MapCore CS:GO Playtesting 3.0

[Psy]

Please turn off sv_pure.

kthx.

[owlyoop]

thanks for test, gonna rework it so it isn't gimmicky anymore U:

[Setin]

I'd like to get a test in for my map on Tuesday if one is available.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Setin

['RZL]

Alright, tuesday it is.

 

We are going to playtest Senturas completely reworked map and Setins map at 21:00 GMT+1.

I am looking forward to it!

[Setin]

Senturas map:

 

I really like the setting, kind of like a castle or something with a river going through it. Seemed interesting. It was fun to play and seemed well enough. 

 

The dark spot right behind A (the closest site to CT spawn?) seemed like a camper nest and players could see through that window to the entrance of the site. It also seemed like this site was literally never used by T's to plant the bomb. You may want to look in on that. The other site though seemed pretty good. Maybe some more cover on the bridge would help.

 

 

 

 

Does anyone have any feedback for my map?

Edited November 6, 2013 by Setin

[Sentura]

Ah right, I wasn't sure whose map the other one was. I think the biggest critique is the plain sightline at B where CTs going up the stairs will get shot immediately. Also you might want to cut down or work one of the routes at A into another, it seems hard to defend from so many angles.

 

Otherwise a pretty cool map, it reminds me layoutwise of gwalior for some reason.

[Vilham]

Got nothing for you setin as I left because my mouse was being shit.

 

Sentura, I'm not sure about your map, there were parts of it that felt good and played well but the overall layout just didn't seem balanced, the encounter points were often strange and rotating was very difficult. A was also almost impossible to attack as T's.

['RZL]

DE _Hangard

 

The Layout was definitely better than the last time we tested. However, I didn't feel that it was good enough yet, bombsite A was pretty much never used and felt rather strange layout wise, it definitely needs some rework. The encounter points were strange, they didn't really feel natural. B site was somewhat better, but had its own set of problems, namely the height difference and the not-so-low chance of the bomb dropping into water. Overall I have rather mixed feelings about the layout.

 

DE_Monsoon

 

I like the changes you did to the map since the last time, played pretty good in my eyes. There are two things that should be considered getting some rework, the Mid to A connector, which is a long and narrow corridor and the door. My suggestions here would be, to shorten the corridor somehow and to change the door  into a double door or to remove it, something along those lines.

[Sentura]

Thanks for the crits, I'll have the (hopefully) final version of the layout up for sunday

[Setin]

I'd like to get mine up again for this Sunday's test. Want to try it without the path from Mid to A, also some other changes. Changed T spawn to B as well (only 1 path now instead of a split path).

['RZL]

bingo bango bongo! playtesting de_hangard and de_plaza begins now!

 

Join us! 78.46.119.137:27016

[Puddy]

bish bash bosh

[Puddy]

de_hangard

Some good encounters in places, but the flow of the map doesn't really grab a hold of me. The Bridge bombsite needs a massive overhaul to be appealing for terrorists. The other bombsite I found was a bit small and a bit unusual.

 

de_plaza

A strong foundation for a really cool map, much more interesting than previous versions. The main problem I encountered was that all the plant/bench-"squares" allowed you to peek with only a small portion of your head visible, I found that really frustrating. And the plants were interfering with sightlines. Both sites were pretty decent, but it was a problem that one of the sites only really had one entrance for CT that didn't require a massive loop-around through T spawn (it didn't have a mid connector).

 

 

Tomorrow I'm planning on having my map, WIP name de_cliffs, tested again! See you fellas at 21:00 CET tomorrow!

 

Overview:

Edited November 11, 2013 by Puddy

[Sentura]

Puddy - do you think moving the bombsite would make a difference? I was considering moving it above ground and in general provide it with much more cover.

 

Also for bombsite A I really need some input on what exactly is wrong with it. I'm blindsided.

[OrnateBaboon]

I think moving it up would definitely be better, since players will no longer have to clear upstairs and downstairs when going for a plant/defuse. At the moment, when you get to the site, if you don't check the whole area, including upstairs, it is common to see someone pop out from the upper bridge section, and shoot you.

 

A more fundamental issue with the site however, is that it is very hard for the T's to attack using the main T entrances. The CT's have a lot of places to set-up, with multiple sightlines on the doors that require a large aim adjustment from the T's. I think reducing the number of sighlines on the doors, and closing off one of the T entrances - probably the one closest to the T spawn, could make the site a more attractive option. It would also harden the choke point -  probably a good thing in this case, since the two doors next to each other make the area feel too loose.

 

Regarding the A site. I would say it is almost like a wide corridor at the moment, with cover that feels hap hazard, and with limited options for defending. Making it at least twice the width - the site extending more over to the left, and adding some cover better suited for holding a site would dramatically improve the area. This should be pretty easy to do given the door placement, and would create more opportunities for turning the site into something with a bit more mission value when it come to the art pass.