Map Name: Tantrum Canvas Map: Forge World Ideal Player Limits: 4-10 Best Gametypes: Doubles, 4v4 Team Slayer, Team Oddball, KOTH Supported Gametypes: FFA, Team Slayer, Neutral Assault, Neutral Flag, Oddball, Stockpile, Headhunter Description: Tantrum is built in the Quarry with two-way symmetry. It's designed for doubles with up to four teams, 4v4 Team Slayer, and neutral objective gametypes. Overview Red and Blue Side Reverse Overview Red and Blue Overview Back Half - Orange and Green View From Orange Red Decks Under Blue Decks Loadout Cam Rocket Spawn Sniper Spawn Center Bridge Toward Rear Neutral Hard Point Under Center of Rear Neutral Hard Point
The angle in which you've build looks very impressive! It's not something you see everyday. But I do miss something.. ..An own 'face' for this map. You should put some more detail in, or add some lights. Then your map becomes more enjoyable to play on
Wow, agreeing with the guy above, well done for the angles. I know from experience how hard and annoying it is to do that. I'd also suggest some lights or pieces such as the sides of the y platforms, etc to add some colour to the map.
@ mcclintonsl & Icy Dark Moon, Thanks guys. You're both the first to comment on the angles. That means a lot. I wanted to build in interest while maintaining minimalism. Thanks! I've considered pimping it out a bit. I'm not sure where I'd add the pieces. Lights are possible though if they don't crush performance. I'm way way under budget. I think I have like $7,200 left. *blows your minds*
Hey, I appreciate the aesthetics comments. They're subtle and exist only in the geometric orientation really. I opted to not go for a more obvious and balanced aesthetic/functional design for once and just concentrate on budget, function and LOS and flexibility with small team objective gametypes. Yeah, there was more cover in an earlier version but due to the low bridge it seemed to jack up LOS. So I pulled some cover.
I believe I did a TG test for this a while back, I liked it then as I do now. As for the comments above, I think lights would only make what is good now look cheesy. Lights tend to be overused, and the natural lighting is very good for this map, I wouldn't change that at all. I'm not sure what has been changed since back then, but it looks pretty good, though I don't like the look of the bridges, they are exactly the same as every other use of them, not extremely original there.
Thanks for the shout, man. I agree that lights would ass it up. It wouldn't make sense to add just one, and adding any more than that in that space could be overdoing it and, possibly, cause performance issues. I'm not sure what you mean about the bridge use. I'd have to see an example on another map. The main bridge which bisects the map connects to equal height, opposing neutral hard points and the bridge itself is at a good height to break up LOS from the colosseum wall floor areas. With regard to the angled bridges providing access to the neutral hard points, I was following the Rule of Three. Anyway, I entered it in the $5000 budget contest. We'll see how it does.
I remember playing on this map a while back when Shoe was testing it. While there was nothing wrong with the gameplay, layout, or aesthetics, it was nothing new. I agree with Shoe about the bridges. However, while aesthetics do help ones map, gameplay is definitely more important. It's a solid map nonetheless and I hope it does well in the $5000 budget contest.