Tomato

It's a long time since I posted an update. Truth to be told, it was a long time that I did some updates in Hammer as well. But finally I pushed the current version of the map to the workshop as I feel that this version can be playtested again. As the previous list of remarks was still kinda big, I went over several parts of the map and redid them. Some of these changes are: I removed the connector from Long A to Upstream and added another one closer to T Spawn. This new connector is still something that I'm doubting about. And I can definetly use some feedback on this. Completely changed the path from CT Spawn to bombsite A ('Curl') Elongated the lower path on A Long. This way the T's can decide if they pick a long distance or a close quarter fight, as an attempt to make A Long less bland. Redid the layout of Mid. People where complaining about a boring mid. I added more height differences so it is not to long side line sniper lane it used to be. Both teams need to come forward and expose themself more if they want info/control over mid. Because I removed the connector from A Long, T's will now have to use mid to use the alternative way to reach bombsite A. Removed the 90 degrees corners from 'downstream' Lowered the main entryway for T's to enter bombsite B. This way they are less exposed to camping CT's when entering and could potentially setup a smoke or flash from closerby. I include an updated minimap with some callouts as reference. Let's hear your thoughts and ideas.

Yesterday there was the second playtest for the map and I gathered the following feedback: Mid is not working: There seems a lot off with my mid area. People felt that it was boring to play, not balanced. T's did not have any purpose to attack it, other than rotation advantage later in the game. It was missing cover, height differences, etc. All in all, mid has to change. It needs to be more important for both teams to engage here. And above all it needs to be more fun to play in mid. Headshot angles: All around the map there are several positions where a player can sit behind some cover and only his head is exposed to the enemy. This makes it hard to kill this player in these spots, while he/she has a good covered position to play from. This is basically due to a lot of angled floors behind cover. That way there is always some position that has this flaw. Height difference on bomb spots: Something that I heard on the first playtest as well. The map has a lot of height difference over all, but the bombspots itself are basically flat. More areas and less corridoors A long feels boring: Personally this is a though one. It is a path to connect T spawn to A site. Which is necessary of course. I feel that there won't be many contacts between teams on this part of the map, so it is quite barebones. But anyway, I'll have to think about ways to make it more interesting if there is contact. Less steep floors: The height difference is maybe too big at some points in the map. People had to look up and down (personally I like this, as it is missing in a lot of other maps). But it could be more subtle. Maybe more open spaces could change the feeling about this. Walls: A wall on A site was too thin (weapons clipped through) and a wall in 'Upstream' is too wide. Clipping issues ? In general, I had the feeling that the map improved based on the first playtest. People were positive. The huge complaint from last time, that the map was too narrow, was never mentioned. So that is a plus. I also saw lot of contact on the places that I had in mind, saw more utility used (I opened up more areas to throw nades) and the match ended 5 - 5 ? Now it is time to go back to the drawing board and improve upon the map once again. Whenever someone has more feedback, please let me now.

Hello, Yesterday I was part of the playtest on your map. A lot of feedback was already given by players/mappers far more experienced then me, though I just want to post my screens that I took yesterday and maybe add some thought. Don't be afraid to experiment. I've seen throughout the topic, that the layout already changed a lot from the first couple of iterations. Just keep what is good and gamble on what is bad. Personally, I liked the look and feel of A site. And with the feedback i heard yesterday, with some tweaking it could be a very good bombsite. Good luck with the mapping!

I would say, good job with the rocks. I like how they look.

After some work, I've finally came up with a new version of my map. I took the feedback from the playtest and started reworking each part of the map. For the most part I stretched the map in both directions, giving me some wiggle room for improvements. In general these are the changes: I widedend almost every path on the map. This was the most common thing mentioned in the playtest. First I was not really sure about this, but after some small changes here and there, I saw that I could keep my original idea, but with more space for the player everywhere. I'm glad I did this, the map feels (at least to me) still the same, though there is more playable area to manouver as a player. I added a lower part in front of CT spawn. CT's seemed to have almost no options to contest mid. There were two similar pathways which I removed and opened up. Now CT's have more options and everything is open for utility from CT spawn towards mid. T's going towards bombsite B had a difficult choice at a T junction. Which side to check first. By changing the heights of both sides, I tried making 1 side the more safe side by forcing defending CT's out into the open to check the other side for pushing T's. I reworked T spawn and Long A. This gives me options to play with timings towards bombsite A Added more verticality accross the map. Added a platform on bombsite A Removed several 90 degree corners and replaced them with more fluent paths. This mixes up some sightlines and potential distances to fight over. A lot of minor changes I added the new radar here for reference. Now I'll be trying to get feedback on this new iteration. So please don't hold back and shoot!

So, yesterday I had my first playday for this map and this was the feedback I got: Tight!!! I heard this word several times during the playtest. It seems that a lot of players found several corridors to narrow. As the map was supposed to feel tight and claustrophobic, I guess I could have expected this. Though there is a difference in “feeling” tight and actually being tight, where it is not comfortable to play. In the feedback round afterwards, I got some more feedback around this topic, as the sharp corners and the possibility to maneuver enforces the tight feeling. So in the end, I suppose the map has indeed too much narrow corridors. One point to work on, widen the corridors, but keep the feeling of it being tight. Give a player the possibility to dodge incoming bullets. Play around smokes/Molotov’s. CT mid equals death Whenever CT’s rush mid in the beginning of the round, they ended up dead. The positions where they end up is too easy to be blocked by sniping terrorists from the opposing side of mid. Suggestions were, adding cover, changing the entrance and removing the extra path (right side on overview). Additionally, the position on T side in pit seems very overpowered as it only shows the enemy’s head. T-junction alert Terrorists attacking B were suffering from indecision as if they had to turn left or right. When they push a CT could be on either side and in worse case on both. This makes it hard to successfully push through this chokepoint. In order to make this more balanced the T junction has to be changed. Opening up opportunities for nades, maybe change the cover when checking left/right etc. Next to these points there were a lot of other things/flaws/ideas pointed out, that I’ll briefly write down here: Path from Mid to A site (upstream) could be removed There are awkward head angles from upstream into Short A There is a ledge in Upstream that providers very strange angles when someone gets up there The plank between pillars on A site should not show feet beneath it Diversify the bomb sites. Maybe open up A site Add more height variation on the bomb sites/entrances itself (not only over the complete map) On CT spawn, when walking to B, CT’s have to turn around first Try to add different encounter distances (not only far and close) Less 90-degree corners (river and alleys) Open up for utility Simplify I'll add the overview here again for reference. Thanks everyone for being in the playtest and providing feedback. Time to get to the drawing board.

de_samba This is a map I'm working on from time to time. I lost it once, retrieved it and builded version upon version until now. It is supposed to be a bomb defusal map set in a favela-like environment. At least that is the plan. For know it is still a grey boxed version where I'm trying to perfect the layout. Layout: As you can see, I went for a traditional layout. But I tried to mix CQC and long range fights in several locations. I started with the idea of verticality, as the complete left side of the map is on higher ground than the right side. Screenshots: Some visuals of the current state of the map: Workshop link: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=659931332 Feedback: I'm currently looking for feedback on the layout, as I would like to find a final version, before try detailing. Showing the map and getting feedback would also be a way to give me the necessary motivation to at least finish what I started Post your thoughts here or hit me up on the Mapcore discord.

Well that's strange. Is there a certain argument i have to call when compiling the map? And about the "right folder" they are all in the same folder ".../csgo/materials/custom/de_samba" could that be a problem? BTW thanks for testing

Here you go. Google Drive Link (VMT and the two VTF files) Thanks for having a look.

This looks awesome, gonna try this out.

So if the name doesn't matter and the VMT seems correct to me, what's the problem those maps don't show up ingame? Does it need to be in a certain format? I noticed that Valve mentioned something about BGR8888 format but DXT1 should be okay to in the newer versions (under Conversion > vtfEdit)

Does the name really matter? The file is a normal map (created with CrazyBump) and i saw many tutorials where everyone used a different _name at the end. But I will try and let you know.

Nothing strange in the console, just some normal errors of things about bots and GUI elements of the main menu and something about the chickens. and then this: No pure server whitelist. sv_pure = 0 PutClientInServer: no info_player_start on level ๖ۜTom@to | ße | connected. Ethan connected. Orin connected. Adam connected. Greg connected. Nate connected. Colin connected. Wyatt connected. Josh connected. Martin connected. ] sv_cheats 1 ] noclip noclip ON ] noclip noclip OFF ] mat_normalmaps 1 Which looks all normal whenever I start the map Edit: I didn't thought building cubemaps was necessary for bumpmaps. NEver saw that in one of the tutorials. Or is it changed for GO?

Maybe I should create a new thread, but this one should actually fit. I'm having some trouble seeing bumpmaps in csgo. I've followed tutorials on the net (like TophatWaffle's one) and carefully traced the different steps. -Create vtf of base texture -Create normalmap and make vtf aswell (checking the flag "normal map") -Creating a .vmt with the following: "LightmappedGeneric" { "$basetexture" "custom/de_samba/broken_brick_plaster_bottom" "$bumpmap" "custom/de_samba/broken_brick_plaster_bottom_bump" "$surfaceprop" "Brick" "$surfaceprop2" "Default" } Then I applied the texture to a brush in Hammer and compiled the whole map (is a full compile necessary?) When I go in the game and look at the texture, I see no difference at all. When I check with " mat_normalmaps 1", I see no blue textures or whatever. Can someone help me with my problem? Thanks in advance.

Well some extra highlights or some textures that break up the pattern would be cool. But on the other side I like clean buildings and estethics we can mess up with blood spatter all over it.