MapCore CS:GO Playtesting 3.0

    A bit late with this reply, but here's my feedback on de_cliffs. I really enjoyed the layout, first of all, it was a lot of fun.


    Here are some suggestions (mostly from T's POV). Bombsite A seems really good so far. As suggested before, mid could benefit from some improvements regarding the cars. It'd be easier if there was a ramp or some stairs to get up to the CT level. I wasn't inclinded to take the route to bombspot B a lot, since it was usually pretty difficult. It might be because of the T-junction (CT's guarding the spot from both sides of the junction, making it pretty hard to push on through that spot). It might make things more fair if you adjusted that junction a little bit (see picture below). It's just a general idea off course, making it harder for CT's to guard the path from 2 sides.


    [Blocked Image: http://users.telenet.be/gus/de_cliffs_a9_01.jpg]

    Psy:

    I think it is a great map, that just needs a litte mode finetuning. Of course as we have seen it is a CT-advantage map due to the access points to B, that on the one hand has two entrances tor T, that are relatively narrow and allow for easy killing of the attacker, and two entrances for CT, that don't have that problem. This leads to an easy-to-protect Bombspot for CT, and is also easy to access for CT forces if the bomb has been plantet, ergo something a T team will not attack often. If you ask me you should not only open another route for T as you have allready done, but also close another entrance on the CT side, to make it more difficult to recapture.

    Bombspot A is simmilar, since CT have a wide area to hide, while T have 3 entrance points, but that changes with the bomb planted, and is also balanced through T arriving about the same time as CT.


    Visually, of course, the map is great, having lots of detail, that can be consider 95% done. Still there are a few things i would like to mention for improvement.

    As i have mentioned on mumble, ladders, that are visually usable should be usable or blocked or removed, otherwise confusing people, who play the map first time. Also it is good to have a consistency of visuals and gameplay.

    Second thing is the water. Of course source water looks boring, but maybe you can add a touce here and there to make it more interesting.

    Oh and of course this: http://%7Boption%7D[Blocked Image: http://abload.de/img/2013-10-13_0001168u7b.jpg]

    Hey all, I'm gonna aim for a playtesting version of my map on Thursday! So be ready on Thursday at 21.00 GMT+1!


    Quote from Psy

    Any thoughts on the Overgrown playtest?

    I've already added another route into B for the Ts and fixed some of the miscellaneous problems.


    The general layout is good and it looks nice but there are a lot of minor issues that are a bit problematic.


    - I feel like there are a bunch of weird sightlines on the map. Like you can see through the shelves of some prop. Or you can jump on a railing and see way further than intended. Or you can stand at a very specific angle on the crates on the boat and get a drop on T's coming from their spawn. Lots of stuff like that. I'd look at maps like Inferno, Dust2 and Mirage. They all have very clean, readable sightlines. CS, to me, is all about "all or nothing"-sightlines and not like BF, other shooters or milsims that have very nuanced environments with lots of partial sightlines.

    - Readability is a slight problem. Both in terms of textures/lighting/props but also in terms of the fog, which can be crippling at times. Enemies blend in with environment from time to time.

    - Mid is brutal. T can get some very good sightlines and can peak supergood from behind a truck. I don't feel like you can push mid too well as either team. A bit of a death trap.

    - Performance. Needs to be improved. Even though it ran fine for me, you got to give some love for the low spec peoples!


    Quote from Squad

    A bit late with this reply, but here's my feedback on de_cliffs. I really enjoyed the layout, first of all, it was a lot of fun.


    Here are some suggestions (mostly from T's POV). Bombsite A seems really good so far. As suggested before, mid could benefit from some improvements regarding the cars. It'd be easier if there was a ramp or some stairs to get up to the CT level. I wasn't inclinded to take the route to bombspot B a lot, since it was usually pretty difficult. It might be because of the T-junction (CT's guarding the spot from both sides of the junction, making it pretty hard to push on through that spot). It might make things more fair if you adjusted that junction a little bit (see picture below). It's just a general idea off course, making it harder for CT's to guard the path from 2 sides.


    Thanks for the feedback! The next version of the map will be pretty drastically changed, heh. We'll see if it's for the better or worse.


    Quote from LexxoR

    Any opinion about my map?..


    This feedback may seem a bit crude but the map mostly felt like a web of boxes. I didn't see any interesting chokes and the architecture felt... basic. I'd look at defining a couple of routes and making the timings interesting.

    Quote from Puddy

    Hey all, I'm gonna aim for a playtesting version of my map on Thursday! So be ready on Thursday at 21.00 GMT+1!

    - Mid is brutal. T can get some very good sightlines and can peak supergood from behind a truck. I don't feel like you can push mid too well as either team. A bit of a death trap.

    Thanks for the feedback!

    What changes would you suggest for Mid?

    Quote from Psy

    Thanks for the feedback!

    What changes would you suggest for Mid?


    I think that mid should end in a T-junction (or similar) on both sides. Or a 90 degree turn anyway (this is sort of the case on the CT end I guess). The corners where you peak from should be 100% solid, sharp walls or otherwise very defined cover. The overall length should be reduced somewhat. Sometimes the engagement distances were so long that I had a hard time fine-tuning my AWP aim (my mouse sens didn't allow for so small adjustments ).


    Current mid (left). Suggested mid (right).

    [Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/aU6Zylp.png]

    Quote from Puddy

    I think that mid should end in a T-junction (or similar) on both sides. Or a 90 degree turn anyway (this is sort of the case on the CT end I guess). The corners where you peak from should be 100% solid, sharp walls or otherwise very defined cover. The overall length should be reduced somewhat. Sometimes the engagement distances were so long that I had a hard time fine-tuning my AWP aim (my mouse sens didn't allow for so small adjustments ).


    Current mid (left). Suggested mid (right).

    [Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/aU6Zylp.png]

    Haha. Nice diagram. Tis a good point though!

    I've already removed all the crap outside Ts entrance into Mid. It's a hell of a lot more readable now with no peaking spots anywhere. I'll look into reining in the sightlines.

    Yeah, agree. Looks much more intuitive. Rotations look interesting as well. The only thing that stands out is that the Terrorist entries to the A site might need a bit more cover.

    It is mirrored, but a whole lot has changed. Even before we tested the first layout I knew I would completely revamp it, I just wanted to see how it worked. You know, for science.


    And yeah, this should be much better.

Participate now!

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

Register Yourself Login