Upvote Upvoted 1 Downvote Downvoted
1 2
@keekerdc on the Highlander Lobby Announcement
posted in News
keekerdc
June 10, 2013

It was recently announced here that Valve were interested in building a lobby system directly into the game. For many, it seems, this announcement was merely the neatly tied, silver-colored box that wrapped the turd dropped on our favored format by the father of the game:

The competitive format is currently too stagnant. Robin articulated this brilliantly and I'm not sure I'll do him justice, but here goes. Robin barely watches competitive TF2 anymore because nothing surprises him. There are no "sick new strats" for him to see, especially not at the pace of other games. He wants to see Vhalin's black box innovation happening once every 2-3 months.

In the opinion of this writer, this was a stupid tone to set; still, there's implications to this statement that could be used to push the competitive side of the game towards a better path. But we'll get back to that later on.

Highlander PUGs are for Valve to mine data, not to support competition.

Yea, everyone's caught up on the whole Highlander thing. Is the 6v6 format to be sacrificed at the altar of Highlander so that Valve can sell more hats, and this community can feel like it's finally made it?

No, not exactly. Valve may implement this system, everyone will continue playing 6v6 as the format for the serious player, laaa la la la life goes on. The effects that such a system may have on the competitive ecosystem will be tertiary, of the trickle-down sort.

This is Newell's keynote address from DICE a couple months ago. Its well worth the time to watch all the way through, if you have it; but if not, at least watch through to where he lays out the two theses. The second half of the talk is geared towards the notion that "a fairly significant sea change in the way we all think of what a game is" will be arriving shortly, and that Valve anticipates that "all the games end up being part of an connected economy."

Where does competitive Team Fortress fit in such a landscape? Well, it doesn't really, I'm afraid.

Valve needs data, and lots of it. You can't run a large economy of interconnected games while not having the slightest idea about how the players that ostensibly comprise that economy are acting in it. This is really the primary goal, I think, whether anybody really realizes it or not, of building a PUG system geared towards Highlander directly into the game.

It's a worthy compromise between several factors: the teams are just small enough where a game can be arranged without too arduous of a wait; the teams are just large enough, with a built-in evenly spread class distribution, such that it suits the stock maps a bit better in the ways they were intended to be played on; it will theoretically attract the sort of player who's a bit more seasoned but not of 6v6-championship-winning caliber, and wouldn't mind spending an hour playing under some wacky constraints simply for something different.

Banning weaponry at the outset of a match in this system is less important, to me, than the ability to A/B test new items, nerfs, or buffs before they're rolled out to the game as a whole, in an environment where the time spent in a PUG doesn't carry the same sort of weight as a 6v6 team preparing for prize league matches -- that is, there's no implication of far-reaching consequences over time from any single match, so people will be less likely to bail or balk at the random insertion of new items, or tweaks, that could possibly be game-breaking.

The result is that Valve gets to ask deep questions of the data generated by these matches before rolling out changes. Does a tweak to a lesser used item then result in it being used more? Does it result in vastly better performance over other items, or does it result in similar outcomes overall? Does it achieve the intended effect of neutralizing a overpowered item on a different class (for instance)?

Valve getting to ask those sorts of questions will, in some cases, allow for matchplay bans to come off of some items that have been canned since their introduction but have found a better balance after data-driven tweaking, and will thereby introduce some variety into the 6v6 game; that certainly couldn't hurt.

But no, it's not the sort of deliverance the scene might be looking for. I think the side effects for competitive play will be there, and will be positive, but it won't result in massive floods of new players, or a completely rebalanced game that will make the 6v6 format totally irresistible.

But that's just the point: deliverance isn't coming, at least not from Valve, and you need to stop looking for it.

Unimpressible

I'm gonna toss this out there and see if it sticks: Valve, to the competitive TF2 community, is like that parent that will never, ever be satisfied with what you accomplish. It just won't be enough. Luckily, I'm not drawing this metaphor from direct experience, but everyone's seen it. Well, Valve is that parent.

There's a sense that this scene deserves more, and it's a shame Valve isn't interested in exploring it further. And that's the only rational conclusion to reach, if we're not sugar-coating this possible PUG system.

What everyone really wants to see is a scene that isn't constantly turning their pockets out to fund the goings-on, the leagues, the offline tournaments. (No, for those that are familiar with my older thoughts on structure, I'm not taking this essay there. I know better.) This community has shown a resiliency and passion that few others muster, and it's really terribly awesome how many times this group has gotten together and smashed piggy banks to get teams to big tournaments. But I think everyone would really rather that not be necessary. For that, the game has to draw bigger audiences. There's no way around it.

There's some really audible echoes of Battlefield here, the scene I was first seriously involved in; a scene which also suffered from the same 'not intended use case' treatment from the developers. The game did work to a degree at 8v8, but all the maps were designed with sides twice that size in mind. Teams, and individual players, put on ridiculous displays of skill match after match, but there were still massive balance issues that made half of the core competitive maplist dubiously playable. The map editor routinely crashed and produced buggy builds, making it difficult to even make tweaks to stock maps, let alone create new ones. The spectator mode was essentially a hacky workaround, one that required commentators to join a team, spawn, and suicide at the start of every round, altering the score - if there was a commentary crew of three, one had to repeat this process twice. The developers promised better support in patches, but they never came, and it became obvious they really just didn't care. That was the situation for the first three major titles in that franchise, and it got worse from there.

I'm not trying to compare sob stories, just trying to show that it's really not all that bad for TF2, and there exists here a massive, perennially unrealized potential. Making endless overtures to Valve, or Twitch, or some other third party isn't going to change things, not significantly. At some point, you've gotta stop trying to impress the unimpressible dad, get on with just doing what you do, and be happy with endeavors to improve the situation, however they turn out. Focus on attracting an audience, not on attracting Valve.

Tackle the imperfections best you can

Ok, time to unpack the turd.

If one watches any sport - or esport - to see an unending stream of novel and game-changing stratagems over the course of every season, one will be disappointed by every last game. Basketball's 'triangle offense' was devised in the 40's, for fucks sake, and it took the Bulls to six championships in the 90's. As Killing rightly puts it in the thread announcing all this, once a sport finds a well balanced groove to sit in, that's when the most interesting stuff comes, in watching teams trying to perfect their execution against each other, and the story-lines that evolve both on and off 'the court'. Constant tactical innovation is simply not the nature of sports over the long term; it's only the nature of freshly minted new games, and it's a temporary state, one that exists while people simply haven't 'solved' the game yet. If Robin truly wishes to see that, he should starting working on some new IP.

Seriously, though. Unless something large was missed in translation, that was not brilliant nor well-put.

But that's not to say the current state of 6v6 is in that perfect, well balanced groove either. It's not bad, but has always had some rough edges, and I think an opportunity was missed here to deliver some actionable feedback. So, I'll provide some instead.

Expecting perpetual invention with approaches is foolish, but that shouldn't rule out the possibility that tweaks to the format could produce matches that are more enjoyable to watch and play.

Let's be frank: the format discussion for TF2, just as it is with every newly sprouting esports scene, was short, not exhaustive, and dominated by a few people that got early administrative nods at now dead leagues. People swinging over from the DoD:S scene seemed to have an outsized influence on things for TF2 in particular, strangely enough, and I don't think the effects of that history have been an altogether positive thing for this game's format.

So, while it'd be foolish of me to think I possess enough of a player's mind to prescribe specific fixes to gameplay mechanics or map particular, I think I can at least point towards a good direction to bring a wrap to this piece, and offer some things to consider from a wider perspective.

Pick a game mode and stick with it: cp_* is it.

As much as you may love gravelpit, it's super weird this map is still in the rotation, what with the "how's this work again?" stopwatch scoring system, and the fact that nobody ever defends A. (Yea, it's meant for a defending side twice the size.) It's always been the weird bump on the schedule, along with that King/Hill map you guys insist on playing every season, and they should be cut in favor of 6v6 focused cp_ maps. King/Hill maps in particular are dreadfully boring to watch and commentate. If you want to have a thriving esport, you have to attract an audience; these maps don't cut it or add unnecessary confusion, and they currently occupy 25% of your schedule every season. They've gotta go.

Are the class limits actually necessary?

This might be daft, I'll admit up front; but are they? Doesn't the meta-game itself enforce some sort of equilibrium to begin with? If that's not the case, are there tweaks that we can make, without Valve's intervention, that could bring a greater degree of difficulty to each class and bring most loadouts more in balance with each other?

For instance, would a loadout of five soldiers and a medic be invincible? If so, what would mitigate that? If not, then why not let teams roll with more than two soldiers?

I guess what I'm getting at is, if Valve can't and won't take the time to work on 6v6 balance issues - and they have quite legitimate reasons for doing so - then this community should look to commission a group of insiders that will.

First to five is, actually, kinda dull. Dump it.

TF2's flow is more analogous to soccer or (obligatory: American) football, than it is to tennis; there is no regular cadence to scoring that would necessitate a limited scoring system. Dropping the hard score limit and making the clock more of a factor would magnify every minute of a close match. A mercy rule could be employed in lower divisions to keep those absolute roflstomps from running on longer than they need to, but the play at higher levels has been reasonably close for some time, with notable exceptions, I think.

I remember calling a significant number of matches that were end-to-end, back-and-forth affairs, decided by that ninth cap with at least ten or fifteen minutes left in the second half, and a good amount of time shaved off the first half with the arbitrary 'halftime at three caps' limit. It's head-desk dumb to cut a good match short when an extra 15 minutes of nail-bitingly good play could have been had from it. First to five sells your best matches short, and that's good for nobody.

Running with these first two suggestions then sets a consistent surface for statistical analysis, with games not ending early due to a scoring cap, or a quarter of a season played on maps that are total anomalies.

With that gone, you can do one of the following:

Twenty minute halves

This at least brings the clock more into play, while still ensuring that matches get done and dusted in under an hour, even with ten minutes of bullshit pre-match and at halftime. Matches get a predictable rhythm, one-sided affairs don't go on for too terribly long, and the best of the even matchups can be fully realized.

Ten minute halves, two maps

I prefer this option because of the further effects it can have on match preparation, as well as opening up interesting meta-game possibilities. But this brings the clock even further into play, bringing an impending stoppage in play to the forefront four times a match. A team may feel greater pressure from the clock on the stronger of the two maps to be played, as they'll want to score more on their stronger map so they have some breathing room on the weaker. This would also open up the option of specifying a group of four maps for each week of play, with each team banning one just before the match.

Teams would be encouraged to keep a sharp edge on a wide range of maps over the course of a season rather than just scrimming the living shit out of one map for six days straight. With scrims taking only 20 minutes, it's perfectly reasonable to get practice in on a number of maps in a single session, and a practice of each team picking one map to play in an hour-long scrim is pretty obvious.

Not knowing exactly what map you're to play going into a match, I think, would have interesting consequences that would be interesting to watch. Spectators get a little more variety for their time, and don't have to watch teams slog through the same map for a week straight either. Playing two maps against a team mitigates the effect of getting scheduled against a dominant team on their most dominant map, and would give opposing teams the opportunity to ban those known strong maps when they come up in the rotation; it's then advantageous to remain constantly proficient on a number of maps rather than just scrimming up on when it comes up in the season. Matches will become more of a reflection of who is a better overall team, than who's just better at this week's map, or who didn't get screwed on the schedule.

Anywho:

There's lots of runway here and room for experimentation. I hope that's what Robin meant to say; I think it'd reflect well on us to take it that way. That might seem like a weird place to end up as a result of Valve announcing interest in a Highlander PUG system, but I think it fits. Anyway you slice it, it's up to this community to figure out what, if anything, will help draw a larger audience; it's not really in Valve's wheelhouse, for this IP in particular, to aid in those efforts. The stuff outlined above are only things I dragged off the top of my head while jamming on this essay, and I'm sure people with better TF2-IQ than mine will be able to devise better ideas.

Get on it--

1
#1
8 Frags +

I like your take on Valve's decision and I think you're probably right about the fact that we'll probably never get much more from them (though I'll never stop dreaming).

Class limits ARE required for 6s to flow well. Even allowing two of everything is too impractical, much less 6. Classes aren't balanced in relation to each other. For example: You will never be able to push last without a pick class, because you'll have two fully buffed heavies waiting for you (a whopping 900 HP). Another example: RIP roaming soldier. An expendable (read: second) demo can do everything that a roaming soldier is capable of and more. And there's no option NOT to run a second demo because of the sheer damage that the class is capable of producing.

Your claim that 5cp should be the only format for 6s is a bold one. But after thinking about it I can't say you're wrong. Koth and A/D lack the transition phase that exists between caps in 5cp, and that's where a lot of action and plays happen. I've never enjoyed watching koth or A/D as much as I have 5cp, and I've never enjoyed playing it as much either. I've felt that they were kind of a nod towards unused classes and strats, like Engineer on gpit and Sniper on viaduct. It certainly wouldn't do much for our image ("pros only play on 5cp"), and it takes us even farther away from maps played in pubs (which was a good point cinq brought up).

Maybe it's time we stop trying to appeal to pubs, and let Valve's HL lobby system do that for us? Then we can focus on what's best for 6s. Maybe a tf.tv sponsored 5cp mapping competition?

Nice post, gave me a lot to think about.

I like your take on Valve's decision and I think you're probably right about the fact that we'll probably never get much more from them (though I'll never stop dreaming).

Class limits ARE required for 6s to flow well. Even allowing two of everything is too impractical, much less 6. Classes aren't balanced in relation to each other. For example: You will never be able to push last without a pick class, because you'll have two fully buffed heavies waiting for you (a whopping 900 HP). Another example: RIP roaming soldier. An expendable (read: second) demo can do everything that a roaming soldier is capable of and more. And there's no option NOT to run a second demo because of the sheer damage that the class is capable of producing.

Your claim that 5cp should be the only format for 6s is a bold one. But after thinking about it I can't say you're wrong. Koth and A/D lack the transition phase that exists between caps in 5cp, and that's where a lot of action and plays happen. I've never enjoyed watching koth or A/D as much as I have 5cp, and I've never enjoyed playing it as much either. I've felt that they were kind of a nod towards unused classes and strats, like Engineer on gpit and Sniper on viaduct. It certainly wouldn't do much for our image ("pros only play on 5cp"), and it takes us even farther away from maps played in pubs (which was a good point cinq brought up).

Maybe it's time we stop trying to appeal to pubs, and let Valve's HL lobby system do that for us? Then we can focus on what's best for 6s. Maybe a tf.tv sponsored 5cp mapping competition?

Nice post, gave me a lot to think about.
2
#2
3 Frags +

Great article, but aren't the new time/scoring rules you propose basically the same as the European ones? I.E. 30 minute games, whoever has the most caps at the end wins, with win difference 5 acting as the "mercy" rule. You're proposing longer games (20 minute halves) which is neither here nor there. Are half times really necessary? Switching sides doesn't really matter since the differences on maps are so small (and they should really be removed from maps), and it adds to the confusion of having to manually keep tabs on the score. We also play 2 maps in a match, although the score isn't cumulative like you suggest.

I agree that "first to five" rules can cut tense matches unsatisfyingly short, but Euro rules have often been dismissed for encouraging passive play to run down the clock ("parking the bus"). I guess having a longer match might partially mitigate that, by having more time for the team behind to catch up, but I'm not sure that's all that's needed.

Great article, but aren't the new time/scoring rules you propose basically the same as the European ones? I.E. 30 minute games, whoever has the most caps at the end wins, with win difference 5 acting as the "mercy" rule. You're proposing longer games (20 minute halves) which is neither here nor there. Are half times really necessary? Switching sides doesn't really matter since the differences on maps are so small (and they should really be removed from maps), and it adds to the confusion of having to manually keep tabs on the score. We also play 2 maps in a match, although the score isn't cumulative like you suggest.

I agree that "first to five" rules can cut tense matches unsatisfyingly short, but Euro rules have often been dismissed for encouraging passive play to run down the clock ("parking the bus"). I guess having a longer match might partially mitigate that, by having more time for the team behind to catch up, but I'm not sure that's all that's needed.
3
#3
24 Frags +

Gravelpit and viaduct are boring to spectate? My mind is blown, I find them really fun to watch...

Our rules slow down the game more than something closer to europe's style? I thought europe's ruleset was famous for encouraging passive play?

I get what you are saying and I agree with the premise of your article, but once you started getting into specifics I disagree wholeheartedly

Gravelpit and viaduct are boring to spectate? My mind is blown, I find them really fun to watch...

Our rules slow down the game more than something closer to europe's style? I thought europe's ruleset was famous for encouraging passive play?

I get what you are saying and I agree with the premise of your article, but once you started getting into specifics I disagree wholeheartedly
4
#4
7 Frags +

Ten minutes halves make no sense at all. If you're going to have two maps, make a halftime between them and give each map the full twenty minutes all at once. Countless times, the closest matches have single rounds go over ten minutes. You'd have a surprisingly large number of 1-0, 2-1, and 2-0 scores because there's no time for multiple rounds, and once you're ahead, there's no incentive to keep trying when it takes just ten minutes of stalling to win.

Ten minutes halves make no sense at all. If you're going to have two maps, make a halftime between them and give each map the full twenty minutes all at once. Countless times, the closest matches have single rounds go over ten minutes. You'd have a surprisingly large number of 1-0, 2-1, and 2-0 scores because there's no time for multiple rounds, and once you're ahead, there's no incentive to keep trying when it takes just ten minutes of stalling to win.
5
#5
3 Frags +

Are class limits really necessary?

YES. I have no fucking idea what could beat 4 demos 2 medics. Imagine a kritz uber demo walking into your last when you don't have uber. GG no re.

More importantly, if this is the best composition, both teams would run it. I don't know about you, but I don't want to watch teams looking at choke points with 4 sets of traps in them.

Are class limits really necessary?

YES. I have no fucking idea what could beat 4 demos 2 medics. Imagine a kritz uber demo walking into your last when you don't have uber. GG no re.

More importantly, if this is the best composition, both teams would run it. I don't know about you, but I don't want to watch teams looking at choke points with 4 sets of traps in them.
6
#6
16 Frags +

classes need to be redesigned before taking off class limits

classes need to be redesigned before taking off class limits
7
#7
eXtelevision
-8 Frags +

#2 why yes, this is similar to the European system. Don't take it as a coincidence and pat yourself on the back for that one.

Back for the original pugna draft cup we used a format I devised in which it was two 30 min maps and the overall winner was devised by the aggregate result not the aggregate score. If team A wins map 1, then for map 2 they need either a draw or a win to take the match. If team B wins map 2, then the aggregate is equal and the teams need to have an overtime period. Overtime is played on map 2 as an additional 15 minute period. If that 15 minute period is a draw, then a sudden death OT round, again on Map 2 takes place.

Thoughts?

#2 why yes, this is similar to the European system. Don't take it as a coincidence and pat yourself on the back for that one.

Back for the original pugna draft cup we used a format I devised in which it was two 30 min maps and the overall winner was devised by the aggregate result not the aggregate score. If team A wins map 1, then for map 2 they need either a draw or a win to take the match. If team B wins map 2, then the aggregate is equal and the teams need to have an overtime period. Overtime is played on map 2 as an additional 15 minute period. If that 15 minute period is a draw, then a sudden death OT round, again on Map 2 takes place.

Thoughts?
8
#8
6 Frags +
TF2’s flow is more analogous to soccer or (obligatory: American) football, than it is to tennis; there is no regular cadence to scoring that would necessitate a limited scoring system. Dropping the hard score limit and making the clock more of a factor would magnify every minute of a close match. A mercy rule could be employed in lower divisions to keep those absolute roflstomps from running on longer than they need to, but the play at higher levels has been reasonably close for some time, with notable exceptions, I think.

TF2's flow is not that of soccer, it is that of hockey. It's more fast paced than soccer. And why only lower divisions? HRG vs. r5 or Vector would be painful to watch with your proposed ruleset.

[quote]TF2’s flow is more analogous to soccer or (obligatory: American) football, than it is to tennis; there is no regular cadence to scoring that would necessitate a limited scoring system. Dropping the hard score limit and making the clock more of a factor would magnify every minute of a close match. A mercy rule could be employed in lower divisions to keep those absolute roflstomps from running on longer than they need to, but the play at higher levels has been reasonably close for some time, with notable exceptions, I think.

[/quote]
TF2's flow is not that of soccer, it is that of hockey. It's more fast paced than soccer. And why only lower divisions? HRG vs. r5 or Vector would be painful to watch with your proposed ruleset.
9
#9
0 Frags +
eXtine#2 why yes, this is similar to the European system. Don't take it as a coincidence and pat yourself on the back for that one.

Back for the original pugna draft cup we used a format I devised in which it was two 30 min maps and the overall winner was devised by the aggregate result not the aggregate score. If team A wins map 1, then for map 2 they need either a draw or a win to take the match. If team B wins map 2, then the aggregate is equal and the teams need to have an overtime period. Overtime is played on map 2 as an additional 15 minute period. If that 15 minute period is a draw, then a sudden death OT round, again on Map 2 takes place.

Thoughts?

If the clock is a factor, then parking the bus will always an issue.

I think it's better than ETF2L rules though.

[quote=eXtine]#2 why yes, this is similar to the European system. Don't take it as a coincidence and pat yourself on the back for that one.

Back for the original pugna draft cup we used a format I devised in which it was two 30 min maps and the overall winner was devised by the aggregate result not the aggregate score. If team A wins map 1, then for map 2 they need either a draw or a win to take the match. If team B wins map 2, then the aggregate is equal and the teams need to have an overtime period. Overtime is played on map 2 as an additional 15 minute period. If that 15 minute period is a draw, then a sudden death OT round, again on Map 2 takes place.

Thoughts?[/quote]

If the clock is a factor, then parking the bus will always an issue.

I think it's better than ETF2L rules though.
10
#10
eXtelevision
-2 Frags +

parking the bus is already sometimes an issue. I'd rather have shorter games overall, for all formats.

TBH when I look to post-produce cast games, if they're 45 mins + I look for a different game. Just too long to stay completely focused.

parking the bus is already sometimes an issue. I'd rather have shorter games overall, for all formats.

TBH when I look to post-produce cast games, if they're 45 mins + I look for a different game. Just too long to stay completely focused.
11
#11
5 Frags +

who is keekerdc

who is keekerdc
12
#12
2 Frags +
eXtineparking the bus is already sometimes an issue. I'd rather have shorter games overall, for all formats.

TBH when I look to post-produce cast games, if they're 45 mins + I look for a different game. Just too long to stay completely focused.

...is it? When's the last time an ESEA match was decided by the map timer?

I couldn't cast for a whole 60 seconds so I can't comment on the latter part, but I know that I can watch an hour of TF2 without getting bored, and I'm not sure casts are supposed to cater towards the watchers that get bored easily.

[quote=eXtine]parking the bus is already sometimes an issue. I'd rather have shorter games overall, for all formats.

TBH when I look to post-produce cast games, if they're 45 mins + I look for a different game. Just too long to stay completely focused.[/quote]

...is it? When's the last time an ESEA match was decided by the map timer?

I couldn't cast for a whole 60 seconds so I can't comment on the latter part, but I know that I can watch an hour of TF2 without getting bored, and I'm not sure casts are supposed to cater towards the watchers that get bored easily.
13
#13
0 Frags +
anjirocoolwho is keekerdc

I'm assuming someone on an alt that is too afraid of posting his/her opinion? Why though? This person has some pretty good ideas (and some pretty bad ones too) but also enlightens some people on valve's take on this situation.

His blog is very interesting. I just assumed this since he only had 1 post on the forum. I guess he just made this account. Sorry for the misunderstanding! :P

[quote=anjirocool]who is keekerdc[/quote]
[s]I'm assuming someone on an alt that is too afraid of posting his/her opinion? Why though? This person has some pretty good ideas (and some pretty bad ones too) but also enlightens some people on valve's take on this situation.[/s]

His blog is very interesting. I just assumed this since he only had 1 post on the forum. I guess he just made this account. Sorry for the misunderstanding! :P
14
#14
8 Frags +
anjirocoolwho is keekerdc

the one the only Schetter of tgbf.tv fame aka the best shoutcaster who ever graced the TF2 scene

my sweet prince

[quote=anjirocool]who is keekerdc[/quote]

the one the only Schetter of tgbf.tv fame aka the best shoutcaster who ever graced the TF2 scene

my sweet prince
15
#15
5 Frags +

he runs a pretty awesome blog at http://keekerdc.com/

go check it out

he runs a pretty awesome blog at http://keekerdc.com/

go check it out
16
#16
eXtelevision
-3 Frags +
 I'm not sure casts are supposed to cater towards the watchers that get bored easily.

Casts should definitely cater towards viewers not being bored.

Very generally speaking, I'd rather anyone watch 2 30 minute tf2 videos featuring different maps or whatever versus having anyone watch 1 60 minute video.

[code] I'm not sure casts are supposed to cater towards the watchers that get bored easily.[/code]

Casts should definitely cater towards viewers not being bored.

Very generally speaking, I'd rather anyone watch 2 30 minute tf2 videos featuring different maps or whatever versus having anyone watch 1 60 minute video.
17
#17
5 Frags +
Oblivionageanjirocoolwho is keekerdcI'm assuming someone on an alt that is too afraid of posting his/her opinion? Why though? This person has some pretty good ideas (and some pretty bad ones too) but also enlightens some people on valve's take on this situation.

Well I did admit the class limit thing was probably stupid up-front.

I am also pretty much a nobody these days around these parts, but I hope that might change.

frknGravelpit and viaduct are boring to spectate? My mind is blown, I find them really fun to watch...

Our rules slow down the game more than something closer to europe's style? I thought europe's ruleset was famous for encouraging passive play?

I get what you are saying and I agree with the premise of your article, but once you started getting into specifics I disagree wholeheartedly

I expect that last statement to largely be the case, but if the only concrete thing that actually comes out of this article is an earnest debate over the specifics of the format, with around six years of competitive play under the initial format decisions to draw from, then I'll be quite happy. :)

The propensity for 'parking the bus' without a scoring cap, if the rest of the current game mechanics were left untouched, is certainly a valid one. But that would lead to the conclusion that the format as a whole, everything considered, encourages passive play, with the 'first-to-five' rule being the singular thing that pushes teams to play agressively and not sit on leads.

I think there's room to shift other things around towards the end of producing higher scoring matches; making it easier to score and more difficult to sit back would on the whole produce a consistenly better pace to matches. An optimal solution would make it easier to score in a shorter amount of time, discourage the formation of stalemates, and would create a sort of vacuum effect towards your opponent's goal - that is, in any given situation, the riskier play is to sit back and defend the current situation, and the more rational play would be to push forward towards the next point.

Here's the current stock control point timings - we've always accepted these as gospel, even though they're clearly meant to balance for teams more than double the size of 6v6. These timings have enormous consequences on the flow of play, but have been largely left unquestioned. Could these timings be tweaked such that they would either punish pacifist play, reward constantly agressive play, or both?

I think a hockey-styled pace is a great style to try and imitate, but I totally disagree that's the feel the game currently has. If anything, with the stock capture point timings, the pace is actually most analgous to American football with first downs and positions resetting as capture points are taken one by one. If it can take the better part of ten minutes to score, it's because it can take a long time to get into scoring position; and just as long to break the stalemate on defense, because there is so little opportunity for fast break play and to take the action to the opposite side of the field quickly.

( continued... )

[quote=Oblivionage][quote=anjirocool]who is keekerdc[/quote]
I'm assuming someone on an alt that is too afraid of posting his/her opinion? Why though? This person has some pretty good ideas (and some pretty bad ones too) but also enlightens some people on valve's take on this situation.[/quote]

Well I did admit the class limit thing was probably stupid up-front.

I am also pretty much a nobody these days around these parts, but I hope that might change.

[quote=frkn]Gravelpit and viaduct are boring to spectate? My mind is blown, I find them really fun to watch...

Our rules slow down the game more than something closer to europe's style? I thought europe's ruleset was famous for encouraging passive play?

I get what you are saying and I agree with the premise of your article, but once you started getting into specifics I disagree wholeheartedly[/quote]

I expect that last statement to largely be the case, but if the only concrete thing that actually comes out of this article is an earnest debate over the specifics of the format, with around six years of competitive play under the initial format decisions to draw from, then I'll be quite happy. :)

The propensity for 'parking the bus' without a scoring cap, if the rest of the current game mechanics were left untouched, is certainly a valid one. But that would lead to the conclusion that the format as a whole, everything considered, encourages passive play, with the 'first-to-five' rule being the singular thing that pushes teams to play agressively and not sit on leads.

I think there's room to shift other things around towards the end of producing higher scoring matches; making it easier to score and more difficult to sit back would on the whole produce a consistenly better pace to matches. An optimal solution would make it easier to score in a shorter amount of time, discourage the formation of stalemates, and would create a sort of vacuum effect towards your opponent's goal - that is, in any given situation, the riskier play is to sit back and defend the current situation, and the more rational play would be to push forward towards the next point.

[url=tf2wiki.net/wiki/Control_point_timing]Here's the current stock control point timings[/url] - we've always accepted these as gospel, even though they're clearly meant to balance for teams more than double the size of 6v6. These timings have enormous consequences on the flow of play, but have been largely left unquestioned. Could these timings be tweaked such that they would either punish pacifist play, reward constantly agressive play, or both?

I think a hockey-styled pace is a great style to try and imitate, but I totally disagree that's the feel the game currently has. If anything, with the stock capture point timings, the pace is actually most analgous to American football with first downs and positions resetting as capture points are taken one by one. If it can take the better part of ten minutes to score, it's because it can take a long time to get into scoring position; and just as long to break the stalemate on defense, because there is so little opportunity for fast break play and to take the action to the opposite side of the field quickly.

( continued... )
18
#18
2 Frags +

( ..continued )

Reducing these timings in general is an obvious first step; less time needed to cap any of the three non-goal points makes for more fluid play, and gross mistakes more punishable, making large leads less insurmountable regardless of time remaining. A maximum time of 1x/8-10sec feels like it might be good. If it's also made easier for scouts to drop in behind the main squads and put up caps, it will require teams to constantly cover more of the field, having to be constantly mindful of their forwardmost control point while staging an attack, instead of just reacting to a back cap on the chance it sneaks through, since the cap times are so high. This would bring smaller sized fights more to the fore and reduce the propensity for full-team stalemates, since it wouldn't require a full team push to effectively make a capture and shift the action in either direction. Teams would have to simultaneously play offense and defense in the middle portion of any map to a far greater degree than is required currently due to the heavy timings.

The second step would be to make the capture times for the intermediary points longer than the times for the center point. A maximum time of 1x/4-5 seconds could probably work. (Stick with me here.) This change would create that 'vacuum effect' that would pull teams into the attacking half of the map, and would make pushing for a full cap the best choice regardless of the score. Let's go point by point down the field to illustrate the effect:

Even with a lead, only defending your main is not a good strategy with the final point always being a short cap, with 1x between 2-4 seconds - and if we're mucking about with timings, should probably always be 2 seconds. A better position is to at the least have the intermediary point, and have that extra 8-10 second buffer.

But these intermediary points are always more exposed and harder to mount a defense on directly. A failed defense on an intermediary would almost certainly result in a full cap for their opponents. Sitting in defense of an intermediary would leave you far too open to giving up a quick score.

Pushing ahead then is a better choice, but a central point with a quicker cap time than the intermediaries is almost a worse position than just defending your own intermediary - a botched central defense could also quickly result in a cap. A really quick central point would keep things fluid in the central part of the map, opening up the possibility for fast breaks into a scoring position or all the way to the full cap if you catch a team particularly flat-footed.

It would then, strangely enough, make your opponent's intermediary point the most rational place to mount a defense, because it provides enough buffer time after a wipe to prevent a cap. However, your opponents intermediary isn't really anyplace to mount a long-term defense at all. The most rational thing to do from that position is to score yourself and extend your lead, if you have one.

The specifics here, as in my points above, are probably not optimal, but I think the general idea will likely stand up pretty well under some playtesting.

KoobadoobsTen minutes halves make no sense at all. If you're going to have two maps, make a halftime between them and give each map the full twenty minutes all at once. Countless times, the closest matches have single rounds go over ten minutes. You'd have a surprisingly large number of 1-0, 2-1, and 2-0 scores because there's no time for multiple rounds, and once you're ahead, there's no incentive to keep trying when it takes just ten minutes of stalling to win.

Fair enough point. Really on balanced maps, there's hardly any reason at all to change sides, the differences have no discernable effect on gameplay, and it'd actually be a small win for spectators and commentators if teams didn't change colors over the course of a match.

( ..continued )

Reducing these timings in general is an obvious first step; less time needed to cap any of the three non-goal points makes for more fluid play, and gross mistakes more punishable, making large leads less insurmountable regardless of time remaining. A maximum time of 1x/8-10sec feels like it might be good. If it's also made easier for scouts to drop in behind the main squads and put up caps, it will require teams to constantly cover more of the field, having to be constantly mindful of their forwardmost control point while staging an attack, instead of just reacting to a back cap on the chance it sneaks through, since the cap times are so high. This would bring smaller sized fights more to the fore and reduce the propensity for full-team stalemates, since it wouldn't require a full team push to effectively make a capture and shift the action in either direction. Teams would have to simultaneously play offense and defense in the middle portion of any map to a far greater degree than is required currently due to the heavy timings.

The second step would be to make the capture times for the intermediary points longer than the times for the center point. A maximum time of 1x/4-5 seconds could probably work. (Stick with me here.) This change would create that 'vacuum effect' that would pull teams into the attacking half of the map, and would make pushing for a full cap the best choice regardless of the score. Let's go point by point down the field to illustrate the effect:

Even with a lead, only defending your main is not a good strategy with the final point always being a short cap, with 1x between 2-4 seconds - and if we're mucking about with timings, should probably always be 2 seconds. A better position is to at the least have the intermediary point, and have that extra 8-10 second buffer.

But these intermediary points are always more exposed and harder to mount a defense on directly. A failed defense on an intermediary would almost certainly result in a full cap for their opponents. Sitting in defense of an intermediary would leave you far too open to giving up a quick score.

Pushing ahead then is a better choice, but a central point with a quicker cap time than the intermediaries is almost a worse position than just defending your own intermediary - a botched central defense could also quickly result in a cap. A really quick central point would keep things fluid in the central part of the map, opening up the possibility for fast breaks into a scoring position or all the way to the full cap if you catch a team particularly flat-footed.

It would then, strangely enough, make your opponent's intermediary point the most rational place to mount a defense, because it provides enough buffer time after a wipe to prevent a cap. However, your opponents intermediary isn't really anyplace to mount a long-term defense at all. The most rational thing to do from that position is to score yourself and extend your lead, if you have one.

The specifics here, as in my points above, are probably not optimal, but I think the general idea will likely stand up pretty well under some playtesting.

[quote=Koobadoobs]Ten minutes halves make no sense at all. If you're going to have two maps, make a halftime between them and give each map the full twenty minutes all at once. Countless times, the closest matches have single rounds go over ten minutes. You'd have a surprisingly large number of 1-0, 2-1, and 2-0 scores because there's no time for multiple rounds, and once you're ahead, there's no incentive to keep trying when it takes just ten minutes of stalling to win.[/quote]

Fair enough point. Really on balanced maps, there's hardly any reason at all to change sides, the differences have no discernable effect on gameplay, and it'd actually be a small win for spectators and commentators if teams didn't change colors over the course of a match.
19
#19
1 Frags +

Riffing on what you said about timings, what would the result be if last point was longest, 2nd point intermediate, and mid shortest cap time?

On the one hand, this would make it easier for a team to push off of last, because they'd have much more time to react to the back cap. I'm not sure how this would effect the attacking team: would they be more careful about attacking because they'd fear losing 2nd, or more willing to commit everything they had to a push, because they'd need to with the longer cap time?

Another consideration for game flow is map structure. A lot of maps put teams holding each point on an equal footing, as long as they have even numbers/uber. But a map could be structured like a hill, so that attackers from mid to 2nd and 2nd to last always had height (or other advantages); or like a W, with 2nd on low ground relative to last and mid. Or like a V, where getting to mid from 2nd or to 2nd from last was always easier than the opposite. Arranging advantages like this could be combined with cap timings and round time limits to incentivize different levels of aggression at different points in the game.

I'm really curious what other structural elements of the game--things other than class limits and unlocks--could shape its flow.

Riffing on what you said about timings, what would the result be if last point was longest, 2nd point intermediate, and mid shortest cap time?

On the one hand, this would make it easier for a team to push off of last, because they'd have much more time to react to the back cap. I'm not sure how this would effect the attacking team: would they be more careful about attacking because they'd fear losing 2nd, or more willing to commit everything they had to a push, because they'd need to with the longer cap time?

Another consideration for game flow is map structure. A lot of maps put teams holding each point on an equal footing, as long as they have even numbers/uber. But a map could be structured like a hill, so that attackers from mid to 2nd and 2nd to last always had height (or other advantages); or like a W, with 2nd on low ground relative to last and mid. Or like a V, where getting to mid from 2nd or to 2nd from last was always easier than the opposite. Arranging advantages like this could be combined with cap timings and round time limits to incentivize different levels of aggression at different points in the game.

I'm really curious what other structural elements of the game--things other than class limits and unlocks--could shape its flow.
20
#20
1 Frags +
Riffing on what you said about timings, what would the result be if last point was longest, 2nd point intermediate, and mid shortest cap time?

Lasts are designed to be easy to defend. if the cap times were long, it would be almost impossible to cap a sentry-heavy-guarded last I believe.

[quote]Riffing on what you said about timings, what would the result be if last point was longest, 2nd point intermediate, and mid shortest cap time? [/quote]

Lasts are designed to be easy to defend. if the cap times were long, it would be almost impossible to cap a sentry-heavy-guarded last I believe.
21
#21
-1 Frags +
TristanRiffing on what you said about timings, what would the result be if last point was longest, 2nd point intermediate, and mid shortest cap time?

On the one hand, this would make it easier for a team to push off of last, because they'd have much more time to react to the back cap. I'm not sure how this would effect the attacking team: would they be more careful about attacking because they'd fear losing 2nd, or more willing to commit everything they had to a push, because they'd need to with the longer cap time?

Another consideration for game flow is map structure. A lot of maps put teams holding each point on an equal footing, as long as they have even numbers/uber. But a map could be structured like a hill, so that attackers from mid to 2nd and 2nd to last always had height (or other advantages); or like a W, with 2nd on low ground relative to last and mid. Or like a V, where getting to mid from 2nd or to 2nd from last was always easier than the opposite. Arranging advantages like this could be combined with cap timings and round time limits to incentivize different levels of aggression at different points in the game.

Well it would depend on what purpose you're trying to achieve. You're right about it being easier to defend and push off from your main. Having the longest cap time at the goals, with a gradient towards the center with the shortest time, would have the effect of producing very fluid end-to-end play, but would be low-scoring since it would dramatically increase the difficulty in getting a goal. It would produce a very soccer-like feel, but it would become super easy to gain even a two goal lead and turtle up. The severity of the effect would depend on just how much you increase the main timings, but that would be the result, to a degree.

The best metaphor I can reach for right now is that the timings on capture points act like a gravitational pull for the flow of play. The longer that timing is, the more that the flow of play will get stuck in orbit around that point. The more time a team has to spend at a point to capture it puts a higher limit on the minimum amount of time it takes to go from goal to goal, and there's a certain threshold where the timings become long enough where it's prohibitively hard to string multiple caps together in quick succession; the stock timings cross that threshold at 6v6.

That's why I landed on adjusting for the intermediaries to be the longest cap times, but still have them shorter than they are stock. It would place the strongest gravitational pull on the flow of play towards respective scoring positions, in a way that makes 'parking the bus' anywhere not a smart choice. This will create fluid play in the middle of maps, really open up the game, allow teams to get into scoring position more frequently, and score just as easily (or easier) than they can currently.

[quote=Tristan]Riffing on what you said about timings, what would the result be if last point was longest, 2nd point intermediate, and mid shortest cap time?

On the one hand, this would make it easier for a team to push off of last, because they'd have much more time to react to the back cap. I'm not sure how this would effect the attacking team: would they be more careful about attacking because they'd fear losing 2nd, or more willing to commit everything they had to a push, because they'd need to with the longer cap time?

Another consideration for game flow is map structure. A lot of maps put teams holding each point on an equal footing, as long as they have even numbers/uber. But a map could be structured like a hill, so that attackers from mid to 2nd and 2nd to last always had height (or other advantages); or like a W, with 2nd on low ground relative to last and mid. Or like a V, where getting to mid from 2nd or to 2nd from last was always easier than the opposite. Arranging advantages like this could be combined with cap timings and round time limits to incentivize different levels of aggression at different points in the game.
[/quote]

Well it would depend on what purpose you're trying to achieve. You're right about it being easier to defend and push off from your main. Having the longest cap time at the goals, with a gradient towards the center with the shortest time, would have the effect of producing very fluid end-to-end play, but would be low-scoring since it would dramatically increase the difficulty in getting a goal. It would produce a very soccer-like feel, but it would become super easy to gain even a two goal lead and turtle up. The severity of the effect would depend on just how much you increase the main timings, but that would be the result, to a degree.

The best metaphor I can reach for right now is that the timings on capture points act like a gravitational pull for the flow of play. The longer that timing is, the more that the flow of play will get stuck in orbit around that point. The more time a team has to spend at a point to capture it puts a higher limit on the minimum amount of time it takes to go from goal to goal, and there's a certain threshold where the timings become long enough where it's prohibitively hard to string multiple caps together in quick succession; the stock timings cross that threshold at 6v6.

That's why I landed on adjusting for the intermediaries to be the longest cap times, but still have them shorter than they are stock. It would place the strongest gravitational pull on the flow of play towards respective scoring positions, in a way that makes 'parking the bus' anywhere not a smart choice. This will create fluid play in the middle of maps, really open up the game, allow teams to get into scoring position more frequently, and score just as easily (or easier) than they can currently.
22
#22
0 Frags +

I think you bring up a lot of really interesting points here. You've got me like 95% convinced on this Valve-data thing, and it's definitely an idea I'll be chewing over for a couple of days.

Had a look through your blog too. Some great stuff, I'll be checking it regularly from now on.

I think you bring up a lot of really interesting points here. You've got me like 95% convinced on this Valve-data thing, and it's definitely an idea I'll be chewing over for a couple of days.

Had a look through your blog too. Some great stuff, I'll be checking it regularly from now on.
23
#23
4 Frags +
TristanBut a map could be structured like a hill
like a W

Follower (not played anymore)
Freight (not played anymore)

[quote=Tristan]But a map could be structured like a hill
like a W
[/quote]
Follower (not played anymore)
Freight (not played anymore)
24
#24
2 Frags +

I think making last points cap faster would just make games slower. Badlands already caps ridiculously fast.

To quote an old ranty post of mine:

If there is one thing wrong about Badlands it's not the holes in mid bridge, it's not various spots with bad clipping... it's how fast last caps. Plays really badly on pubs and is "balanced" by spawns being too close to the point and the entrances being too narrow and spammable. Having to park someone on the point the entire time is lame.

There can certainly still be a fight in progress but then suddenly the round ends because one defender accidentally lifted his toe off of the point while dodging. Half the 6v6 rounds end like this in a super chaotic manner instead of the decisive, intuitive pushes other maps end with

It's the attacking team that can just throw players onto the point - any one player is a huge threat - which isn't very strategic either and leads to teams going for very defensive classes to defend last, finally killing enough enemies to push to 2nd and immediately losing because a Spy decided to uncloak on the point

...regardless. Capture point timings are technically map-specific. If the mapper thinks faster cap speed is needed/good that's his prerogative.

To elaborate if the mapper came up with a fun layout for last that turns out to be quite defensible and spammy after playtesting, he could tweak the capture time to be faster so any player who comes through can cap. Alternatively he could just make the point less spammy and narrow.

From a spectator standpoint a team almost managing to cap but falling just short is exciting. In Badlands cap progress recedes so slowly you're now thoroughly boned and have to park 1+ players right on it who aren't allowed to move or dodge properly.

You're also making it very hard for the defending team to push out again. If they always have to have to be afraid of a backcap they can only try to cap 2nd back if the enemy team wipes. By the time 2nd is captured the enemy players are probably nearby again and now only have to deal with half your team on 2nd because the other half just started moving out of last.

I'm not entirely against backcaps but they shouldn't be this dominant a strategy. 2s capture time is insane. Sometimes it's capped despite stickies because there's still some capture progress on it and the Demo couldn't even react. Even 4s would already be much more reasonable. Generally you probably want to design the room so that anyone in it can still get back onto the point if a Spy manages to uncloak on it. The defender would still have to stay back but could at least stay closer to 2nd to help out if needed. Also gives the two players some space to dodge around and have a nice 1v1.

I think making last points cap faster would just make games slower. Badlands already caps ridiculously fast.

To quote an old ranty post of mine:
[quote]If there is one thing wrong about Badlands it's not the holes in mid bridge, it's not various spots with bad clipping... it's how fast last caps. Plays really badly on pubs and is "balanced" by spawns being too close to the point and the entrances being too narrow and spammable. Having to park someone on the point the entire time is lame.

There can certainly still be a fight in progress but then suddenly the round ends because one defender accidentally lifted his toe off of the point while dodging. Half the 6v6 rounds end like this in a super chaotic manner instead of the decisive, intuitive pushes other maps end with

It's the attacking team that can just throw players onto the point - any one player is a huge threat - which isn't very strategic either and leads to teams going for very defensive classes to defend last, finally killing enough enemies to push to 2nd and immediately losing because a Spy decided to uncloak on the point

...regardless. Capture point timings are technically map-specific. If the mapper thinks faster cap speed is needed/good that's his prerogative.[/quote]
To elaborate if the mapper came up with a fun layout for last that turns out to be quite defensible and spammy after playtesting, he [i]could[/i] tweak the capture time to be faster so any player who comes through can cap. Alternatively [i]he could just make the point less spammy and narrow[/i].

From a spectator standpoint a team almost managing to cap but falling just short is exciting. In Badlands cap progress recedes so slowly you're now thoroughly boned and have to park 1+ players right on it who aren't allowed to move or dodge properly.

You're also making it very hard for the defending team to push out again. If they always have to have to be afraid of a backcap they can only try to cap 2nd back if the enemy team wipes. By the time 2nd is captured the enemy players are probably nearby again and now only have to deal with half your team on 2nd because the other half just started moving out of last.

I'm not entirely against backcaps but they shouldn't be this dominant a strategy. 2s capture time is insane. Sometimes it's capped despite stickies because there's still some capture progress on it and the Demo couldn't even react. Even 4s would already be much more reasonable. Generally you probably want to design the room so that anyone in it can still get back onto the point if a Spy manages to uncloak on it. The defender would still have to stay back but could at least stay closer to 2nd to help out if needed. Also gives the two players some space to dodge around and have a nice 1v1.
25
#25
1 Frags +
Trotim(directly above)

Progress decay is indeed an important factor, glad it was brought up. The wiki suggests that the decay rate is inversely proportional to the capture rate; so the longer the cap time, the faster the decay. Badlands is the outlier at 2 seconds stock, most all the other maps are at 4, and it's possible that's the most rational place for the goal point to be at. You mentioned Badlands specifically in that quote, so I figure that's the map where it's the worst.

The map layouts themselves are another key factor that hasn't been discussed yet in this thread either. It's impact is huge and obvious. There's definitely a trend with the designs of final points where the layout is cramped and there's typically only two points of entry. Giving the attackers more options and more of an advantage when reaching a scoring position could go a long way to produce higher scoring matches. It's one of the more difficult routes to that end, but it should definitely be investigated, if anything is.

[quote=Trotim](directly above)[/quote]

Progress decay is indeed an important factor, glad it was brought up. The wiki suggests that the decay rate is inversely proportional to the capture rate; so the longer the cap time, the faster the decay. Badlands is the outlier at 2 seconds stock, most all the other maps are at 4, and it's possible that's the most rational place for the goal point to be at. You mentioned Badlands specifically in that quote, so I figure that's the map where it's the worst.

The map layouts themselves are another key factor that hasn't been discussed yet in this thread either. It's impact is huge and obvious. There's definitely a trend with the designs of final points where the layout is cramped and there's typically only two points of entry. Giving the attackers more options and more of an advantage when reaching a scoring position could go a long way to produce higher scoring matches. It's one of the more difficult routes to that end, but it should definitely be investigated, if anything is.
26
#26
0 Frags +
keekerdcThere's definitely a trend with the designs of final points where the layout is cramped and there's typically only two points of entry

Is this really the case? The only map in play that I can think of where this applies besides Badlands is Gullywash. It is not so for Granary, Process, Snakewater or Metalworks.

[quote=keekerdc]There's definitely a trend with the designs of final points where the layout is cramped and there's typically only two points of entry[/quote]

Is this really the case? The only map in play that I can think of where this applies besides Badlands is Gullywash. It is not so for Granary, Process, Snakewater or Metalworks.
27
#27
1 Frags +
atmokeekerdcThere's definitely a trend with the designs of final points where the layout is cramped and there's typically only two points of entry
Is this really the case? The only map in play that I can think of where this applies besides Badlands is Gullywash. It is not so for Granary, Process, Snakewater or Metalworks.

Badlands has 3 points of entry (upper, main, and lower right) and gully has 5 (shutter, lower, sniper platform, behind point, and river).

[quote=atmo][quote=keekerdc]There's definitely a trend with the designs of final points where the layout is cramped and there's typically only two points of entry[/quote]

Is this really the case? The only map in play that I can think of where this applies besides Badlands is Gullywash. It is not so for Granary, Process, Snakewater or Metalworks.[/quote]
Badlands has 3 points of entry (upper, main, and lower right) and gully has 5 (shutter, lower, sniper platform, behind point, and river).
28
#28
-2 Frags +
KoobadoobsatmokeekerdcThere's definitely a trend with the designs of final points where the layout is cramped and there's typically only two points of entry
Is this really the case? The only map in play that I can think of where this applies besides Badlands is Gullywash. It is not so for Granary, Process, Snakewater or Metalworks.
Badlands has 3 points of entry (upper, main, and lower right) and gully has 5 (shutter, lower, sniper platform, behind point, and river).

Or I've been away from the game a wee bit too long. :)

[quote=Koobadoobs][quote=atmo][quote=keekerdc]There's definitely a trend with the designs of final points where the layout is cramped and there's typically only two points of entry[/quote]

Is this really the case? The only map in play that I can think of where this applies besides Badlands is Gullywash. It is not so for Granary, Process, Snakewater or Metalworks.[/quote]
Badlands has 3 points of entry (upper, main, and lower right) and gully has 5 (shutter, lower, sniper platform, behind point, and river).[/quote]

Or I've been away from the game a wee bit too long. :)
29
#29
6 Frags +
Highlander PUGs are for Valve to mine data, not to support competition.

This is an elaborate disguise for a bitcoin miner.

[quote][b]Highlander PUGs are for Valve to mine data, not to support competition.[/b][/quote]

This is an elaborate disguise for a bitcoin miner.
30
#30
Escalation Studios
7 Frags +
As much as you may love gravelpit, it’s super weird this map is still in the rotation, what with the “how’s this work again?” stopwatch scoring system, and the fact that nobody ever defends A. (Yea, it’s meant for a defending side twice the size.)

We defended both.

It’s always been the weird bump on the schedule, along with that King/Hill map you guys insist on playing every season, and they should be cut in favor of 6v6 focused cp_ maps. King/Hill maps in particular are dreadfully boring to watch and commentate.

Koth is very fun to play IMO and can have a good strategic element. I pushed hard for koth_viaduct. It is however a very bad spectator experience, so I agree.

If you want to have a thriving esport, you have to attract an audience; these maps don’t cut it or add unnecessary confusion, and they currently occupy 25% of your schedule every season. They’ve gotta go.

I think there are a lot bigger problems than the maps.

[quote]As much as you may love gravelpit, it’s super weird this map is still in the rotation, what with the “how’s this work again?” stopwatch scoring system, and the fact that nobody ever defends A. (Yea, it’s meant for a defending side twice the size.)[/quote]

We defended both.

[quote]It’s always been the weird bump on the schedule, along with that King/Hill map you guys insist on playing every season, and they should be cut in favor of 6v6 focused cp_ maps. King/Hill maps in particular are dreadfully boring to watch and commentate.[/quote]

Koth is very fun to play IMO and can have a good strategic element. I pushed hard for koth_viaduct. It is however a very bad spectator experience, so I agree.

[quote]If you want to have a thriving esport, you have to attract an audience; these maps don’t cut it or add unnecessary confusion, and they currently occupy 25% of your schedule every season. They’ve gotta go.[/quote]

I think there are a lot bigger problems than the maps.
1 2
Please sign in through STEAM to post a comment.