I think TECHNICALLY SPEAKING this is possible, with the right set up and a series of entities working in the background. The map ctf_deliverance toyed around with this idea, adjusting spawn times based off whether or not it was a 6s match or a pub server. However, those entities wouldn't be able to discern between 6v6 and highlander based off any metric besides player count, so if someone picks up the map and starts playing it on a 12v12 pub then you are stuck with the doors open, and if the pub drops below a certain number of players the doors close. Which I'm assuming would be super confusing, and more trouble than its worth.

From a mapmakers perspective, it sounds like tc_hydro or some other overally complicated map that has received little success: the idea sounds nice, but by the time you implement it in an actual map built to support it (instead of just ramming into whatever map happens to be popular at any given time), it would turn out to be an ultimately flawed concept that players find unappealing.

It's hard to integrate that into a map (not sure I've seen entities that can accurately figure out the "mode", considering a disconnect and specs can cause problems). I know maps can execute cvars, but I'm not sure they can read them. If you can figure out a way to set a cvar to fix the map mode, then it's possible.

if (mp_highlander = 1 OR maxplayers > 18)
{
    make the map better for HL/pubs
}

else
{
    make it better for 6s
}

This would be easier with a 6s cvar. Maybe make mp_competitive?

0 = normal
1 = highlander (same as mp_highlander, both commands work)
2 = 6s

It wouldn't change class limits, just the gametype.

So this is what my mock code would look like with this cvar:

if (mp_competitive = 2)
{
    make the map better for 6s
}

else
{
    make it better for HL/pubs
}

valve make this change please

You could take cp_croissant for it had multiple paths until the creator closed of some of the routes. Maybe having certain rollout routes for 6's/HL could help separate the style of the map.

Sent this to some people at tf2maps, they don't like it. They say they might as well make two unique maps.

By "dynamic maps", I assume you mean that it would be a single map where you choose the game type and the map will change accordingly? If that doesn't work, then I think the best bet would be to have two different versions of the same map just catering 6s or HL and have its suffix end in _6s or _HL

If you want my take on it, you really don't need 2 versions of the same map. a good map is a good map and feedback from both format is usually valid to make the map better overall. I see no need to separate the two since 99% of the time (if the map is any good) you can accommodate both formats. Otherwise, you might want to go back to the drawing board.

I don't care if it's pub, 6s or HL. a good map is a good map. tf2 unite!

If you think about it, PL is already a dynamic mode since it has a moving health regen cart. If you want some ones where map layout changes, there is one map I have seen with a raising water level based on cap time in koth, and some with doors that open revealing flanks (cp_steel). Idk how a dynamic map would work if it were based on triggerable obstacles or whatnot (like in some racing games) but they would be pretty interesting to see.

#8 If you really think that the best balanced layout and concept for a given map design is exactly the same regardless of classes or player count I have really bad news for you.

Agreed. Badlands is an amazing map for sixes, atrocious in highlander, and sort-of-okay-but-not-really in pubs. I'm sure someone could come up with a way to make it more viable in highlander, but at that point you're probably better off just making a new map.

This idea that a good map is a good map is a good map, in my mind is a pretty delusional concept. Badwater is not a good sixes map, but its amazing for highlander. Dustbowl is not a good comp map, but its amazing on pub servers, etc etc etc.

Bingo, in each of the cases you describe the map excels at one format while being severely compromised at the others, since that's a side effect of design decisions made early on in the map making process. This was just something I thought might provide a good compromise to let map makers focus on the breadwinner format (6s) and still throwing a bone towards the community format (HL). Sort of like how racetracks like the Nurburgring have a Grand Prix layout and a smaller layout for other cars.

Another thing it could be used for: If the map detects that mp_tournament is set to 1, it could raise billboards just outside the game area for servers/casters/cameramen to display sponsor logos on. Doesn't change the map physically but could provide a small source of revenue to those that choose to utilize them.

#12 Why not just have normal billboards set around that they can skin?

I like it. Sorta like the team flags Valve has for Dota 2. Of course I don't think we could do this unless we got some sponsors again because I don't think Valve would be too keen on some of the team avatars we have on ESEA (let's be honest - over the years there have been a number of teams with avatars that Valve would consider "questionable" despite us simply not giving a fuck either way)

DICE did something like this for BF2142. On urban maps with billboards and advertisement areas, they'd have Intel, Nvidia, and Pepsi ads there. I don't think anyone really paid attention to them but it was sort of neat to see the ads. Of course, nowadays this isn't interesting at all because games have so much shit in terms of advertising and ad revenue that developers and publishers should just wear nascar jackets to show which companies are backing a game's production.

well there you go, if you put up conditions like these, the map is not good, it's just conditionally good. yes I said it, badlands doesn't fit in the good category *hides under desk*. but what about gravelpit? what about viaduct? I think good maps transcend formats and I won't settle for less.

badlands is a pretty good map, but it has pacing issues in highlander (which most 5cp do, to be fair). so what if someone found a way to make it faster paced for highlander? the 6s community is not opposed to faster paced maps as far as I know. so what then?

I think its pretty short sighted to imagine that "conditionally good" means bad or not as good as it could be.

Here is an example: Magic the Gathering is both a very potent casual game, but also an amazingly popular competitive game. However, what makes the game function in those two different environment is quite different, and many Magic designers admit that they design cards very specifically for different audiences. Its actually part of the design process; should this card be designed for comp play or casual play? Do we have enough cards in this set for casual players (life gain cards, dragons, angels, etc)? Should we buff this card so it shows up in competitive environments? Are there enough incrimental advantage cards that require precise thought for their usage (comp players), while at the same time enough big stompy cards (casual)?

What designers of Magic the Gathering DON'T try to do with every single card, is design them so they work perfectly in every single environment. Obviously, such cards exist and come about with a fair bit of frequency (gravelpit), but they are often pretty bland and safe. They don't really stretch any real limits, and mostly just function as role players, rather than "build around me" cards (cards which an entire deck is built to support and which the entire strategy is built around).

If you required that every single card in Magic was built to be perfect for both comp and casual, you'd end up with a bunch of shitty boring cards that don't satisfy either camp adequately. But, by splitting the cards up and focusing your efforts in different directions, you end up with cards that satisfy both parties, allowing for a game that can be both casual and competitive at the same time, in different regions.

What this means is that if you are designing your maps for TF2 and expecting that they satisfy every single audience equally and without any room for argument, you are ultimately making (in my opinion) a much weaker and less interesting map. By splitting your resources and really aiming to satisfy one core audience (casual, highlander, or 6s) I feel like you end up with a much stronger map in general.

Think about this: How many actually "good" maps are there by your criteria fubar? Gravelpit? It gets played in 6s, HL and casuals, but what else exists from there? Granary? Good in 6s and HL, but not very much fun in pubs unless your pub group is super organized (and at that point, isn't that just HL?). 6s means you have to exclude all Payload maps (wow! thats a lot of pretty good HL maps gone in an instant), all ctf maps, and anything strange that people can't quite seem to get a good grasp on (HI STANDIN!).

If you choose to only accept play experiences that are acceptable in all formats, you end up with very few actual maps that exist, and I don't think thats the sort of environment that I'm happy mapping for. I prefer making maps that satisfy particular audiences very well, rather than making a pretty bland or even broken experience (gravelpit) that satisfies all groups, but only sort of.

And as far as badlands is concerned, if you think you can make a superior version of badlands, good luck! I don't think you'll be nearly as successful making a version of the map that caters to casual, HL and 6s at he same time. The amount of love that 6s players have for badlands borders on the grotesque and unseemly, and any attempts to change it seems to misunderstand how much they love it.

If you want maps like this to exist, maps which shift or alter based on player population, thats fine. But, you should probably come up with an example map that illustrates that such a tactic is feasible. Essentially, like any good idea in game design, if you think it would make for a superior experience then you should get to work! The only way to prove if its a good or bad idea is to play it, and it can only be played if its made.

I'm not particularly interested in making something like this. I've got plenty of other projects and applications to work on as it stands, and the idea sounds somewhat redundant compared with just making a new map. If you are just expecting other mappers to come in and make these sort of changes, you'll probably be waiting a while. The best way to get a system like this set up is DIY, and prove how awesome it is.

I'm not sure the magic cards analogy applies very well to this. I feel like magic cards compare better to weapons whereas the maps are closer to the core ruleset of the game (win conditions etc). now of course there ain't nobody in tf2 designing weapons for comp play (man could you imagine that) but I get what you are saying. tho I don't know, maybe maps are a bit of both. this would be interesting to discuss. maybe maps are like cards, but in a broader way, certainly not on a card by card basis.

anyways, in my experience, testing for multiple formats is a great way to bring out flaws in a particular design. most of the time, those flaws exist in all the formats but are only made worst under certain conditions. accounting for all situations helps finding underlying issues that would never have been made apparent with limited conditions of testing. so you end up with a better map overall and usually without affecting other formats in any harmful ways.

and just to be clear I don't pretend I could make a better badlands (altho I did think about making a badlands_pro at some point). but either way, it's probably safe to say that badlands or any other map wouldn't be better with dynamic elements. dynamic elements sound to me like a crutch for a poor design. and most of the time, they just make things even more confusing and random for the player which just makes the design even worst.

>dynamic elements sound to me like a crutch for a poor design.
How can you have such an ultimate opinion about them when the underlying problem with catering to entirely different audiences is present? You absolutely cannot please every audience with one thing, but if you can make one thing that is actually two different things isn't that a direct upgrade in terms of mapper control? Doesn't that inherently make it more possible to do better design?

EDIT: There are some things which are inherently worse and better for the different formats. 6v6, 8v8, and 12v12 all have their own different optimal number of flank and chokepoints entirely because of the number of players present. Changing the sizes or orientations or connections of these things in order to mitigate the differences (like Granary does) only serve to alter how spatial dynamics work and that itself also has its optimization for different formats -- a map that's extremely heavy in connecting entirely different areas (as steel does) is bad for 6s and pubs but really good for highlander, where making the connectors themselves convoluted but the layout sane (foundry) has the opposite effect (note: foundry has another property that happens to make it worse for 6s and better for pubs, its large size and rectangularity). There are a handful of maps that do compromise different aspects, but they don't and can't be perfect to a format without directly giving up something for another. Map design is not such a solved problem that anyone can make a map with zero downsides for even just normal modes of play without years of evolution and testing. It's foolish to treat it anything remotely close to that -- work for your audience, not for all of it.

Why not just have a highlander version of a map and a 6v6 version. We already have "pro" versions of maps like viaduct that do what you're saying (open up new pathways). But it might be harder to make a map that's good for 6s and also very good for HL with a few minor changes.

#21 actually in the case of viaduct opening up the extra pathway makes it better for all modes of play

just a massive failure on its original designer's part that it was closed up