Hello all North American Nexers.

We're officially announcing the first North American 3v3CTF Ladder, which will begin
during the week of May 25th (depending on the setup time for registrations, map
selection, server setup, mumble setup).

The purpose of this ladder is to generate activity for the North American clan
community. Any clan members within the North American region are welcomed to
participate. We hope that this boost in activity also carries over to the EU and
AU communities as well.

If you are interested in joining the ladder, visit NexuizClans.com to register.
This is a ladder and NOT a tournament, so it will be ongoing and you can join at
any time.

Nexuiz servers will be provided for this ladder. There will also be a Mumble voice
server made available.

We are currently in the process of selecting the map pool for the ladder. Voting
is going to be quick, as we are trying to expedite this process. If your favorite
map doesn't get included during this round, don't worry. We will adjust the maplist
over time as new maps get released and as we get feedback from the clans.

Each clan gets to select 3 maps that they like and 3 maps that they dislike from
the voting pool. When you know your map selection, the clan leader should
send a private message to Nifrek on the forum or in IRC. Don't announce your
votes publicly as it may influence other votes.

To vote on the maps, follow this link : http://nullgaming.com/nexuiz/ladder

If you have questions, you can post them here, or you can ask in the
IRC channel: irc://irc.quakenet.org/nexuiz.clans



Thanks!

Dokujisan

Good idea, but your map pool is strange.

alpha wrote:Good idea, but your map pool is strange.

Thought the same also, think should be based on players' votes...and common sense of the admin/s?

Like death to space maps, Although im sure some poor maps will find there way through!

The Q3 maps though are nice, they make some nexuiz ctf maps look bad though

I admit, some of those maps in the pool are odd for 3v3CTF, but it's just a start. For the actual ladder, we'll end up with a decent map pool to use from that list. The clans will vote on which maps they like and don't like.

Since it's a ladder, we'll also adjust the map pool over time, especially when if some decent new maps come out.

3on3 on moonstone: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
3on3 on reservoir: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz
3on3 on on-xctf3: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz

reservoir, I totally agree.

The other 2, nah. Those can be competitive with 3v3. You just have to adjust your strategy to compensate.

Issues like that will be resolved over time and bad maps will be filtered out. The reason we decided to go this way is that it's been 2 months since we said "okay we got a ladder website, what maps do we use?" and nothing happened since then. So we decided to pick some popular maps and some new ones to make an initial list of maps to get things going. You shouldn't base your opinion on this big map list.

That is the point of letting clans vote for maps they like and don't like. In the end we'll end up with something between 6-8 maps, which will be a good start for the ladder. Once the ladder starts we'll see which maps get most play and which gets none, which maps get criticized, etc. then we'll be able to remove some maps introduce other maps.

moonstone is big for 3v3 cause of multiple routes ^^ but scale is good

first its nice to see tht there are 3 maps i made

2nd please use the latest (castleV2) and use the version with turrets (gforce4)
i know you think this map isnt map for turrets but trust me it is

cortez wrote:please use the latest (castleV2)

Major hell to the no!


Totally different maps and the new one needs a lot of work, completely different flow.

[-z-] wrote:

cortez wrote:please use the latest (castleV2)

Major hell to the no!

Totally different maps and the new one needs a lot of work, completely different flow.

just saying no to it doesnt help, ok you complained about the flow but why dont you give me any examples how to make it better ?

cortez wrote:just saying no to it doesnt help, ok you complained about the flow but why dont you give me any examples how to make it better ?

I gave you some general ideas you can work with.

cortez wrote:first its nice to see tht there are 3 maps i made

2nd please use the latest (castleV2) and use the version with turrets (gforce4)
i know you think this map isnt map for turrets but trust me it is

I think v2 has potential to be a great map but the problem is fps, we cannot use such a map for competitive play for that reason, unfortunately. For example, on any other map in that pool I get at least 150+ fps in any situation but on castleV2 sometimes it drops below 20 fps in random places for no apparent reason. If the map gets otpimized I'm sure we'd add it to ladder map pool when the time comes to replace/add new maps (which might be sooner than you think).

As for gforce4, I realize it was intended to be played with turrets, again, weither you agree of not, for competitive play it would get annoying since it is 3v3, people would only use the side routes to not have to deal with them rather than wasting time trying to destroy them, slowing down the game a lot. On public servers it is fine since it's often 6v6 or even more where people don't really care about positions, defending/attacking and whatnot.

Alright, here is the *new* official 3v3 CTF Map pool:

accident_v1
cpmctf2
dance (NO QUAD/SHIELD)
dm_castle
geitctf
gforce3
hydrob4
mikectf2
on-xctf3
runningmanctf
skycastle-b2

Keep in mind that as the ladder will progress, so will the list. We're starting with this map pool and once we get a good idea what maps get most play and what maps doesn't get any, we'll ask for map suggestions and start voting again to replace the not played maps by new ones. It might even happen pretty often until we get a great map pool that, ideally, everyone would be happy with. But we can't please everybody, some prefer open maps, some prefer closed ones so it'll take time.

I think Dokujisan/Surb/-z- are currently working on server configs that we will make available soon.

ctctf6 is great, I'm not sure how it didn't get any votes... maybe because it's been out of play for a while?

same for runningmanctf *shaking the head*

Yeah, it makes no sense to me that runningman isn't in... but fw and dance were rejected too, which makes me feel slightly better

in the case of [+]'s decision it was more about playing smaller maps and not playing on overplayed maps (dance). all the maps are good ones . but we felt its was more fun and action packed with our votes . we didnt pick maps that we are good at either . IMO we are going to learn from playing maps we are bad at . we are probably the weakest clan in the community so its more of gaining knowledge and understanding through making it hard on ourselves . we dont expect to go far up the ladder , but we do expect to learn from our mistakes

[-z-] wrote:

cortez wrote:just saying no to it doesnt help, ok you complained about the flow but why dont you give me any examples how to make it better ?

I gave you some general ideas you can work with.

only saying there are some dead end with out giving any examples are no general ideas, i already pointed that out this is no help for me. I need examples!!

+2 gforce4 (UP:[M], prae, [+] | DOWN: IoN)
+1 castle (UP: [M], MiT, IoN | DOWN: prae, [+])

why? these maps suck balls

-1 runningmanctf (UP:[o] | DOWN: [+], A)
-1 reservoir_v5 (DOWN: [M])
-2 fighterbay (DOWN: [o], MiT)
-5 facingworlds (DOWN: ReV, [o], MiT, prae, IoN)

now thats retarded to vote against maps which work well in 3on3s (at least runningmanctf and facingworlds im not sure about the other 2 but they are at least better playable then castle)

cortez wrote:

+2 gforce4 (UP:[M], prae, [+] | DOWN: IoN)
+1 castle (UP: [M], MiT, IoN | DOWN: prae, [+])

why? these maps suck balls

why do you release them?

Alright, edited my post with new maplist. We agreed that old maplist made no sense from the broken voting system (that I admit was my fault, even if I wanted to stay neutral I too thought the results were odd for 3v3). This time we came up with a list of maps, discussed/voted for each of them.

What resulted is that this maplist is bigger (11 maps vs 8 in the old list) and now I'm guessing everyone can pick many maps out of that list that they like, making it fair for everyone. There are small/medium/big/closed/open maps.

Better than it was.

I've added most the maps, using the latest revisions on the older maps that need to be repackaged. I still disagree with some of them, namely the older revisions of the maps but hey, we'll see how it plays out once they get fixed up.

Just an update.

We've had some technical issues with getting the Web app to be setup properly. I think we're making some headway today though. We might have it ironed out by tonight. Nifrek and I both made attempts to set it up, but got stuck. I'm getting Ulysses (aka DrMcAwesome) to help finish the rest of the setup, so we're working through that.

Note: I do not think this web app has ladder capability out of the box, so this might turn into a tournament instead of a ladder. I think that's ok by everyone, just as long as we get activity going. We can figure out how to get ladder functionality done later.

There is a ladder plugin but it's under-developed / abandoned. I figured we'd up using some of the script or coding our own from scratch but we simply do not have the time or resources for that right now (to my knowledge). Out of all the tourney ladder scripts, this seemed most complete and active that I've found. It was created by germans and translated to english so some ideas are lost in translation.

So yes, a tourney might be the way to start until we can get the ladder figured out.