Concerning CTF maps...

Discussion in 'Mapping Questions & Discussion' started by RideTheCatfish, Nov 8, 2009.

  1. RideTheCatfish

    RideTheCatfish L1: Registered

    Messages:
    18
    Positive Ratings:
    0
    I'm in the brainstorming process at the moment for a new map, and I'll try to word this the best I can...

    Basically, do CTF maps always have to be near-perfect straight-aways, where one base is directly across from the other? Or does it have more to do with each side of the map being perfectly alike in the sense where neither team gets a geographical advantage?
     
  2. Engineer

    aa Engineer

    Messages:
    1,166
    Positive Ratings:
    372
    It should perfectly alike (mirrored), so that no one team doesn't have advantage over the other.
     
  3. Nosher

    Nosher L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    184
    Positive Ratings:
    20
    My CTF is not directly across....

    ....here is the top down screenie to give you an idea...

    [​IMG]

    It just has to be symmetrical, that's all...

    Nosh
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. Icarus

    aa Icarus

    Messages:
    2,246
    Positive Ratings:
    1,182
    doesn't have to be straight across, but making it too convoluted will have you flooded with "I'm lost this map sucks" comments.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. RideTheCatfish

    RideTheCatfish L1: Registered

    Messages:
    18
    Positive Ratings:
    0
    How about a hypothetically "S-shaped" CTF map, where the bases would be on opposite ends of of the "S"? It wouldn't exactly be mirrored, but the map could still be 'divided' up equally between the two teams, and there would still be no geographical advantage.

    EDIT: Nosher's map is essentially what I'm talking about.
     
  6. Nutomic

    Nutomic L11: Posh Member

    Messages:
    888
    Positive Ratings:
    177
    Maybe it would make the map a bit too big, but if you try to keep it close, it should work.

    Maybe snipers will complain because there are no such good spots like on 2fort, but i would appreciate not being shot everytime attacking the enemy base :D
     
  7. littleedge

    aa littleedge L1111: Clipping Guru

    Messages:
    983
    Positive Ratings:
    573
    You actually do not have to have symmetrical bases. But that is what you should absolutely do for balance and gameplay purposes. You can make the two bases face eachother like 2Fort, do what Nosher did, or do what 1Fort did. 1Fort made a circular map where the bases are actually in the same building (you can see the other team's intel room from your intel room). It's a nice change.
     
  8. FaTony

    FaTony Banned

    Messages:
    902
    Positive Ratings:
    160
    This can be compensated by arrow signs.
     
  9. absurdistof

    aa absurdistof

    Messages:
    1,242
    Positive Ratings:
    393
    Well to an extent.. If you have too many alternate routes then the gameplay is significantly watered down, or if the map doubles back on itself a ton, even with signs it could be confusing.
     
  10. UKCS-Alias

    aa UKCS-Alias Mann vs Machine... or... Mapper vs Meta?

    Messages:
    1,264
    Positive Ratings:
    748
    Even then its not a real excuse, many times people dont realy watch at the arrows until they are lost already or interested in the map after playing a few rounds to find new routes. This is why the basic shape of the map should be easy. Ofcourse, it can be a map with alot of bends, as long as its easy.

    My favorite shape of a CTF map is an 8. Simply because there is 1 central area, 2 bases each having 2 routes. It worked in allmost any game no matter how complex the 8 is actualy performed. All that is needed is that each area shows the routes easily. turbine is a good example of it (yes, there are some vents but thats a detail route, its not like you can use that route for major attacks most of the time).