Mapping for different gametypes

[Taleweaver]

This thread follows on a side-conversation from this thread.
Here's what's been said so far:

Originally Posted by -AEnubis-

... and I think they should combine some maps for multiple types, like CTF/BR.

Originally Posted by Taleweaver

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.

Originally Posted by -AEnubis-

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.

[hal]

The radar thing is a good point I guess, I think about it from the reverse perspective - being a CTF player, primarily. Most of the good BR maps would be suitable CTF maps. Of course, that depends on what your idea of a "good BR map" is.

You can have a good CTF match on open maps as long as there is cover of some sort - a hill or some trees. CTF-GrassyKnoll is pretty popular and it's more or less two bases and terrain. I'd imagine with some work you could squeek out a decent CTF map from BR-Bifrost or BR-IceFields.

My solution: drop BR.

[T2A`]

My not-prone-to-piss-off-a-portion-of-the-community solution: Duel-mode maps. Have them set as BRCTF-Whatever, then in-game it could just drop whatever gamemode you're not playing so it'd look right in the map list. In UEd, you could have duel-mode mapping, kinda like layers in Photoshop, where you'd have a BR part and a CTF part. That way you could change around the pickups and all and maybe add new meshes and such so the map would play at its best for each gametype.

[CyMek]

That would be complicated for the mapper. :0

[Taleweaver]

Originally Posted by hal

You can have a good CTF match on open maps as long as there is cover of some sort - a hill or some trees. CTF-GrassyKnoll is pretty popular and it's more or less two bases and terrain. I'd imagine with some work you could squeek out a decent CTF map from BR-Bifrost or BR-IceFields.

True...Yet this cover is usefull in CTF but hindering in BR (balls bounce off these obstacles in god knows which direction)..
And like you said: with some work you could squeek out a decent CTF map from BR-Bifrost or BR-IceFields. This implies that things has to be changed. Well...that has to be changed for one gametype (a layer, like T2A puts it). Some parts like jump pads or armor have to get a "onlyVisibleInCTF" tag or something.

It can be done, I agree, but personally I think it's better if mappers stick to making their maps with a single gametype in mind. If this works out great, they can still copy it and remake it into a different gametype to see how that works out. If it does, all the better for him/her
Forcing 'double gametypes' per map will only make the design more complex; it won't generate better quality maps for either gametype.

EDIT about the BR removing part: I love BR with heart and soul, but I rather have it removed than added as a 'mod' that can be played on CTF maps

[-AEnubis-]

Sorry, I didn't see this post earler for some reason...

Yeah, I can see your points, especially on passing, and cover. I guess the idea was spawned from the concept of the fact that BR/CTF maps do exist, and since they are possible, it would make some sense to try to consolidate efforts. The possibility though, of it being harder to map for would decrease the amount of custom content later released, as well as diminish certain styles of map, like Serenity, which is just a long stretch of terrain, great for passing, but rough for running, I'm sure.

Oh well.

I don't wanna see BR die, but having all the maps, and never getting to play them is kinda annoying. If the community is small, so will be the quality custom maps. I just know CTF is abundant.

[Radiosity]

You can try out CTF-most of the BRmaps if you really want. I converted most of them to CTF soon after 2K3 was released and then resaved them again after 2K4 was released. If you want to see how they play (pretty nicely for the most part) then let me know and I'll upload a zip of them, or all seperate if you'd prefer. You'll have to take them with a pinch of salt, being as I did it for my own benefit and therefore didn't bother rebuilding lighting, so some parts are a bit dodgy.


edit: ok, I've uploaded a 'taster' if you will.

Clickies for CTF-Bifrost & CTF-Core in a single zip (6.6mb)

Core works very well I feel, lots of z-axis indeed

[Taleweaver]

Originally Posted by -AEnubis-

Sorry, I didn't see this post earler for some reason...

Yeah, I can see your points, especially on passing, and cover. I guess the idea was spawned from the concept of the fact that BR/CTF maps do exist, and since they are possible, it would make some sense to try to consolidate efforts. The possibility though, of it being harder to map for would decrease the amount of custom content later released, as well as diminish certain styles of map, like Serenity, which is just a long stretch of terrain, great for passing, but rough for running, I'm sure.

Oh well.

My points exactly. Sorry, but it's just the way it is

Originally Posted by -AEnubis-

I don't wanna see BR die, but having all the maps, and never getting to play them is kinda annoying. If the community is small, so will be the quality custom maps. I just know CTF is abundant.

What do you mean by this? There are 12 retail maps, and even from these 12, slaughterhouse, canyon and bridgeOfFaith almost never gets played on jolts BR server. The less maps you have, the better you get to know the ones you do have.

[Symbolikal]

Originally Posted by hal

My solution: drop BR.

Errr.... no!

[-AEnubis-]

Well, it all depends on the maps you have, and of what quality they are. Look at DM maps rght now. We've got tons, but because of map vote, only like a handfull get played. Yeah, some people know them really well, but what it does, is mostly puts us who choose to try to learn all the maps, or play multiple gametypes is puts us at a disadvantage.

Given, if there simply are less maps per type, then you only have those to remember, but that also limits the amount of time you can play a gametype without getting bored of the same 10 maps played all the time. I know, when I see a map repeaton a DM server, that is usually my cue to leave.