Posts by Guni

I am of the target market that has only used Hammer, and although I know hammer quite well i wouldn't say im stubborn in exploring other software. Rather, and i think it was mentioned before, it is more so the time and effort required to "aquire" 3ds max and the plugin, and then learn it (Laziness). Of-course i also think there are limitations when it does have a rather "Pay to play" business model, opposed to Hammer which is provided free with a rather easy to use interface and larger community.

Saying this, do you find a common limitation when reaching out to people with 3ds Max? Is the cost, effort and alternate software all hurdles that have come up time and time again? I am just curious why you would go for an option that is harder to put into the hands of your average user. I really like that you've developed from the ground up, and I can see you are extremely passionate about 3dsMax and WW, but for me personally, I think the time and effort spent would not merit the outcome.

On Topic: I look forward to seeing the entrants submissions in this competition and seeing what WW is capable of. Maybe I'll be put in my place and end up 'acquiring' a copy of 3ds.

Quote from Ammy

I was thinking of moving CT spawn closer to everything, actually. Just haven't been 100% sure so far, because it might make them too close to B. I've timed A site for both side and I think I got CTs there 2 seconds before Ts on the same spot each time.

Quote from Ammy

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

Here's what I quickly threw together for moving CT spawn forward. Haven't tested it yet, though.

Edit: I won't be able to publish the moved forward version of the map to the workshop for about 2 hours. I'll probably be back by then.

Play around with things and I've updated my original post with some tips and thoughts. Happy Mapping

Do you think mid is a bit to close to T spawn yet further for CT, not to mention A site seems furthest away from CT's.

I'll take a look and edit this post on my opinion/thoughts.

*EDIT*

So I took some time to have a run around of your map and check it all out. Before i give feedback understand that these are merely my own opinions and I am not a professional on level design, also understand that I am not attacking you in any way, merely trying to give guidance.

Now with the legal matters out of the way, let's begin!

T-Spawn

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/W8HI3ev.jpg]

So I couldn't really go into any detail with this spawn, it was basically a box, and i assume it merely existed as a point for spawning, not much thought thrown into it. I did find one area that i thought needed to be re-worked. It was the pathway from T-spawn to mid, you were able to prefire with an awp, or any weapon, straight at the peak point for CT. Pretty much easiest mid hold ever. My suggestion would to either move the pathway to the left more, or put in some cover and obstacles.

B-Site Pathway (T-Side)

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/qcG7WpT.jpg]

Again its rather open and just blocky, I am assume once the layout and timings are done you will look at detailing and adding character to the sections. The space circled in red was kind of pointless in my opinion and does nothing at all. Just bring the wall in and create a single path.

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/yhMm0N9.jpg]

As you move up closer to B site, there is an extremely narrow corridor, that leads into a rather big room before even entering B site. This forces a choke point where one is not needed, its way to small, its tight (like your sister) and it makes it hard for T's to get closer to site. Think about widening the path, and look at controlling the choke point in that room just after it, that will allow for smoother game-play.

B-Site

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/sZFY0zm.jpg]

Playing from the balcony or top section you have a pretty strong angle for early pushes, I understand that T's can come in from that balcony as it was the short pathway in, however if its smoked well enough or controlled from a CT POV, it could be an OP position, maybe look at giving entrance cover, or nerfing something inside the corridor.

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/uXSCYZN.jpg]

The entire site is just way to small, very small infact. Everything feels cluttered and the layout is un-natural and unforgiving. My personal suggestion would be to look at making the site larger, placing cover in the perfect spots and don't over use elements. The fountain should be a centre piece similar to Inferno's Site.

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/8hJyRnK.jpg]

You missed a spot

Pathways and Connections

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/XkSmCAF.jpg]

Your map consists of several pathways and inside area's that connect each site to mid and allow each team to attempt to use it to there advantage. The idea/principle behind it is nice, however the way it was executed felt forced. This room in the first screenshot serves no purpose besides a very dark aesthetic, there's no point going in there or holding it. If anything it will end up being a casual P90 hangout. If you want to use the room, give it some detail and function and have some form of flow from it, maybe a door-way that re-connects into the pathways, or access up to that door-way that leads to bridge.

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/nCn1cuz.jpg]

This leads me to this, i understand that this was just a cosmetic thing. I would be interested in seeing how it fairs as a element you could include into your map but if you aren't going to allow it to be accessed, just add a prop with a door model and keep it at that.

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/6Fq4wAe.jpg]

This was the pathways into A site, and i will get to that site in a minute. The pathways felt a bit pointless, having both of them enter at pretty much the same location made using either invalid. My recommendation to you is to move the balcony up, so that it is just resting over the site, and push the door way a little bit closer to the site and give it some cover from the T-push, that way its not too strong for Mid pushes from CT's.

A-Site

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/euhKnbE.jpg]

So as i think you mentioned, and as I tested, the time for both teams to arrive at A was about 11-12 seconds, however it was a bit silly for a site. The site itself has way to many boxes, really big ones too, and by the time the ct gets into site, they can't even see the T's on the rush or have a location to setup to defend. Again the site was also rather small, or felt cluttered. Try looking at opening the sites up a bit more, and spread the boxes out. Also try using smaller boxes or brushes so that the feeling of space doesn't get too subtracted from the site. 'Less is more'.

Middle

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/n5j1fOo.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/gOI2hu0.jpg]

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/XrIwc99.jpg]

I like where you were trying to go with mid, the cosmetic of the bridge from inferno gives it a nice feel, however the execution is lacking. I think you have to many stairs on the CT side, try flattening it out to a raised part of land with a staircase leading to the middle section if you are trying to add elements of height. Look at removing some of the clutter from those boxes and give both sides certain advantages and disadvantages for holding it. Look at using different types of architecture or brush work to give it potential.

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/z1hXf15.jpg]

This middle connector seemed annoying and pointless, to close to the B push for T's and that would become annoying for CT's to hold. If you still want a point from there, look at turning it into a window or something else. That way you don't force players to access it, however B-pushers have a one way ticket if they decide to push into Mid.

Manners

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/W5UYIVU.jpg]

This last bit is more for your own personal growth and sanity. Through learning, frustration and repeated changes, it will be good for you to learn to map a little cleaner. Try to keep your brushes in-line with each other where possible, clean and neat will save you a lot of time and mental capacity.

Also a BIG technique you want to try learning and implementing is the use of NoDraw Textures. There is abundance of tutorials and resources on the net for NoDraw and its a rather easy technique to implement, its main purpose is to Block Vis Leafs and seal leaks on your map. It also prevents the compiler from building lightmaps on those faces and shortens compile times, and map resource use. Everybody wins

Conclusion

I think you have the core principal and layout down in your mind, i can see your train of thought and the thought process you went through when designing the map. I think with a bit of cleaning, polishing and changes the map could become stronger to play and enjoy. Just think about balance, flow and readability from a players perspective. Keep up the good work!

http://steamcommunity.com/id/pleasedonotstalk

Casual on that and I am a dirty smurf for comp on another account

Quote from ctro

Just did a quick update. Closed one of the windows on bombsite A, as well as widened the last one. I also reworked the terrorists entry points for bombsite B.

Here are the changes:

http://imgur.com/a/CsROt#0

Workshop version is updated if you wanna check it out for yourselves.

Display More

Just tested the layout and you saved me the time writing suggestions, I agree on all point, good logic never fails

@ OP, schedule a date for a layout testing, your map looks really promising, cheers.

If OP likes, I do own a CSGO server i could upload the map too for Testing and Scrimming. Its an Australian server but it runs at 128 tick.

I was about to suggest something similar.

I know that Mapcore arranges internal tests every week or so. I was wondering if Mapcore or someone related to this community/site, could put up a server with only test maps for the public, a larger server with more that just 10 slots.

I assume that testers are handpicked but I also know that there are more than just the handpicked ones that are happy to help out with testing, I being one of them.

What do you say Mapcore? Could something like this be arranged? I know that people would highly appreciate it.

I could look at putting some map tests on the server, but I would need to speak to the two others supporting it if i can fill it to the brim with them.

Quote from ctro

Thank you, Guni, for the great feedback. I have taken all your thoughts into consideration, and I will address some of the issues you pointed out. The map does indeed seem a bit small compared to other maps, but that was actually my intention. I really think a small and fast paced layout like this could be refreshing since there really aren't any other maps like that in the current competitive map pool. You are right about the A site windows, they do seem a bit awkward, and i'm gonna go ahead and cover up the one of them as well as widening the other one. Hopefully that will make it less annoying. And you are definitely right about the B site and its entry points. Especially the the squeeky part. It was just a last minute addition before posting the map on the workshop. So yeah, it was kinda rushed and I really didn't have any strategical thoughts in mind while making it. I'm gonna shrink the main entryway and close up the window to see if that fixes the problem. I'm thinking about maybe opening up both or at least one of the windows on the top instead, so the terrorists have a way to throw grenades into the site. And a playtest sure sounds good in my ears! That would really give me a better understanding of what works and what doesn't compared to when I play against bots.

They were just my observations and people may disagree but i am glad you've taken them into consideration. I look forward to a playtest and if you like maybe we can get one organised

Yeah, just pick a date. I'm up for it anytime!

I took another look and really like the changes you made, they seemed a lot better, especially they way you revamped T entrance into B. I'd be happy to run it on my server but its located back in Aus so it may lag. I did take part in the Mapcore PlayTest that runs Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Ill still look at running on mine, but definitley try get it on the playtests.

Also not a big deal, but i did find something you'll have to look out for in squeeky entrance hallway

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/OHPf7Qq.jpg]

Quote from 8bit

Just tested the layout and you saved me the time writing suggestions, I agree on all point, good logic never fails

@ OP, schedule a date for a layout testing, your map looks really promising, cheers.

If OP likes, I do own a CSGO server i could upload the map too for Testing and Scrimming. Its an Australian server but it runs at 128 tick.

I was about to suggest something similar.

I know that Mapcore arranges internal tests every week or so. I was wondering if Mapcore or someone related to this community/site, could put up a server with only test maps for the public, a larger server with more that just 10 slots.

I assume that testers are handpicked but I also know that there are more than just the handpicked ones that are happy to help out with testing, I being one of them.

What do you say Mapcore? Could something like this be arranged? I know that people would highly appreciate it.

I could look at putting some map tests on the server, but I would need to speak to the two others supporting it if i can fill it to the brim with them.

Quote from ctro

Thank you, Guni, for the great feedback. I have taken all your thoughts into consideration, and I will address some of the issues you pointed out. The map does indeed seem a bit small compared to other maps, but that was actually my intention. I really think a small and fast paced layout like this could be refreshing since there really aren't any other maps like that in the current competitive map pool. You are right about the A site windows, they do seem a bit awkward, and i'm gonna go ahead and cover up the one of them as well as widening the other one. Hopefully that will make it less annoying. And you are definitely right about the B site and its entry points. Especially the the squeeky part. It was just a last minute addition before posting the map on the workshop. So yeah, it was kinda rushed and I really didn't have any strategical thoughts in mind while making it. I'm gonna shrink the main entryway and close up the window to see if that fixes the problem. I'm thinking about maybe opening up both or at least one of the windows on the top instead, so the terrorists have a way to throw grenades into the site. And a playtest sure sounds good in my ears! That would really give me a better understanding of what works and what doesn't compared to when I play against bots.

They were just my observations and people may disagree but i am glad you've taken them into consideration. I look forward to a playtest and if you like maybe we can get one organised

cmonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Ricochet 2!

Quote from Klems

The reason everyone complains when they play dust2 is because the map is balanced? What kind of reasonning is that? Or I didn't understand you properly. I see more whining during T side nuke. Unbalanced map are more challenging only one half of the time.

Aztec or dust1 isn't hard to play when you're CT. Neither when you're T when I think about it, you only have a couple of entrances and all you can do is flash your way in and hope for the best.

Yeah i wrote that poorly. What i was trying to convey was that the map itself was boring and thats why everyone complains. Its balanced and over played and doesnt really have any interesting plays come out of it, not to mention taking sites is easy. When you take A site on d2, its just like eh lets go see if there at B. You take A site on nuke and I am on a podium giving a acceptance speech and recieving my award.

Just my opinion, maybe others disagree, but dust2 is the most overplayed and mind numbing of the cs maps. I would really love it if they removed it from the map pool for casual and competitive for just one month and see the shitstorm it would cause casual players and lower rank games.

Quote from 8bit

Just tested the layout and you saved me the time writing suggestions, I agree on all point, good logic never fails

@ OP, schedule a date for a layout testing, your map looks really promising, cheers.

If OP likes, I do own a CSGO server i could upload the map too for Testing and Scrimming. Its an Australian server but it runs at 128 tick.

Quote from Gambit

how does adding what I suggest ruin the map and make it dust3? I've played it competively at the highest level against teams like mibr and others in 1.6 and any competitive player knows whoever gets CT first is at an extreme advantage.

Just have an open mind about the suggestion/idea because I feel ANY suggestion about changing nuke would garner than the same reaction you just gave. In 1.6 it was a LOT better because of the wallbanging, but without that in csgo, it makes it a really stale map.

Im not trying to absolutely shut down the idea, but it just wasnt a very practical idea. Ive played at top tier games, bordering between LEM and SM depending on my dedication to competitive and have been playing cs since 1.3. I've played at Lans all over Australia since source and have racked up enough hours to basically call it pathetic. Dont get me wrong however, I am not the best and there are plenty of better players above me, i just know a fair deal of pointless intel.

Nuke has always been the map I've loved, and although you bring up ideas such as an access route to rafters for T's, it then goes as far as completely destroying the whole defense for CT's. That rafters is designed as a defensive counter to an aggressive A push through hut and squeeky. If you were to add the access from Lobby Ladder, you would then add another access point. The map already has 4 Access routes for T's. Hut, Squeeky, Anex, Heaven. All these depending on strategy can be used as a way of accessing and taking control of the site. Sure it may seem difficult, but if you are able to communicate and have enough skill, it pays off.

Sure maps have prejudice, cache for example, on release and even now, its argued as a heavy CT map, its timings and map layout heavily favor CT holds. However i have seen countless games where T's are able to completely annihilate and punish CT's, It's difficult, but it feels really fun and rewarding when you make a successful play.

If CT's are a heavy side, than getting that team first is a strategy in itself, it allows you to aquire rounds early and try to secure a lead. However, just because you have a lead at half time, doesnt mean you arent going to get absolutely rooted T half when the tables turn.

As far as your opinion on the map change go, they are interesting idea's and i respect the new approach to it, but personally i think it would destroy the playstyle that nuke stands for.

TLDR:

As far as fairness goes, everyone gets a turn on CT and T, its what you make of the situation that decides the outcome, not the map.

Why do you want to balance nuke?, so it can become dust 3?

I love nuke too, its my favourite map, and frankly its designed to be favor'd to one side. Thats why its so fun, its difficult and requires team work to push spots, peak areas and gain advantages. The reason everyone complains in competitive about Dust 2 is that its too simple and balanced, theres no challenge. Its why its the most popular casual map, cause its not hard to play.

I think the map is fine the way it was, if anything its dissapointing that they removed the other side of door from B.

The layout looks really interesting, i'll take a look at it and get back to you on my thoughts!

*EDIT*

Okay so i went through your map and got an understanding for how it played, the layout and the elements you added in. I thought overall the map was pretty cool, it felt small, so from a competitive standpoint it seems like a bit of a rush map. I play competitive a lot, i am currently at LEM rank, so although i am not the best and i don't know what the majority likes, i will try to give you my 2cents from a competitive play point.

A Site Windows

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/X9z2tm0.jpg]

For me personally, i found these two door-ways really awkward and annoying. They over complicate the whole balcony and make it a strange situation in general. From a CT perspective it was awkward to move in an out of, it made it hard to use any cover near the door and just felt forced. From a T perspective it was just annoying to peak, one of the doors seemed plausible but the other felt un-needed. I would personally like to see maybe one door way but wider, or some other take on that balcony. Overall the site itself felt fine, but i think there may have been a few too many hidy-holes and angles to check, however you wont know until playtests.

Short Drop to B

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/elPU8gn.jpg]

I actually really liked the idea of this, and i thought it was rather unique and game changing. At the same time however i think it could be really over powered. This is something that you will have to decide on from play tests but the idea that you can punish mid if you are able to sneak that catwalk was good. The downside is that the rotate from site to site is a little to strong for T's.

B Site and its Entry's

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/uI0C1yk.jpg]

This was probably my biggest iffy with the map. First i think B is fine the way the layout is and the connections to it. I like that mid can back it up and the two site players can hold. The quick connection from mid may lead to B only needing one player to hold, similar to Dust2. However i felt the entry points really pointless, specifically the squeeky. The window makes it hard for T's to use it sneaky beaky like, and its too close to the original entry point to make it of any point pushing. I understand you tried to also add a box in the main entry door way, to give some cover, but the whole door way seems a bit to large of an angle, it wont be hard for CT's to absolutely crush T's pushing it. Maybe shrink the doorway and look at either moving squeeky up a bit further, or remove the window to make it a safer push.

Otherwise the layout seems nice and it flows well, I think your best bet now is to get some playtests going and really decide what works and what doesnt. I like it and look forward to seeing more. I hope you dont take my opinions to much to heart, I merely am looking at it from my own competitive view, I may be wrong