What determines if a DM map is suitable for 4on4 TDM?

[Nacher]

From looking at the german UT3 full version review, they stated that the following maps could be suitable for 4on4 :

DM-Deck, DM-Defiance, DM-Diesel, DM-Shangri'La, DM-Heatray and possibly DM-Arsenal and DM-Sentinel.

Thats 5 (or 7) from 14 maps. However it seems that almost all DM maps except Sentinel and Biohazard are large enough to hold 4on4. Still that 5 is only about third of those 14 maps. Why couldn't we play 4on4 in.. say DM-Sanctuary?

A lot of tournaments, cups and even ladders strongly limit which maps you can use for 4on4. Like in UT2k4, almost all the community bonuspack maps were not allowed, and neither were maps like 1on1-Irondust (which was well big and tactical enough for 4on4) or DM-Curse4, DM-Rrajigar, DM-Hyperblast2 and such. Back in the days of UT99, you could play almost any map in 4on4 at clanbase, now they strongly limit the selection of maps which you can choose, and some cups take this even further, allowing only a very limited selection of maps.

Why is this? I think it was far more interesting in UT99 when clans could pick almost any reasonably sized map for their homemap, practice it and own. Even DM-Morpheus was allowed in some cases. I know that some maps are considered too gimmicky or open for 4on4, but as long as they have a good selection of items, possibility of map control and the right size, why couldn't we paly those in 4on4 ladders? Limiting the map selection to the smallest possible number is not going to keep 4on4 interesting for too long.

ps. I know that in high prize tournaments like WCG it's reasonable to play only the most known and accepted maps, but it's really not necessary when playing some random ladder clanwars.

[De7ir1um]

they mean that it would probably be most fun on those maps, since they got the size with 'm . sure u can play on the other maps , its prolly just spam then tho .

[BuFFY]

On many maps in ut2004 were problems. Sometimes the spawns were just plain stupid placed. Or the weapon balance with the spawns were ****ed up. Some maps can be won 200:0, because of spawn raping -> see DM-Curse ... sometimes the map itself is too open OR too closed ... DM-1on1-Roughinerie for instance ... a map for max. 4 players, otherwise its not pro anymore.

I totally adore DM-Deck16][ from the old UT99 ... I thing it was and still is the best DM map ever, for 1on1 and 4on4 ... the UT2004 version of this map sucked big time, though. Dunno if it was the ****ed sniper, or because it was somehow too big, or because of the lava, or or or ... it didnt had the correct feeling ...

So what makes it a good DM map?
Important point: make spawns and pickup fair. Equal the map structure for both teams. Dunno how to clear that point. Its easy to make a map, which is 100% mirrored for both teams. Deck16][ had a upper open area, a low spam area and 2 middle areas which connects directly to the upper area. 4 areas which are all very powerful. But the most powerful area is the upper area. To get there, you need to own at least 2 areas clear to get there. Dunno any other map, except some DOM maps ... =)

[CreepyD]

Deck sucked in tdm, it was the worst map.
At a high level, you would just have all 3-4 enemies camping up top sniping, you would die the instant you showed your head. Less so in 2k4 as headshots required lots of luck to hit.
Maps that are too open are not good for tdm.
Shangri works pretty well for tdm, heatray less so as it's very unbalanced and needs an amp roughly where the dark walker is now.
Having at least 2 areas worth holding is a must.

[Nacher]

On many maps in ut2004 were problems. Sometimes the spawns were just plain stupid placed. Or the weapon balance with the spawns were ****ed up. Some maps can be won 200:0, because of spawn raping -> see DM-Curse ... sometimes the map itself is too open OR too closed ... DM-1on1-Roughinerie for instance ... a map for max. 4 players, otherwise its not pro anymore.

I totally adore DM-Deck16][ from the old UT99 ... I thing it was and still is the best DM map ever, for 1on1 and 4on4 ... the UT2004 version of this map sucked big time, though. Dunno if it was the ****ed sniper, or because it was somehow too big, or because of the lava, or or or ... it didnt had the correct feeling ...

So what makes it a good DM map?
Important point: make spawns and pickup fair. Equal the map structure for both teams. Dunno how to clear that point. Its easy to make a map, which is 100% mirrored for both teams. Deck16][ had a upper open area, a low spam area and 2 middle areas which connects directly to the upper area. 4 areas which are all very powerful. But the most powerful area is the upper area. To get there, you need to own at least 2 areas clear to get there. Dunno any other map, except some DOM maps ... =)

I'm fully aware of what makes a good TDM map. After all, I have played TDM since the early days of Quake1... Still I think that ladders, cups and such are nowadays way too critical about what maps are good enough for TDM, and they end up with such a small map pool that it gets boring really fast. Of course 1on1-Roughinery is too small, but I can't see any reason why that 1on1-Irondust couldn't be played in 4on4. It has amp, 100 shield and 50 shield, all in tactical positions, nice weapon placement, easily defendable areas and enough size to host 8 players. But only because it has "1on1" in it's name, playing it in 4on4 was strictly forbidden.

This is the kind of attitude I'm against. Some institution or single person just decides for the entire scene that "this map is not for 4on4", and after that it's considered as a lame map and no one even bothers to try it in 4on4. With larger map pool, tactical map selections become much more important. You really try to choose map which enemy players can't play well, but if it's like UT2k4 where everyone just plays Rankin and sometimes Deck or Grendel, map selections make absolutely no difference. Every clan has the same homemaps, so there is no point in specializing in one certain map to gain advantage against other clans.

And last but not least, TDM maps should never, ever be mirrored. TDM is never about each team forming an own base and attacking enemies from there. It's about controlling the whole map, so asymmetry is the key. Some areas which are hard to control, and some areas which are easy to control. I do agree that original Deck16][ was very well laid out. It had both close combat areas (twin lift area) and open areas and it was connected so well that it worked in 1on1, but wasn't at all too small for 4on4 or even larger FFA.

If some map turns into spawnrapefest in 4on4, it's not a reason not to play it in TDM. It's just a sign that the map really rewards map control. The team which gets spawnraped is usually the worse one, which didn't manage to hold map control, time items or can't make good comebacks.

[Taboen]

I think in this case the size would matter, not too small not too big. But suitable for 4on4.

[Nacher]

Deck sucked in tdm, it was the worst map.
At a high level, you would just have all 3-4 enemies camping up top sniping, you would die the instant you showed your head. Less so in 2k4 as headshots required lots of luck to hit.
Maps that are too open are not good for tdm.
Shangri works pretty well for tdm, heatray less so as it's very unbalanced and needs an amp roughly where the dark walker is now.
Having at least 2 areas worth holding is a must.

Some good points here as well. Even though I think Deck played well, it's still a bit too centered in the main room. No TDM map should be won by holding just one area. In Deck you ususally got most frags around the twin lift area, but still, the team controlling the main room was very likely to win the match. At least Deck gave good opportunities for comeback, like sniper rifle also at lower level and that 100 armor at lifts.

I think DM3 (The Abandoned Base) from Quake1 is the perfect TDM map. It had 200 armor room, which was really easy to defend, but didn't have really any weapons or ammo nearby. So you could regroup there, but you had to come out. Rocket launcher was also easily defendable, but didn't have armor. Then we had quad damage, 3x100 health and even a pentagram of protection
laid around the less important areas of the map, so you had to get out to grab those items and then return to defend more valuable areas. It was also highly asymmetrical, with big open rooms and water near RL area and really tight corridors at 200 armor.

[Tweakd]

Sorry to backtrack but what German review?

[Nacher]

http://utforums.epicgames.com/showth...582914&page=10

[[404]Cham3l3on]

This is the kind of attitude I'm against. Some institution or single person just decides for the entire scene that "this map is not for 4on4", and after that it's considered as a lame map and no one even bothers to try it in 4on4. With larger map pool, tactical map selections become much more important. You really try to choose map which enemy players can't play well, but if it's like UT2k4 where everyone just plays Rankin and sometimes Deck or Grendel, map selections make absolutely no difference. Every clan has the same homemaps, so there is no point in specializing in one certain map to gain advantage against other clans.

It's not that maps are 'forbidden'. These places pick maps based on popularity. I think you may have answered your own question really. Some maps just suck for 4v4 and making them available just confuses the issue. It's like when people would have a pub full of 20+ players and pick something like Albatross. When the map is loading it tells you the player amount it is good for. And, 1v1 maps say that usually (iirc).

I understand what you are getting at, but let's face it...with all the gazillions of maps released with 2k4, how many were actually any good/fun for a 4v4? The ones that got used were the ones that passed the standard, not just of a few people, but the majority playing them. I mean could anyone honestly say they wanted to play like Icetomb 4v4?

The maps in UT3 that will make it will center on holding areas (sort of like Asbestos is meant to be played). 2k4 was not an area holding game. UT3 will be much more so.

I am hoping out of the box that at least 8 maps are stellar for 4v4. I can dream, right?

It is all up to the organization hosting the ladder/etc really. You have to convince them/ask them the reasons.

[Nacher]

It's not that some limitations shouldn't be made. I just think that those limitations are too strict. No one will ever discover new potential 4on4 maps or try anything new, if every major ladder and cup has forbidden the use of anything else than the 3-4 most popular 4on4 maps. Most 1on1 maps had that 1on1 tag for a reason, yes, but Irondust was not one of them. It was almost as big as Rankin. We briefly tried 4on4 TDM on Irondust in a LAN setting, and it worked out really well imo.

I'm just worried that UT3 will face the same problem as UT2k4. There were a lot of good maps, both stock and community made, but at least in Europe no one ever played anything else than Rankin, Deck and Grendel in DM, Torlan in ONS and Orbital, Grendel and BirdgeOfFate in CTF.