Author Topic: ctf_MFM  (Read 6220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Suowarrior

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • There will be time when I create maps again.
ctf_MFM
« on: January 05, 2010, 08:46:08 pm »
Original


Offline CheeSeMan.

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • WOOT SLIPPERY PICKLES
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2014, 02:35:25 pm »
So I just played MFM in a gather last night, been a while since I played it and here are my thoughts and what could be changed to increase its popularity. I assume it probably plays quite well in Public due to the size but it is highly underplayed and barely ever picked in 3v3. And, I believe the map probably suffers from the same problems in Public actually due to how easy it is to base camp and shut down the game completely. This of course is due to the spawns being so far in front of the flag spot, but seeing as this is one of its unique characteristics I do not think this should change, if that was done then it would just be another underplayed big map.

Here are the main issues it faces in 3v3 clan wars:

- Once a clan has a lead then they can shut down the game completely by just having two guys Defing in the base, it is virtually impossible to cap even if you are to kill the defenders as once you grab the flag they then spawn in front of you.
- It is not really a big map where you can leak an enemy to cap or sneak through as at all times you can pretty much see everything(compared to say Laos/b2b) Sure you can try a surprise low rush but that is also very easy to defend due to the small low entrance into the base.
- I think the only way to "Safely" cap is currently getting above the base top side waiting to be left 1v1, kill the guy and then hopefully he gets a long spawn and you can leave the base top route.
- The low route is pretty much ONLY used as an escape route as the exit/entrance so tight.
- There is pretty much 0 chance of escaping mid.

I think I could explain more detail but I think anyone who has played a CW on it, knows what I mean.

ANYHOWS here is my idea(all theory mind you):

What about making the polygons mid that create the choke zones only player+bullet collide? I think this would add a bit more dynamic to this map as it would allow players to grab the flag and throw it mid which currently does not happen, it would most likely fall low which then makes the LOW route much more important to use and have someone down there to pick it up.



What do you think? Maybe someone can make a test version?
Banana Banging since summer 2008!     
cB. Cheeky Bananas                
#CheekyB.Soldat

Offline Viral

  • Soldat Beta Team
  • Camper
  • ******
  • Posts: 361
  • 123 hi
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2014, 02:56:51 pm »
I can do a quick mockup, but remember that you can't walk on OPC polies, so i'd suggest making normal tiny platforms at the bottom and up so yuo can walk just liek yuo can atm.
Also there is one more thing. If we leave the thickness as it is, you will be able to stay inside the poly and be kind off "unkillable".

Offline CheeSeMan.

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • WOOT SLIPPERY PICKLES
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2014, 04:12:37 pm »
No i mean that only flag goes through this area is that possible? Players bullets still collide.
Banana Banging since summer 2008!     
cB. Cheeky Bananas                
#CheekyB.Soldat

Offline darDar

  • Soldat Beta Team
  • Flagrunner
  • ******
  • Posts: 810
  • 2004 - 2018
    • #Soldat Gather - Community on Discord
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2014, 04:26:58 pm »
No i mean that only flag goes through this area is that possible? Players bullets still collide.
You mean like on DropDown in the middle route, but also players should collide?

Yes, Thats possible. You add only bullets & only players collide polygons over each other. Flag will go through , players & bullets won't.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 04:36:56 pm by darDar »
Soldat Gather 'Matchmaking Community on Discord'

gather.soldat.pl

| My Maps: ctf_Pyramid, ctf_Replay, ctf_Blako, ctf_R6, ctf_Ntex, ctf_Caro, ctf_Bizar & vs_mode mappack |

Offline Viral

  • Soldat Beta Team
  • Camper
  • ******
  • Posts: 361
  • 123 hi
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2014, 04:59:55 pm »
If you can, provide me a pms, because i don't have default maps in my soldat folder so i can edit it.

Offline Akinaro

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2014, 02:18:08 am »
I don't like idea of modifying this map. Its obvious that its too big for 3v3. This map is best when you play min 5v5 and its doing this perfect. Its fast, its dynamic, so players need to always move. Flag spot is also in good place, there is loots of tricks to quickly fly from there.
If you have problems playing it choose another map for 3v3. Its like taking old ctf run for 1v1...

There are maps for loots of player, like this one, and there are smaller and simpler maps for 3v3.

Offline CheeSeMan.

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • WOOT SLIPPERY PICKLES
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2014, 05:22:46 pm »
Well the issue here is not really about me picking a different map, its about making this map better to play. Even in bigger maps I do not think basecamp should be promoted which really is what this map is about, even playing it in bigger public servers you will see 1-2 guys never leaving the base. Maybe that is just me but meh... this sort of tactic just does not feel like Soldat to me!
Banana Banging since summer 2008!     
cB. Cheeky Bananas                
#CheekyB.Soldat

DarkCrusade

  • Guest
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2014, 11:30:03 pm »
As I am working on a remake of this map, I was wondering whether to change or not to change the current layout. I have heard complaints about the entrance to the low route being too narrow, and base camping being an issue both in public, and in competitive gaming. Any suggestions?

Offline Name

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2014, 06:45:16 am »
I don't play a lot of 3v3 gathers but it amazes me that this map would be categorized as big. Maps like ctf_Rotten can be a bit claustrophobic for my taste. To me a big map should at least be like ctf_Conquest or ctf_Meatgrinder.

Offline Izzy Rose (PL)

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 118
  • I am tank! Get out my way!
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2014, 09:54:23 am »
I don't play a lot of 3v3 gathers but it amazes me that this map would be categorized as big. Maps like ctf_Rotten can be a bit claustrophobic for my taste. To me a big map should at least be like ctf_Conquest or ctf_Meatgrinder.

I think that Maya, Lanubya (btw, I liked the old version much more), Run (especially old one), Equinox... these are big maps. I quite like MFM and I'm sad a little, because still Ash is the most popular map, not MFM, which is much more dynamic and "breath-giving", when Ash puts you in constant chaos of random bullets, nades and spawnkillers.
Ingame known as just Izzy
[Barret]/
+

DarkCrusade

  • Guest
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2014, 12:10:49 pm »
I like MFM, but it has several issues of its own. I am thinking of ways to improve the general gameplay, and will report back with some ideas later next week.

Offline Viral

  • Soldat Beta Team
  • Camper
  • ******
  • Posts: 361
  • 123 hi
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2014, 08:26:14 am »
About the downsides of your mapping technique id like to point out one important aspect. Your ground sceneries are set to back, what causes the explosion to blow in front of them, not behind like it does with contact with "front" sceneries or normal polygons. You ought to change all the "walk-able" sceneries parts to front, so it won't look so odd.

Offline L[0ne]R

  • Soldat Beta Team
  • Rainbow Warrior
  • ******
  • Posts: 2078
  • need a life. looking for donors.
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2014, 11:26:59 am »
About the downsides of your mapping technique id like to point out one important aspect. Your ground sceneries are set to back, what causes the explosion to blow in front of them, not behind like it does with contact with "front" sceneries or normal polygons. You ought to change all the "walk-able" sceneries parts to front, so it won't look so odd.
I think you've confused DarkCrusade with Akinaro. ;)

Speaking of Akinaro: as many technical problems as his map has, he did do a decent job on the theme and visuals. If someone could take it from there and fix all the problems - it would be a worthy remake. But then there's also a risk of Akinaro not giving permission to use his remake for whatever butthurt reasons, and I don't know what legal implications it may have if any.


L[one]R, INF veteran
maps - remakes: inf_Warehouse ; inf_Fortress ; inf_(Sun)Rise ; inf_Outpost ; inf_Abel ; inf_Moonshine

Offline Viral

  • Soldat Beta Team
  • Camper
  • ******
  • Posts: 361
  • 123 hi
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2014, 02:20:24 pm »
xD, i thought it was akinaro's thread - heh whatever. Deep inside I'm sure he knows about this :B Gl with your remake tho, can't wait to put my eyes on it (DC)!

Offline Name

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2014, 03:50:22 pm »
I don't play a lot of 3v3 gathers but it amazes me that this map would be categorized as big. Maps like ctf_Rotten can be a bit claustrophobic for my taste. To me a big map should at least be like ctf_Conquest or ctf_Meatgrinder.

I think that Maya, Lanubya (btw, I liked the old version much more), Run (especially old one), Equinox... these are big maps. I quite like MFM and I'm sad a little, because still Ash is the most popular map, not MFM, which is much more dynamic and "breath-giving", when Ash puts you in constant chaos of random bullets, nades and spawnkillers.
I could agree that the old ctf_Run was a long map and also ctf_B2b when you're on about the old default maps, although those were just simple concept maps. Devs relied on the community to improve and experiment from that starting point.
I think Leo's CTF used to have a bunch of bigger maps which were more interesting considering both the looks and their playability, which were about the same size as Run and B2b. Trenchwar maps can also be quite long.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2014, 03:52:16 pm by Name »

Offline Ricrylonten

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2015, 12:03:51 am »
If this map is still being worked on for a possible 1.6.9 or 1.7 remake, I think cheeseman's suggestion is an excellent "solution" to increase the pace of the map & its popularity in 3v3 CTF.

Lanubya (btw, I liked the old version much more)

Somewhat offtopic, but +1. Old Lanubya 2015.

Offline Crimson Goth

  • Camper
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
  • A*|INF|Veteran
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2015, 04:39:59 pm »
flag throw idea is exellent

Offline homerofgods

  • Soldat Beta Team
  • Rainbow Warrior
  • ******
  • Posts: 2010
  • We can do better!
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2015, 05:00:48 am »
Here is the original ctf_MFM.PMS for you Viral :D
« Last Edit: May 09, 2015, 05:02:26 am by homerofgods »

Offline Viral

  • Soldat Beta Team
  • Camper
  • ******
  • Posts: 361
  • 123 hi
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2015, 06:48:25 am »
FlagThrow version

Offline Bistoufly

  • Soldat Beta Team
  • Flagrunner
  • ******
  • Posts: 798
Re: ctf_MFM
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2015, 10:57:04 am »
FlagThrow version


Hey <3


Why didn't you attach it in trello? I made a card just for it this morning: https://trello.com/c/vjFha3mw/120-ctf-mfm