A cry for competitive maps



  • Alright, so I think I speak on behalf of the competitive scene as a whole, that we demand more advanced and strategical maps in this game. More specifically speaking, TO maps with complex objectives or even multiple objectives per a stage with a very complex landscape to force us to actually think tactically and make legitimate strats and gameplans. So 10vs10 TO’s can actually be a thing and having two smaller teams take on different objectives so we have to communicate more tactically etc. As fun as the current maps may be, they are hardly complex and are very easy and straight forward. Little to no strats are really ever needed, the closest we get is on stone shill while burning the peasant villages.

    So to sum it up, here’s what we want in our TO maps

    • Multiple paths (like 4 or more that can still be covered by a 6 man team)
    • Multiple objectives per an attack phase
    • More complex objectives
    • Strategic Environment that each team must adapt to and use to their advantage and adjust loadouts to if necessary.

    Honestly I’m so sick and tired of the same TO maps over and over again, and we just wan’t harder and more complex game play to not only make this game raw skill, but also strategic. I’d say enough to accommodate a 12v12 on the competitive level. Everyone share your opinions and ideas, map makers get to work!



  • Map contest. Sequel.



  • Agreed. Too bad TB doesn’t believe in that this game can be competetive.

    I just hope some maps from the competition are scrimmable. I’m so sick of “DF ATTACK HUEE” all the time.



  • I’m so sick of “DF ATTACK HUEE” all the time.

    Dark Forest and Stoneshill revamps in UE4 pretty please.



  • why dont i just remake a bunch of old AoC maps and go from there?

    they had pretty decent objectives as far as i can remember



  • cause having more then 1 pathway is too complex and confusing m8



  • @Sophax:

    I’m so sick of “DF ATTACK HUEE” all the time.

    Darkforest is like de_dust2 of Chivalry.

    It’s just so good that nobody wants to play anything else.



  • @Kreittis:

    Darkforest is like de_dust2 of Chivalry.

    It’s just so good that nobody wants to play anything else.

    Well, that and it’s the only map that fucking functions correctly, even Stoneshill bugged the fuck out last time I scrimmed on it.



  • Darkforest, Stoneshill, Battlegrounds. All masterpieces. Even Citadel is a decent map, it just takes too long for competitive.

    Darkforest just has such a good design, it has 3 lanes on most of the map, ammo boxes on the side lanes, objective in the middle lane, dropdown points from side lanes, a good flow, fun objectives, challenging sluice gate cistern objective. It feels like a truly experienced map maker really put thought into it.



  • battlegrounds is bad lol, terrible fps



  • Irilla shore and Urskogen should work great comped



  • @CRUSHED:

    battlegrounds is bad lol, terrible fps

    yeah the only thing about BG I don’t like is the graphics



  • Good maps:
    1. Darkforest
    2. Stoneshill
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    999999. EVERYTHING ELSE



  • I suppose we’ll see more interesting objectives when people start putting TO2 to good use?



  • Darkforest is the only good map so far. Stoneshill is bad in scrims (fun in public though) cause of the second and third objective.
    Outpost could work in scrims but I didn’t try it out yet (only played it once on pub so far).



  • @afiNity:

    Darkforest is the only good map so far. Stoneshill is bad in scrims (fun in public though) cause of the second and third objective.
    Outpost could work in scrims but I didn’t try it out yet (only played it once on pub so far).

    Stoneshill is actually really fun in scrims, the only downside is that the second part is almost totally in the hands of the archer on the defending side. Best archer could hold the damn thing himself lmao. However, buffing smokes and counter arch weapons would make it really balanced and fun. First obj actually does require a lot of strategy from the attackers but after that same as every other game mode… Push an objective with your archer and have non stop melee engagements with no environmental advantages to make a lot of use with only one way to do something, and only one place to do something.



  • Stoneshill isn’t bad. Archers are bad.



  • Yes, stoneshill could be a good scrim map. But it isn’t. It’s true what you wrote about the first and the second objective. And the third objective is completely retarded on 5v5. The king can pretty much run the whole time and the spawntimes and the long way from the attackers spawn to the throne room make it really easy for the defenders and the defenders archer can land the easiest shots with a minimum of skill.



  • @afiNity:

    Yes, stoneshill could be a good scrim map. But it isn’t. It’s true what you wrote about the first and the second objective. And the third objective is completely retarded on 5v5. The king can pretty much run the whole time and the spawntimes and the long way from the attackers spawn to the throne room make it really easy for the defenders and the defenders archer can land the easiest shots with a minimum of skill.

    Aye, however it’s unavoidable with king objectives. King objectives are just dumb in general tbh. I’d much prefer something like coldfront with the king objective because your last objective should be the hardest for the defenders. The first two objectives should be hard for the attackers. Also having a set destination for the king to make it too would require a lot of communication especially if it’s near the other side of the map, and you’d really only have one shot at it as well. Which could be very intense and a nice set pace.



  • Even if there will be other good competetive maps people still going to play DF only. Mark my werds.