1. Forums
  2. Discord
  3. About Mapcore
  4. Patreon Supporters
  • Login
  • Register
  • Search
This Thread
  • Everywhere
  • This Thread
  • This Forum
  • Articles
  • Pages
  • Forum
  • More Options
  1. Mapcore
  2. Discussions
  3. Level Design

Advice about theoretical matters (Cs Go mapping)

  • laminutederire
  • October 8, 2014 at 12:31 PM
  • laminutederire
    • October 8, 2014 at 12:31 PM
    • #1

    Hello everyone,

    I was wondering several things like would it be possible to have abalanced gameplay with three bomb sites for example, if someone is able to help me with such questions, please help!

    I ask because I've found nothing about such questions.

    Thanks in advance!

  • kscythe
    • October 8, 2014 at 1:10 PM
    • #2

    Three bombspots aren't really balanced because there are not enough players to hold of the terrorist from a bombspot. imagine you have to split up to a group of max. 2 players per spot and 1 on all other spots while 1 is reserve on switch.


    would be impossible to hold for cts.

  • Vaya
    • October 8, 2014 at 1:23 PM
    • #3

    Currently you have roughly just less than 1/2 the team holding a site (5 vs 5 it's normally 2 per site) more sites would push the average to one. one person can't normally deal with a 5 player rush.

  • Spherix
    • October 8, 2014 at 2:52 PM
    • #4

    So yeah, 7 vs 7 matches.

  • Deh0lise
    • October 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM
    • #5

    You've found nothing abut this questions because the game mode is 5on5 & 2 bombsites, if you are going to do it differently it will be a different game mode and will be up to players to accept it. Knowing the cs community I'd say they will all whine like a child and pronounce bad words.


    Imo, if you want to innovate create a good ctf/zone control map, that will have a bigger audience.


    P.S I disagree with you all, it is possible to make a 5on5 map with 3 bombsites which is balanced (v.g bombspots with one entrance, big cover, far bombsite, different heights etc).

  • Squad
    • October 8, 2014 at 3:38 PM
    • #6
    Quote from Deh0lise

    P.S I disagree with you all, it is possible to make a 5on5 map with 3 bombsites which is balanced (v.g bombspots with one entrance, big cover, far bombsite, different heights etc).


    Exactly. I definately wouldn't say it's not possible to make such a map and make it fun and balanced too. For example have two bombsites pretty close to each other and the third further away. There are more possibilities off course, but I think it's possible.

  • DrywallDreams
    • October 8, 2014 at 3:50 PM
    • #7
    Quote from Deh0lise

    You've found nothing abut this questions because the game mode is 5on5 & 2 bombsites, if you are going to do it differently it will be a different game mode and will be up to players to accept it. Knowing the cs community I'd say they will all whine like a child and pronounce bad words.


    Imo, if you want to innovate create a good ctf/zone control map, that will have a bigger audience.


    P.S I disagree with you all, it is possible to make a 5on5 map with 3 bombsites which is balanced (v.g bombspots with one entrance, big cover, far bombsite, different heights etc).

    I feel like it would change the metagame in a very negative way. The game currently is about trying to find a weakness in CT defenses, but with three sites (especially with fewer entrances and such) the game could easily swing to be all about simply bombarding a bombsite.

  • Vaya
    • October 8, 2014 at 3:52 PM
    • #8

    Next challenge?


    I still don't think it would work (if you have one bombsite further away that becomes a safer option for the t side. CT inversely will need to keep more players onsite)


    Making sites CT-sided will in turn make the map CT-sided. CS is not longer fun if there's no chance of penetrating the opposing teams defence.

    Basically the way I see it you'll be massively limiting the CTs options if they are to keep control of all the sites. Unless sites share connectors etc and then, well, what's the point of having the 2 sites right beside each other? Might as well just be one


    It's a good discussion though

  • laminutederire
    • October 8, 2014 at 7:26 PM
    • #9

    I was just wondering since it may develop new ways of playing, since you cannot hold sites you have to make choices, like in a real situation.

    Since many are disagreeing it is also better to know precisely why !

    Also there are attempts to try new things, why not talk about it here to make these insights better !

  • tomm
    • October 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM
    • #10

    I can see this working


    CTs need to be able to rotate faster than usual.

    Plants will need to be closer to each other, maybe even add a sightline from one to the other for easier map control, but still provide enough cover for Ts


    or maybe have like one main bombsite and 2 'mini' side bombsites


    this could end up in an interesting fast paced defusal map.

  • Niller^.-
    • October 8, 2014 at 7:53 PM
    • #11

    Compromise - A map with 3 bombsites where only two was in play. At the beginning of the game a controller would choose two bombsites for that entire match, providing 3 different layouts out of one map, obviously this would also make the map even harder to balance


    Though I don't know if such setup is even possible.

  • laminutederire
    • October 8, 2014 at 8:02 PM
    • #12

    My initial thought was to create lookout points but it may become too easy for snipers then i thought about escape route, so that Ct's could sneak out to come back as a team.

    I guess everything is possible if we put time in it

  • Squad
    • October 8, 2014 at 11:21 PM
    • #13

    Maybe a scenario where you have two regular bombsites, which would be the obious choice for Ts to go to. And then there is a third, which is really hard to reach, but if you can plant there, it's pretty hard for CTs to defuse the bomb. Big risk = big reward.

    For example, let's imagine MrP's de_mist. The third bombsite could be up in the sniper tower.

  • text_fish
    • October 8, 2014 at 11:36 PM
    • #14

    There were some 3-site maps made for CS beta (and possibly 1.6) IIRC? I guess they were axed because they weren't very popular, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried again.


    The distrust of change is a major problem for the CS community and regularly holds the game back, so personally I don't think it's a valid reason not to try new things otherwise the game would never progress. There's also this weird notion that there's only a very specific set of rules and scenarios that can possibly be considered "balanced" (i.e. the closer you are to Dust 2 the better). Obviously the more elements you have the harder it is to balance them, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.


    Long story short, I say go for it!

  • Deh0lise
    • October 9, 2014 at 2:27 AM
    • #15
    Quote from Squad

    Maybe a scenario where you have two regular bombsites, which would be the obious choice for Ts to go to. And then there is a third, which is really hard to reach, but if you can plant there, it's pretty hard for CTs to defuse the bomb. Big risk = big reward.

    For example, let's imagine MrP's de_mist. The third bombsite could be up in the sniper tower.


    Agree. Another one, 3rd bombsite in dust2 in middle double doors (ct side) with a really small and risky plant zone. It can be covered with snipers from both bombsites, it's easier to retake and has no cover for Ts (ergo, not the first option). It would only be used in the late game faking/rotating, or suicide mid+smoke rush.


    Quote from text_fish

    There were some 3-site maps made for CS beta (and possibly 1.6) IIRC? I guess they were axed because they weren't very popular, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried again.


    The distrust of change is a major problem for the CS community and regularly holds the game back, so personally I don't think it's a valid reason not to try new things otherwise the game would never progress. There's also this weird notion that there's only a very specific set of rules and scenarios that can possibly be considered "balanced" (i.e. the closer you are to Dust 2 the better). Obviously the more elements you have the harder it is to balance them, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.


    Long story short, I say go for it!

    I think it is Weber (or was it Comte?) who said something like this "trying to go against the laws of society is the equivalent to banging one’s head against a brick wall", and it stands true for competitive cs players. Despite that, I'm with you, in CSGO there is a lot less resistence to new stuff, Valve is helping with this (not just with weapons and skins, but also maps like insertion, or the released ctf setting) and despite it is still hard to overcome the resistance it would be nice to have some creativity in this domain.


    I'd like a weekly workshop map rotation in casual mode in order to promote custom content and new stuff.

  • tr0nic
    • October 9, 2014 at 5:24 AM
    • #16

    I've had an idea in mind for a couple months about a map built around 3 bombsites, but my idea has not matured enough to evolve into something concrete.Too focused on a new map design right now!

  • Gooby
    • October 9, 2014 at 8:06 AM
    • #17

    I'd suggest you to make video previews or w.e they'd be called about the map, explaining the idea behind the new game mode. This would help people adapt to it.

  • laminutederire
    • October 9, 2014 at 11:50 AM
    • #18

    Yes I still have to do it first!

    But I thank everybody so far, very productive advice!

    I think I'm gonna try to see the third bombsite as a risky alternative which could spice up the game, in order to make something not too radically different, but to develop this idea anyway.

  • laminutederire
    • October 22, 2014 at 7:55 PM
    • #19

    Hey, By the way, I know it doesn't have anything to do with anything else, but does anyone know if it would be possible to convert textures from another software to textures for hammer?

  • Deh0lise
    • October 23, 2014 at 9:14 AM
    • #20
    Quote from laminutederire

    Hey, By the way, I know it doesn't have anything to do with anything else, but does anyone know if it would be possible to convert textures from another software to textures for hammer?

    If you mean copying textures from another game... you don't want to do that because of IP reasons (you will be dropped off the workshop). If you're just talking about filetype, there is a plugin for photoshop that lets you save files to vtf directly.

Participate now!

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

Register Yourself Login
Discord

The Mapcore Discord is our lively IRC channel of the 2000s reborn. Chat about level design, gaming, and more.

Latest Posts

  1. Tangerine

    Harry Poster
    July 18, 2026 at 11:10 AM
  2. Any of the old guard still around? D:

    Warby
    July 12, 2026 at 8:23 PM
  3. About our archived forums

    Thrik
    June 30, 2026 at 2:12 PM
  4. Mapcore Discord

    mason_fan123
    June 24, 2026 at 8:52 PM
  5. [CS2] Valley

    Serialmapper
    June 22, 2026 at 11:56 AM
  6. Free Music / SFX Resource - Over 2500 Tracks

    Eric Matyas
    June 18, 2026 at 12:32 PM
  7. Pango [WIP]

    Elowen
    June 11, 2026 at 10:13 AM
  8. [CS2] Dvina

    Jeremy Rivera
    June 11, 2026 at 10:03 AM
  9. Bridges 2.0 by NEXSIDE, MAP SHOWCASE. ( Steam Workshop )

    MrTrane18
    June 1, 2026 at 7:46 PM
  10. Classic Maps Reborn For CS2

    SillySpaceCat
    May 31, 2026 at 10:33 PM
  1. Privacy Policy
  2. Contact
Powered by WoltLab Suite™