Posts by Soldat Du Christ

  • WIP in WIP, post your level screenshots!

    Quote from Ringel

    3 hours ago, Ringel said: When I look closer at your height variations you might also have to deal with such 5 man boosts. Have fun! The content cannot be displayed because you do not have authorisation to view this content.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    If this was a viable strategy you would see pros pulling these off regularly, its nothing to worry about, costs too much time and man power that you need to disperse elsewhere

  • WIP in WIP, post your level screenshots!

    Quote from Ringel

    2 hours ago, Ringel said: @Soldat Du Christ I like that you use different height variations and oneway-drops are also interesting. In cs:go 2 man boosts are very nice and comon but there are also 3 man boosts possible. Different height variations may make more of them possible so you may want to watch this:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
    I personaly can't understand why they are possible. They are mostly used in an abusive way. If I would Valve I would at least highly increase the spread of the player on top. But most likely I would make 3 and more man boosts impossible because as a mapper they make the development more difficult and you may end up building too high walls or buildings which limits the amount of good molotovs and smoke lineups. Or you place an invisible wall but it is not always possible in an area with several height variations.

    And if I want that it needs 3 players to look over something I make an area you only reach with a 2 man boost that again needs a 2 man boost to look over it. So in my oppinion there is no need for a 3 man boost.

    I took this into consideration when building, and even implemented a few 2 man boosts as features, both as a way to give access to areas and for los purposes. I think it's an awesome option to give players! I didn't know 3 man boosts where possible though... yikes

  • WIP in WIP, post your level screenshots!

    Quote from blackdog

    39 minutes ago, blackdog said: Can players in A just jump down to B @Soldat Du Christ?

    Hard to tell from these shots, but overall seems like rotation times will be incredibly short. I can’t really tell the choke points where the factions will meet.

    No, i segmented a lot of the movement(red=pathing/ arrows =one way drops) with height variations, but they will be able to see both bomb sites if they take control of certain positions (blue circles are power positions, lines indicate how they see both bomb sites) and notice how those positions are located right in the center of where T and CTs first see each other and engage (Green = line of sight where both teams engage)

    In order to get to these positions where you can see both bomb sites, you will have to earn it. Keep in mind A site can be armed from under the bridge as well, see the path that leads under it.


    So pretty much, there are two main lanes, that branch out more towards center mass... There is so much going on here that i would love to gush about but it's too complex and it would take a lot of explaining. Please note that i am going to be focusing first and foremost on publishing the logic of the map, i don't plan on doing an art and asset overhaul, hopefully i will find somebody to hand the baton too once i am finished with the layout. But i did want to try and incorporate a theme based on what i ended up with

  • Frostbite - Danger Zone

    Quote from Vaya

    4 hours ago, Vaya said: Since CS weapons have crazy quick kill time players could just hold inner areas with no chance of people breaching it. it's also kinda bad for flow.

    Well of they are a T they have to push the objective, if they are a CT they have to defend the objective. So it just depends on where the dead ends are, they might not be worth defending. When it comes to methods it's better to address them on a case by case basis to see if they work in the context of the map, instead of simply spotting these as instant red flags

  • Frostbite - Danger Zone

    Quote from zombi

    On 7/17/2020 at 2:16 AM, zombi said: There is a lot of dead ends. I don't like it and it's bad for gameplay imo. Also underground is very linear.

    Last thing. Make ski lift moving and I can see this map in game.

    Ice texture is pretty cool. Good job guys!

    How are dead ends bad for gameplay?

  • The Last of Us Part 2

    Quote from [HP]

    7 hours ago, [HP] said: Isn't tlou2 story about vengeance? How can that ever be innovative?

    One thing is for certain... Last of Us 1 was one of my favourit games from the last generation. I've beat it twice on the PS3, and again on the PS4 when the remaster came out. Spent dozens of hours on it's multiplayer too, it was incredibly fresh and slower paced, the whole round felt like when in CS you're the only T alive with the bomb and there's a bunch CT's lurking somewhere waiting to fuck you up. So the whole package of this game was really good. The story was a little bit too blatantly close to Children of Men, but it was really well paced and I'm sure I've said it here in this forum a few times but that ending stayed in my mind for days if not weeks. One day I'd say to myself "nah... I would never make that decision", and in the other I'd say "but... I probably would though."

    For this sequel though, I don't feel like playing it at all, from the trailers and footage I've seen it's really depressing, not the "STALKER" movie kind of depressive that gets under your skin, just the needlessly violent and gory depressive, where characters you know and love get murdered for shock value. I just... with the pandemic and everything that's going on in the world right now, really don't feel like going 30 straight hours feeling like shit.

    See my previous comment, it's innovative because of how half the games budget was spent developing the second half of the game which nobody wanted but none the less was very compelling from a narrative structure point of view. Telling two complete sides of the same story in a video game is very innovative, and while there are many problems with the delivery that is to be expected from such ambition. You could even argue that it was doomed to fail from the start because of how much people loved the OG cast (myself included) but i can step outside of that and see what was trying to be accomplished and respect it

  • The Last of Us Part 2

    Quote from darkbsp

    On 7/11/2020 at 10:40 AM, darkbsp said: What is the point of a game that portrays what it forces you to do as evil? Is Naughty Dog going to give up violent games after this? Anything less just makes TLOU2's themes moot.

    Game makes you do extreme violence -> Game shows how that extreme violence is senseless and how hero characters are monsters to others -> Game continues to make you do extreme violence and tell you how bad it is (despite them deliberately making several elements of killing quite flashy) -> Naughty Dog continues making violent games with tons of killing (probably, unless they do change).

    What is the point? How does that make any sense at all? It's the age old meme in games of "can't you see what we force you to do is wrong??" It's like: Yes! Yes! This is all wrong! Why do you make me do it then? Just stop making these games if the message is that these actions are wrong! It's entirely contradictory.

    Niel druckman said the message is "obsession will cost you everything" which is kind of ironic considering his obsession with trying to make an innovative story cost him his reputation

  • CSGO Community commentary from an outsider perspective

    @DMU222

    "A lot of good maps do do this. Look at B cat on Mirage. This is a powerful central position, that dynamically shifts in purpose depending on area of control of each team. Good map makers do rethink the fundamentals, but an original twist needs to be implemented in a way that the player doesn't feel like abusing it is the only way to play the map. A lot of good ideas in a single map does not make a map good. Careful, well thought out maps can be beautiful.

    Most maps in the competitive map pool right now are completely different from each other. Inferno has three lanes leading to A and only one leading to B. It's a wacky design but for many people it's their favorite map. Why is that? Because if you really break it down it is still a simple four lane map that feels different not because it throws out the fundamentals, but because it puts them in a new perspective and orientation. Even nuke, the wildest map of all, has the same principle design philosophy behind its layout. Yet nobody would even think to call it a Dust 2 clone. Ultimately there is no specific rule that creates 'great' csgo maps, but keeping the fundamentals in mind is what ensures that you create a balanced (and thus fun) experience.

    Imagine if Halo level design was approached like it was CS. I don't think that map would be very fun to play for a full match."


    I agree with everything you said. For the record i don't think it's necessarily bad that most maps are dust2 remakes, or that 3 lane formulas are all dust 2 remakes. It think the 3 lane formula works well for CS offence/ defence. But it is redundant, as everyone here is already aware. My favorite map so far is Zoo, what are your favorite unique maps out there?


    And there is a map made in Halo forge that was inspired by the day of defeat mod for source, the map is also called day of defeat, lol. I think it's cool, lots of people in the community liked it. Was made by salty koala bear

    Quote from sn0wsh00

    17 hours ago, sn0wsh00 said: Given that you have a lot of experience creating Halo maps, I think you should also consider porting Tribunal, Bastion and Exotic Castle as deathmatch/arms race/fight yard maps into CS:GO. Obviously, you'll need to make adjustments to reduce fall damage and the like, but I would be nice if we can get some more good looking DM maps for the game.

    Plus, if you set your maps in space, I can add them to my CS:GO In Space collection

    This is a great idea! I know a good map of mine that will translate into deathmatch, none of the ones you mentioned, it will be a good warm up to hammer.

    I agree with a lot of your latter points, but you objectively incorrect about your first point. I'll get some media together for you later so i can accurately show you what spots i'm talking about

  • WIP in WIP, post your level screenshots!

    Quote from Lizard

    6 hours ago, Lizard said: Of course. How do you want to balance a chokepoint anyway? Default strar for most cs maps is 2 - A, 2- B and 1 mid player. CT team is always harder because T's can just outnumber them on bombsites (full rush). This is why chokepoints are designed... to compensate advantage of player count on T team. And obviously that is why buying utility is a crucial part of tactics on T side.

    Within the context of Dust 2, I can see your point. The map is room based and heavely segmented, even between both bomb sites. So CTs don't really know which bomb site they will have to defend. This is why you guys need to start thinking outside the box. Most of the time in CS maps: where you can MOVE is synonymous with where you can SEE and where you can SHOOT. An exception to this i've seen very rarely is your standard window that you can SEE and SHOOT through but you can't MOVE through it.


    You can do a lot of cool stuff by segmenting these fundamentals. Like opening up the lines of sight while still having linear pathing to empower players who want to gather intel by taking up certain advantageous positions.


    Alright this is for real my last off topic post in waywo, but i just want you guys to open your minds and think backwards for a change, and not forwards off of what little you've been provided with. You don't know what you don't know right? In order to have new ideas you need to look outside of the map design you are familiar with and re think the fundamentals :)


    Or just keep remaking Dust 2, its up to you!

  • WIP in WIP, post your level screenshots!

    Quote from Nakroma

    5 hours ago, Nakroma said: I'd argue removing that makes the game less dynamic. You're removing the positioning aspect of CS:GO with that and reduce it to 50/50 aim duels.

    I wouldn't remove anything, the idea is to add on the experience established not take away. The only difference is that you wouldn't HAVE to buy equipment just to break through a chokepoint. This would mean you can engage in much more liberating ways. Trust me, nobody enjoys being bait, dying at the start of a one life based match, and watching your teamates clean up after you.

  • WIP in WIP, post your level screenshots!

    Yeah ill stop after this response, i agree with you banana, once an identity is established it's hard to get players to open their minds to bigger and better things. This is not exclusive to csgo, in my experience most competitive scenes are like this.


    And Nakroma, pushing A bomb site there are are several crates CT could be hiding behind, and both side of the choke exit CTs can sit in those corners and just wait.


    Also if you push far right B bomb site, you almost always have to flash each time to guarantee a safe exit. I've seen both instances sooo many times. War Owl made a video about player roles and one of them was litteraly a suicide role because of how hard it is to break chokepoints. You have to send one guy in to die just to reveal the enemy locations so that the next guys will have the information they need in order to then properly advance.


    CSGO is all about optimising very repetitive engagements and using every inch of leverage you could possibly squeeze out of the few options you have. And people seem to like this i guess

  • WIP in WIP, post your level screenshots!

    I feel like there are many engagements that almost require you to purchase equipment like flash or smokes or frags, or at least it makes it very difficult to push through choke points without them, all three chokes on dust 2 come to mind really.


    What if a checkpoints where balenced enough so that you don't HAVE to purchase equipment to even the odds? You don't HAVE to use a frag or molotov to check corners or make educated guesses because you are empowered as an indovidual to deduct the corners as you progress through a lane. You don't HAVE to flash before you break through a choke point because that engagements is nuanced and balenced for both teams.


    I imagine the result of this would free up the players budgets to use towards more experiemental/ dynamic plays. What do you guys think?