ET competition maps guidelines

[Spark]

Forward spawns are different in that Axis (defenders) usually don’t spawn there and most of the time they can be re-captured. Many ET maps have another forward spawn in their second part, though most of them are custom maps (Venice, Supplydepot, Fueldump with ETPro Script, but also Radar to some extend).

[Kendle]

A typical ET map is like this:
A ------- B --------(X)----- C
First Allies spawn at A and Axis spawn at B, while the battle happens between A and B. Once Allies have completed a first objective, they spawn (usually permanently) at B, while Axis spawn at C, thus a “second phase” of the map begins and battles happen between B and C. Sometimes there is even a third Allies-only spawn somewhere at X which can be captured. No RTCW map is like that AFAIK. In fact, a typical B-C part of ET is like a typical RTCW map, with one or several objectives. For example the B-C part of Oasis, is remarkably similar to the entire mp_base in structure and size.

Excellent description!!

Although I personally wouldn’t get hung up on what is and what isn’t a multi-objective map. All I’m saying is that the map should be winnable by the attacking team, just make sure they have enough to do that they can’t do it in ridiculously short times. But, not being clever enough to figure out how to make a “single” objective winnable but difficult, my suggestion would be to add additional “objectives”. Whether that’s done by having 2 things to steal / blow up, or having additional “phases” I’m not sure. Maybe a combination of both, like Oasis, is the ideal ET map?

Also, as Spark points out, most existing ET maps are long, so making short maps might be “better” in an ideal world, but it would make scheduling ET games a bit more of an issue. Indeed, at UnterElite we’ve already had that problem to a certain extent. Round 1 was 3 SW rounds on Oasis, and some games lasted 2+ hours. Round 2 was 3 SW rounds on Radar, and most games lasted less than an hour.

We also played a custom, V2Base, in Round 3, and the general consensus of opinion was that it didn’t work too well because a) it lacked the A – B phase in Spark’s description (but then it did start life as a RTCW map), and the forward spawn (X) was too important to the outcome of the game. If Allies had it they won quickly, very quickly. If Axis had it Allies had little chance of getting it and Axis full-held.

[Ifurita]

For the most part I agree with you. I think that one thing mappers need to understand is that SW and campaign maps almost require two different build/layout philosophies. For a SW map, playing best of 2 rounds (min 3 games, max determined by league rules), you want the offense to win the majority of the time. For a campaign map, which is what I think most mappers build for, you want the defenders to win (e.g., full hold) approximately half the time, team skill being equal. Any formula where the D full holds 50% of the time is death for a SW league, and leads to those 3 hour matches.

Also, you don’t have the same marathon matches in a campagin ladder/league as you do in SW. With the current SD maps, the longest you’ll ever play a Campaign match is 99 minutes (assuming 2 full holds and the last game won at the last minute). SW matches, in the early days (first to 3) habitutually blew past that

[raibs]

Everything said is pretty reasonable however there is one little bonus we are missing in a pure “chain” style of map. Risk. A risk of letting someone to the main objective by mistake.
Take for example old rtcw mp_ice. u could go for the objective straight not blowing the door and even not taking the flag however your chances were really little to get through and even if u grabbed the docs, to take them backwards through that one way. Still there were some games when someone managed to sneak through right at the start and grab the docs causing a little chaos in defence. And this kind of play is what makes adrenaline pump and it is what viewers want to see. This is not practically real in ET’s maps for now.

Out of Topic:
And one really big issue is - u actually will be interested in things that make your game an enjoyable e-sport even if u don’t think so for now. Games don’t last forever and it is really sad seeing people turn to new games because of the lack of players in community, which is caused by lack of supportive leagues, tournaments, which is caused by companies not beeing interested in sponsoring them, which is caused by the small amount of people playing the game, which is caused by shrinking amount of people enjoying the game, which is caused by slow information distribution. When a game appears there is usually some kind of advertising, ppl are picking it up and advertising to friends. And then there is some critical mass reached which actually determines if the game is going to die soon or it will live “almost forever”. ET will die the same way rtcw died if there wont be any twist that makes it enjoyable for masses. ET killed rtcw in my country. There are already games that are not free and are not graphically better than ET, are not more interesting than ET, are not better performing on low end machines, but managed to get as popular. Now look at the games that will come out in the nearest future and u will get the picture.

[blushing_bride]

the risk factor is a big part of what makes ET great, radar is the best example of this, in fact last night in savage div 3 NW clan pulled this off in their match on radar. All maps should include a chance to have this risk factor even if it’s just a covert door like in oasis or an entire different route like in radar. this risk is something that should be put in all custom ET maps. As for your second point ET seems pretty popular at the moment, ive heard of a few mod teams switching to ET as its free so in theory they can release there mod and anyone can play it without ever having to buy a retail game. So with more mods and more maps being released i think ET stands a good chance of lasting for a while yet, espically if this thread helps to produce some decent maps for comps.

[DG1]

I think the “risk” factor is also one of the main reasons people like docs maps, you can have some sneaky begger nab the docs right out of the blue, which sets everyone into panic and loads of “OMG!!!11” on gamer TV. Docs also balances it out though, so you dont get complete “lotto” (pure lucky bastard) wins since the guy’s still got to get back with them (note also that even if docs get dropped, defenders usually end up having to defend at last stage so even a failed grab can be a moderately big advantage). On dynamite objective, a sneaky bastard has too likely won it as defenders have to /kill, set spawnpoint to that one and still get there in time to kill the guy and defuse.

[Ifurita]

I agree.

[Kendle]

@raibs, I think ET will die and for the same reasons as RTCW, which is that it’s Class based and not as easy to pick up as other games. CS is still around because it’s simple, and it’s simple at a competitive level as well. You can take 5 top aimers and chuck them together and have a good CS team. In RTCW / ET you need players who specialise in a particular Class, as well as having great aim, to make a top team.

I don’t think ET killed RTCW, I think the complexity of it and it’s basic structure killed it. Many of the top RTCW teams didn’t last long, claiming “burn-out” after having to scrim for hours on end to nail down tactics and teamwork. ET is the same, it’s bloody hard work trying to keep a ET Clan going, keep them motivated, and keep coming up with new tactics. I don’t think “RTCW-ish” maps would improve or prolong the life of ET, anymore than they prolonged the life of RTCW.

However, as ET is free, and there are talented mod and map makers willing to put the effort into improving the game, and we’re finally seeing evidence of the mapping and Clan communities talking to each other, I remain cautiously optimistic about it’s future. I’m also not particularly interested in anything on the horizon either. Doom doesn’t appeal to me in the slightest, and I can’t afford the hardware upgrade I’ll need to play it, or HL2 for that matter.

But I’m not disagreeing with you (though it may sound like it). ET does need more tournaments and leagues, and it sure as hell needs ET-TV as soon as possible. I just think it needs more attention focused on it’s good points and exploiting them, rather than trying to turn into a game that’s already tried, and failed, to knock CS off the top spot.

[raibs]

Kendle - u made some good points that forced me think - so i would not stick to my previous single objective point of view - it was faulty in judgement. U let me come to a conclusion that the real thing that i am missing now is the risk factor. Include this and people will love the game more.
The risk factor in rtcw for offenders was the flag (as a possible sneak to the objective for defenders, which i mentioned in my previous post) - u lose flag as allies - u spawn at far home but the enemy still spawns at their far home so they dont have time to move the defence forward therefore this is not an enormous advantage for them. However u usually had someone to look that flag is not lost. As u cant afford ussually anyone just stay at flag while the team is on offence it took a great deal of understanding were everybody is and what is happening on the battlefield. We do not have it in ET anymore. But for what reason? Docs carying maps were the best as somebody already mentioned but now we have only radar. Why?
Keeping in mind that we were not stuck with ET’s default settings - etpro changed them for us - we are not stuck with original maps - a clever mind can improve them using what is called best practice from rtcw. And not necessarily destroying ET’s appeal. Why do u think the risk factor would ruin the game?

For mappers: look at rtcw’s mp_ice as a refference map. Simple layout, secondary objective, flag, docs. One faulty feature was the eaqual spawn times (i explained why in one earlier post).

Again out of topic on future:
Doom will be a huge hit even it is claimed not to have a decent multiplayer. Two revolutionary things - per pixel hit detection which is awesome and spectacular lightning system making models and structures a complete realistic system. And they claim to include great modifying tools with real time preview available. MODing community will do the rest.
CS2 - deffinately worth a try even if i do not play CS. I don’ t remember but i think it was valve promising a very easy tool to make HL2 mods through a simple graphical interface.
I don’ t know much what is going on with FarCry multiplayer and what Battlefield, MOHAA, COD and other sequels will offer but sure a lot of people will play them.
Unfortunatelly MODing for doom3 and hl2 will be in no way less perspective than for ET even considering this game is free.

[Kendle]

Why do u think the risk factor would ruin the game?

Er, personally I don’t. I like it, and hear what you’re saying in that regard. A lot of ET maps have team doors, which could be used for a quick, sneaky plant / grab, but the weak Covert-Op prevents them being used unfortunately. If you can spare the time check out the UnterElite match between Illusion and Mystery. Illusion used a Covert with Axis uniform to steal at least one Radar part without blowing either door.

But risk is good IMO. Walls that can be jumped, doors that can be opened, Flags that can be captured and Command Post spawns that can be destroyed, all add to the flavour of the game IMO. I think all maps should have a quick but high-risk route to objective, personally. Maybe giving Coverts an SMG would go a long, long way to improving the “risk” factor in ET maps?

My only point is that small is not necessarily better (in terms of map size), and rather than trim ET’s Classes / Weapons to match smaller, simpler maps, I’d rather maps be devised to exploit ET’s richness. Whether that’s even possible or not I don’t know. I leave that to people far more talented than I.

[Spark]

One of the most popular RTCW maps ever has been mp_base. Base has no forward flag and no docs, there is actually no risk factor involved. Don’t try to oversimplify the issue.

[raibs]

Actually base has a great portion of risk factor - it’s single objective. The risk factor is objective itself.
And when the famous trick jumping from allied base to the gate was discovered the great portion of risk factor was added on top of it. U can still catch some inexpierienced ET clans by surprise just beeing already under the bridge while they have just reached the top of it.

[Kendle]

Never liked Base much when I played RTCW, and don’t know if it was anyone’s favourite that I know of. Assault was always the “home” map of most Clans I played. But Base in ET is dreadful. With Mines (which can be placed in “concrete”) and Mobile MG42’s effectively locking down 2 routes, there’s now only 1 viable route between Radars, which makes it a Medic rush lotto map. You’ll never get as good a game on ET Base as was possible on RTCW Base.

Speaking of Assault, and getting way off-topic again, it had a capture-able forward spawn flag, but unlike ET maps the defending team didn’t spawn there initially. This might be said to make the map more offense friendly, but the problem even then was it was single-objective. Allies simply camped the Comms Tower, and indeed, I believe it was Infensus (undisputed World No.1) who started the trend for camping the Tower / Garage, and doing it with just Ltns and Meds too. Boring, IMO.

[MadJack]

Guys… I don’t want to sound rude but I"m wondering if the last two pages aren’t more of a debate RtCW vs ET. And frankly it now sounds more of a discussion in that line rather than the thread’s title: “ET competition maps guidelines”.

Maybe I fail to see your points, I don’t know about the other mappers but to me, nothing worth my while had been discussed. There’s a couple of good point here and there but… I don’t think it’s worth reading all that text to extract so small information.

Again, I don’t want to offend anyone but I think it’s getting sideways on the main issue while still kinda on topic.

[Kendle]

You’re right, apologies. :bash: Back on topic now people, please (especially me :eek2: )

[Kendle]

OK, to try and get this thread back on track I thought I’d summarise some of the points raised so far. I’ve edited the original post to reflect this, and will continue to do so as these guidelines are amended and refined. I’ve tried to incorporate most points raised by most people in this thread, whilst at the same time trimming it down a bit so as to make it more easily digestible.

Anyone who wants to add / amend something, please suggest any changes you’d like to make, but please, let’s keep this on-topic. I know I’m one of the worst offenders for going off-topic, so apologies for doing so already and I promise to try not to in future.

[Marko]

it could be good to maybe start discussing about maps that could be suitable for competitions and see what can be done, & what needs to be changed to make them fit in perfectly with match players’ expectations

[MadJack]

On that thought… an :idea: just poped up… I don’t know if it’s a good one but let’s discuss that…

I think it was Ifurita who posted an image of a map idea, why not take that pic and annotate it to give visual idea clues. I know that most time I’m a visual person and seeing something makes more sense than reading about it. We could also use it to make an exemple map going step by step and comparisons with a pub map. What’s good/bad, why, that sort of things.

[DG1]

MadJack, kind of like
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=272218
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=271849

Seems to have been a lot easier to get “major change” feedback incorporated this way, at v early stage so not like chucking away weeks of work.

[MadJack]

Yeah DG. I didn’t read all posts but that’s almost what I’m talking about.

First, I think it’s a bit pityful that we have a nice sticky thread to talk about competitive issues and noone have been posting in it for some time. Why would I bother coming up with ideas suggestions if nobody makes any comment or throw ideas or even put those ideas down?

Done ranting… What I was referring to was make a basic map with simple objectives. Not even a map that would be developped. More like an essay if you will. Now, I could put ideas about what I think and those that know about competitive maps would annotate and explain why it’s not a good idea, the changes to make but most importantly, we need to know why. Simply because each map is different and suggestions need to be in a general way about the way certain objectives are used. I don’t know if that makes some sense… Sorry if it doesn’t.

A good tip we had at the start of this thread was about spawning times but except for that… Not much was given. Everyone knows that a “comp. balanced” spawntimes won’t make the map successful in itself. What are the ingredients for a good comp map? That’s the kind of details I need to know. I’m sure lots of other mappers would like to know that too.