nobody really tries them, but most of the payload maps are prolly too big

a/d was a lot of fun in some ways and gpit hasnt really been played since the scout speed update

rahmed of 2023

payload maps are way too big and offclassing/full-timing sniper on them is really boring (go ask any highlander player how they feel about sniper at all times)

a/d is lowkey kind of fun in theory but the maps available for it are all kind of goofy or bad, like kawa mentioned gpit used to be part of the official comp rotation but it fell out of popularity.

ultimately the game is so small and insular that questions like "why are there only these classes, why are there only these gamemodes, etc" can be answered with "we have tried a bunch of stuff for 16 years and we've decided these classes and these maps are the most fun"

most people i think that are new to competitive tf2 are often unsatisfied with hearing that because they haven't had the time and experience to find out why things like full time pyro and sniper are boring and not fun for either team, or why 5CP is one of the few functioning modes for a team size of 6. they're also just generally unsatisfied with hearing that they cant main their favorite class in 6s which is an understandable complaint to have but it'd be like being mad that your favorite gun in csgo is the auto shotty and you can't just use that every round and do well at high level CS

If You Make Me Push The Cart In 6s Too I Will Kill Myself

all it takes is one season of mountainlab to make 6s players appreciate villa and reckoner

The incremental, attrition-driven pace of PL is great for a gamemode involving lots of players on a wide range of classes, but 6s is best suited to zone-control modes on maps with distinct areas and connectors, which 5CP is perfect for. KOTH has elements of both styles, so it ends up working for both gamemodes (low map overlap obviously due to player count difference)

A/D does fundamentally suit 6s gameplay, but the asymmetric dynamic does not. The only reason anyone tolerates having to spend half of every game holding points is the ability to re-push or countersack after a successful defense. I also think the mental disconnect created by the asynchronous scoring system would be a bigger problem for 6s players than it has been for HL players, and would be a pain to get people on board with

I don't know if there's any 6s-viable A/D maps out there anymore but I do think a weekend A/D only cup could be fun, but I think it would be more worthwhile to experiment with mapmaking for more minor variations, like 7CP, multi-KOTH, or whatever Standin's mode is called

i wonder if more teams would try to pull off the "iron man" strat and actually defend A instead of going all in on defending B due to the fact that you can now rotate your medic at scout speed. A is also a very scout friendly part of the map and might be easier to defend today than it was in 2010

make new payload and a/d maps that are designed to be 6s friendly :) (very easy)

i wouild do anythign to see gravelpit again (sacrificing grapejuice with tears in my eyues)

ctf turbine and cp standin blew cock

A/D can potentially be a more dynamic gamemode than 5cp, multiple points forces some interesting decision making from the defense. Maybe if only one of A or B needed to be capped before C is unlocked it would disincentivise engi or heavy since you would need to be able to rotate quickly. the attackers would be able to fake an attack on A to force players to rotate and then push a weakened B for example.

idk stopwatch game modes dumbed down is just: am i blue? do i havd disad? if yes to both, feed. i dont think thats dynamic. payload has extra issue of the pace of the game being dictated by troll gmod object thats slightly faster than a pottis if 2 people are committed to it. also the rotate shit is nowhere near as interesting as highlanders make it out to be its just more foreplay before actual fights.

yes, it's definitely worth seeing how different gpit would play out today, we honestly have no idea. even besides the avg skill being 10x higher than back then, scout speed really does change a lot

the assumption that offclassing will somehow be more annoying in these gamemodes seems a little silly to me as well... take the banny gun on snake for instance - is that really easier to deal with than a gun sitting behind b or whatever? we don't even know if engi or sniper would be meta as rotation could be more important

All the above answers are good.

In my offhand summary (Key points)

- #4 (Seinfeld)
- This is the 6s Community Decision & There is history (See Discussion - Incentive & Choice)
- #7 (Brody)
- Asymmetric Gamemodes don’t suit 6s (See Discussion - Incentive & Choice)
- Map Variants (See Discussion - 6s Map Variants)
- #13 (Mak)
- Stopwatch Incentive (See Discussion - Incentive & Choice)
- Are “Dynamic” Rotations Really Special? (See Discussion - 6s Map Variants)

General Reference: https://forums.rgl.gg/topic/1853/what-do-you-think-a-6v6-payload-map-would-look-like

---

From an analytical perspective, 6s and HL have developed into two distinct dichotomies, and I believe looking deeper into this difference should form the basis of what differs map-wise (and thus what differs design wise) between the two game modes.

To save out on some time I’ll outright say the simple conclusion:

- 6s has a focus on mobility that emphasizes a push/pull
- In 6s your team switches from defending to attacking on a dime while…
- HL has a focus on holding, emphasizing “waves” of attack
- One team often is (inherently by the gamemode) the aggressor, conversely one the defender.

What this means physically is that in payload [applying to other Asym modes]: the defending team often has no incentive to push/move/advance off successfully winning a teamfight - and as there is no need for mobility [with respect to the] 6s format … no reason to not run the defensive offclasses for basically every point (Engie, Heavy, etc).

What does payload add to 6s? When I spoke to fossil he indicated to me that he thought to add the ferocious excitement of stopwatch to 6s, but I knew with him saying that he’s never seen (or rather never played) 6s where

- A won mid fight can turn into a scramble for last, where a full advantage is desperately pushed on
- Someone calling that they are dying seconds before they do makes the difference in decision making to save a situation
- Where teams use as soon as they get Uber because they already are on a much shorter more aggressive timer already: the enemy medic’s Uber.

Simply put, payload for 6s would add a more visible timer, but would remove many aspects of decision making complexity that is essential to the “feel” of 6s. (See Discussion - Incentive)

- Discussion - Incentive & Choice

KevinIsPwn’s summary of competitive Tf2 (Summarized) is the identification of advantages. The reason I bring this up is because Mak brought up the point of Stopwatch being “dumbed down” - this is a consequence of the roles created. Regardless of the situation the “attacking team” will always want to attack, there isn’t much consideration as to the current game state beyond the next respawn wave.

I think a seldom acknowledged point here is the recognition that this is by choice - I don’t think any 6s player will say their favorite part of the game is sac-to-countersac, but I think every player has an appreciation for the idea that a CORE part of 6s is the recognition of the gamestate. Making crucial decisions in chaotic situations is a core part of 6s, this isn’t to say that HL doesn’t have the same chaotic scrambles, but potentially due the scale the significance of those decisions are often lost in the wash.

In short - at some point the 6s community chose the complexity of recognizing the gamestate of 5cp as a core value.

“6s players are taught to recognize and utilize team advantages in order to understand when to agress/retreat, an aspect of gameplay largely lost in explicit A/D modes and general pub play.”

- Discussion - Map Variants

I did the thing where I opened the thread expecting to cringe, but I ended up being pleasantly surprised by a lot of the answers.

One of the main reasons I’m writing a reply is because this is a topic I’m generally invested into (Map Design in 6s), and I have experienced the difficulty in both testing and mapmaking for competitive. I also figure that I can throw insight into why there hasn’t been more experimental maps/gamemodes/ideas for 6s:

- Short answer - There has been various experimental mode attempts, but there never is any support/interest for them

pl_drylands: <https://tf2maps.net/downloads/drylands.11068/>;

Mapmaker: Fossil

Drylands is a payload map explicitly designed for 6s. Fossil (aka d3adfin) designed it hoping to bring the excitement of stopwatch to 6s.

- The core element (besides literally being targeted for 6s) is that you “tap” the payload cart both ways to start stop it.

The question is… what does the existence of the PL cart add to the mode? It’s already asymmetric, even in 5CP control points are only ever a delayed recognition of the territory/space that a team actually owns - representing it through a slower, gradual, and even more delayed mechanic seemed unintuitive in a gamemode focused on mobility. Ultimately, I gave harsh feedback on the attempt as I believe it went against a lot of the “Core of 6s” (See RGL Forums Link), and even when I attempted to get more serious playtesting for the map the majority of players rejected the map on basically the above premise which I agreed with.

“What’s the point of testing a mode that already has clear flaws” was the dominating attitude, and ultimately fossil moved on (I think he’s making open fortress maps and doing pretty well for himself)

seige_grove: <https://tf2maps.net/downloads/siege_grove.10552/>;

Mapmaker: Zeus

Its the game mode from paladins:

1) Fight over a central Control Point

2) Capture of CP gets 1 point

3) Payload Cart spawns on CP ⇒ push to enemy spawn for extra point (Conversion)

I like this concept, I got an ~advanced + randoms test on it which gave some layout changes and I think the timers/scoring could definitely be revisited.

Ultimately Zeus is pretty busy and did this as more of a proof-of-concept, I think the gamemode might be even easier to execute now that we have Vscript but don’t quote me on that.

3CP A/D Maps (A + B ⇒ C)

The core question when throwing a mechanic in should be: “Why?”

What does having 3CP A/D (Gravelpit style) add to specifically the 6s dynamic.

IF the answer is rotations… do we not have those already?

If the combo begins to pressure big door on Gullywash when you’re defending 2nd, doesn’t your combo rotate over? If you already hold that way and they do the opposite don’t pieces move to plug the holes and relieve pressure? 6s obviously has rotations already, and - in line with the fast-paced nature of the gamemode - they are done quickly, not through corridors spanning the entirety of a map.

IF the answer is strategy… the asymmetric nature of the game mode removes complexity, theory forces single-tactics.

Also theory aside I think a 4zae event had invite 6s players doing a show match on it, I remember casting that but tbh I have no recollection of the tactics or even the score result.

- Discussion - Map Development Challenges

This deserves a rant, but isn’t the focus on this thread. Brief overview of the problem would be as follows.

On the Surface: We need new gamemodes and maps (because we’re bored of the ones we have / they are dated)

In the Composition: Gamemodes/Maps that emphasize teamwork are the only ones playable, competent mapmakers also knowledgeable in 6s/Teamplay are VERY RARE.

Facing Harsh Reality:

At the community level: Many people “want” new high quality maps, but very few are willing to make the sacrifices for those efforts. Pug groups don’t often run experimental maps and when they do often give low quality feedback. Organized teams have no reason to play experimental maps vs normal league ones, meaning no general feedback exists.

At the mapmaker level mappers are often inexperienced in competitive play. Those that are willing to listen to more experienced players are rare. Filtering feedback (knowing who to listen to) is difficult if not impossible (especially when lacking experience). Negative stigma regarding competitive players is present, especially in mapmaking communities (This includes bad blood/history).

At the league level: Efforts to help and expose maps are done in a ways that often ends up backfiring on mappers, feedback and support structures are nonexistent.

- Final Thoughts

When I try to advertise 6s to non-6s players I think the biggest misconception non-competitive players have is that 6s is somehow “representative” of the glorious mess that is TF2. To my knowledge no 6s player has ever declared that 6s encompasses all of TF2, nobody has even claimed that it’s TRYING to be representative.

6s doesn’t emphasize the classes in TF2, it doesn’t emphasize the gamemodes, it doesn’t even emphasize the balance.

6s is THE gamemode that emphasizes the TEAM part of TF2.

This is why I believe competitive (6s) has allure and untapped potential, and also why I think the map/gamemode quest is largely a distraction.

If you skipped everything above, the TL;DR contribution I would have is

Map development is very undersupported, but mappers still produce experimental maps for competitive anyway

6s is not meant to be representative of TF2, it certainly doesn’t need to have more gamemodes represented to be fun/functional

Sorry about formatting, posting from mobile.

I just wanna play maps where scout, soldier, and demo are the primary classes you'll be playing against. Fighting those classes is fun, fighting engis, snipers, and heavies are not fun.

you're correct that teams make rotations in both game modes, but the intentions behind rotations are pretty different in each format. in 5cp if you're rotating as the offensive team its probably to get in through a better entrance for the situation at hand. If you're rotating on gpit you aren't just choosing a different entrance, you're choosing a whole different area to push into. the rotations on gpit take much longer and are much bigger decisions to make than flipping your combo between big door and choke on gully.

yes, your role as the defender or attacker is set in stone but that doesn't mean there is no room for different tactics or for the game state to be complex. Back in the turbo boomer days of tf2 you would see all sorts of different ways people would play gpit defense. Some teams would completely give up on point A while others would try their best to defend both. Counter stike is played attack vs defense and there's plenty of room for complexity. The big difference is that CS defusal maps have better balance between A/B than gravelpit so you're more likely to actually have to make a choice about which point to focus on.

the games are completely incomparable and this is nonsense, the difference in cs is you can hold both sites at once because you arent guaranteed to lose 2v5 holds because of time to kill. if u split 3 and 3 in tf2 then neither can hold a 6 man push, especially the point without beam. also in cs theres always been maps where a/b arent balanced and one is very favoured (cobble, mirage)

Can you clarify this a bit? The way I think of this is that a lot of the intentions are the same (creating temporary imbalance by disturbing static hold positions), it’s just applied at a larger scale. That’s also the general concept I was trying to convey - Ask the question of what does the increased scale positively contribute. With the idea that we should be encouraging faster rotations and faster general gameplay it just seems awkward.

Uh I mean, I would say the big difference between CS and TF2 is that you don’t have respawns in CS, the timer isn’t an active element (stopwatch), and there isn’t hyper mobile classes to bust chokepoints. This analogy seems a bit scattered, but I don’t really think the “counter strike has better map design” holds too much water, what would be good 6s 3cp map design in your opinion - you said in CS you have to make a choice while TF2 you don’t? Doesn’t that go against what you say earlier about options?

In general I think that there is also a bit of a misunderstanding for options necessarily equaling complexity, the easiest analogy I can think of is that HL has a lot more class & loadout options, but that doesn’t make it necessarily more tactically complex.

Yeah if you play try to play tf2 like you play CS its not gonna work out lol. I never suggested splitting your team in half and sending 3 players to each point. I'm just talking about the general idea of making choices about which objective your team chooses to focus on based on the current on state of the game. Sure its not going to look like CS, but there are still different ways teams can approach dealing with both points. For example, instead of going all in on defending B you can hide a roamer on A to force their medic whos team thinks you're just giving up the point completely. I just think that if gravelpit's A point was a bit easier to defend you might have more options for defending A than saccing for their med or sillly gimmicks to buy time, which is why i brought up earlier in the thread that it would be interesting to see how defending A works in 2023 now that meds can move at scout speed. Thank you for bringing up that there are maps that have a point thats clearly better than the other. I'm not a CS player and I wrongfully assumed that any map that wasn't at least somewhat balanced would be thrown away as dogshit and afaik those maps are pretty popular.

in 5cp when you rotate you are just picking another entrance to get through or pressure, on gravelpit a rotation means choosing to engage with a completely different part of the map. The thought process and reasoning behind these are pretty different even if they both consist of your team moving from one door to another. You're right that I contradicted myself about the game mode providing options, however earlier in the thread I brought up that teams might have more options nowadays to defend A than they did in 2010 due to the medic speed buff and overall higher skill of players. Sorry if I said anything confusing. Its kinda hard to talk about a game mode where only a single map for it has ever really been played competitively and the game has changed so much since it was last played.

tf2 and cs are totally different games and the maps and modes need to make tons of different considerations. My point was that you can still have interesting strategic choices in an attack/defense based format if the map and mode are well designed.

edit: I forgot to respond to your question about what a well designed 3cp map would be like. it would be a map where both A and B are considered defensible and players have to make choices about which one to pressure or defend. The consensus for gravelpit is that its basically a 2cp map because you make the attacking team deal with a silly play on A and then the bulk of it is just defending B and C. Its very linear. If teams could actually viably defend A it gets a lot more interesting and the right choice to make might not always be so obvious. Your team could go all in on attacking A and then your flank scout could fuck off to B and get a ton cap time on it before the team reacts to it. From the defenders perspective they have to make the choice to give up on B and use their man advantage to help win the fight on A, or to send a player or two to defend B. Depending on the circumstances, either one could be the right choice. In essence, if 5cp asks you to decide on if youre defending or pushing, gpit style maps should be asking you what youre attacking and what you are defending.

Even in this overly reductive example having multiple objectives would provide more options than 5cp. For example as attacker you could send a scout to one point to force their flank to fight him and then quickly send the rest of your team to sac onto their combo 5v4. Right now in 5cp it's hard to put out pressure because the defenders aren't incentivised to leave the point. You can somewhat do it now because there is more than one door to hold, but it still essentially requires a big blunder from the defenders.

the community has like 5 players left and all dont wanna try new maps and gamemodes. community is small and stubborn.

i dont like the rotate argument either, highlanders bring it up for steel as if its an option, but its not really an option if its objectively the best thing to do: cant take point being held properly -> threaten other point to force rotate -> they dont rotate and ur on a point OR they do and u get to go the other one. u havent made a choice ur simply doing the best thing and its not as dynamic as they think.