[CoMP] Competitive Map Pack - New Thread!

[KoA John]

If Driecksdorf is considered bad, then god only know what you would call the rest of the crap we allow into competitve

 

[ACanadianPolarBear]

If Driecksdorf is considered bad, then god only know what you would call the rest of the crap we allow into competitve

TRUUUUUUUUUU

 

[unicorn]

If Driecksdorf is considered bad, then god only know what you would call the rest of the crap we allow into competitve

TRUUUUUUUUUU

 

[POM_Zero]

If Driecksdorf is considered bad, then god only know what you would call the rest of the crap we allow into competitve

bad. Quagmire is terrible completely unbalanced maps, one spawn has favorable map control, the props are all scaled up making it look retarded and hard to gauge distance. Fort of Honor is ok ish, one side has much favorable map/master control due to the high points it has in its favors, making challenging those flags hard. Back to Back is one of the worse if not the worse ( hard to pick in between it and quagmire) Both spawns are divided by a mere tunnel system which is terrible, since a cav player can just charge for a easy kill on late spawn. Takes 5 secs on cav and like 10 on foot to get from one spawn. Two master of the fields are poorly placed compared to the third in terms of where it is and its surrounding. Moutain Fortress isnt that a siege map ?!?

I do want to respond to Peasant, but I can't divine which spawn he's talking about for which side.

You dont really want to reply because you don't want to acknowledge your maps are poor, and have flaws. He took time to consider what was wrong with the map and brought it up to you. Exactly what you asked for in the unac thread. But you fail to acknowledge him, please dont be a hypocrite .

You want to put some legit criticisms in the CoMP thread? 

 

[Random Peasant]

but I can't divine which spawn he's talking about for which side.

How not? I clearly described each spawn by the directions they can travel in, since both spawns can only travel in two directions. Would you like me to draw up a diagram?

If Driecksdorf is considered bad, then god only know what you would call the rest of the crap we allow into competitve

I dislike the vast majority of "competitive" custom maps that I have seen thus far. The campy MOTF placements on a lot of them are one of my biggest gripes. In fact, if the campy MOTF placements on them were fixed I would probably turn over and start to like most of the maps.

Reveran Village and Frosty Battle are the only decent maps I've come across that I can immediately think of. Both have flaws, but those flaws are manageable. There are probably more decent maps that I've either forgotten or have yet to play on.

 

[RoBo_CoP]

I heard the best way to speak to people is to be as passive aggressive as possible...

or respond with some like this:

I do want to respond to Peasant, but I can't divine which spawn he's talking about for which side.

Yes Madoc, thanks for the response. The spawn im calling into question is spawn A. It is a better position than spawn B because of X and Y reasons. Here's a few screenshots to illustrate my point:

隐藏: screens go here

 

[Lagstro]

Back to Back = Instant Combat = Best Map Ever

No but seriously though, I do actually like it. I like the fact that you could potentially start fighting within 10 seconds of spawning (it saves a lot of time between between two highly aggressive teams) ... and you can't really spawn as an archer and head shot the enemy right off the bat because there are two walls in the way. Yea... as a cav you can get there quickly... but you will most likely die more times than not while attempting it... all it takes is one stab by a spear or a lucky slash on you and you're dead.

Only things I think should be added/changed is an invisible wall between the corner of the top of the tunnel (behind the wooden palisade)and that roof you have to jump to get onto to close off access to it. Or perhaps add a little ladder to it for easier access just like the other roof at the other corner of the top part of the tunnel.

Also... I feel like some pretty campy positions could be made slightly easier to attack if the direction of some stairways were changed a bit... For example: the very corner of the map (directly left of one of the spawns) where there is a stairway which archers usually go up to camp in. The problem I see is that the ladders start right NEXT to the wall... then going up into the safe place... so for attackers to even be able to attack them... they would have to somehow get passed the entire team ALL the way until they touch the wall (which is in a corner mind you)... and then climb the staircase up to the archers whilst somehow not getting shot or noobed by the team protecting the staircase. I think it would be much better if the staircase were switched around so that the place where you start climbing them is more in the open area and not in the corner which is nearly impossible to reach. This way... inf that push down the alley can fight the enemy... and also be able to easily send one or two inf into the bit more accessible stairway up into the archers.

What makes it worse... is that there's actually a motf there.... and with the way that corner staircase is set up... any archers that climb it are 100% safe... anyone attempting to push into that corner will die before even getting to the entrance of the staircase and that's pretty ridiculous. Nowhere should you be able to be that safe with such a great vantage point with little to no risk whatsoever. Whereas were the staircase to we switched directions... they would still be relatively safe and still in a great vantage point... but at least they could get pushed out a bit easier and not be 100% untouchable.

Or even better... completely take away the staircase to not promote camping 

My explanation is probably absolute sh*t in writing... but I could easily show you what I mean in a mere 30 seconds in a server.

 

[Random Peasant]

I heard the best way to speak to people is to be as passive aggressive as possible...

Are you trying to say my response is passive aggressive? If so, I would have to say that's incorrect. If not, then disregard.

 

[RoBo_CoP]

How not? I clearly described each spawn by the directions they can travel in, since both spawns can only travel in two directions. Would you like me to draw up a diagram?

Yes, I am saying it's passive aggressive. How is that NOT passive aggressive? Combined with that tone and how Zero is going about it, I'd be insulted. To be honest, your initial complaint of the map was vague and uninformative for the most part. When it comes to making a complaint and expecting a legitimate response and action, you literally need to draw up a diagram. Show some screens and effectively express how the map is unbalanced with appreciation of what ever he may reply.

If you follow the steps I've provided and Madoc doesn't deliver then please, call him names all you want (not Peasant specifically), but give him the chance and the information required to do so first.

 

[Random Peasant]

How not? I clearly described each spawn by the directions they can travel in, since both spawns can only travel in two directions. Would you like me to draw up a diagram?

Yes, I am saying it's passive aggressive. How is that NOT passive aggressive? Combined with that tone and how Zero is going about it, I'd be insulted.

Considering he's the first person to say he was unable to make sense of what I was saying I pointed out the important information to try and help him along. If that fails to help then I offer to literally draw it out for him. How is that passive aggressive? Whatever Zero says has no impact on what I say. That's between him and Zero.

To be honest, your initial complaint of the map was vague and uninformative for the most part. When it comes to making a complaint and expecting a legitimate response and action, you literally need to draw up a diagram. Show some screens and effectively express how the map is unbalanced with appreciation of what ever he may reply.

Again, him being the first person to say he failed to grasp what I was saying, I didn't see the need to provide images. The map itself is quite simple in design, so I also resent that you claim what I said was somehow vague and especially uninformative--on the contrary I was being rather detailed and provided plenty of perspective terms.

For example:

One spawn is obviously superior to the other, giving that spawn two good and safe options to move: left and center

How is this vague? You immediately know which spawn I am referring to as the superior spawn, since there is only one spawn that can move left and center. The rest simply falls in line with that.

Regardless I'll probably go through the trouble of providing images should I feel compelled to critique any other maps.

 

[blak]

How not? I clearly described each spawn by the directions they can travel in, since both spawns can only travel in two directions. Would you like me to draw up a diagram?

Yes, I am saying it's passive aggressive. How is that NOT passive aggressive? Combined with that tone and how Zero is going about it, I'd be insulted. To be honest, your initial complaint of the map was vague and uninformative for the most part. When it comes to making a complaint and expecting a legitimate response and action, you literally need to draw up a diagram. Show some screens and effectively express how the map is unbalanced with appreciation of what ever he may reply.

If you follow the steps I've provided and Madoc doesn't deliver then please, call him names all you want (not Peasant specifically), but give him the chance and the information required to do so first.

There was nothing passive aggressive about peas' post, I am willing to bet Peas was 100% serious when he said he would draw a diagram. I agree Zerp is being combative but you have accomplished nothing except for pouring gas on an otherwise small fire and distracting from the original point.

 

[RoBo_CoP]

That's between him and Zero.

Given that he's responding to messages that are intended for you, a member of your clan, and on the exact same topic, I would say you're obligated to smack Zero if he's going to hinder any effort to get the map fixed.

accomplished nothing

Regardless I'll probably go through the trouble of providing images should I feel compelled to critique any other maps.

Victory achieved. Carry on boys. Goodluck with the map.

 

[Random Peasant]

That's between him and Zero.

Given that he's responding to messages that are intended for you, a member of your clan, and on the exact same topic, I would say you're obligated to smack Zero if he's going to hinder any effort to get the map fixed.

Are you serious? What, is Zero some kind of dog to you? He's an adult. He can make his own choices and do as he likes. Consequence is at the discretion of the administrative team of this forum.

Regardless I'll probably go through the trouble of providing images should I feel compelled to critique any other maps.

Victory achieved. Carry on boys. Goodluck with the map.

There is no victory here for you. You really have provided nothing of value to this discussion and I will kindly ask you to simply sit out of further discussion if all you're going to do is chime in to be offended on someone else's behalf. My intention to provide images upon my next critique was established long before you said anything.

 

[MadocComadrin]

You dont really want to reply because you don't want to acknowledge your maps are poor, and have flaws. He took time to consider what was wrong with the map and brought it up to you. Exactly what you asked for in the unac thread. But you fail to acknowledge him, please dont be a hypocrite .

You really want to say that? I've culled more of my own maps for not being good enough than some people have made and have made changes to maps based on criticism (e.g. on Quagmire via good, thought out suggestions from Mad Dawg). I do have quite a bit of self awareness, and do respond to criticisms thank you very much.

@Peas: I wanted to be sure about which specific areas you are talking about. Here's what I've seen, it may or may not match your experience:

The smith side spawn has a protected area (the smithy) that denies some coverage to the center area. It's safe, but it's not the best spot for archery--it could probably be rearranged to be less cluttered. They also have the small stairway-house, which provides some protection. The other spawn has the barrel house, which is less protective than the smithy, but allows for more archer coverage to the center areas. This spawn can reach the middle slightly faster, as one of its corners is cut. It also has the small green space to the left, which also protects against cav but not so much against archers. Does this agree or disagree with your experience? Do you have any suggestions for the map?

Quagmire is terrible completely unbalanced maps, one spawn has favorable map control, the props are all scaled up making it look retarded and hard to gauge distance.

This side that has "favorable" map control also has the riskiest approach to the flags and can be pressured quite easily. Also, I just checked, the only prop that is majorly scaled up is the stone bridge--most other props are 1-1-1 or slightly smaller. Some of the trees are randomly upscaled (and downscaled), but this is not an unusual scene-making practice and shouldn't have any negative effects.

Back to Back is one of the worse if not the worse ( hard to pick in between it and quagmire) Both spawns are divided by a mere tunnel system which is terrible, since a cav player can just charge for a easy kill on late spawn. Takes 5 secs on cav and like 10 on foot to get from one spawn. Two master of the fields are poorly placed compared to the third in terms of where it is and its surrounding.

I purposely placed the spawns as such. It was an experiment, hence the name of the map, and it seems quite popular so far. Also, do you want to actually point out which two flags?

It has always been my understanding, and I could be wrong about this to begin with, that MOTFs are in place to punish or prevent excessive camping.

I agree and disagree. MoTFs should be things that both create and limit tactical options creatively. If the maps lends itself for MoTFs to punish camping, then so be it. The MoTF could also make the fight for position much more important. Given the randomness of MoTF spawns, you're most often going to have one team have an advantage. I like to tailor that advantage to give the unlucky team options: here's a somewhat relevant quote of mine.

1.) A "strong-side" and a "weak side": the flag should have a strong side that is hard to push into. The other side is a weak side, where the assaulting team can trade something (often time) for an easier push (an equal or better position depending on the sacrifice). I did this in Back-to-Back, with two flags having a side that is easier to defend but potentially quicker to get to.

2.) Initial Advantage Only: The flag spawn offers the defenders an advantage (e.g. a crossfire) that can be negated, equalized or turned into a disadvantage if the defenders do not win the initial fight. This can be blended with 1 to make a variety of flag spawns. I tried to do this a bit in Forest Road (but I think the map is too large and too open overall).

3.) Equal Risk: The flag spawn offers no inherent advantage. Getting there first gives you extra time to delay and/or harass, but there are no hardpoints or crossfires for the defender that can't be equally countered with a hardpoint or a crossfire for the attackers.

There are probably other good flag spawn ideas.

Only things I think should be added/changed is an invisible wall between the corner of the top of the tunnel (behind the wooden palisade)and that roof you have to jump to get onto to close off access to it. Or perhaps add a little ladder to it for easier access just like the other roof at the other corner of the top part of the tunnel.

I thought I added one in there in the latest version, especially (but not limited to) the UNAC version in the CoMP dropbox.

Also... I feel like some pretty campy positions could be made slightly easier to attack if the direction of some stairways were changed a bit... For example: the very corner of the map (directly left of one of the spawns) where there is a stairway which archers usually go up to camp in. The problem I see is that the ladders start right NEXT to the wall... then going up into the safe place... so for attackers to even be able to attack them... they would have to somehow get passed the entire team ALL the way until they touch the wall (which is in a corner mind you)... and then climb the staircase up to the archers whilst somehow not getting shot or noobed by the team protecting the staircase. I think it would be much better if the staircase were switched around so that the place where you start climbing them is more in the open area and not in the corner which is nearly impossible to reach. This way... inf that push down the alley can fight the enemy... and also be able to easily send one or two inf into the bit more accessible stairway up into the archers.

What makes it worse... is that there's actually a motf there.... and with the way that corner staircase is set up... any archers that climb it are 100% safe... anyone attempting to push into that corner will die before even getting to the entrance of the staircase and that's pretty ridiculous. Nowhere should you be able to be that safe with such a great vantage point with little to no risk whatsoever. Whereas were the staircase to we switched directions... they would still be relatively safe and still in a great vantage point... but at least they could get pushed out a bit easier and not be 100% untouchable.

My intent there was to make that stairway the "defendable" side during an flag spawn. Going up the short stairs on the right should in theory lead to a better position for the assaulting team--the idea was that the assaulting team could sacrifice time to gain a better position or attempt to charge through; however, if that area needs to be weakened, I can do it. I'd be willing to hop on a server any time if you have ideas on how to do that.

 

[ClockWise]

Read a lot here, but here's something small I thought about concerning the corner flag spawn on back to back. Why not just get rid of the balcony area but leave the stairs? Maybe even, like lag suggested, turn the stairs around for easier access. This way, it still offers some benefit if you decide to put someone up there, but at the same time, they won't be concealed from enemy fire. Amirite?

 

[Lagstro]

Only things I think should be added/changed is an invisible wall between the corner of the top of the tunnel (behind the wooden palisade)and that roof you have to jump to get onto to close off access to it. Or perhaps add a little ladder to it for easier access just like the other roof at the other corner of the top part of the tunnel.

I thought I added one in there in the latest version, especially (but not limited to) the UNAC version in the CoMP dropbox.

Just checked it right now... you can definitely still get up there. D: 

It has most likely already been used a few times during UNAC as it is, I think I remember it being used against us a few times by MoB during our first match (though I might be mixing this up with some memories of unofficial matches with tK )... but I don't really remember anyone ever having said that it couldn't be used... so that's why I am wondering why nothing has been added or said so that people can't use it.

like lag suggested, turn the stairs around for easier access. This way, it still offers some benefit if you decide to put someone up there, but at the same time, they won't be concealed from enemy fire. Amirite?

rite

Read a lot here, but here's something small I thought about concerning the corner flag spawn on back to back. Why not just get rid of the balcony area but leave the stairs?

    Do you mean like the staircase in the sandiboush graveyard, but a bit shorter? If so... yea, I suppose that would a bit better... but the problem still remains that the entrance to the staircase is still located in a corner against the wall... and it would still be pretty difficult to reach without most of the enemy team first, otherwise, you would just get easily cornered and you would be dead... but... perhaps what could work... is taking out the balcony to reduce the effectiveness of heavily camping the area... but leaving the stairs... but add the same stairs symmetrically on the other side so that there is access to it from both ends and it's only purpose would be for limited cover and a bit of elevation for archers to not be easily reached by cav and get some better angles over the enemy.

It would look something like this... but without the first flight of stairs...

隐藏

Or even better... if you remember the map that was played on POM a lot, Winterburg... it would look something like that wooden staircase thingy that has two symmetrical access points for both sides to be able to make equal use out of it. (Heck, perhaps the stairs could just be replaced by one of those instead.)

 

[Random Peasant]

@Peas: I wanted to be sure about which specific areas you are talking about. Here's what I've seen, it may or may not match your experience:

The smith side spawn has a protected area (the smithy) that denies some coverage to the center area. It's safe, but it's not the best spot for archery--it could probably be rearranged to be less cluttered. They also have the small stairway-house, which provides some protection. The other spawn has the barrel house, which is less protective than the smithy, but allows for more archer coverage to the center areas. This spawn can reach the middle slightly faster, as one of its corners is cut. It also has the small green space to the left, which also protects against cav but not so much against archers. Does this agree or disagree with your experience? Do you have any suggestions for the map?

For clarity: Superior spawn = grassy area spawn. Lesser spawn = smithy spawn.

It takes roughly 3-4 seconds more (on foot) for the smithy spawn to reach the middle. The smithy spawn is also less protected when coming out to get to the middle. This gives the grassy area spawn early shots and freedom of movement to take control of 2/3 MOTFs right away. The smithy area itself is fine, but since there is no way to truly utilise the wall for counter-archery--and I'm not saying there should be--it is not a very good place to be. This makes it so the only true and safe place for the smithy spawn to go is down the alley to the right, because that is where their MOTF is.

Due to the symmetrical nature of the map it would only make sense if both spawns had an equal amount of freedom of movement. This is not currently the case.

It has always been my understanding, and I could be wrong about this to begin with, that MOTFs are in place to punish or prevent excessive camping.

I agree and disagree. MoTFs should be things that both create and limit tactical options creatively. If the maps lends itself for MoTFs to punish camping, then so be it. The MoTF could also make the fight for position much more important. Given the randomness of MoTF spawns, you're most often going to have one team have an advantage. I like to tailor that advantage to give the unlucky team options: here's a somewhat relevant quote of mine.

The problem is that the placement of this map's MOTFs doesn't lend itself to create "fights for position", it lends itself to both teams just waiting to get lucky, and once the MOTFs pop there's a 2/3 chance that one team is going to have to smash its face into a heavily guarded area, almost guaranteeing the lucky team's win.

The MOTFs are probably the biggest problem for this map. They are campy, as I've said. It would probably be better if the MOTFs were more centralised: either all in the middle stables/market area (a single MOTF spawn would be a pretty interesting change), or cutting the map in half with one MOTF in the central alley "pocket" area, one in the stables/market area, and possibly leaving the last behind the middle building/church area where it currently is. This would make it so that if the fight lasts so long that a MOTF pops, both teams have the opportunity to fight on equal grounds.