Posts by NihiL

Hey @mott thank you very much. I am working on the map every day and since you asked, here are some very early style tests:

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/PPjTB6D.jpg][Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/XyZL7Z8.jpg][Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/6gBZB0k.jpg][Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/KPwlLJ1.jpg][Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/HlcylN4.jpg]

Still working on a workshop update, hopefully this weekend! And then I finally want to run some playtests on the layout, to see if it works out or not.

Here's another update, more work on the layout and some very basic experiments with models.

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/dgm9dqp.png]

I like this weird isometric style, I think it presents more information than a straight level overview image. I will stick to this for the time being. I'm also looking to update the playable greybox version on Steam asap.

Hey, thank you @noobgames! It's all about sticking to a common ratio, in my case I picked 2:1. In practice, it does take a LOT of messing around and to get both straight and angled geometry to intersect on grid points though. I found that, if they happen to not intersect perfectly on the grid, usually it's quickest to draw some temporary lines with the cut tool in hammer to check if it would work out better if the angled geometry was 1 step (ie. 8 units) further to the left/right for example. I am not aware of any rules or anything, I just experiment until everything lines up. It's a LOT of extra work though, absolutely. I just wanted a challenge, as de_spice was completely straight throughout and the more modern architecture of de_canaveral lends itself to more interesting shapes.

Also, thank you very much @'RZL, happy mapping will be had - and is going on right now haha!

I thought I'd give you another shot of the current layout progress, this time straight from the engine. Again, blue and gray are world brushes, orange are detail brushes. Keep in mind that all backfaces are culled (ie. missing), so this is just a quirky perspective overview that I kinda liked.

[Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/ZTU4DKY.png]

The fenced areas are placeholders so that I remember to build out the map in these places. You'll be able to look at stuff there but won't be able to go there obviously. This version has all sightlines fixed for now so that you can't get too long and crazy lines through the layout anymore, this took a lot of messing around to get done.

Hello there, I've been busy the last couple of days reworking the map. Here's an edited shot right out of Hammer:

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

I decided to show you this from within the editor so you can see how I've seperated world brushes (blue for walls and gray for the floors) and detail brushwork (orange). This means the map is relatively well optimized in regard to the BSP/VIS process automatically, without needing lots of manual attention. The balcony part is missing as I've reshaped the B bombsite. It's much larger now and not a perfect circle anymore.

If any moderators are reading this, could you please move this topic over into the contest section! This map will, of course, take part in the huge new CSGO mapping contest here on Mapcore!

Stay tuned for more updates. I am doing some style tests in a separate map where I figure out good texture combinations, models and so on. I'll show off some of that as soon as I can spend a bit more time on that. And then I will also try and run as many playtests as I can on the graybox (or blurange box or whatever :P) to make sure the layout is good.

As always, I appreciate any and all feedback that you may have!

No harm done everybody. I wasn't on here for a bit so I only just now saw this. I'm sure there are a number of maps with circular bomb sites like that, I mean, even HL1 had a similar rocket silo. I'm still busy preparing the map for playtesting btw!

Hey, sorry again for the late reply to your points, I was hoping to collect a bit more feedback from multiple people now that the playable graybox version is out there, but since there doesn't seem to be any more coming in...

Yeah, cover is the next step for the layout. More brushwork and preliminary detail (just not the purely visual stuff yet I guess).

I can fine tune the width of the basement to mid 'tunnel', although I would probably wait for playtesting feedback before I do that. I like space so unless it is indeed necessary to tighten that gap to improve gameplay, I would leave it as is. Easy to change either way.

About the verticality: right now it's deep enough so that we get 128 units of vertical space in the basement. That's my minimum for a proper floor with good movement, so I don't really want to reduce that (it would make players unable to jump then) but I wouldn't mind splitting the ramps up. In the final map, these will be stairs btw. Not sure what you mean with "make it a supply ramp as the one on Nuke" exactly? That's just a wide ramp?

Thanks for the input. There's still some angles in there that I don't think are very good. I will be taking screenshots of these for myself and then fix them. Also I want to make a separate test room or hall for visual stuff. Figure out a good style, custom textures and models included, that I can use as a baseline for the space agency architecture. I already have a bunch of reference photos for that. I will share the results as soon as they're done.

Does it seem like this forum is more dead than it used to be a year ago? Is that just me, is it the non-CSGO map contest or the dwindling playerbase?

Okay, the very first version of the graybox is now playable on the Steam workshop.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/fi…s/?id=775263894

Please give it a try and let me know what you think, what you'd like to see changed and so on.

[Blocked Image: https://i.imgur.com/HYxLSX7.jpg]

[Blocked Image: https://i.imgur.com/yoGy5Y4.jpg]

Hey, thanks for the input @Roald! Let me address your points:

1.) The way the basement connects to mid: I agree with everything you're saying BUT that's because I wanted it to be exactly like that! I want it to be awkward for just 1 CT to hold mid because otherwise I feel it is too simple. The way I designed the map, I would expect 1 CT on A holding the only direct entrance (outside), 1 CT in A short, watching the connection from basement to mid, 1 CT in mid looking across to the T side (lobby) and then 2 CTs on B, one holding main, one holding balcony. I made a little picture here as well:

[Blocked Image: https://i.imgur.com/ixfhAET.png]

This way the guy at A short can always turn around and help out with defending A site but mid isn't looked down by a single CT either. Note that the two B players could be positioned in lots of different ways btw, not necessarily exactly like that. With this setup the actual mid player could give info to his A short player if everything is clear at mid and then that player can rotate from A short down to basement (covered by the proper mid player) to push and get info and the mid guy can still help out at A etc. That was my plan for the CT setup.

If I made mid easy to hold with one CT, a 2-1-2 static setup would be optimal and I feel that's too simple. That's something to test out during playtesting I guess. Does that make sense?

2.) Splitting off main and balcony later: I absolutely get where you're coming from again with the idea but there's two issues that I see with it: the first one is something you can't really see well in the overview images but there's a big height difference here. The balcony is 128+ units higher than main, so I would have to either make a ramp (but there's no space there to reach into main from the east side) or a ladder (there's already a ladder at balcony in the B bombsite right next to it so I also want to avoid that). And the second reason is that while it's true that a molly into balcony will stop any T players dead in their tracks for the duration of the flames, I like exactly that! Again, like balcony on Mirage. If it doesn't work because the CTs anticipated your play, you either wait and communicate that to your other players at main or you push through. I like that that's pretty tactical. And if you pull back, the map punishes you, again just like palace on Mirage. If I link everything up at that one point (main), then it becomes less tactical in my eyes.

Also, if everything was linked at main, it would make a CT push into main with flashes/smokes extremely strong as any CTs holding main would block off the entire B bombsite from any attacks by just sitting in one single spot where everything is routed through for the Ts. That's currently not possible because of the depth of the paths towards B from the T side.

What I will definitely do, however, is avoid having hallways that look like long empty path - maybe that's a big issue here visually. I can make rooms and lots of visual detail that you just can't access to make it look less boring and hallway-like on that route to balcony. Same goes for CT to A!

I hope I don't come across as overly defensive because I didn't agree with either of your two issues to the point where I made a change in the layout so far. Please do continue to make your point(s) @Roald and others! And if I'm wrong with any of my justifications in this post, let me know!

First of all, as always, thank you very much for your continued input, @Freaky_Banana! That's exactly what I'm looking for at this stage of the project!

Sorry that it took me a while to put this update together but I had to first read and understand your points, then come up with - hopefully - adequate solutions for those points you made that I agreed with, then map it all out and make the post!

Let me go through your points and then present layout version 4!

1.) The two entrances into B from CT: I agree absolutely, that wasn't very well thought out. I really liked the idea of connected the west entrance into B to the control room instead so I did that. This way Ts can not just smoke off two entrances after a bombsite take for the price of one!

2.) The connection from T to outside: Yeah, that was a very long sightline, which I also didn't like. I am not a fan of connecting that hallway to mid (see number 4 below for reasoning) so I broke up the sightline and worked around it differently. Ts that want to rotate away from a bombsite to the other now either use mid if they have control over it or - if they don't - they at least can just go through lobby and don't have to go through the actual T spawn anymore. I'm happy with that because I do think it's good CS map design when Ts do get punished somewhat for failing to take a bombsite AND not holding mid either (happens a lot on D2 when bad teams try and go B, first guy gets mowed down and then they just stand in upper tunnels - that's the punishment that I quite like).

3.) Sightlines in your image: Absolutely agree these were issues. I'm hopeful I managed to fix them all in the new layout below.

4.) Mid and basement: The way I see mid working right now is pretty much like on Mirage with mid and underpass there. Ts have a main entrance to mid (via lobby) and they have control over basement (underpass on Mirage). These are their tools to take mid control. If I added another path into mid, they'd have 3 entrances to mid and that I don't like, seems too much to me. CTs can push basement just like on Mirage but it only works as a surprise play because they expose themselves if they want to get into there, as you said. I changed the connections in the new layout accordingly: the south-east exit out of mid now is connected via the basement to the T side and the west entrance into B is connected to control room. I did not agree with adding a third connection in basement to the bombsite B as that would also give Ts three direct ways into B where they wouldn't be contested in any of them, making B pushes too strong.

5.) Main: Agreed, I made it bigger and made sure that Ts can come down the ramp (the path on the north-east into main) without being spotted by any CT playing a defensive position at the bombsite. They only get seen if they swing out wide towards the south-east in main. I think that's pretty good.

The actual bombsite zone in B is going to be towards the south end of the middle rocket btw!

Alright, here's version 4:

[Blocked Image: https://i.imgur.com/2NuRXzi.png]

Any further input would be greatly appreciated please! I will release a playable version on the Steam workshop very soon, stay tuned for that!

Myself, I'm pretty happy with the layout so far. Only thing is, and you mentioned this @Freaky_Banana, Ts have little incentive to take mid. In fact, mid isn't really a classic mid in this layout, as it's not directly connected to B. It's really more like a second way to take A... I'm not convinced this is an issue though. Thoughts?

Alright, excuse the double post. Here's a new version.

[Blocked Image: https://i.imgur.com/FpTG4EC.png]

Please let me know what you think! I added some callouts so we can talk about the layout more easily. Because it's hard to see in the image: the basement is only connected at the north and south-west (to lobby and mid respectively), not to B.

The sight line from T spawn through lobby, through main, into B is still problematic but it seems fixable with props or other vision occluders.

Yeah, as I said, timings are off. Rotation between the bombsites is short but okay (+/- ~1 second compared to Dust 2 and Cache) but T spawn to A/B is extremely fast. CTs ARE even faster but still, this makes for an extremely small map. I'm currently thinking of ways to extend the space between A/B and T spawn in a meaningful way.

I will definitely release the greybox version and post about that here, just ironing out the really obvious problems first!

Cheers!

Hey everybody, thanks for sticking around. I finally had the time to put together a first greybox. Here's a couple screenshots!

[Blocked Image: https://i.imgur.com/4RkiINA.png]

[Blocked Image: https://i.imgur.com/dFOmKdI.png]

Some timings are still off and there are indeed some very bad sight lines still present (like the one @Goatacus pointed out, thanks) so there's still more to do. Roofs are missing, the map is not going to be open like that obviously.

Any thoughts?

Have you tried a different model? Maybe there's something really, really wrong with your "Radarkugel"?

That or a corrupt studiomdl.exe is what remains because you're using QC scripts that work for other people.

If everything including crowbar fails then I can really only think of your studiomdl.exe being corrupt or maybe it just doesn't run on your computer at all or something, sorry!

Thank you @Lykrast!

Okay I've sorta put your two points together @baem123 and @Freaky_Banana and came up with version 2 of the layout. I agree that previously having only one way from CT spawn to A and B just wasn't cutting it and absolutely agree that it's boring to have to go B from exhibition hall. So here it is:

CTs can now go to B from Control Room or the left flank. And Ts can now go from the Exhibition Hall to A if they make it through instead of B.

Is this better? Any further thoughts/ideas/concerns?

First of all, thank you very much for the in-depth post @Freaky_Banana, your drawing helped a lot for me to understand your point better. I do see what you're saying but I'm not sure if this problem you're describing isn't also present on other popular maps. Can you for example try and explain how the same scenario would work out on de_cbble?

My first issue is that if Ts smoke A main they're just smoking themselves in pretty much? At that point they can only push the smoke (which has them at a big disadvantage) or go through balcony where at least one CT is looking. I see this situation identically on de_cache's A bombsite for example where balcony is squeaky door.

As to your second point, the CT rotations post-plant, my logic was that every bombsite has three entrances which can be used for takes and retakes which seems to be the standard when I again think of any other map.

I don't want to sound defensive and dismiss your criticism, hopefully my post doesn't come across as such, my main problem is really that I don't see how your described problem doesn't take place exactly the same on other popular midless maps! I'd love it if you could contrast my layout to de_cbble, as I said, and let me know what you think the differences are.

Cheers! Working on a greybox now!

Quote from Freaky_Banana

I already love the layout (I am currently working on a rather similar one myself concerning A) and I bet the style would make for an awesome visual appeal as well.

My only concern looking at the layout, is that B may be T-sided since you will always have the possibility of a pinsirs movement by Ts from control room. You will have to make the entrances rather narrow and easy to defend for the defending CTs (if its intended to have three CTs there that wouldn't be a problem though). Also the map will probably play very rush-heavy, since the CTs do not really get any intell on what is going on before the Ts all blow into the site. To avoid this problem it will be very important that A main is so open that CTs can gain control of the way from connector to lobby with sniper rifles when they push to right beneath the curved glass wall at A.

But as I said I love the theme and the layout in general and this is really some very hypothetical nitpicking and these problems are probably easy to avoid. Oh and block the sightline from balcony to CT spawn with something fat on the rocketpad please, so that CTs have a chance to retake from multiple positions.

Keep up the great work! Cheers!

Thank you very much for your positive words so far! I do hope it gives me a chance to make a great environment visually because it 'plays more into my cards' so to speak, my previous map was run-down and Dust-y and I don't think I can do that as well as I can do stylish clean architecture!

The default CT setup I have in mind would have two on A (one for A main, one for balcony), two on B (exhibition hall/outside) and one for the dropdown. Alternatively one B player can double up in dropdown. This is exactly like in de_cbble pretty much.

Good point with the sightline from balcony to CT spawn, that needs to be obstructed indeed! Aiming for something like ticket booth to palace on de_mirage probably!

Thanks again for the kind words and suggestions, let me know if there's anything else!

Hello everybody.

This is it, after de_spice I'm back with my second CS:GO map: de_canaveral (working title) and it takes place in a building complex of a certain four-lettered space agency. Of course, the map is purely fictional and not based on any real building or anything.

Settings, Story and Terrorist Motivation

One of the core aspects I learned about from criticism of my first map was that a cohesive setting and story is very important to people. So this time around, it's all about a new alternative rocket propulsion prototype that this space agency is developing that shows promise of being much more potent than conventional solid or liquid rocket thrust. Serious environmental concerns have arisen and, after demonstrations and protests have not achieved government intervention, a group of people has formed that are willing to do whatever it takes to stop the project.

This setting allows me to re-use the new de_nuke assets but I am prepared to supply custom textures and models as well. The general tone of these space agency facilities is very bright and clean making for great contrast against darker player models!

Layout

Let me show you the first version of the layout that I just finished:

As you can tell, de_canaveral is a modern midless map as I was growing a little tired of Dust 2/Mirage rip-offs (which my first map de_spice certainly was guilty of as well). This is more in the vein of de_cbble or de_overpass as far as the layout is concerned. Ultimately, the map currently is very compact. I do think it has everything it needs for now but it still feels small. As far as design, I played with some interesting non-90 degree geometry. Essentially segments of the level (instances) are either grid aligned or 30 degrees rotated to the left. It will be a challenge to line these up in Hammer!

Cover and other room objects are not in the sketch and will be added later. The lines between the pillars at the balcony near bombsite A are breakable glass windows. The curved wall near connector consists of boarded up windows which you can't see through but can wallbang and throw nades over to prepare an A take. Also, the long sight line from CT spawn through the bombsite B to outside will be blocked with cover at the bombsite, I don't want this to be a one-dimensional sniper shooting range!

Another important goal for this design was to counter two trends that I see in new Operation maps and that I personally dislike (and I've seen this reflected on reddit a bit as well): Too many connectors (I want to resist the urge to add a connector from control room to A for example etc.) and angles that are very long range and heavily favor AWP usage. This is not meant as an insult to the highly talented mapmakers of Cruise, Tulip, Empire and so on, just my personal taste if you will.

What's Next

So that's where I'm at right now - a Photoshop sketch. I want to get this past you and some other players/testers that I know (essentially if Global Elites think it's okay then that's good haha) and then start with a Sasha Greybox. Then we'll test and refine that and start converting it into the full and final map.

I'm very interested to hear your thoughts and concerns about the layout. Thanks ahead of time and cheers!

I like how they didn't even mention they fixed the shaded textures view in Hammer. That was my favorite thing haha.

I wonder how much we'll see phong materials for brushes from now on. I gotta do some testing in regards to looks and performance but if the latter isn't an issue - why not use it pretty much everywhere? Any reason against it apart from possible performance issues?