Advice about theoretical matters (Cs Go mapping)

[laminutederire]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering several things like would it be possible to have abalanced gameplay with three bomb sites for example, if someone is able to help me with such questions, please help!

I ask because I've found nothing about such questions.

Thanks in advance!

[kscythe]

Three bombspots aren't really balanced because there are not enough players to hold of the terrorist from a bombspot. imagine you have to split up to a group of max. 2 players per spot and 1 on all other spots while 1 is reserve on switch.

 

would be impossible to hold for cts.

[Vaya]

Currently you have roughly just less than 1/2 the team holding a site (5 vs 5 it's normally 2 per site) more sites would push the average to one. one person can't normally deal with a 5 player rush.

[Spherix]

So yeah, 7 vs 7 matches. 

[Deh0lise]

You've found nothing abut this questions because the game mode is 5on5 & 2 bombsites, if you are going to do it differently it will be a different game mode and will be up to players to accept it. Knowing the cs community I'd say they will all whine like a child and pronounce bad words.

 

Imo, if you want to innovate create a good ctf/zone control map, that will have a bigger audience.

 

P.S I disagree with you all, it is possible to make a 5on5 map with 3 bombsites which is balanced (v.g bombspots with one entrance, big cover, far bombsite, different heights etc).

[Squad]

P.S I disagree with you all, it is possible to make a 5on5 map with 3 bombsites which is balanced (v.g bombspots with one entrance, big cover, far bombsite, different heights etc).

 

Exactly. I definately wouldn't say it's not possible to make such a map and make it fun and balanced too. For example have two bombsites pretty close to each other and the third further away. There are more possibilities off course, but I think it's possible.

[DrywallDreams]

You've found nothing abut this questions because the game mode is 5on5 & 2 bombsites, if you are going to do it differently it will be a different game mode and will be up to players to accept it. Knowing the cs community I'd say they will all whine like a child and pronounce bad words.

 

Imo, if you want to innovate create a good ctf/zone control map, that will have a bigger audience.

 

P.S I disagree with you all, it is possible to make a 5on5 map with 3 bombsites which is balanced (v.g bombspots with one entrance, big cover, far bombsite, different heights etc).

I feel like it would change the metagame in a very negative way.  The game currently is about trying to find a weakness in CT defenses, but with three sites (especially with fewer entrances and such) the game could easily swing to be all about simply bombarding a bombsite.

[Vaya]

Next challenge?

 

I still don't think it would work (if you have one bombsite further away that becomes a safer option for the t side. CT inversely will need to keep more players onsite)

 

Making sites CT-sided will in turn make the map CT-sided. CS is not longer fun if there's no chance of penetrating the opposing teams defence.

Basically the way I see it you'll be massively limiting the CTs options if they are to keep control of all the sites. Unless sites share connectors etc and then, well, what's the point of having the 2 sites right beside each other? Might as well just be one 

 

It's a good discussion though

[laminutederire]

I was just wondering since it may develop new ways of playing, since you cannot hold sites you have to make choices, like in a real situation.

Since many are disagreeing it is also better to know precisely why !

Also there are attempts to try new things, why not talk about it here to make these insights better !

[tomm]

I can see this working

 

CTs need to be able to rotate faster than usual.

Plants will need to be closer to each other, maybe even add a sightline from one to the other for easier map control, but still provide enough cover for Ts

 

or maybe have like one main bombsite and 2 'mini' side bombsites

 

this could end up in an interesting fast paced defusal map.

[Niller^.-]

Compromise - A map with 3 bombsites where only two was in play. At the beginning of the game a controller would choose two bombsites for that entire match, providing 3 different layouts out of one map, obviously this would also make the map even harder to balance

 

Though I don't know if such setup is even possible.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Niller^.-

[laminutederire]

My initial thought was to create lookout points but it may become too easy for snipers then i thought about escape route, so that Ct's could sneak out to come back as a team.

I guess everything is possible if we put time in it

[Squad]

Maybe a scenario where you have two regular bombsites, which would be the obious choice for Ts to go to. And then there is a third, which is really hard to reach, but if you can plant there, it's pretty hard for CTs to defuse the bomb. Big risk = big reward.

For example, let's imagine MrP's de_mist. The third bombsite could be up in the sniper tower.

[text_fish]

There were some 3-site maps made for CS beta (and possibly 1.6) IIRC? I guess they were axed because they weren't very popular, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried again.

 

The distrust of change is a major problem for the CS community and regularly holds the game back, so personally I don't think it's a valid reason not to try new things otherwise the game would never progress. There's also this weird notion that there's only a very specific set of rules and scenarios that can possibly be considered "balanced" (i.e. the closer you are to Dust 2 the better). Obviously the more elements you have the harder it is to balance them, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

 

Long story short, I say go for it!

[Deh0lise]

Maybe a scenario where you have two regular bombsites, which would be the obious choice for Ts to go to. And then there is a third, which is really hard to reach, but if you can plant there, it's pretty hard for CTs to defuse the bomb. Big risk = big reward.

For example, let's imagine MrP's de_mist. The third bombsite could be up in the sniper tower.

 

Agree. Another one, 3rd bombsite in dust2 in middle double doors (ct side) with a really small and risky plant zone. It can be covered with snipers from both bombsites, it's easier to retake and has no cover for Ts (ergo, not the first option). It would only be used in the late game faking/rotating, or suicide mid+smoke rush.

 

There were some 3-site maps made for CS beta (and possibly 1.6) IIRC? I guess they were axed because they weren't very popular, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried again.

 

The distrust of change is a major problem for the CS community and regularly holds the game back, so personally I don't think it's a valid reason not to try new things otherwise the game would never progress. There's also this weird notion that there's only a very specific set of rules and scenarios that can possibly be considered "balanced" (i.e. the closer you are to Dust 2 the better). Obviously the more elements you have the harder it is to balance them, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

 

Long story short, I say go for it!

I think it is Weber (or was it Comte?) who said something like this "trying to go against the laws of society is the equivalent to banging one’s head against a brick wall", and it stands true for competitive cs players. Despite that, I'm with you, in CSGO there is a lot less resistence to new stuff, Valve is helping with this (not just with weapons and skins, but also maps like insertion, or the released ctf setting) and despite it is still hard to overcome the resistance it would be nice to have some creativity in this domain.

 

I'd like a weekly workshop map rotation in casual mode in order to promote custom content and new stuff.