This thread follows on a side-conversation from this thread.
Here's what's been said so far:
So with some delay, here's my answer to AEnubis:
I won't say that there aren't any hits by the mixing of gametypes: there will be maps that play out good or even great on both gametypes, but by far not all of them. BR maps need either passing opportunities or confusing opportunities to work...
Passing opportunity maps are those "straight line" maps; BR maps don't suffer from them On the contrary: they allow for better passing to teammates!
The CTF equivalents of these maps will be hard to play, because the flag carrier has to cross big parts of open ground. The "straight line" BR maps are therefore don't fit to be transformed into good CTF maps (TBH: I don't like CTF-DE-Elecfields and CTF-Colossus exactly for this reason).
Confusion maps like Disclosure and Twintombs (and to a lesser degree Grendelkeep) don't need (much) passing opportunities to work: they provide multiple routes and a good deal of Z-axis, just like good CTF maps do. Therefore, they are more likely to be made into CTF maps. .
Unfortunately, not all good CTF maps with Z-axis turn out to be good BR maps. This is the radar's fault: in twintombs and disclosure, knowing in which direction the ball is can mean 2 or even 3 different corridors. This is because those entrances are directly above each other, thus making it harder to predict where the ball will be. In a random CTF map with different routes (let's say Citadel), this radar usually points out to a single possible entrance, so defenders will have it way to easy to predict where the ball is coming.
Here's what's been said so far:
-AEnubis- said:... and I think they should combine some maps for multiple types, like CTF/BR.
Taleweaver said:I used to think the same...It would boost the amount of playable maps, while the total file size would remain small. That was before I started really playing BR and CTF.
The problem is quality: you have to settle for a design, and CTF and BR (and/or DM variants while we're at it) have a completely different approach for what makes a good map. In the end, most mappers would still design their maps for one gametype. All gameplay in the other one(s) is more coincidental than really meant to be.
-AEnubis- said:I've thought about how BR and CTF compare as game types, and it's so hit/miss how they are respectively mapped for... I just think with as many maps as are seemingly missplaced between those types, and the way BR maps are for the most part, I can't see harm in the idea of them being the same.
Take BR-Disclosure for example. I think that would make a good (almost better) CTF map as well, because the "sense of direction" on that map really must be learned, and there is multiple paths for runners to use. Weapon placment is appropiate for the indiviual area aspsets of the maps, and I don't see it effeting either gametype differently. The paths from one side to the other are so screwy, the BR radar is hardly useful anyways, and I think that is a reason why it would work at a CTF map. I would aslo like to see more BR maps lean that way, and I think that is why people don't like the idea, because of how most BR maps are. Canyon, ElectricFields, Anubis, Serenity, and Collosus (just to name a few) suffer too much from that "straight line" syndrome. The radar makes for dead giveaways as to where the ball is, and there is no real tactics too it. It makes sense though, because the game type is new, and it's good for learning the basics, if the game type had done better, and grown in popularity, I think the maps would gravitate to more the style of how we expect good CTF maps to be, with the occasional Romra style, old school BR map.
Then the only other issue it too much armor in BR is a bad thing, but if planned for, that I think could be worked around, with item spawns triggered by game type. Though I more enjoy CTF maps that are armor limited... actually, any gametype maps that are as such.
So with some delay, here's my answer to AEnubis:
I won't say that there aren't any hits by the mixing of gametypes: there will be maps that play out good or even great on both gametypes, but by far not all of them. BR maps need either passing opportunities or confusing opportunities to work...
Passing opportunity maps are those "straight line" maps; BR maps don't suffer from them On the contrary: they allow for better passing to teammates!
The CTF equivalents of these maps will be hard to play, because the flag carrier has to cross big parts of open ground. The "straight line" BR maps are therefore don't fit to be transformed into good CTF maps (TBH: I don't like CTF-DE-Elecfields and CTF-Colossus exactly for this reason).
Confusion maps like Disclosure and Twintombs (and to a lesser degree Grendelkeep) don't need (much) passing opportunities to work: they provide multiple routes and a good deal of Z-axis, just like good CTF maps do. Therefore, they are more likely to be made into CTF maps. .
Unfortunately, not all good CTF maps with Z-axis turn out to be good BR maps. This is the radar's fault: in twintombs and disclosure, knowing in which direction the ball is can mean 2 or even 3 different corridors. This is because those entrances are directly above each other, thus making it harder to predict where the ball will be. In a random CTF map with different routes (let's say Citadel), this radar usually points out to a single possible entrance, so defenders will have it way to easy to predict where the ball is coming.