Competitive mirrored 5CP maps

  • If you're asking a question make sure to set the thread type to be a question!

NoirSuede

L2: Junior Member
Dec 22, 2012
63
9
I'm scrapping my KOTH map and i've decided to try and make a competitive mirrored 5CP map, but after looking at the hate Croissant gets, I have to wonder, can a competitive mirrored 5CP map that's well liked even possible ?
 
Mar 23, 2013
1,013
347
I don't think that symmetry like in croissant will make your map terrible and not fiting for comp. I think Croissant is just a bit too clustered.
And if people actually hate this kind of mirroring so much, just mirror one half of your map again and you got your usual 5cp map.
 

Muddy

Muddy
aa
Sep 5, 2014
2,574
4,592
Terrible, probably not. But rotated maps are much easier to get the hang of than mirrored maps, because mirrored maps technically are laid out differently on each side - on one side of the map you'd take a left turn to get to the objective, but on the other side you'd take a right turn etc. It works better for koth maps because they're much smaller and simpler than 5cp maps.

Couldn't tell you much about the comp side of things though, except for the fact that they seem to have something against mirrored maps. Doesn't stop them from playing on Viaduct though. Weird bunch.
 
Last edited:

Crash

func_nerd
aa
Mar 1, 2010
3,315
5,499
Mirrored maps have minor balance issues in the fact that your weapon shoots off center to the right of your screen (or rarely, to the left, depending on your view model location.) For this reason, it's best to eliminate that variable and use rotational symmetry.
 

NoirSuede

L2: Junior Member
Dec 22, 2012
63
9
Mirrored maps have minor balance issues in the fact that your weapon shoots off center to the right of your screen (or rarely, to the left, depending on your view model location.) For this reason, it's best to eliminate that variable and use rotational symmetry.
OMG IT'S CRASH !!!

but seriously though, every comp 5CP map derives something from Blands/Granary whether the spires or the last's structure, how do i differentiate my map without being too alien/bad ?
 

Vel0city

func_fish
aa
Dec 6, 2014
1,947
1,589
OMG IT'S CRASH !!!

but seriously though, every comp 5CP map derives something from Blands/Granary whether the spires or the last's structure, how do i differentiate my map without being too alien/bad ?
Experiment. Literary. Try something new and have it tested. If it's liked you're golden. If it's not liked, try something else.
 

Yrr

An Actual Deer
aa
Sep 20, 2015
1,308
2,743
i think the key to doing something unique that works is understanding the difference between "doing something thats never been done before" and "changing something thats never been changed before"

the differences and similarities between well-liked maps is probably telling of what can and can't be changed while remaining enjoyable
 

Lain

lobotomy success story
aa
Jan 8, 2015
724
757
From my map thread for Banana on why I was switching to rotated symmetry.

The next version will be extremely different. I talked to someone (I don't know if they wanted me to say their name) about why they changed their map from the croissant/banana mirroring and why their map didn't get played before they made that change and they basically said that it dumbs down the gameplay on the mid to an insane level, and makes it so the closest route (the one that people were complaining about in banana) becomes the best most of the time. Either that or you have to drastically change the connectors to accommodate it. Also it imbalances the teams just on principle because one team has the peakers advantage, and the other consistently doesn't. I have looked at a few connectors and second points I've liked in 5cp and lets just say that the gameplay on last and second will change a lot. Also while it is your opinion, I find the gameplay on last to be extremely fun. There us a few times in normal 5cp maps where teams can't push in due to a turret (and it's a pub so nothing but an Uber is breaking that sentry), but that's nullified in this map because of the pillars on the cap point, there is always a safe place to stand from a turret's line of site. I am changing the side door to the point (the extremely small one that nobody used) to a process-like semi-sneaky, giving the attacking team more options. But to counteract this I am going to increase last cap time. Since a lot of the time the way people won was getting a Pyro on the point and just airblasting people away. And while I do like that, I don't think it should be the dominant strategy.

Also Croissant isn't a good map to look for design choices in, Arnold likes to make extremely wacky gimmick designs and force them to work. Even his most played map, Gullywash, has some very large layout issues. (for example, it is extremely hard to push from last unless you wipe and you have an uber, there have been pro games where people have tried to push out of last 16 times) and you can bypass second altogether and just go to last. That's never good.

If you want to look at how to differentiate a map without it being bad, look at Snakewater. It features quite a few unique design decisions (a few that backfire a bit) but is very different from the mold.

You say lasts are stale, but I don't think you know what you're saying. I'm just going to say this, there is nothing like Badlands last, Process last, Snakewater last and Sunshine last. They are all as unique as can be, but I feel you're not looking at the design of the gameplay area, and more just as the geometry. If you're looking at the geometry, Badlands and Gullywash are very very similar, both feature a highground surrounded by a lowground with a point on it, with a straight shot to the point in one door, a direct passage to the highground and a way to get behind the enemy. But that's not what makes the point. It's the gameplay. In Badlands every entry has its advantages and disadvantages, letting one defense area slip up can spell loss for the whole team. Every class is more or less given a place. Sniper has his sightlines, Soldier and Demo have their spamming areas and Scout can easily get from one side of the highground to the other. None of this beauty is present in Gullywash, all areas lead to the same combat area, you can get from one highground to the other as any class almost instantly, one pyro can hold the whole last off by using that quick pass from one highground to the other, an Engineer covers the WHOLE last, and there is no easy way of destroying the sentry gun without uber.

tl;dr flipped symmetry doesn't benefit gameplay, croissant is bad, lasts aren't stale, stop looking and geometry and look at gameplay.
 
S

saph

OMG IT'S CRASH !!!

but seriously though, every comp 5CP map derives something from Blands/Granary whether the spires or the last's structure, how do i differentiate my map without being too alien/bad ?

@Fr0z3n posted a great message on The Future of Compensation for TF2 Mappers.
My issue with comp maps is that, at least from my perspective, all formulaic and similar. Very minimal variance in gameplay, and not much is explored in what could be 'fun.' Bridge-like mid (or granary), spire-like 2nd, rectangular finale with raised sides. Look at the top 3-4 5CP maps on the workshop right now (Glassworks, Sunshine, Metalworks ... Sorry Crash). They're competitive, and they all do that. Look at custom maps that are official, Gullywash, Process, same thing.

Yes, it's a good thing because they play well, but it's bad because it's virtually the same type of gameplay over and over, just a different skin and some changes here and there.

I do fully understand WHY this is though, and I do not disagree with the logic as why it's happening. Though, as someone who wants to actually see new stuff, innovation and pushing the limits of mapping, it's very frustrating.


Now, I'm sure that a competitive player will come in and tell me how wrong I am, but this is how I see it, and what I understand of it with my experience in the competitive scene.

Really, this sums up MOST maps. A few things here and there are different. Most of the time, bridges or buildings are middle, spires or some form of raised platforms are second, and final normally just has various heights all encompassing the point. Glassworks actually has a spire-like second in early alpha! Keeping similar maps is great because it reduces the amount of playtesting needed for the map as an overall, but really, new ideas are needed. The best thing you can do is just test it out, work out kinks, and worst case, hop to the 5CP default described above. The biggest con is that most 5CP maps seem very similar because the layouts are generally the same.

Now for the main point of the thread, in most cases regular symmetry isn't the best option for competitive design. @Crash probably described it the best. @Lain posted some great reasons to why he switched Banana over to rotational symmetry.
Mirrored maps have minor balance issues in the fact that your weapon shoots off center to the right of your screen (or rarely, to the left, depending on your view model location.) For this reason, it's best to eliminate that variable and use rotational symmetry.
The next version will be extremely different. I talked to someone (I don't know if they wanted me to say their name) about why they changed their map from the croissant/banana mirroring and why their map didn't get played before they made that change and they basically said that it dumbs down the gameplay on the mid to an insane level, and makes it so the closest route (the one that people were complaining about in banana) becomes the best most of the time. Either that or you have to drastically change the connectors to accommodate it.

Really, unbalanced routes or major sightlines are harder to avoid with regular symmetry. Viewmodels are also one of the main reasons (as mentioned above). Having to relearn the map to play as the other team isn't really enjoyable always. Being able to play on either side with no trouble means more time having fun (you'd hope) and less time practicing.
 

MoonFox

L10: Glamorous Member
Mar 17, 2015
739
74
not what I have to offer, but mirror it with teams in mind, look at 2fort, perfectly symmetrical, except the design. give each team a different feel in design, or at least make sure the player isn't confused if you don't. that's why there is a clear distinction between Red and Blu, back to 2fort: industrial complex vs a old farm building, there you go. Of course the difference can be subtle, CP/CTF/KOTH_well is another example, regarding the minor subtle details.