (and thus fun) experience.

    Imagine if Halo level design was approached like it was CS. I don't think that map would be very fun to play for a full match.

    P.S. I feel like we have derailed the point of this thread. Can we please move this conversation to @Soldat Du Christ's "CSGO community commentary from an outside perspective" ?

    Quote from blackdog

    39 minutes ago, blackdog said: Can players in A just jump down to B @Soldat Du Christ?

    Hard to tell from these shots, but overall seems like rotation times will be incredibly short. I can’t really tell the choke points where the factions will meet.

    No, i segmented a lot of the movement(red=pathing/ arrows =one way drops) with height variations, but they will be able to see both bomb sites if they take control of certain positions (blue circles are power positions, lines indicate how they see both bomb sites) and notice how those positions are located right in the center of where T and CTs first see each other and engage (Green = line of sight where both teams engage)

    In order to get to these positions where you can see both bomb sites, you will have to earn it. Keep in mind A site can be armed from under the bridge as well, see the path that leads under it.


    So pretty much, there are two main lanes, that branch out more towards center mass... There is so much going on here that i would love to gush about but it's too complex and it would take a lot of explaining. Please note that i am going to be focusing first and foremost on publishing the logic of the map, i don't plan on doing an art and asset overhaul, hopefully i will find somebody to hand the baton too once i am finished with the layout. But i did want to try and incorporate a theme based on what i ended up with

    Thank you for taking the time to explain @Soldat Du Christ, interesting take nonetheless… hopefully you can build it as faithfully once you switch to hammer.

    I do tho have the impression, comparing the paths and screens from prev post, that there are more sight lines to keep in mind that would seem to dominate the map. Can only judge when tested I guess!

    Quote from Ringel

    2 hours ago, Ringel said: @Soldat Du Christ I like that you use different height variations and oneway-drops are also interesting. In cs:go 2 man boosts are very nice and comon but there are also 3 man boosts possible. Different height variations may make more of them possible so you may want to watch this:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
    I personaly can't understand why they are possible. They are mostly used in an abusive way. If I would Valve I would at least highly increase the spread of the player on top. But most likely I would make 3 and more man boosts impossible because as a mapper they make the development more difficult and you may end up building too high walls or buildings which limits the amount of good molotovs and smoke lineups. Or you place an invisible wall but it is not always possible in an area with several height variations.

    And if I want that it needs 3 players to look over something I make an area you only reach with a 2 man boost that again needs a 2 man boost to look over it. So in my oppinion there is no need for a 3 man boost.

    I took this into consideration when building, and even implemented a few 2 man boosts as features, both as a way to give access to areas and for los purposes. I think it's an awesome option to give players! I didn't know 3 man boosts where possible though... yikes

    Quote from Ringel

    3 hours ago, Ringel said: When I look closer at your height variations you might also have to deal with such 5 man boosts. Have fun! The content cannot be displayed because you do not have authorisation to view this content.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    If this was a viable strategy you would see pros pulling these off regularly, its nothing to worry about, costs too much time and man power that you need to disperse elsewhere

    Quote from Soldat Du Christ

    1 hour ago, Soldat Du Christ said: If this was a viable strategy you would see pros pulling these off regularly, its nothing to worry about, costs too much time and man power that you need to disperse elsewhere

    it will be boring to watch

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login