The 5 cp game mode is fundamentally prone to stalemates because it is too symmetrical and has no timer. In payload and koth, at least one team has a clear incentive to push or lose the round. Even if a stalemate occurs, one team will win when the round timer expires. This is not the case with 5cp, where the win condition is to take last and there is no round timer, only a 30 minute half timer. There is no push or lose incentive for either team in 5cp. It's only natural that when you raise the stakes, teams will play to not lose, and the way to not lose on 5cp is to simply hold on to your own last point, something both teams can do simultaneously. 5cp is thus prone to stalemates.
We can try to prevent 5cp stalemates by fiddling with unlocks, or attempting to edit / fix / rebalance maps. I think there is a much simpler approach. Change the 5cp rules so that there is a shorter (15 min?) round timer with a win condition when the timer ends. Do something, anything, so that the round is guaranteed to end with a definite victor after some reasonable amount of time before viewers get bored.
The 5 cp game mode is fundamentally prone to stalemates because it is too symmetrical and has no timer. In payload and koth, at least one team has a clear incentive to [b]push or lose[/b] the round. Even if a stalemate occurs, one team will win when the round timer expires. This is not the case with 5cp, where the win condition is to take last and there is no round timer, only a 30 minute half timer. There is no push or lose incentive for either team in 5cp. It's only natural that when you raise the stakes, teams will play to not lose, and the way to not lose on 5cp is to simply hold on to your own last point, something both teams can do [i]simultaneously[/i]. 5cp is thus prone to stalemates.
We can try to prevent 5cp stalemates by fiddling with unlocks, or attempting to edit / fix / rebalance maps. I think there is a much simpler approach. Change the 5cp rules so that there is a shorter (15 min?) round timer with a win condition when the timer ends. Do something, anything, so that the round is guaranteed to end with a definite victor after some reasonable amount of time before viewers get bored.
Who are all these people?
Who are all these people?
redditors probably
edit: wow i was right
redditors probably
edit: wow i was right
sky_redditors probably
theres a storm brewing
[quote=sky_]redditors probably[/quote]
theres a storm brewing
instead of writing him off you should tell him why hes wrong
instead of writing him off you should tell him why hes wrong
LET'S PLAY ORANGEX. NO CHOKES.
LET'S PLAY ORANGEX. NO CHOKES.
I'm pretty sure he only made this thread because of one REALLY bad stalemate on ONE map.
I don't believe that makes the game mode flawed.
I'm pretty sure he only made this thread because of one REALLY bad stalemate on ONE map.
I don't believe that makes the game mode flawed.
Wait wait wait. The point of payload is that one team is trying as hard as they can to park the bus. I mean there's a timer, and one team wants to push, but it's not a good example.
Wait wait wait. The point of payload is that one team is trying as hard as they can to park the bus. I mean there's a timer, and one team wants to push, but it's not a good example.
PapaSmurf323instead of writing him off you should tell him why hes wrong
cause he aint wrong
[quote=PapaSmurf323]instead of writing him off you should tell him why hes wrong[/quote]
cause he aint wrong
sky_redditors probably
actually you're right
http://i.imgur.com/yHzxX79.png
I don't know if some people were even watching the same LAN as I watched. Folks, let me tell you that there is nothing like having two teams both with quickfix, and one teams pushes in and forces, kills nothing and loses nothing, then jumps the medic out only to wait 40 seconds and do it all again.
Don't get me wrong, I dont mind close low-scoring games, but stalematey not back-and-forth games are shit to watch and shittier to try and talk about.
With the quickfix, you were getting very slow paced games, regardless of map.
[quote=sky_]redditors probably[/quote]
actually you're right
[img]http://i.imgur.com/yHzxX79.png[/img]
I don't know if some people were even watching the same LAN as I watched. Folks, let me tell you that there is nothing like having two teams both with quickfix, and one teams pushes in and forces, kills nothing and loses nothing, then jumps the medic out only to wait 40 seconds and do it all again.
Don't get me wrong, I dont mind [b]close[/b] low-scoring games, but [b]stalematey[/b] not back-and-forth games are shit to watch and shittier to try and talk about.
With the quickfix, you were getting very slow paced games, regardless of map.
Except teams DO have incentive to push. Playing to not lose means you won't win unless you already have a lead on the enemy, which you won't get without pushing. This means both teams have incentive to push because they have to get points on the board. Once a team wins a round, the team behind has incentive to push because they're behind, and no amount of stalling will fix that. The team in the lead has incentive to push because when you're defending last it only takes one misstep on your part to give up the round, and the longer you're defending the more likely such missteps are. When the score evens out, the process repeats; teams have to push because they have to make an advantage or they can't win.
Except teams DO have incentive to push. Playing to not lose means you won't win unless you already have a lead on the enemy, which you won't get without pushing. This means both teams have incentive to push because they have to get points on the board. Once a team wins a round, the team behind has incentive to push because they're behind, and no amount of stalling will fix that. The team in the lead has incentive to push because when you're defending last it only takes one misstep on your part to give up the round, and the longer you're defending the more likely such missteps are. When the score evens out, the process repeats; teams have to push because they have to make an advantage or they can't win.
skynetsatellite013The 5 cp game mode is fundamentally prone to stalemates because it is too symmetrical
Then why are the majority of CP maps played not entirely prone to stalemates? Teams not wanting to risk losing a player/players and gain nothing from it also has nothing to do with map symmetry.
skynetsatellite013and has no timer.
What? A KoTH-esque timer has no place in 5CP. PL's timer is the same as 5CP's timer.
skynetsatellite013In payload and koth, at least one team has a clear incentive to push or lose the round. Even if a stalemate occurs, one team will win when the round timer expires.
This is implying that teams don't want to push as they don't have a reason to when playing 5CP. If a team has mid point and the other team are down 2, for example, that's reason to push second. If a team doesn't have mid but get a pick and have uber advantage, again for example, that's a clear reason to take mid. A timer isn't needed to force teams to push in order to not lose.
skynetsatellite013This is not the case with 5cp, where the win condition is to take last and there is no round timer, only a 30 minute half timer.
If you're trying to troll with this post, go back to 2006 and learn what trolling is. I'm going to potentially feed you with this, but there is a round timer lol
skynetsatellite013There is no push or lose incentive for either team in 5cp. It's only natural that when you raise the stakes, teams will play to not lose, and the way to not lose on 5cp is to simply hold on to your own last point, something both teams can do simultaneously. 5cp is thus prone to stalemates.
What do you even mean by "raise the stakes"? Teams want to win, whether it be a pug, scrim or match. People play to have fun, but also to win. If teams have a clear as day reason to push, they're going to. What you're saying is regardless of player advantage, uber advantage and what give you, nobody wants to push and therefore stalemates are born. No, you're wrong. Why? Because you're wrong.
skynetsatellite013We can try to prevent 5cp stalemates by fiddling with unlocks, or attempting to edit / fix / rebalance maps. I think there is a much simpler approach. Change the 5cp rules so that there is a shorter (15 min?) round timer
Hey, let me remind you of something you said earlier.
skynetsatellite013This is not the case with 5cp, where the win condition is to take last and there is no round timer, only a 30 minute half timer.
Remember that? What is it going to be, no round timer or a round timer?
[quote=skynetsatellite013]The 5 cp game mode is fundamentally prone to stalemates because it is too symmetrical[/QUOTE]
Then why are the majority of CP maps played not entirely prone to stalemates? Teams not wanting to risk losing a player/players and gain nothing from it also has nothing to do with map symmetry.
[quote=skynetsatellite013]and has no timer.[/QUOTE]
What? A KoTH-esque timer has no place in 5CP. PL's timer is the same as 5CP's timer.
[quote=skynetsatellite013]In payload and koth, at least one team has a clear incentive to [b]push or lose[/b] the round. Even if a stalemate occurs, one team will win when the round timer expires.[/quote]
This is implying that teams don't want to push as they don't have a reason to when playing 5CP. If a team has mid point and the other team are down 2, for example, that's reason to push second. If a team doesn't have mid but get a pick and have uber advantage, again for example, that's a clear reason to take mid. A timer isn't needed to force teams to push in order to not lose.
[quote=skynetsatellite013]This is not the case with 5cp, where the win condition is to take last and there is no round timer, only a 30 minute half timer.[/quote]
If you're trying to [i]troll[/i] with this post, go back to 2006 and learn what trolling is. I'm going to potentially feed you with this, but there is a round timer lol
[quote=skynetsatellite013]There is no push or lose incentive for either team in 5cp. It's only natural that when you raise the stakes, teams will play to not lose, and the way to not lose on 5cp is to simply hold on to your own last point, something both teams can do [i]simultaneously[/i]. 5cp is thus prone to stalemates.[/quote]
What do you even mean by "raise the stakes"? Teams want to win, whether it be a pug, scrim or match. People play to have fun, but also to win. If teams have a clear as day reason to push, they're going to. What you're saying is regardless of player advantage, uber advantage and what give you, nobody wants to push and therefore stalemates are born. No, you're wrong. Why? Because you're wrong.
[quote=skynetsatellite013]We can try to prevent 5cp stalemates by fiddling with unlocks, or attempting to edit / fix / rebalance maps. I think there is a much simpler approach. Change the 5cp rules so that there is a shorter (15 min?) round timer[/quote]
Hey, let me remind you of something you said earlier.
[quote=skynetsatellite013]This is not the case with 5cp, where the win condition is to take last and there is no round timer, only a 30 minute half timer.[/quote]
Remember that? What is it going to be, no round timer or a round timer?
Okay so I was wrong about why he made the post.
But how did he go from "Gullywash was always a terrible map" to blaming the whole game mode?
Okay so I was wrong about why he made the post.
But how did he go from "Gullywash was always a terrible map" to blaming the whole game mode?
If this whole thing is a JOKE, then I will end you.
If this whole thing is a JOKE, then I will end you.
guys gullywash usually ends in a stalemate so lets remove 5cp. /sarcasm
guys gullywash usually ends in a stalemate so lets remove 5cp. /sarcasm
KillingLET'S PLAY ORANGEX. NO CHOKES.
7v7 with a roaming demo on cp_orange_toyfort.
make it happen
EDIT: ALSO, random crits & spread, low grav and rtd
[quote=Killing]LET'S PLAY ORANGEX. NO CHOKES.[/quote]
7v7 with a roaming demo on cp_orange_toyfort.
make it happen
EDIT: ALSO, random crits & spread, low grav and rtd
^ all comp really needs is RTD... Would have spies camping out and just waiting to roll toxic... There's your urgent time limit!
^ all comp really needs is RTD... Would have spies camping out and just waiting to roll toxic... There's your urgent time limit!
Waffles^ all comp really needs is RTD... Would have spies camping out and just waiting to roll toxic.
can't wait to see medics dropping to rtd
make it happen killing
[quote=Waffles]^ all comp really needs is RTD... Would have spies camping out and just waiting to roll toxic.[/quote]
can't wait to see medics dropping to rtd
make it happen killing
Speaking objectively, 5 cp does cause stalemates relative to KOTH or A/D since those are governed by a different mechanic.
TBH I think a little stalemate (30-40 seconds) is actually a healthy thing for the game because it gives the casters time to explain wtf is going on without sounding like somebody calling a horse race. Particularly given how hectic mids/team fights are and how easily you can continue to talk about the play even after the dust settles and somebody goes to camp the wrong spawn door and so on.
Speaking objectively, 5 cp does cause stalemates relative to KOTH or A/D since those are governed by a different mechanic.
TBH I think a little stalemate (30-40 seconds) is actually a healthy thing for the game because it gives the casters time to explain wtf is going on without sounding like somebody calling a horse race. Particularly given how hectic mids/team fights are and how easily you can continue to talk about the play even after the dust settles and somebody goes to camp the wrong spawn door and so on.
skynetsatellite013In payload and koth, at least one team has a clear incentive to push or lose the round.
how about just push, or lose the match
[quote=skynetsatellite013]In payload and koth, at least one team has a clear incentive to [b]push or lose[/b] the round.[/quote]
how about just push, or lose the match
kirbyThen why are the majority of CP maps played not entirely prone to stalemates? Teams not wanting to risk losing a player/players and gain nothing from it also has nothing to do with map symmetry.
Game mode is one of many factors that contribute to game flow. I never said it was the only one.
What? A KoTH-esque timer has no place in 5CP. PL's timer is the same as 5CP's timer.
I don't know what you mean by a koth-esque timer, let alone did I suggest one. The idea behind a timer is that the round will end after some reasonable amount of time with a victor. No more 30-minute 0-0 ties.
This is implying that teams don't want to push as they don't have a reason to when playing 5CP. If a team has mid point and the other team are down 2, for example, that's reason to push second. If a team doesn't have mid but get a pick and have uber advantage, again for example, that's a clear reason to take mid. A timer isn't needed to force teams to push in order to not lose.
I think you missed the point a little. Of course teams want to win. Of course teams will push when they have an obvious advantage. Stalemates don't happen when one team has an obvious advantage. What I am talking about is the stalemates, which happen when you have two teams with even position (uber, player count) on opposite sides of a choke. Pushing through chokes is risky, and if you do it wrong you stand to lose a lot of ground.
What do you even mean by "raise the stakes"? Teams want to win, whether it be a pug, scrim or match. People play to have fun, but also to win. If teams have a clear as day reason to push, they're going to. What you're saying is regardless of player advantage, uber advantage and what give you, nobody wants to push and therefore stalemates are born. No, you're wrong. Why? Because you're wrong.
You are wrong here. In a pug or scrim, the difference between winning and losing is perhaps a bit of personal pride. When the difference between winning and losing a match is large sums of money, most people will certainly behave differently. That much should be obvious. This change in behavior is typically slowing the game down, taking fewer, smaller risks, all things that tend to reduce the entertainment value of these matches.
Let me make this clear. It's not that teams don't want to win. It's that they don't want to lose. If a failed push can result in losing a ton of ground, teams will wait for decisive advantages before pushing. In order to create these decisive advantages, they make small risk plays like off-classing or suiciding a player, while the rest of the team pokes and prods the other through the chokes waiting for those plays to happen. If the play didn't work the player respawns and tries again. These are low risk plays with a low chance of succeeding, resulting in long stalemates waiting for those advantages to be created.
JonesyMcFlyExcept teams DO have incentive to push. Playing to not lose means you won't win unless you already have a lead on the enemy, which you won't get without pushing. This means both teams have incentive to push because they have to get points on the board. Once a team wins a round, the team behind has incentive to push because they're behind, and no amount of stalling will fix that. The team in the lead has incentive to push because when you're defending last it only takes one misstep on your part to give up the round, and the longer you're defending the more likely such missteps are. When the score evens out, the process repeats; teams have to push because they have to make an advantage or they can't win.
Like I said just above, it's not so much that teams don't want to push, it's that they don't want to lose even more. A timer with a forced win condition at the end is my attempt at reducing the amount of time teams can afford to spend on these low-risk plays and go for something bigger and more daring.
RikachuOkay so I was wrong about why he made the post.
But how did he go from "Gullywash was always a terrible map" to blaming the whole game mode?
You could just ask me ... I don't bite.
Basically it was brought to my attention that Gullywash is not the only stalematey 5cp map.
[quote=kirby]
Then why are the majority of CP maps played not entirely prone to stalemates? Teams not wanting to risk losing a player/players and gain nothing from it also has nothing to do with map symmetry.
[/quote]
Game mode is one of many factors that contribute to game flow. I never said it was the only one.
[quote]
What? A KoTH-esque timer has no place in 5CP. PL's timer is the same as 5CP's timer.
[/quote]
I don't know what you mean by a koth-esque timer, let alone did I suggest one. The idea behind a timer is that the round [i]will[/i] end after some reasonable amount of time with [i]a victor[/i]. No more 30-minute 0-0 ties.
[quote]
This is implying that teams don't want to push as they don't have a reason to when playing 5CP. If a team has mid point and the other team are down 2, for example, that's reason to push second. If a team doesn't have mid but get a pick and have uber advantage, again for example, that's a clear reason to take mid. A timer isn't needed to force teams to push in order to not lose.
[/quote]
I think you missed the point a little. Of course teams want to win. Of course teams will push when they have an obvious advantage. Stalemates don't happen when one team has an obvious advantage. What I am talking about is the stalemates, which happen when you have two teams with even position (uber, player count) on opposite sides of a choke. Pushing through chokes is risky, and if you do it wrong you stand to lose a lot of ground.
[quote]
What do you even mean by "raise the stakes"? Teams want to win, whether it be a pug, scrim or match. People play to have fun, but also to win. If teams have a clear as day reason to push, they're going to. What you're saying is regardless of player advantage, uber advantage and what give you, nobody wants to push and therefore stalemates are born. No, you're wrong. Why? Because you're wrong.
[/quote]
You are wrong here. In a pug or scrim, the difference between winning and losing is perhaps a bit of personal pride. When the difference between winning and losing a match is large sums of money, most people will certainly behave differently. That much should be obvious. This change in behavior is typically slowing the game down, taking fewer, smaller risks, all things that tend to reduce the entertainment value of these matches.
Let me make this clear. It's not that teams don't want to win. It's that they don't want to lose. If a failed push can result in losing a ton of ground, teams will wait for decisive advantages before pushing. In order to create these decisive advantages, they make small risk plays like off-classing or suiciding a player, while the rest of the team pokes and prods the other through the chokes waiting for those plays to happen. If the play didn't work the player respawns and tries again. These are [i]low[/i] risk plays with a low chance of succeeding, resulting in long stalemates waiting for those advantages to be created.
[quote=JonesyMcFly]Except teams DO have incentive to push. Playing to not lose means you won't win unless you already have a lead on the enemy, which you won't get without pushing. This means both teams have incentive to push because they have to get points on the board. Once a team wins a round, the team behind has incentive to push because they're behind, and no amount of stalling will fix that. The team in the lead has incentive to push because when you're defending last it only takes one misstep on your part to give up the round, and the longer you're defending the more likely such missteps are. When the score evens out, the process repeats; teams have to push because they have to make an advantage or they can't win.[/quote]
Like I said just above, it's not so much that teams don't want to push, it's that they don't want to lose even more. A timer with a forced win condition at the end is my attempt at reducing the amount of time teams can afford to spend on these low-risk plays and go for something bigger and more daring.
[quote=Rikachu]Okay so I was wrong about why he made the post.
But how did he go from "Gullywash was always a terrible map" to blaming the whole game mode?[/quote]
You could just ask me ... I don't bite.
Basically it was brought to my attention that Gullywash is not the only stalematey 5cp map.
Not sure why everyone keeps saying it was boring/stalemate on ONE map, or ONE game.
The entire LAN was boring outside of the Finals (I only saw Viaduct). I'm not going to say with certainty it was because of the quick fix, but it is the only real change in TF2 from the previous LANs which were all entertaining.
Not sure why everyone keeps saying it was boring/stalemate on ONE map, or ONE game.
The entire LAN was boring outside of the Finals (I only saw Viaduct). I'm not going to say with certainty it was because of the quick fix, but it is the only real change in TF2 from the previous LANs which were all entertaining.
We have gone through 14 seasons so far with ESEA. Let's not forget to add up all of the TWL and CEVO seasons--the ones that were taken seriously--as well. There have been smaller named leagues throughout 6v6's illustrious life, but we'll ignore those. Over these 14+ seasons, there have, of course, been stalemates. However, if I had to guesstimate the number of stalemates to the number of games played throughout every season, I would guess that 90% of games played didn't fall victim to boring stalemates.
Let's not mix things up here. There is a difference between the stalemates we saw at LAN and regular, sometimes hard to avoid stalemates that last ~5 minutes before something happens.
And yes, I'm confident in my guesstimation of 90%. There haven't been a whole lot of incredibly boring stalemates that no one wants to watch, albeit the majority of them continuing to watch because of their uncertainty for when the game will pick up.
You say the 5CP map type is the problem. I say you're wrong. I say the problem is for the most part situational. An example would easily be what maps are being played. The top maps being known for hosting the world's greatest stalemates are Gullywash and Granary (why do you think Valve added in the window in garage).
Another clear example are teams playing smart. Sometimes teams decide to YOLO it (I'm sorry) to avoid stalemates, though the majority of times teams would rather play it smart and not risk being at a player disadvantage when they're unsure of being able to be rewarded for their risk. Even if they are rewarded, the reward doesn't always overshadow the negatives.
My final example, albeit there being others, would be something similar to what we saw at LAN: a weapon that was allowed ended up being officially changed, and in this case INCREDIBLY buffed so that it would have a viable use, and it end up still being allowed, though in EVERY OTHER situation, the item would have been banned until the next season, possibly.
This item is so good that it basically forced teams into using it and learning new strategies and ways to change the very metagame we've grown so used to. The last time we've had such a tremendous change to the metagame was when the soldier received the Gunboats. Guess how long ago that was? Around 3 years. Yeah, a long time.
So basically, teams have an idea of how to use it, but not fully. We don't 100% understand the item's capabilities and what it can accomplish for players/teams. We don't know every possibly strategy for it like we more than likely do for the medigun and kritzkrieg. This basically left teams @ LAN to apply their finds, hoping/thinking it will work; and it did. The outcome, however, was this incredibly boring stalemate that spawned all of these fucking ridiculous as shit threads and people who think their opinions are valid. 90% of them are not, and the majority of people with certain opinions are only bandwagoning them from others.
I'm sorry for this essay, but sometimes people really need it explained.
tl;dr it's not the fucking map type
We have gone through 14 seasons so far with ESEA. Let's not forget to add up all of the TWL and CEVO seasons--the ones that were taken seriously--as well. There have been smaller named leagues throughout 6v6's illustrious life, but we'll ignore those. Over these 14+ seasons, there have, of course, been stalemates. However, if I had to guesstimate the number of stalemates to the number of games played throughout every season, I would guess that 90% of games played didn't fall victim to boring stalemates.
Let's not mix things up here. There is a difference between the stalemates we saw at LAN and regular, sometimes hard to avoid stalemates that last ~5 minutes before something happens.
And yes, I'm confident in my guesstimation of 90%. There haven't been a whole lot of incredibly boring stalemates that no one wants to watch, albeit the majority of them continuing to watch because of their uncertainty for when the game will pick up.
You say the 5CP map type is the problem. I say you're wrong. I say the problem is for the most part situational. An example would easily be what maps are being played. The top maps being known for hosting the world's greatest stalemates are Gullywash and Granary (why do you think Valve added in the window in garage).
Another clear example are teams playing smart. Sometimes teams decide to YOLO it (I'm sorry) to avoid stalemates, though the majority of times teams would rather play it smart and not risk being at a player disadvantage when they're unsure of being able to be rewarded for their risk. Even if they are rewarded, the reward doesn't always overshadow the negatives.
My final example, albeit there being others, would be something similar to what we saw at LAN: a weapon that was allowed ended up being officially changed, and in this case [b]INCREDIBLY[/b] buffed so that it would have a viable use, and it end up still being allowed, though in EVERY OTHER situation, the item would have been banned until the next season, possibly.
This item is so good that it basically forced teams into using it and learning new strategies and ways to change the very metagame we've grown so used to. The last time we've had such a tremendous change to the metagame was when the soldier received the Gunboats. Guess how long ago that was? Around 3 years. Yeah, a long time.
So basically, teams have an idea of how to use it, but not fully. We don't 100% understand the item's capabilities and what it can accomplish for players/teams. We don't know every possibly strategy for it like we more than likely do for the medigun and kritzkrieg. This basically left teams @ LAN to apply their finds, hoping/thinking it will work; and it did. The outcome, however, was this incredibly boring stalemate that spawned all of these fucking ridiculous as shit threads and people who think their opinions are valid. 90% of them are not, and the majority of people with certain opinions are only bandwagoning them from others.
I'm sorry for this essay, but sometimes people really need it explained.
tl;dr it's not the fucking map type
Marxistfter the dust settles and somebody goes to camp the wrong spawn door and so on.
http://youtu.be/Ue3_1R8lVe4
[quote=Marxist]fter the dust settles and somebody goes to camp the wrong spawn door and so on.[/quote]
http://youtu.be/Ue3_1R8lVe4
your mom causes stalemates
your mom causes stalemates
Camusyour mom causes stalemates
Another quality post from Camus.
[quote=Camus]your mom causes stalemates[/quote]
Another quality post from Camus.
This dude has clearly never played dustbowl.
This dude has clearly never played dustbowl.
DrPloxoThis dude has clearly never played 5CP 6's.
ftfy
[quote=DrPloxo]This dude has clearly never played 5CP 6's.[/quote]
ftfy