MapCore CS:GO Playtesting 4.0

Quote

Haha, alright man, I fixed it in your submission.

EDIT: Also, you should be able to create a MapCore thread for your map now. Which I highly recommend!

Okay, yep done. Was I not able to post a topic before I posted a reply? Anyways thanks for editing my name and if you could add the mapcore thread link too that´d be great. https://migrationtest.mapcore.org/topic/19969-csgo-de_fabric-map/

Just a quick notification,

You know I submitted my map last weekend if it could get playtested and you have been very kind updating my info but I requested it be playtested tomorrow and I saw it could take 24 hours to decide wether a map will be playtested or nor and it already been like 4 days

Quote from RedHawk

1 hour ago, RedHawk said: Just a quick notification,

You know I submitted my map last weekend if it could get playtested and you have been very kind updating my info but I requested it be playtested tomorrow and I saw it could take 24 hours to decide wether a map will be playtested or nor and it already been like 4 days

I've just went around your map and noticed that your radar does not work for all the Z coordinates. It looks like the lower layer of your radar was not included in the bsp. This maybe a problem with the workshop publisher, as it may only fetch one dds file. Another simple fix is making sure that all Tspawns are in the right location (not on the bottom of the skybox). I would also recommend removing many of the doors which you have in your map.

Quote from MaanMan

12 minutes ago, MaanMan said: I've just went around your map and noticed that your radar does not work for all the Z coordinates. It looks like the lower layer of your radar was not included in the bsp. This maybe a problem with the workshop publisher, as it may only fetch one dds file. Another simple fix is making sure that all Tspawns are in the right location (not on the bottom of the skybox). I would also recommend removing many of the doors which you have in your map.

Yes, the radar issue I found out today. I used to have only one level radar and just today I updated it to a multi-level radar. For me it works just fine but when I invited a friend to see the map he could only see one level. It´s probably the problem you pointed out too. Is there anyway to get it to pick up the two .dds files? As for the Tspawns they are all in the right position and I myself have also noticed that sometimes you spawn under the map. And is 3 doors too much for you?

Also I used to have a working .nav file but idk why when I updated the map today all the callouts were gone.

Quote from RedHawk

18 minutes ago, RedHawk said: Yes, the radar issue I found out today. I used to have only one level radar and just today I updated it to a multi-level radar. For me it works just fine but when I invited a friend to see the map he could only see one level. It´s probably the problem you pointed out too. Is there anyway to get it to pick up the two .dds files? As for the Tspawns they are all in the right position and I myself have also noticed that sometimes you spawn under the map. And is 3 doors too much for you?

Also I used to have a working .nav file but idk why when I updated the map today all the callouts were gone.

As far as I know there is no trick to get the workshop publisher to pack two dds files. We most likely have to wait for valve to patch it in. In the mean time you can pack the radar into the bsp using PackRat or Vide.

With the doors you actual have four doors. Two of these doors lead into same small room. For most maps doors open at a speed of 200 (this is off the top of my head) while yours open something around 100. While doors can make a space feel more realistic, they are usually not very good for gameplay.

As for the callouts on the nav file it is possible that you generated a new nav file when updating the map. Check the previous nav files and see if any of them still have your callouts.

Quote from MaanMan

7 minutes ago, MaanMan said: As far as I know there is no trick to get the workshop publisher to pack two dds files. We most likely have to wait for valve to patch it in. In the mean time you can pack the radar into the bsp using PackRat or Vide.

With the doors you actual have four doors. Two of these doors lead into same small room. For most maps doors open at a speed of 200 (this is off the top of my head) while yours open something around 100. While doors can make a space feel more realistic, they are usually not very good for gameplay.

As for the callouts on the nav file it is possible that you generated a new nav file when updating the map. Check the previous nav files and see if any of them still have your callouts.

okay, thanks. I´ll try to have the radar packed into the .bsp and add the .nav file to the map before the playtest tomorrow (supposing it does get playtested)

fixed my radar and other stuff. Made a new request, this time for the 17th though, because today there is only 1 map played. If that's not okay then I'll take the 20th.

Is there room for spectators during the test? I'm at home for Easter so no PC, not sure how my laptop will handle playing CSGO but I'm sure it'd be useful if I was able to turn up to my map even if just spectating.

Submitted to get a slot whenever the next available is! Thanks!

I also submitted my map for play test. Hopefully, it will get approved. Yesterday I joined to de_oakwood and de_mutrah. I was kinda surprised, that mapcore is organising only casual playtests. I was expecting more like 5v5 competititve match. Anyways, I would suggest to change it to competititve matches, because the main goal of the defusal and rescue maps is to be played at competitive level, and sadly, 10v10 is not the same as 5v5. Also it's worth mentioning, that enemy team can hear what other says, by this, not letting for players to do any strategies nor callouts. It limits the players.

Personally, if we would do a 10v10 on my current map - cs_market, I doubt it would be anything good, because I made that map specifically for competitive gameplay in mind. The same goes to dust2, because CT could place 2 players in middle and about 5 on A site and 3 on B. It's very unrealistic and makes taking the sites very difficult, especially if players are in different skill.

Also, as I saw, there are plenty of good people, who would like to try out new maps. We could use it and just place a limit on only 5v5 at a map. On the next map, players could change and if there's still some free place in teams, previous map testers could take the place.

I just downloaded my latest playtest demo. It seems to be corrupted or something. At least it doesn't work properly.

When I open it in demoui, it "connects to server" correctly and lets me watch the demo almost until end of warmup and then it says:

"Warning: cl_flushentitypacket, Update delta not found." at the upper right corner of the screen. Same time console foods with text "Update delta not found."

I also noted that the file is over 500MB.

Can I update my submission to go from 29/3 to 31/3 ? I need a little time to update the T spawn

Okay, my map just got declined from play testing, because "Not ready for playtesting yet. Please keep iterating on your map. Please go back to greyboxing the map and replacing most of the models with placeholder brushes. The brushwork overall is very crude and appears sloppy, please improve that as well." and maps like Oakwood, Mutrah, Aftermath passed just well. To be honest, the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in years...And I didn't expect that type of an answer from RZL... This is what I wrote to him:

First of all, I want to advise the texturing misunderstanding. Overtime I have learned new painting skills and have realized that adding basic colors first is the best option as this lets you see what is missing or needs to be improved for later development. I made the same thing in my map, added the basic textures, to see how my map will feel. And as the reason, that my map does not reach the bare minimum in play testing requirements, as you stated the reason „Please go back to greyboxing the map and replacing most of the models with placeholder brushes.“ I‘m sorry, but I disagree. In previously confirmed maps, like Oakwood and Mutrah, there was many models, as in Oakwood trees and in Mutrah, boxes, cars. My map has only boxes, some pillars and vehicles and I changing them to „placeholder brushes“ Seems strange. Also, re-texturing my map to bare grey colors only for playtesting seems unreasonable thing to do. As it will lose all it‘s colors and the feeling of the map will change dramatically. I do not see what is the difference if the walls are in bare grey or in normal dustish brick/sand texture and I highly doubt, that it somehow improves gameplay quality.

Another thing worth mentioning, is the layout of my map. All walls were placed in reasonable manner, as all of them have their role in gameplay. In real life, markets are not always so orderly placed only with 90 and 45 degrees rotations or corners. Simplifying the layout changes the times, removes a lot of cover for players also makes some parts of the map dull. Maps like oakwood had a lot of displacements oddly shaped (to be more similar to rock), I do not seem to understand, why walls, shaped like an old marketplace seems as „very crude“ and appears „sloppy“. All brushes there made as simplistic as possible, so I could change them faster if something was wrong with the gameplay, but as cs_market had about 9 competitive high ranked (mostly eagles, supremes and globals) matches and those walls did not make any discomfort for any players. In the start, there was a lack of cover, but later on by adding additional markets, it got improved. I made some walls straight to make smoking and other grenade usage more easier, also it is easier for source engine to handle straight walls on grid and I am fully aware of that.

As for radar, was even a bigger misunderstanding. After a lot of thought, I decided to change my file name from cs_market to cs_market_v0.12, but I forgot, that it will mislead the system. So I had to change it to cs_market_v012 and it worked. After I updated, I forgot, that I had to also update the cubemaps and I also renamed the market files, so they would appear in workshop version. All this time, radar was always on cs_market, except those 5 minutes, then I was changing the file names to fit this statement „The filename has a proper suffix (e.g. "_v03")“. I am aware and sorry, that I did it a bit late. But in my opinion, it is not a thing to worry about.

And here is his reply: http://prntscr.com/al4ra7 "looks like we are at a disagreement here. I will not reconsider cs_market as a valid submission in it's current state" and "surprisingly", his argument is empty and not even connecting to what he wrote in the reasons why my map was declined. Well, what can I add. I was expecting something better from mapcore, I really did...

Quote from 1488

19 minutes ago, 1488 said: lmao dude you got owned

Not owned, just ignored and rejected without any reason. Probably he didn't like me. That's the most logical explanation to it. /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=":)" width="15"> Well, I'm happy to know, what the head of administration is judging maps by his feeling, rather than a constructive criticism. He can't even reply as a normal human would do. Anyways, sorry, everyone, that I am trying to search for any justice. Keep glowing in dark, dear mapcore.

Quote from 1488

Just now, 1488 said: ok dude lol

You probably didn't read what I wrote. lol

does anyone else trying to give you feedback also get 5 paragraphs with bolding? fucking christ...

RZL can be a little short in his replies but that's just because english isn't his first language- he does know what he's talking about though, I'd take onboard his advice or end up on the pile of maps that never went anywhere.