Node setup BitchSlap

Post by **}TCP{Carnage** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:43 pm

Anyone has any thoughts on this map since it usualy ends up in an overtime situation because of the endless battles over the 2 center nodes

any idea's suggestions would be welcome

as for any other map btw

}TCP{Snowbird · Post by **}TCP{Snowbird** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:50 pm

Well the real problem, is the "openess" of the 2 middle nodes. If they were better concealed by a wall, so that the tank and the guns at the top walls, and well all outside help, other than players on foot, can not destroy them, this may help. The defence in the middle is just too strong. Other than that, no clue, except take them out, and see how it runs.

}TCP{Marcin.B.BlackT32 · Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:12 pm

I just have a simple idea. Remove turrets and tanks and believe me then gameplay on this map will be a lot better

.

}TCP{Ghost · Post by **}TCP{Ghost** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:35 pm

there is actually a map called bitch slap?

the_kay · Post by **the_kay** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:01 pm

What about connecting 2 with 1?

That would be a new way to get to the enemy core. And with isolating 3/4 by destroying 5/6/7/8 it gets more interesting, too.

Another thing is that you can't spawn at 3/4, perhaps because there are no spawnpoints. Adding those would be great, too

Post by **}TCP{Carnage** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:42 pm

adding spawnpoints would involve mapping

.. i just do the nodes

But perhaps connecting 1 and 2 will give it a nice twist

Meledictum · Post by **Meledictum** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:01 pm

}TCP{Marcin.B.Black wrote:I just have a simple idea. Remove turrets and tanks and believe me then gameplay on this map will be a lot better .

You can't change ANYTHING on the map without author's permission (the only exception are things that are changed via mutators or new link setups). I mean, sure, you can change it if you want, but expect to be blamed by all mappers for changing a other mapper map without permission. I don't recommend that, because this would mean that you will be unofficially "kicked" from the mapping community.

Back to topic... Maybe we should try to connect PN1 with PN 2 or 4 with 3?

/Edit: that was my 200 post, woohoo! Unspamstoppable!

the_kay · Post by **the_kay** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:37 pm

}TCP{meledictum wrote: You can't change ANYTHING on the map without author's permission

You see? That is exactly what proprietary software leads to. If the author would have given everyone freedom to change the map the way he likes we would not have this problem.

This is one of many examples where you can benefit from free software in your everyday life.

}TCP{Snowbird · Post by **}TCP{Snowbird** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:28 pm

And that is why I gave my MAPS to you guys, It is now TCP shareware.

}TCP{Marcin.B.BlackT32 · Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:26 am

Well then we need to ask author of BitchSlap for permision to change his map little.

}TCP{Coco · Post by **}TCP{Coco** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:33 am

Hi!

}TCP{Marcin.B.Black wrote:Well then we need to ask author of BitchSlap for permision to change his map little.

Hmm, why not? Shouldn't be hard to find him. Maybe, he's even willing to do it himself, so it becomes an official change!?

Coco.

}TCP{Snowbird · Post by **}TCP{Snowbird** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:39 pm

it is OK to change node setup with out asking the auther. Until we find him to ask, we could always just change the setup. Take out the middle nodes and see what happens.

That is supossed to be a quote!!!!

Anyways, has anyone done anyting with this? we have allot of suggestions, but no answers yet.

Post by **}TCP{Wolf** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:47 am

}TCP{the_kay wrote:
}TCP{meledictum wrote: You can't change ANYTHING on the map without author's permission
You see? That is exactly what proprietary software leads to. If the author would have given everyone freedom to change the map the way he likes we would not have this problem.

This is one of many examples where you can benefit from free software in your everyday life.

Not to start a flamewar again here, but I used to include this "license statement" even in software to which I released the sourcecodes. The reasons behind that simply was I wanted to be asked, so I that I was informed what people were actually doing and changing, not that I would have forbidden it... please don't jump to any conclusions just because an author requests being asked for permissions before changes, some people are just stupid and the author may well better know which changes actually make sense and which don't....

.... now back to topic please

the_kay · Post by **the_kay** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:21 pm

@Wolf: See this topic for an response

}TCP{Snowbird · Post by **}TCP{Snowbird** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:25 am

}TCP{DAFrank wrote:it is OK to change node setup with out asking the auther. Until we find him to ask, we could always just change the setup. Take out the middle nodes and see what happens.

That is supossed to be a quote!!!!

Anyways, has anyone done anyting with this? we have allot of suggestions, but no answers yet.

It looks like this died. I was in BitchSlap yesterday, and they were up to and over 45 minutes, and still fighting for the middle 2 nodes. As all mappers know, you can rearange your nodes as you like. Not move the node, but to change there setup. I will do this if nooneelse has yet, and remake the setup.

www.tcpclan.net

Welcome to the Board

Node setup BitchSlap

Node setup BitchSlap

Read this carefully Coco :P

Re: Read this carefully Coco :P