This is a map for anyone who has ever been told that Montana and Alaska cannot be bridged... plus everyone else. It's epic Civil War time! Each state has been given it's own central base, along with several corresponding utility structures. Civil War is primarily designed as a CTF or Assault map, but it can be used for many different game types. For Assault game types you may want to allow the bomb character vehicle use, depending on your preference. Montana: Montana Base: The first floor of the base has two teleporters located on the rear walls. One of the teleporters will take you to the "Deathwalk" crossing, the other will take you to the Light Jump Bridge. The flag and capture plate are located in the recessed area at the center of the room. The cut-out section of the roof is a one-way shield door. This allows the ramps around the room to double as staircases. If you jump while near the top of one of the ramps you will be moved onto the roof. The roof is equipped a few heavy weapons and two mounted machine guns for fighting off incoming enemy vehicles. Montana Garage: It is located off the back left corner of the base. Relatively close to the main base, but significantly downhill. The garage is stocked with; 1 Gauss Warthog, 1 Standard Warthog, 2 Ghosts, and 1 Mongoose. It has 2 Plasma Turrets. One at the end of each exit tunnel. Montana Banshee Platforms: Montana's Banshee platforms are a good distance from the base. They are also uphill. You must ride a short elevator to reach the platform level. It is the highest point on the map. Montana Falcon Pad: The Montana Falcon pad is located at the top of a hill on the right side of the main base. The players must run up a spiraling path cut into the side of the hill in order to reach it. Montana Concussion Bunker: The first line of defense against enemy ground vehicles. Montana DMR Bunker: The first line of defense against enemy forces on foot. Montana Snipe Camp: Someone went camping and left their sniper rifle behind... Montana Sword Camp: Someone went camping and left their energy sword behind... Alaska: Alaska Base: Basically the same as the Montana base. The one difference is that the teleporters are reversed to reflect the actual orientation of the bridges. Alaska Garage: Again very similar to Montana, only this one is directly behind the main base, and slightly further away. Alaska Banshee Platforms: The Alaska banshee platforms are much taller than the Montana platforms because they are at a lower elevation. The elevator ride is slightly longer. Alaska Falcon Pad: Located up the hill at the far back corner of the Alaskan territory. Alaska Concussion Bunker: The first line of defense against enemy ground vehicles. Alaska DMR Bunker: The first line of defense against enemies on foot. Alaska Snipe Camp: Someone must have gone camping (extreme) and left their sniper rifle behind... Alaska Sword Camp: Someone went camping and left their energy sword behind... Bridges / Jumps: Warthog Launcher: It basically does what it says it does. (watch video) Blocking off a two-dimensional bridge entrance is once thing, but attempting to block a three dimensional vehicular spray zone is something entirely different. Light Jump Bridge: The Light Jump Bridge is perfect for people, ghosts, and skilled mongoose riders. It makes for a quick and efficient trip. "Deathwalk" Obviously risky, but there are some powerful weapons out there, and if you go when least expected... I hope you all enjoy the map! Don't forget to check out the rest of my FILE SHARE as well. Thanks
I seem to remember this map being posted before.while I see you made some changes the main issues with the map still remain... Alaska and Montana should not be together it makes for awful gameplay except for certian situations. Your bridges are still heavily flawed. The rock bridge for example...it is way too thin,one firefight and anybody will be knocked off of it. Just adding a larger middle area to the rock bridge does not solve anything. Aesthetically the bridges are out of place of the rest of the map. Three areas and ways to get across with no flanking routes = bad gameplay. This will just become a camp fest around the landing areas which may result in a stalemate with neither team willing to cross causing gameplay to come to a screeching hault. "Alaska garage" this also worries me.i see that you have a rocket hog underneath there and a rocket launcher on top.not only do you already have a rocket launcher but these things should be distanced from each other. You did not seem to put any thought into weapons and vehicles which overall leads to bad gameplay. "death walk" While this may have a slightly cool name this is an area from the pictures of it that made me cringe. You have two gravity hammers and a rocket launcher in the same exact spot.in addition to that you have plasma grenades...this is just...awful.it will create a complete unbalance and be horrible for gameplay. I would suggest getting rid of everything except for the rocket launcher. The map has long lines of sight which leads to spawn-camping and overall frustrating gameplay. The vehicles seem thrown in(two banshees right next to each other and a falcon warthogs etc...) Weapons and weapon placement had no thought put into it. To be honest this is something I would expect to see at the beginning of reached life span. TL;DR? Maps that span Alaska and Montana usually don't work.make one huge bridge with plenty of structure,cover and flanking routes as well as maneuvering space. Get rid of the cross map lines of sight. Actually think about gameplay for weapons and vehicles instead of randomly throwing down weapons and vehicles.
I honestly don't know what to tell you man. You do realize that it takes much, much more thought and ingenuity to do something differently and have it work than it does to just follow a formula, right? I mean do you actually think I randomly sprayed weapons around the map? Or that I haven't played it and tested it? Seriously? Why are you using terms like "flawed," or saying that it "WILL" create a complete unbalance and be horrible for gameplay anyway? It already exists.... it works.... No need to use "will," or any other hypotheticals to explain what you thought might have happened based on the pictures.. Yes you are supposed to fall off the extremely precarious bridge if you get in a firefight while you are on it.... Why else would it be called Deathwalk?? I mean wtf... why am I even arguing this? No hard feelings. I do appreciate the criticism normally. This one was just confoundingly bad. BTW, there are no rocket hogs on the map... but if there were I am sure we would disagree as to what to do with them.
No need to rage Ok man, there is no need to rage. While he might like the more layed back, mlg-ish gameplay, you simply like the extremely crazy and exotic gameplay. Nobody is right or wrong in this situation. Just different. So what if there is tons of power weapons? It's a big map and each team has the same ammount of them. It's not unbalanced, it's just a more crazy way to play the game. I personally think this map would be fun.
I remember seeing this in the map previews section and no one gave it a chance. This guy up there waterfallninja's havin a douche-gasm up there. Seems like everyone on here are dicks. This map could be fun. I bet no ones played this before commenting! so DL it and try it before you get your boner for critisizm all erected. It sounds like Wades put a lot of thought into sight lines and bunkers as for weapons. There are a few areas where the weapons are just too much like the deathwalk. You probably ran out of objects to make the deathwalk, but the rock bridge looks weird. these are just things Iv noticed they could play totally differently. Il DL it when I can. The DL link is broken and does not work, so if you fix it ill play it and give feedback.
The reason this map is not being "given a chance" is because it was posted in the competitive maps section, where as it is clearly casual. Because of this, people will judge it off of competitive standards, and so things like high-level power weapons given in the bases and cover-less long, skinny bridges will be looked down upon as they take away from competitive gameplay. Also it should be understood that no one is outright bashing the map, but trying to give constructive feedback on how it can be improved. FH members are unlikely to praise a map when they see issues, and ignoring their complaints does not help your map out in the least. It is rather frustrating when members start to rage at others for such criticism and it only leads to pointless bitter arguments. If you are not interested in changing your map or trying to fix competitive issues, your best bet is to have the map moved to casual. Thank you.
Lol Lol, I didn't notice that. Someone should move it into casual. I was wondering why everyone was freaking out about things that should be a concern in a competitive map, on a casual maps thread...
Ok maybe my write up attempt to help was bad.i don't feel that it was.i gave feedback based off of a competitive standpoint because this map for one reason or another is posted in the competitive map section. Yes I know it takes more then just following a formula. However throwing down 50 power weapons is just bad for competitive play.unless you want critisizm like mine then move your map to casual. And I was not trying to be a **** or anything just posting my thoughts and concerns on the map based on what I saw. [br][/br]Edited by merge: You do not need to hate on others(myself included) for giving feedback based on where the map was posted.to be honest this is not a map I would want to play and am not about to shower the creator with sparkles for the flaws.i was merely telling him some flaws and I even suggested ways that he could fix them. It is clear that he does not want to listen to any feedback however. And calling me a doosch because I gave feedback based on the flaws of the map was just ignorant.he deserves to know the problems do they can be fixed.if I just showered the map with affection even though I do not like it would be bad.not only would I be excluding my own opinion but I would be giving the creator a ego boost that I do not feel that is deserved. TL;DR? I don't like the map so I am not going to rub my testicles of love all over it.
you are right I apologize. I just wonder why no one gave this map a chance when it was in the preview thread when I think it has potential. but ya Im sorry I was a ****. But everyone quit hatin' on each other and play the map before commenting on how you think it would play
It's all good. I certainly don't want any crazy arguments. If the admins eventually decide to move the move my map (even without downloading it) I wont put up a fight this time. That being said, I want people to know where I am coming from. I fully understand how to make a technically "un-flawed" competitive map. I know how long sight lines should be, I know how cover should be spaced, I know how weapons should be dispersed. If I wanted to carry those principles over to a Montana/Alaska map I would do exactly what ninja suggested. I would build an extremely wide bridge, set up a bunch of cover on it, cut off all the cross-state sight lines, and make sure there were no clumps of power weapons. However, at that point I would have to ask myself, why am I even building the map between Montana and Alaska in the first place? Why not just make a nice sterile grey playing surface and spread everything else out over that? I realize that the more I stray from the conventional, the harder I am going to have to work to achieve balance. While making this map I went to extremes in testing and measuring every single element I placed. I counted the seconds it takes for each vehicle to reach every key point on the map taking the fastest possible path. I then counted the seconds it takes for each player to reach every key point on foot. First from every initial spawn point, and then from every re-spawn point. I made multiple dispersion charts on plastic transparencies for the amount of damage the weapons in each area can dish out, taking into account their range, and the chances of that player successfully moving the weapon to another part of the map. So for example, the double hammer/rocket launcher central rock area is a very deep, dark red color. However, the red disperses quickly moving away from that point because their odds of survival go down significantly once they step out onto the narrow rock path on either side of them. If I overlay the battle rifle damage transparency, I will see that there are two BR's located at either end of the "Deathbridge." Those Br's cast a mid-yellow/orange damage range out over the center of the bridge. For this area of the map, that sets up exactly the situation I was looking for. On the larger scale, that scenario is what I found to be ideal for keeping the overall game competitive. [br][/br]Edited by merge: Waterfall, no one is calling you a doosch here man.. Unfortunately, it seems like that may be what you are looking for. Perhaps you are trying to take on a harsh/honest, Gordon Ramsey, persona in order to gain respect. The problem is that while being a harsh critic is great, and it is constructive for people to hear it, by far the most important part of being a critic is actually knowing the product that you are criticizing. Comments like: and Those comments are just pure wild conjecture, based on looking at a couple pictures... As it turns out, I literally spent days on the placement of each and every individual object. Giving harsh, and well thought out criticisms will earn you, and your opinions respect. But only if you have earned the right to make them by doing the appropriate research. Haphazardly throwing around harsh criticism without any actual forethought or knowledge will end up making you look foolish.
I beg to differ as I was specifically called a doosch.however I am not trying to earn any respect or trying to be harsh.while I see now that a few points as you quoted above should not have been written they were my beliefs and,hell...I am not trying to do a professional write up here. But let's just leave it at that befor any real arguements break out.that was and is not my intention.my intention was to give feedback based off of a competitive standpoint and offer conclusions. I don't know why I was called a doosch for my critisizm but it is ok because I see now why.it is because I was a little more harsh then intended.i apologize for that but can we just put it behind us and agree to disagree before infractions start to be handed out?
I don't understand why you need four banshees on such a small map. The forging doesn't look that bad, but I really don't like the rock bridge. It doesn't flow well with the rest of the map. I suggest changing some things around on your map, including the banshees.
Why do people keep saying this map should be in the Casual Maps section? While it may be gargantuan in size, it sports all of the elements seen in a competitive map. Hell, it looks like something I've seen in MM before. I'm kind of fed up with what the majority of this site defines as "competitive", because like our friend Wade here said, maps that do nothing but follow 'the formula' allow for little to no creative ingenuity and resort to the same tried elements that people grow tired of and have grown tired of at this point. Everyone is judging a book by its cover, and the cover simply reflects something you're not used to seeing in an everyday Competitive map. Have an open mind people, and realize there may be more out there than a stinking 'formula'...
Waterfall, sounds good to me man. Like I said no hard feelings. I do appreciate feedback. I will try to check out some of your maps whenever I get some time. Montana and Alaska combined end up being a decent size, but the main thing is that the landing pads are pretty far away from the base and most all of the re-spawns. You are also in a bad position to defend while walking to them, and enemies can destroy them while they are docked. So by having 2 on each side, there will usually be one there when someone makes the trip over. Amen...
Damn guys, what happened to the FH where constructive criticism was valued instead of **** on? Yes, people can be a little harsh, but if a map has problems it needs it. There is no "formula" for a good map, but some things can be seen (yes, even from pictures) that will make the map less enjoyable, such as the extreme bottlenecks through the middle. We do not need to download the map and play it to understand how campable these bottlenecks will be, or how if everyone has a power weapon those who respawn are at an instant disadvantage, not to mention how much easier said camping at the three ways across the ravine will be if more players have power weapons. Furthermore, we are not saying a Montaska map cannot work, but that they usually do not, and that this map does not seem to break the mold of previous Montaska maps. There have been many a bridge + man cannon map with bases on either side, and they are flawed because of these bottlenecked paths where it is easy to be killed and camped by the other team. The argument that air vehicles serve as a way across also fails for several reasons. First, the high number of power weapons and the visibility of the aerial vehicles makes them easy to pick off quickly. Second, objectives cannot be moved across this way and only so many players are in aerial vehicles at once, leaving many players to deal with the limitations on the ground. We are not being stuck in some silly formula for how a map should be built. The fact is we have seen this type of map before in a million iterations, and it has the same issues they always have. You can say that this time it's different, but we've seen it before and we know how it works. Don't be angry at us for trying to help, that used to be why people posted their maps here; to improve them. I will continue any further discussion in VM's or PM's.
About the apparent Rage on this Map, I definitely do not have anything against it. I remember a great and awesome Halo CE map called Gephyrophobia, and it had four banshees. Man, playing CTF in that map are just, epic times....
I really don't want to rehash this because I felt like we had made peace with the issue. But... I have no problem whatsoever with constructive criticism. I have no issue with harsh, or even very harsh constructive criticisms. Honestly, I like them. What I do have a problem with, however, is when demonstrative, declarative statements are made, and then presented as FACT, repeatedly, with just the paltry amount of information that can gathered from still pictures as evidence... "If a map HAS problems it needs it."... That statement has now been publicly presented as a factual declaration. You're not saying, "if a map looks like it has problems." Or, "if a map almost certainly has problems" Those two statements would be good constructive criticisms based upon the knowledge that you had at the time. Instead, you have declared that said problems are 100% fact, and in doing so, your statement has changed from harsh constructive criticism, into damaging irresponsible conjecture. I'm not going to spend my entire night refuting every single flaw that this map has been unjustly accused of. Especially considering the fact that I have already spent hundreds of hours making absolutely sure that none of them actually exist. However, if anyone who is going to download the map would like to ask me about the processes that I went through in order to ensure their absence, I will be more than happy to give you a detailed explanation. P.S. Thank you Redy
Shoe leads the Testers Guild, I believe. He's tested enough maps to know when there is a blatant imbalance within the map. For every instance of criticism that has been directed at your map, you've dismissed it as being erroneous; yet, dismissing this criticism as erroneous, is ironically - erroneous. There are no 'facts' that can be presented as testimony for your map being just intrinsically 'good'. None of the criticism has been irrational, and there are large concerns with the map. It doesn't matter how much time you spend working on your map - it is still incredibly plausible that a map can contain an flaw. How much time do you think Bungie spent creating Hemorrhage? Yet, the team closest to the coast is always at a disadvantage. Although, yes, you ARE entitled to enjoy your map as thoroughly as you like...but remember that your perspective is based off of sentiment, not 'facts'. Just take the criticism and learn off of it, there's no reason to be thick.
The strikethrough represents how far I got before I started laughing uncontrollably and gave up on reading the rest of the thread. Formulating a new concept and making that concept work is quite impressive. Here however, you have done neither. The idea of a "Montaska bridge map" has been around since a few weeks after Reach was released, and the concept does not work in this map. Everyone wants to jump into a new field and immediately do something new, but trying to jump off the trail before you come to the end is futile. Instead of throwing criticism back in people's faces why don't you take it like a man (we all know there are no females on the internet) and try to learn from it. I would be happy to go through this in forge with you and explain all the issues, from spawn direction to the layout of the entire map, but I will not waste time giving feedback here since you don't seem to learn from written comments.