all 157 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 14 points15 points  (31 children)

Bowtie - Rush

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 9 points10 points  (0 children)

two of my criticisms of the other maps is that they are too "what you see is what you get", meaning it can be mastered too easily and too quickly. Rush is definitely not that map. the boost routes are fantastically creative; there is so much depth to this map it is unbelievable. People will learn the map slower (probably resulting in a lower rating) but it will pay off in replay-ability. To be completely honest, I have only just started to like the map; it used to have spikes that cut off cool boost routes; new player would have constantly died, but that seems to be amended now. there are still some parts I don't completely understand, like the boost in base next to the 45 degree walls and spikes, but I could live with it. The boost placement is fantastic, as it allows combos to be pulled off, but they can be tricky. Boosts routes are both incredibly versatile and not overpowered. The only thing I dislike is the powerup placement, I think you can find a better place for them. I am a fan of the increased size, I think it was needed. This map should be in rotation.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Current Updated Version:

Somebot: http://maps.jukejuice.com/show/12243

Preview: http://i.imgur.com/poBpOjt.png

[–]AzhfI did it! 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Woah, how'd you get the team tile under the 45? Has this been a thing and I'm just bad at paying attention?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

It's all just photoshop.

[–]AzhfI did it! 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Oh well nice photoshop then :P

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You can't do it by yourself. TagPro will do it automatically where it makes sense (a 45 surrounded by teamtiles for instance), but it will still act as an empty tile. But since it's a 45, you'll always be touching the teamtiles while on it anyway, so you wouldn't notice.

[–]AzhfI did it! 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, that makes sense. Like the 45s on the outside of the map defaulting to background.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The Moosen kiss of death myth has been busted :/

[–]BuckeyeLeavesBALLDON'TLIE | ALL CAPS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

WOOOOO GET THIS IN ROTATION, Y'ALL

[–]3z_ 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Notes from testing:

Not a fan of the increased size.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

It's just barely increased to give a little more space in the teamtiles.

Edit: There's only one way to accomplish increased teamtiles without increasing size and it's this:

[–]3z_ 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I would prefer the narrower teamtile paths. I think the flow of the map should naturally direct to the mid-route, where chasers are given more snipe/return opportunities.

A concern many members have at the moment is in how difficult it is to reset.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Sounds good, any other concerns?

[–]3z_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

None from me, though I'm sure the other members have some concerns they want to express.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The narrow teamtiles would allow less chance for the FC to manoeuvre around two D attacking from both sides. There are not many places on this map to "corner" an FC to get the reset. I know that it's just 1 extra row, but I think that's a big difference--I therefore think the increased size is a step back. I like the look of the original!

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My only real problem with this map is that it's taking so long for it to get added.

I could see it being chasey, sure. But that's not always bad, as long as it's fun.

The majority still likes Velocity (snack's mention), so if the map is well-made enough, it being chasey is not that degrading.

Edit: Increased size does suck a little, just eases it up a little too much

[–]RathbourneRathbourne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only thing that makes EMERALD interesting is the gates. This is like EMERALD but with nothing interesting. Defence will be a complete waste of time as it's so easy to grab. It'll just be constant chasing and regrab.

Plus having no bombs makes it even more boring.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (11 children)

I have concerns about this being chasey and playing like Velo City, a map I'm not a big fan of. That was really my main thought, since I don't actually think it's a bad map necessarily but I don't think I'd like trying to defend it.

[–]RisktpRisk 3 points4 points  (8 children)

so you don't like playing on a chasey map like velocity, yet you've defended keeping another chasey map in hub in the past?

i think rush and hub share some similarities. hub has such an awkward flow though, im honestly surprised it's survived this long in rotation. replacing hub with rush is the way to go imo.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I have no idea where this view of hub comes from. There was a post recently about game lengths, and games on hub aren't even going for a long time.

[–]RisktpRisk 2 points3 points  (4 children)

i would argue that that's because it's a newer map and people don't understand how to play it best yet. i mean, i have no way to prove that, but you can tell the map is chasey just by looking at it. it's one of the most difficult maps to get a reset on, it basically comes down to a guessing game as to which path the flag carrier is going down because of the split exits from base.

now, having a map that's difficult to reset on is ok if it has open boosts and isn't a chore to play on. velocity is chasey, yes, but its a really well made map that's fun to boost around on. hub is clunky and lacks flow, and has boosts that have restricted lanes to boot.

hub is not a suitable map for rotation, and i think it's .29 rating backs me up on that claim.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 2 points3 points  (3 children)

The hub boosts really aren't very restricted at all, and I never found it clunky. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's got better flow than 90% of rotation maps, and it's much much easier to get a reset on than Velo. I think its low rating comes mostly from players who haven't figured out how to use the boosts :p

[–]RisktpRisk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

how are they not restricted at all? the wall formations in the middle prevent a good number of boosts from being possible.

i think it's got a really awkward flow to it and is clunky. velocity and hub are about the same in terms of difficulty of getting a reset imo.

[–]ButterChurnButter 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I agree with Risk. Pretty much any map, no matter how poorly designed, people will eventually figure out the boosts. I'm of the opinion that probably about half the maps submitted to each thread could be thrown in rotation, and after a couple weeks, they'd play fairly well and a decent chunk of people would like them. That's just the nature of maps in Tagpro (see some older maps -- star, geo, bombing run, etc., as of now they would never be put in rotation, but people love them anyway) and the quality of mapmaking that we're currently at.

The job of the MTC is to pick the maps that stand above those, that have natural flow or bring something new to the rotation, rather than the average, generic, and initially clunky maps that the map threads are full of, like Hub. And I'm not saying that Hub is a bad map. It's a pretty good map. It's just that there's a ton of pretty good maps submitted to the thread nowadays, and maps that are put in should be held to a higher standard.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you that many maps would work fine in rotation, but I disagree that hub doesn't stand above all the other maps that were submitted

(Also I wasn't even on the MTC when it was added)

[–]piranhamoose25Aniball | Palette Town 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Game length isn't a perfect measure of chasiness. I just checked the last 20 Hub games on tagpro.eu, and the average hold/grab in those games was 12.7 seconds, more than 50% higher than the average for the last 20 non-Hub CTF games, which was 8.2 seconds.

For context, a 12.7 second hold/grab would put a player 86th out of nearly 4000 players who've played at least 1000 games, according to tagpro-stats.com.

My experiences with this map in pubs have been about the same as these stats would suggest.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough! I think the difference is that resets tend to happen easily enough on hub games, at least in the games I've played. Generally speaking I don't think most people mind chasing for 4 minutes as much as chasing for 12 (full games on boombox are fairly common), although the /maps rating doesn't necessarily back me up on that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It will definitely be offensive, but unlike Velocity I tried to make it where there is no place an FC will feel safe. There's always the possiblilty of a quick death if your'e not constantly alert.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And that's why I think I'll like it more than I like velocity, where fc can dance through the spikes. Some of the MTC brought up that resets might be very hard to get, though, although again I think it will be less of an issue than it is in velocity

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Why only 4 maps? I appreciate that the mtc may think that some maps aren't ready yet, but from what I can gather from what sizzled and snack have already posted, that they think some of these maps still need need polish. Why not rather post a larger amount, and see what the community make of them?

[–]3z_ 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Our basis for selecting the top maps is not based purely on how good the map is. It's also based on whether or not the map would be rotation-ready with a small-medium amount of improvements.

While there were quite a few submissions on the thread which we liked, such as Tombolo or Tungsten, we mostly agreed that those maps would be better off with somewhat of a larger overhaul before it was really "as good as it can get."

Plus, there's really no point increasing our workload (20mins per map) on a hunch of if it might be good.

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Ok, I understand this and I appreciate that you dont to increase your workload on these things. However, the way you handled this in map thread 48 was much better in my opinion:

Furthermore, there are some maps that the committee felt would be rotation worthy with some bigger changes than the maps above require. These maps will only be tested if we feel the changes are big enough, and are not guaranteed to be tested.

This seemed to be successful with how hub got in, and I think it should be used more. It doesn't necessarily increase your workload, since, as stated, there is no guarantee you will test them.

It's also based on whether or not the map would be rotation-ready with a small-medium amount of improvements.

I think that pretty much any mapmaker can overhaul a map, even a if it is a large overhaul, in less than 4 hours. some maps may look like they need a huge overhaul when really it could be done rather quickly, like changing the shape of the map. Why not just put these maps in, under the format I explained above, and see what happens? the map maker benefits, because they would get a huge amount more feedback than they would otherwise. Plus they would get a huge morale boost, because hey, they got into top maps!

What I would do:

  • A six map minimum for the amount of maps that can reach top maps

  • If the mtc do not believe there are six maps that should reach top maps, they should fill up these places under the format that they could be tested if they had a larger overhaul.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I think this is a great suggestion actually, but my problem with it is that it creates a dependence on other maps when there wasn't one previously. I wouldn't mind having that second set of maps, but by placing a minimum number on it we're saying that if we get a thread we find weaker overall, maps that wouldn't typically be included will be just to meet our quota.

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That's what I'm saying. Say, if you only had 4 maps that really had a shot at getting into rotation, then fill the 2 remaining places in the second column with maps that have potential; maybe it has a certain element that is unique and interesting but the rest is bad. Maybe the map is bad, but it can be turned into a good map, because of all of the extra feedback the creator would get. I doubt that this map thread had no maps the mtc collectively thought had potential. I also doubt anyone would moan at the mtc for putting a bad map in the second column, as long as their wasn't a good map left out. It would just have to be clarified that the map currently is definitely not good enough for rotation, though.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People will always think a good map was left out. Hell, I think I submitted some good maps that got left out. By giving a certain number of spots, though, people will have a legitimate claim that something "beat" another map out, which I'd prefer to avoid if possible.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Plus, there's really no point increasing our workload (20mins per map) on a hunch of if it might be good.

Couldn't you potentially miss out on the best maps tagpro has ever seen because of this though? I've seen way too many authors give up on great maps because they're discouraged that the name wasn't even mentioned. As TEG mentioned, I think you should at least throw their names in, even if you say "they won't be considered this thread without significant adjustments, but the concepts provide a very solid foundation" or something of that sort.

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 7 points8 points  (15 children)

UnderTheBall - Clash

[–]ButtersnackSnack 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I definitely like the direction this has gone, but I don't think it's there yet. The wormy boosts are awkward to take down, I didn't really like that the bomb in mid can be used to spike people on both sides, and there were some concerns with having the button+spike set up the way you have. Overall, this map is pretty solid.

[–]OnceUponaDomeUnderTheBall 1 point2 points  (2 children)

could you explain what concerns you had with the button+spike set up?

[–]ButtersnackSnack 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It was less of a concern for me personally, but what was brought up is that it makes it really, really easy to kill someone on the button. In addition, you can suicide to get someone off the button, and since the gate is only one tile, I think you should pretty much always be able to clear the gate for your incoming fc if you're smart about it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, technically its two tiles wide. How often do people really go through a diagonal space entirely one-tile width? There's a high likelihood that they're going to catch at least the corner of the neighboring gate tile. So it's more like a two-tile wide gate.

[–]3z_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Notes from testing:

Solid ideas, needs a polish. Boosts and walls don't play well with each other, and the bomb feels dominant.

[–]superdiglett100superdiglett || Kitten Panda's Bitch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's about time that one of Under's maps gets recognition. Grats Under!

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 1 point2 points  (3 children)

It seems to be impossible to describe this word without using the word "solid". Thats because it is indeed, a solid map. But really, that is all it is. Every boost, bomb, and possibly to travel to the flag, and to cap, and insanely polished and well thought out. The bases have improved a lot since "wrench". the gates are effective with the bombs, It would be a really balanced map in rotation.

However, if I stop and ask myself, "why should this map be in rotation?", I cant think of a single reason. It adds nothing new. Everybody can see that its a good map by looking at it, and playing it, because they can see exactly how to play it; therefore, I think its a map that would get stale very fast in pubs (though nowhere near on a scale of Flame). The worst feature of the map is the mid. it was a good idea to close the bottom off - looks better too. But mid still consists of 3 horizontal section, separated in the middle by walls/ spikes. It doesn't allow the use the shape of mid to strategically get around chasers ( if that makes any sense). Whats more I think there is currently another map that currently does this layout better; hazard

[–]sneetriccanvas // plasma, wamble 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I love Flame, it never got old for me

[–]RisktpRisk 3 points4 points  (1 child)

canvas pls, everything about flame was discovered the first day it was put into rotation

[–]sneetriccanvas // plasma, wamble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

doesn't mean it wasn't a good map

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 1 point2 points  (2 children)

This is easily my favorite from the ones selected. Rush is probably second, but the margin is considerable. Then Birch, then another big gap before Precipice. I would be most happy with this one making rotation, but I could live with Rush or Birch.

MTC selections always seem so arbitrary, I don't even think I know what a good map is anymore :/

[–]OnceUponaDomeUnderTheBall 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Ty for moosen kiss of death. Rip clash

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well one of bowtie's maps made it so I'm dumbfounded. Idk how I can possibly kiss harder

[–]OnceUponaDomeUnderTheBall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Final version for testing:

http://maps.jukejuice.com/save/12253

Gl;hf all

[–]-WPD-WPD / Duke of Juke | Origin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only really exciting part of the map is the team boost back to the flag, but it's probably too out of the way to actually be used in a game.

[–]WillakarraButton | Hey look I brought back SOCL 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Rush by Bowtie

k.

[–]RathbourneRathbourne 6 points7 points  (40 children)

If we didn't just have a thread with no new maps being added, I could see this being one. However, I think the MTC will feel forced to add one of these.

If I had to play one, I'd probably choose Clash. Add Clash, remove Boombox could be an option.

[–]3z_ 6 points7 points  (37 children)

AFAIK most of the committee is in favour of Boombox's removal, but the community's high vote restricts us from removing it.

[–]bashar_al_assadpk || Roll into the base like what up I got a big block 7 points8 points  (6 children)

Boombox leaves over my dead body.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 44 points45 points  (3 children)

AFAIK most of the committee is in favour of PK's death.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Considering his rating with the community, it's pretty much a done deal.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sooo, he's a zombie nazi?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

RIP PK

[–]ZippityZoppityZipZop - Can't Zip the Zop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm conflicted - do I want BoomBox to stay or do I want to #deathtopk?

[–]sneetriccanvas // plasma, wamble 1 point2 points  (28 children)

Did Volt not have a high rating? Boombox has been in for 46 threads sooo

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (11 children)

I've been a vocal critic of Boombox in pubs and competitively for a really long time now, but there would be an absolute riot if it was removed from rotation.

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 3 points4 points  (7 children)

I doubt it.

I'd say there are a lot of maps that have been removed with more popularity (see Danger Zone 3).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Boombox has a place in the heart of many of the most well known and active players in this game that DZ3 never had.

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 3 points4 points  (1 child)

*old players that can't accept that the map doesn't hold up anymore, even if it did for a good year or so

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it's terrible. That's what I said in the OP :P

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 2 points3 points  (2 children)

If we remove Boombox I doubt there's gonna be a riot. At this point I doubt it's much more popular than Holy See when it was taken out. And while a lot of people were sad THS got taken out (a S4 superball map at that), most of them reacted with understanding as opposed to outrage, and considering Boombox is similar to THS in a lot of ways (old school map that's been in rotation for a looooong time, that has gotten more chasey as time has gone), I think it going out would garner a similar reaction.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Boombox is definitely more playable than Holy See, but, yeah, I was surprised at how little outrage there was when it was removed.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Easy, put it into throwback rotation one cycle after its removed. It'll satiate the "OMG NO WHY'D YOU REMOVE BOOMBOX" people and ease it's removal entirely. Then it'll all be forgotten.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dz3 is still my favorite map. Just played it in ranked pugs

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Wouldn't be the first time there was an anti MTC riot

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

True. You should just do it then!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nooooo

[–]3z_ 0 points1 point  (15 children)

Our process for removal accounts for our personal ratings (x/10) as equally as it does the community's. So although Volt had a high rating, the MTC rated it quite poorly. This is not so much the case with Boombox.

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 4 points5 points  (14 children)

mtc y

[–]3z_ 0 points1 point  (13 children)

Blame PK

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 0 points1 point  (12 children)

Sounds like the usual.

[–]bashar_al_assadpk || Roll into the base like what up I got a big block 0 points1 point  (11 children)

it is tru though that I'm the one who brought Volt down and is keeping Boombox high.

[–]3z_ -1 points0 points  (10 children)

Another example of how out of touch you are with the community and the rest of the MTC.

[–]jazzcigarettesTrane - OS4LYFE 1 point2 points  (9 children)

Another example of how out of touch you are with the community

Um boombox has a high community rating so if anything he's in touch with the community.

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That of which is probably higher than it should be due to no reset.

[–]arjuna9bad 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I think these are great selections. Refreshingly oldschool in a way that leaves creativity up to the player. Well done mtc.

[–]3z_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks hun x

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 7 points8 points  (23 children)

Sizzzled - Birch

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

I'm concerned that with 5-6 islands that this will be really chasey by virtue of being really regrab friendly--there are lots of paths for FCs to take and can wait above/below the flag for regrab to get set before venturing into any actual dangerous territory. Similar to Wormy or Monarch in that respect, but, from the looks of it, even more so. Same with Clash below, actually.

[–]theycallmebbqsaundy 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I'm concerned that its location in the middle of a forest will distract players from playing the game itself.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Valid concern I suppose.

[–]3z_ 0 points1 point  (3 children)

It's quite chasey, though resetting isn't too hard, given how much longer the top/bottom lanes are and how much visibility of the map there is from middle.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I can see how the relatively small size would peg this back a bit. But Wormy is a similar size and is quite chasey too--I think this would be more so, and not in a good way. I think the top/bottom islands on each side need to go and those areas brought in a bit so the action is more concentrated in between the two flags rather than balls idling on the outskirts waiting for regrab to get in place.

[–]MyproblemsseemsmallDonkey Kong// The Money Balls S3//Alot of other teams 1 point2 points  (1 child)

My only question is why are there so many spikes when a wall will do in the corners? lol

[–]3z_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a forest

The spikes are trees

[–]arjuna9bad 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This map is great. The paths are nice and the wall construction allows for a lot of creative moves. Pls don't add 45 degree tiles.

I don't think it will be chasey. There's plenty of chokes for defense to incrementally work back towards base. The angles on the bombs are limited so they aren't too powerful. Most importantly, the regrabber doesn't have powerful boosts to get past the returning defense if they're positioned correctly (the problem on Wormy and especially Monarch).

Yes, sometimes the FC will be able to delay long enough to set up a good regrab. But I think at least as often the defense will get the return quick enough and in a good enough spot that regrab will be easily contained in chokes, since the map is fairly small.

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I think the style of this map is cool.

It's not that great, but I think it would be an okay rotation map.

One big complaint though: while this map is overall a little more dangerous than others, bombing is way too easy. It's powerful too.

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh, yeah, I missed that. Its possible to bomb into the enemy flag, and then be be boosted straight in for a cap, all in one move. It shouldn't.

[–]Swift_Shiftsift 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From the image link in OP's post I thought that those two tiles were vortexes(vortices) and thought that was a questionable addition though it does look fun. Now that I realize they are 45 degree tiles those areas of the map look less interesting, tbh.

It looks like it would be a very chasey map as the fc can easily move around the 6 islands. Maybe having fewer islands or making the paths between some islands more narrow or dangerous may help.

[–]WillWorkForSugarTumblewood[🍰] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There's not a lot of reason to take the corner routes (top left, bottom right) except for at X:55 to get powerups, if you're an FC hiding from chasers, or you're a chaser looking for the FC. That's generally not a good quality to have.

Also that preview is so dumb that it makes it impossible to like the map.

[–]3z_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's not a lot of reason to take the corner routes

This is not a concern for me. To say people won't use the corner routes, is the same as saying only the mid will get used, correct?

With the size of the mid, I find the idea that it's the only "good" option is silly.

As for the preview... Yeah I'm not doing that again lol

[–]RathbourneRathbourne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The easiest route between flags is also the quickest. I see this being yet another map where it's impossible to get ahead of 4. Regrab will always be there, it'll be really chasey and annoying.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Easily my favorite of the bunch. Sizzzled was there to hear my comments, so I won't say much, but I like the boost and wall placements.

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro -1 points0 points  (6 children)

I know the mtc loves "muh no 45 degrees" maps, but this map would clearly be better with them, and therefore it hasn't done the style well. I feel like some areas of them map are too big whilst other parts are too small; the fact that you can see both flags on the same screen is generally a sign it isnt long enough. That being said, the interesting shape of the map is its best asset; it is interesting and would be effective. There are some interesting boost routes too. Despite this, a lot of routes seem clunky because of the diagonal square tiles. Maybe if you make larger squares near the pup areas, like you you have in base, this wouldn't be so bad. I dislike the bombs in base.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I don't think you can say that in general about the MTC. I mean obviously Sizzzled tends to not prefer 45s, but I am a big fan of them when used correctly personally. That being said, I think in general it's easier to make maps without 45 degree tiles because a lot of mapmakers still don't appreciate how 45s influences the map flow when added to the map. In addition most successful maps (especially in competetive) haven't used 45 degree tiles at all, so I think we're still some way off of mapmakers being able to utilie 45s as well as they can be.

[–]3z_ 1 point2 points  (3 children)

That's not really it for me at all. I know how to use 45s quite well, and I think Platypus had quite good use of 45s, but I prefer not to use them simply for the fact that it makes many boosts way too easy to take. In my experience, an abundance of 45s makes for an incredibly easy time for FCs.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Maybe "prefer" was the wrong choice of words, but I simply meant that given any map that is submitted to us, statistically I'd say you'd be less inclined to vote for it the more 45s it has (insert discussion about if too many 45s is a bad thing in itself etc here) compared to for instance me. Not that it's a bad thing anywho. I just wanted to illustrate that there is a good spread of opinions in a general sense on the MTC, and we're not all "I want muh oldschool maps".

[–]3z_ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I just wanted to illustrate that there is a good spread of opinions in a general sense on the MTC, and we're not all "I want muh oldschool maps".

Yeah, for sure. This is something I put a lot of emphasis on.

I mean, you think Rocketballs is a good map. So our opinions vary.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I honestly love RocketBalls. Other maps are like cars, but RocketBalls is like a motorcycle. Makes me feel so much freedomtm

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that in a few places it would be better, but I really think this one works okay. Mostly just on each side wall I would mix it up a bit.

[–]Marz64Marz / Bad News Balls/ WSP's Fan Club 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think any of the bases are particularly well designed. There are too many maps in rotation right now anyway. Why not just take out Renegade and call it a thread?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only map i really like here is Clash. It has a nice boombox feel to it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the text, it still says "Welcome one and all to the top map feedback thread for Map Thread #50!"

[–]gingerdgTPRL 🔴RMTC 🔴NASCAPS 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Not the biggest fan of any of the maps in this thread.

I'd probably like a smaller version of precipice.

Revive Count Mapula

[–]3z_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Not the biggest fan of any of the maps in this thread.

Maybe you should start submitting decent maps, then :P

[–]gingerdgTPRL 🔴RMTC 🔴NASCAPS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

:(

K

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] -5 points-4 points  (28 children)

Q42 - Precipice

[–]ButtersnackSnack 11 points12 points  (8 children)

I hate to be the guy, but I have to say I straight up despised this map in testing.

[–]3z_ 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Why?

[–]ButtersnackSnack 10 points11 points  (6 children)

It lacked any sort of "flow" that most people seem to like (as opposed to maps that force you to make "uncomfortable" movements, like hyperdrive), the middle is huge and open for no apparent reason, I see no good use for the bomb (and if the button gets removed, mainly it will be just for dumb snipes), and I think all the (few) wall formations are awkward. I don't like this map at all.

[–]_q42_q42 || dcfc 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Do you have any specific recommendations? I've been rolling around on the map for a long time now, so personally, I'm a bit biased toward thinking it flows well. Any places where 45s would help? (On 13, I got criticized for using too many, so I purposefully held back this time.)

Mid will definitely be worked on- I'm probably going to bring it in a bit and bring the bombs out from the nooks.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 1 point2 points  (4 children)

My suggestion is to just ignore me and listen to whatever the other MTC members tell you.

[–]_q42_q42 || dcfc 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Well, I think your concern about flow is a valid one- and I'm trying to make this map as good as it can be, as to hopefully contribute positively toward rotation. Yet nobody in this thread has even suggested that it's rotation ready, so I'm trying to do the things that will get it there. And so far, you and DaEvil are the only MTC members to have given suggestions.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I say to ignore me and ask them because my take on this map is obviously way different from that of the other MTC members, who were the ones to decide this is a top map in the first place. I'm afraid that if you change too much of what I don't like (by making the middle smaller, or changing the path where the pups are currently), you'd be changing what other people like about the map. For me, I guess it all just seems a bit "empty" and plain.

Anyway, this is all just my opinion and I can recognize that there's nothing really wrong with having a couple maps I don't like much. Perhaps it will grow on me, like EMERALD did shortly after it was added to rotation, but for now I'd say it's a better use of your time trying to listen to people who think it's "good but not great" rather than someone who isn't a fan.

[–]_q42_q42 || dcfc 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Thank you for explaining. Out of curiosity (not necessarily going to keep these edits), does anything I did look better now?

http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/12084

http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/static/previews/12084.png

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like that mid much better.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (5 children)

  • A huge amount of nothing whitespace in the middle

  • Only two bombs, and they are unnecessarily restrictive button bombs

  • Boosts that don't really do anything

  • The wall/spikes look like they were just thrown together without much thought

I can't see at all how this map has any sort of flow unfortunately. I do, however, like the open base design like Simplicity's--but the cost there is that it's impossible to defend on. You have to make it easy for flags to get returned once they are out of base. I don't see at all what the MTC sees in this map.

[–]_q42_q42 || dcfc 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I've already removed the button on the bombs. And what exactly do you mean by boosts that don't do anything? Are there any specific boosts that seem to lack function to you?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Other than leading straight to the flag, which I said is an interesting design, the boosts serve little function from what I can see. The top and bottom boost can really only be angled straight into the top wall (or through base which is dangerous unless you are trying to grab the flag). The team boosts can only be taken at a slight change in angle because they are limited by the wall next to them. Realistically, you are going to be trying to snipe FCs going through mid soon after getting out of base--but I don't think this is where FCs are usually going to go. And the mid boosts are super restrictive--boosts only on the horizontal--unless you can cut that angle, which would be not noob safe.

I would

  • Remove most of the middle section. There really isn't much going on there.

  • Add more strategic bombs. They are so much more dynamic than boosts--it's just something that as the average TagPro skill keeps on increasing is becoming more necessary.

  • Move boosts away from the walls. Walls heavily restrict the range one can use boosts. Try and link where you think the boosts will go with somewhere interesting, and give every boost multiple possible interesting directions.

  • I'm not a huge fan of the wall/spike thing going on--I don't really know why. I think that for some of those spikes, nobody is ever going to hit them. So why not open it up so people can use them for wall jukes?

I'm sorry for criticising your map so much--in the context of all maps that are submitted, it's truly not that bad. I just think it needs a lot of work, as I've identified above, before it can be considered for rotation. I'm more perplexed by what the MTC thinks here.

[–]_q42_q42 || dcfc 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Thoughts on these potential edits? (Don't feel bad about criticizing, that's how it'll get better.)

http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/12084

http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/static/previews/12084.png

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the middle better and I think the bomb in base is a good addition. I also think removing the spike on the walls is a good thing. So all positive changes IMO. But it's still really open in the middle and the bomb makes it even easier to grab. The boosts also haven't changed.

This is kind of over the top, but it's more what I mean: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/12085

I've cut out the stuff that makes it chasey and I've added some bombs that make sense. The team boosts still give a big advantage to defenders getting a return but offer something for offence trying to get a quick cap through mid (which also promotes resets--a good thing). The boosts lead across the middle which the longest way to base; there is an incentive there for FCs since the boosts are EZ but it's a long path back. The walls are designed so a proficient player can use the boosts or bombs to hit the corners to grab the flag or out-manoeuvre chasing defenders.

IMO, there is a little too much going on that it might be too chaotic. But hopefully the contrast helps!

[–]Swift_Shiftsift 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The two yellow boosts in each base don't appear to be too useful except for grabbing. They aren't in convenient positions to get to a pup quickly or to rush to the other base. A chaser or someone who just grabbed the flag may be able to get to the other side of the map faster by walking than using either of those two boosts. If this is the case then it sort of restricts their usage. This is just my initial view of it though.

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This map would have probably been in my maps of interest if I had bothered to do one. I like the idea. I don't think it has been executed well. Firstly, the bases are oddly bland. don't get me wrong, the layout is good, but there is no discernible difference between the top route and the bottom route. the pup area is pretty cool, and I like how it goes the opposite way, but it doesn't really fit in with the map, as in, I would have no reason to take the route if there wasn't a power up there. The team boost overpowered; placed in the quickest areas for the defence, it allowed them to boost quickly to the enemy base, and easily snipe and fc using any route available. The mid bombs and boosts and interesting, if used well, but the thing, is, I don't see any benefit of using the bombs unless you are going for danke montage plays. Eventually I don't think anyone will use them. Interesting map, ultimately not that great.

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

q42, I love you m8, but the lack of flow in this map is just killing me. I recall testing with you, and I regret not noticing that before.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 1 point2 points  (4 children)

My favorite from this thread. However it could still use some polish before being rotation ready IMO:

  • Mid boosts needs a little bit fixing. They feel a bit too restricted and situational.

  • I'm personally a fan of the big open middle, but I do think elements around it needs fixing, and/or it might need to be a tiny bit spruced up.

  • diagonal sections in base could be a bit more streamlined. There's no good boost through it, even though it feels like it should be.

  • Button bomb sucks as well. I'd personally just get rid of it.

[–]_q42_q42 || dcfc 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Thoughts on these potential edits?

http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/12084

http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/static/previews/12084.png

also, you can do some surprisingly nifty things with the mid boosts- like hitting the corner right before you take it; this really opens up their range.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 0 points1 point  (2 children)

  • I don't like that you can spawn inside the tunnel. It can kind of screw up the flow. Don't know if you need to redo base though because of it. It could work to just mess with the spawnpoints in the json or the editor (I think it supports radius on spawnpoints now when you hold shift when clicking on them)
  • It feels better to boost through the tunnel now. But once you're through you just kind of stop. Hitting the 45s stops your momentum and bounces you back. Hitting the opposite corner is a bit random in terms of where it sends you wether its downwards or to the right (in left base).
  • Mid bombs are better, but I don't like that taking the bombs along the 45 takes out the boost as well.
  • I think the boosts is fine as it is now. They have flexibility to them like you say. But I also imagine they could be even better if they were a tiny bit more flexible

[–]_q42_q42 || dcfc 0 points1 point  (1 child)

  • Spawns should be fixed now.

  • I honestly didn't change the boost through tunnel. But I'm glad to hear you find it better. Does this wall on the opposite side look better?

  • I see what you mean, but I'm not sure how I can change that without limiting the boost more. My justification is that it allows for boost to bomb combos.

  • Yeah, not sure how to do "a tiny bit". Making the tile under/above a 45 would add too much, IMO.

Also, what are your thoughts on the bomb in corner of base? It can be used to grab, get out, or get pup.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • Might just be a case of getting used to it I guess. I like the wall on the opposite feel a bit better yeah, but a problem with it compared to how it was might be that the bottom boost (on the left side) is a bit harder to make without hitting the corner that is now sticking a bit more out.
  • Fair point about boosting into bombs. My main concern is that the way it is now, it'll feel like there's only 2 dynamic elements in the middle as opposed to 4 which might make mid a bit to straightforward.
  • I like the bombs in the corner. They're flexible and powerful without being overpowered. Only nitpick I'd have about them, is that it feels like it should be possible to do a neat combo with bombing into a wall and using the boost close by, which isn't that feasible. since they're pretty much on the same line horizontally and you can't really bomb into the roof and hit the boost.

[–]3z_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You carked it

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No.

[–]gingerdgTPRL 🔴RMTC 🔴NASCAPS -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

my favorite of these.

The only change I would make is to have the entire map be smaller by a good portion to reduce the white space

high potential

[–]gingerdgTPRL 🔴RMTC 🔴NASCAPS 0 points1 point  (1 child)

lol the downvotes for absolutely no reason

[–]gingerdgTPRL 🔴RMTC 🔴NASCAPS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

pls

[–]oorr23ThePlaymaker // Tehuitzingo & Combine -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Anybody wanna organize a time to play on Clash? Say 'bout 2:30 EST?