[CTF][TDM] Super Mario Brothers 1-1 through 1-3!

Couldn't come up with an original name. Asymmetrical map, 588x55, modeled after the first three levels of the original Super Mario Brothers game all combined together, 16:1 pixel:block scale. If you have any suggestions to improve this map, let me know- I'll probably implement them. The screenshots will tell you everything else about the map.

.png Download:

No screenshots for this one since it's exactly what you'd expect after hearing, "It's the first three stages combined!" One major difference you may notice upon spawning, however, is all the extra space above and beneath you. This is due to the 1-2 area being situated "below ground;" the height, I just increased to give players more breathing room.

Changelog

1/20/12
Added seven trees, (Each ten tiles tall), to 1-2, two to blue's side, two to red's side and three to the center.

1/15/12
Redistributed the clusters of trees in 1-1 to match the layout of 1-3 to create more balance between red and blue. (The total number of trees is exactly the same as it was before, but some have been repositioned.)
Replaced the dirt background wall of 1-2 with a stone wall
Removed a few unnecessary dirt background walls in 1-1, and lots of 'em in 1-3

1/14/12
Modified the amount of trees in 1-3 so that 1-1 and 1-3 each have 110 total tree tiles
Replaced the two blue platforms in 1-3 with red ones since that's all red's territory now
Realized the four platforms in 1-3 need no dirt walls since they're designed to fall anyway, so those few walls have been removed!
Extended the length of most of the four platforms in 1-3 so that red and blue should each reach 1-2 at about the same time
Added four new pitfalls to 1-1 to make up for how much more quickly blue will be able to overtake 1-2 before red has a chance to get there; may add more in the future if people deem it necessary

Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Leave 'em below, I'll be sure to get to 'em as soon as I see 'em!

 

Very nice map. You did a good job combining your mario maps together. I like that you included that level select secret behind the warp pipe and made the made 1-2 underground.

Might few suggestions: Nothing major, but 1-2 could have stone background wall, and the above ground part should be blocked off since it's was meant to be explored underground. Maybe 1-3 could have less dirt background?

 

Thank you very much! Just a couple of days ago, I tried replacing the dirt background wall of 1-2 with a stone background wall, but the fill tool I used wants to override WAAAYYY too many other block types. I think I'm going to have to do it manually, one pixel at a time... This isn't going to be fun, but I think I'll do it eventually.

I did try to separate the map into two versions initially - one the way it is now, one that blocks off the upper-central area, forcing players to go through 1-2 - but I discovered there's a glitch. When moving from right to left, from the red side toward the blue side, even though the bedrock barriers I put up were touching the sky, you could still force your character over them. On the other hand, blue characters moving from left to right couldn't pass over the barriers; they would just spaz out and twitch like crazy when trying to do so, but without passing over. To do away with this huge, one-sided advantage, I decided to just have one version of the map the way it is now. Sorry about that. :c

Oh, yeah, good point about the less dirt background for 1-3... I think I'll get around to that tomorrow morning, thanks!

EDIT: The map's been updated! I've

Redistributed the clusters of trees in 1-1 to match the layout of 1-3 to create more balance between red and blue. (The total number of trees is exactly the same as it was before, but some have been repositioned.)
Replaced the dirt background wall of 1-2 with a stone wall
Removed a few unnecessary dirt background walls in 1-1, and lots of 'em in 1-3

 

I really don't like how you tag all your maps as [ANY] when they are actually suitable for no game types.

Please change them to [NOVELTY] or [IDEA] or something like that.

 

I can say with absolute certainty that they're suitable for virtually every game type, from simple deathmatches to capture-the-flag gameplay. I don't understand why I would be expected to rename my "The_Two_Towers" map and "Rockface_Rumble" to "[NOVELTY]" when they're not. I'm also fairly certain that normal users such as myself are unable to change our thread titles, and request that you do not, as the maps I believe you're referring to - specifically my SMB remakes, not all of the ones I've made - are not meant to be novelties, but fully fledged maps with balanced gameplay, even if it does go a bit beyond the bounds of what people expect to see in a map, (In particular, the dimensions.)

In a single word: opinions.

 

No not opinions at all. Different game modes require different kinds of maps.

For example this map is not suitable for CTF, due to the lack of resources. No the lack of resources isn't some brilliant original intentional gameplay choice on your part. It simply doesn't have enough resources to stage a proper CTF game.

It is not suitable for RDM/RCTF as for one it is far too large. Not simply larger than people expect, but three or four times what could be considered the maximum acceptable size. This denies the fast play that is central to the idea of RDM.

It is not suitable for for AD as the defender has a very poor defensive position and the map is highly vulnerable to terrain depreciation.

In a single word: novelty.

 

Yes, yes opinions.

It doesn't have a lack of resources. Considering the HUGE amount of thick stone in 1-2 and the distribution of trees throughout the map, when I last played on the map, just like every other time, despite having the usual amount of builders on my team, I never found myself in a position where I was in desperate need of more than what I had. I never said this was a "brilliant, original, intentional gameplay choice" on my part; there's no need for you to imply that. That's dangerously close to shoving words down my throat. It has, as I've most recently proved last night, more than enough resources to support a proper CTF game, in a roughly 20v20 match.

This wasn't a problem, either. Having built proper fortifications along the edge of the map, (The edge of 1-1/1-2 for blue and 1-2/1-3 for red), in the roughly 5 minute period before the match began, each team had already built a siege workshop before the match even began, (Along with all other workshops), and within just a few minutes, both team's outposts were up, on each side's respective edge of 1-2. Due to this shrinking of the map by roughly 3x, and each side only needing to travel roughly half this distance to meet each other, this effectively reduced the size of the map that was being played on by 600%. This allowed the fast play that is central to the idea of RDM.

Edit: After looking up the A/D tag, I can say with absolute confidence that, once again, you are incorrect in your assumptions and proclamations, based on common sense and personal experience. Take last night's match, for example; I was on blue, and once the enemy team's counter reached 0, (Mind you, we still had about 50-60 units left at this point), they began retreating from the 1-2/1-3 merger to take refuge in their castle. Being a competent builder, it didn't take long for me to help my team cross the chasms across 1-3, but all along the way, as few as two archers held off enough of us to reduce our 50 unit lead all the way to 0-0, relying heavily on knocking us into the void to kill us, rather than killing us through direct damage. After several minutes of these "turtling" tactics, red managed to turn a more than 50 to 0 unit lead into their victory. A terrain DISadvantage? Simply put: you are not correct in saying so.

In two words: "opinions" and "facts." Based on personal experience, mind you.

Now, I'd appreciate it if you reverted the title, as I find it highly insulting that you would reduce the hours of labor I put into creating these maps by forcing your personal opinion of how it should be labeled onto my hard work and effort. Not to mention proved you wrong at every turn.

 

-slow clap-
What server were you playing on that used this map and had limited lives? I want to be there.

 

Thanks for your kind words! It was one of the /v/ servers, I can't remember which one since I never check the full name before I enter. If you're interested in joining for a round, the password to all of them is rage. Hope to see ya in-game sometime! :>

 

Ahh, I need to start playing there then. I've never played there because 4chan. Weird place.

...Also because I didn't know the password. So thanks. :D

 

No problem; I'm glad I could help! c:

 

I was wrong about your maps being unsuitable ifor play. I apologize fully; I overstepped my bounds. I've noticed a recent trend of lackluster map spam and your threads of unconventional maps became a channel for distaste which was born in response to others.

It seems that another moderator, probably Noburu, has changed all of your maps tags to [CTF][TDM]. If you don't find that sufficient I can change them back to whatever wish, including [ALL]. However I would like to note that I still dislike the blanket statement of calling them all suitable for every game type, but that would be a petty position to hang on to now.

 

No problem, I understand. I apologize if I came across as too harsh in how I was stating my views.

That's alright, I'm okay with the tags the way they are now - but I thank you for the offer!

(Also, please don't be offended by my next map; appearance-wise, I'm preemptively admitting that it doesn't get much more lackluster than what it is. However, I hope it makes up for that by being very, very fun. :3 That's my preferred way of going about most things: [fun]ctionality over aesthetics!)

Edit, 1/20 - The map's been updated! I've

Added seven trees, (Each ten tiles tall), to 1-2, two to blue's side, two to red's side and three to the center.