Jump to content

[GSGO] de_samba [WIP]


Recommended Posts

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.

Spoiler

de_samba_radar_callouts.png.5def77748c807c028cc13d8ce4340ed8.png

Screenshots: 
Some visuals of the current state of the map:

Spoiler

D246F1E80DCA01C6D69F5E1BA694C416AC684AAB

 

5D9A989BF3E5363425DFC8DD99C78F47A20666F4

 

601AFDFAE60F120714C8F1EEFCBD8D175ED35C86

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.

Edited by Tomato
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
    Spoiler

    image.png.4f85c1dffc8b51bcc2784e027a1901f8.png

  • 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.
    Spoiler

    image.png.99cc99c558f9d88434e6715e81d71055.png

  • 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
    Spoiler

    image.png.9ae2c96d1385229d03160950c6049d61.png

  • There is a ledge in Upstream that providers very strange angles when someone gets up there
    Spoiler

    image.png.a3edd5d294f9dd97f9e7f2c8eadeac2e.png

  • The plank between pillars on A site should not show feet beneath it
    Spoiler

    image.png.e631254c435adb854bb641345417a7ac.png

  • 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.
 

Spoiler

de_samba_radar_callouts.png.5def77748c807c028cc13d8ce4340ed8.png

 Thanks everyone for being in the playtest and providing feedback.

Time to get to the drawing board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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 
Spoiler

de_samba_radar_callouts_21_02_18.png.1e8ba08c110e0170542fb0a25aa5409f.png

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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.

Edited by Tomato
Typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...