Forum

http://teamfortress.tv/forum/thread/5542-cp-edifice

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/84556731/cp_edifice/2013-03-12_00006.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/84556731/cp_edifice/2013-03-12_00005.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/84556731/cp_edifice/2013-03-12_00003.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/84556731/cp_edifice/2013-03-12_00008.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/84556731/cp_edifice/2013-03-11_00004.jpg

cp_edifice is a possible up-and-coming competitive map made by me (PDT on tf2maps.net).
Current version: B1d: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/84556731/cp_edifice/cp_edifice_b1d.bsp.bz2
Thread, screenshots, download: http://forums.tf2maps.net/showthread.php?t=20586
It is a 3CP Gravelpit-style A/D map that aims to be the map that GPit could be with some tweaking.
The point layout is somewhat similar to GPit, taking a few ideas here and there, but generally scraps the open and wide layout of GPit for a more close-quartered and connected layout that favours defending both A and B rather than just B.
I have developed this map to its current B1A status with the help of the teamfortress.tv community (see: http://teamfortress.tv/forum/thread/5542-cp-edifice) and it has been PUG’d and scrimmed many times over to get it to the point that it now.
I am posting this here to encourage talk about the map and to gain feedback. Any testing, feedback, or criticism is welcomed and will be integrated into the map for its big B2 release. Cheers.

The points themselves look promising. Still want to give a run through before passing any further speculative opinion. ;)

I will say this: Although easier said than done, it maybe worth looking at making your C less “Gravelpit-y” aesthetically speaking although the actual tower design looks quite good.

Again, I’ll pass over some “proper” opinion when I’ve had a pass through the map in TF2. :)

Not sure how you got to that conclusion.
Maybe I’m overlooking something, but the map’s individual areas, corridors included, are actually pretty small.
Compared to Gravelpit, A is only 1691 x 2330 (compared to GPit’s 2479 x 2380); B is just 2035 x 2268 (compare it to GPit’s huge 2131 x 3154 B). C is 1736 x 2072 (GPit’s C is 1851 x 2435).
The spire at C is 312 from platform and 528 from ground, I don’t think that’s much worse than GPit’s 360 from platform and 520 from ground.
The connectors are, on average, ~240 wide on GPit and ~256 on mine.
That could be problematic if it weren’t for the short travel distances between the points on my map. A and B are only ~2900 units away from each other while on Gpit it’s nearly 4000.
If I were to change much scaling around A and B, I’d end up with a tiny map that turns the tide in the favor of the defenders.
I may shorten the spire at C if that becomes too much of a problem. Otherwise, I can’t say I’m too worried about size. I don’t think it’s very large at all (especially compared to GPit) and it shouldn’t be too much of a problem, unless you’re thinking something entirely different than what I am.
Height difference is another thing, though. I may end up shortening some areas, especially around C.

wow that’s nice. I suggest that you should contact ugc because they like to put new maps in the season or you can contact emb so we could potentially see it in the next 9v9 cup.

Looks like Gravel pit for 6’s, I would love to see a cup for this map. And it seems that A is going to be easier to hold than B, but that’s just my opinion. :)

Quoted from IPZIE

is there a gravelpit that is not for 6s?

Well some say that Gpit is too slow for 6’s (I don’t think it that way) and this map could be a replacement for Gpit in 6v6 :)

about time someone made another map like this.. hate gravelpit

b2 released

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/84556731/cp_edifice/cp_edifice_b2.bsp.bz2

This update presents a lot of major bug fixes and is a big step towards the map being complete. I’ve had this map tested quite a bit in informal double mixes thanks to the New Map PUGs that have been going on at tf.tv.
If anyone wants to test this map with actual teams that would be neat, not sure how much time teams have right now but if waiting is required then so be it.