Plugin should be ready and working, I haven't had the chance to test this on a live server but it's based on stuff that I've worked on before.

https://github.com/fwdcp/TF2-Round-Clock

The main cvar is mp_roundtimelimit, set that to what you want it to be. IIRC the default for 5CP games (and the default for the plugin) is 10 minutes.

Let me know if any issues come up.

The thing that I think is worth mentioning is that any change worth making should alter the current behavior of either team. Stalemate timers, map changes, whatever we decide -- should change a team's behavior such that this situation doesn't happen for extremely long (7 minutes+) periods of time.

Now I see what you guys are saying. A shot clock wouldn't change the behavior of the defending team while they wait for the offensive team to push in (6v6 even ubers), but if say the offensive team botches a push into last point and the defensive team is up 6 vs 4 with no team having ubers, they might choose to hold and stalemate versus go for a push out of last in order to reset the round and get another mid fight. So what??? I don't see a problem here if they choose to stalemate it since this is their current behavior anyways in high stakes matches! They're wasting their 6v4 advantage and an opportunity to push out of last. Staying on last point would keep them in this vulnerable situation.

I would argue that defensive teams holding second point is a non issue in the same scenario (6v4 no ubers) because they'd rather push mid 6v4 than redo a midfight with even numbers.

Make sense? My hypothesis is counter to yours, in that I believe that they WOULD in fact push out of last point. No team wants to be stuck on last point while the other team does 2 man sacrifices over and over, and even if it is reset back to a midfight I am not sure that that is a problem, since it does punish the offensive team for not making a successful push within the given stalemate timer.

It's just like basketball in that sense -- the offensive team with the ball is passing it around and around but can't find an opening and eventually the ball is turned over to the other team. What's the problem? At least the stalemate is over and play can continue in one form or another.

Consider that shortening the round clock could actually make stalemating a more effective tactic than it is now. Think about it, if you have to stalemate for less time to gain a consequential reward, it's easier and arguably more viable.

edit: Someone already alluded to this, my bad.

What if the round ends while you hold mid you get 1 match point, the round ends while you hold mid and second you get 2 match points, and capping until the end gives you 3 match points. The defending team gets 2 match points at the end of each round, unless their last is captured and they get none. Winning team is first to, say, 9 match points, and if they get to 9 at the same time it'd just be first to take the lead after that.

That way ending a round at mid gives the enemy a 1 match point advantage, and you need to cap to second to at least break even. Capping to last has the huge incentive of breaking away your score. The only downside I can think of is that defending team wouldn't cap mid back unless they thought they could push all the way through to the enemy second.

Just an idea.

Hopefully I read this right... but wouldn't this just encourage the team defending 2nd to not push into mid? If Team A caps mid and the round time runs out, then Team B gets 2 points and Team A gets 1 point. Now lets say that Team A gets wiped trying to push into 2nd, is it even worth it for Team B to push out? Team B might only make it to mid and decide that Team A has too many respawns up to be able to push into their second point, so why even push out of their second? This may solve the problem of the offensive team having to push, but the defensive team would be perfectly happy with sitting on their second point and thus gaining 2 points for themselves.

Just thought of this too, if you automatically get 2 points for defending your second when round time runs out, then why even go to the initial mid fight? Get your engi, heavy and whatever else you want and turtle on your second, almost making it impossible for the attacking team to push in.

I thought about it a bit and it'd probably be better if the defending team got only 1 point and capping to last gives 4. The defending team would then always want to cap back to at least mid. The attacking team could want to hold second until the time runs out, but they'd get one fourth the points of a full win and the defending team would still get 1.

http://play.esea.net/index.php?s=stats&d=match&id=3024694

our match took about 9 mins longer, it was pretty much the craziest match ive ever played, think we defended last for 10 mins to force overtime

that and mangachu was being ddosed or something but everyones lag was over 200 for like 8 mins and had to pause

Didn't know controlling point presence or parking the bus was against the rules...........you've seen invite teams do it at LAN

Don't agree ... why would the advantageous team ( holding mid or attacking last) want to restart the round ( by stalemating) ? they simply won't want to and will push ASAP .. you say defending team would want to stalemate ? .. that's partially what they are supposed to do I mean they are supposed to defend not attack because they are at a disadvantage (psychologically and spawn disadvantage)

Here's an example: You're up by one in the second half (NA rules), match timer is down to 10 minutes and you just lost mid. With the round timer at 10 it gives the other team plenty to time to pick their way through your defense, but you cut that timer in half and you only need to defend second for 5 minutes. Since a stalemate is effectively a gift to you at this point, your opponent can either:

1. Withdraw to their second to keep the round timer going, gifting mid to you.

2. Don't push, stalemate it and go to the next midfight.

3. Try to push into your defense.

The first two are the same effective result, differing only in how much time is left in the match. Option 3 is still in your favor because if they fail the push you get Mid, so in essence the offense has 4 outcomes to choose from and 3 of them are bad.

well I think they SHOULD try to push into our defense since they have the spawn advantage ... and a 10minute timer wouldn't change anything ( no more 1st possibility and almost impossible to happen 2nd one but imminent 3rd possibility and it would be even worse with them having the point advantage since it would replace 3 by " You push into them with disadvantage"

Here would be another way to implement a 'shot clock':

Say Team A wins mid, and Team B is defending their second. Let team A get 5 minutes to push into second. If they fail to push into second, the midpoint automatically changes to its default state (when the round starts -- so no one capped it). Now, to get the respawn advantage, Team A has to cap the mid point. To do this, they would have to send in one person to stand on the point. Doing that would decrease Team A's presence on either the main or the flank, thus giving Team B an advantage over Team A and increasing their chances of successfully pushing into mid.

What if Team A decides to not cap mid point? Then they have 5 minutes until the round ends. This gives them the original 10 minutes that we have now, minus five minutes with their respawn advantage. This should (hopefully) force them to try to push into Team B in the initial 5 minutes.

slin you were 6 up with 22% advantage right before the "stalemate" happened. you wanna play like a bitch and then complain the other team doesnt push into you that's on you.

edit: holy shit your team even got forward spawn except for your scout. you coulda been moving through saw @ 90 and on them as soon as you had it. that's on your team for trying to hide a heavy in forward spawn and not pushing on a big advantage.

I dunno, slin. I've never run into anything like what happened in that game. It's a matter of playing off advantages, and you guys had advantages a few times and you didn't capitalize. You and the other team played more passively than I've seen the average lan finalists play. I don't think this has anything to do with the game. I think any good shooter game will stalemate if both teams refuse to do anything... that should be a totally expected outcome of everyone in the server doing nothing.

thats pretty fucking gross

You would need some sort of plugin for it (or some serious lobbying toward Valve), but what if after 5-7 minutes after the middle point is capped, if no contest is made on the 2nd point (meaning the 2nd point has not been touched by a member from the attacking team), the Middle point reverts to neutral.

This might seem silly since the team currently on middle would just stand and cap again, right? Well I'm thinking of a sort of reversion akin to what often happens when say, blue team starts to cap middle and gets it to about 80% capped, but then dies or leaves, forcing red team to have to revert that percentage of "blue time" before they can begin to claim middle.

My proposition is that what if after a certain "shot-clock" of allotted time expires, a neutral state takes over. Both teams would need to "de-neutralize" the middle cap, before they could cap it. The point color would turn gray and would have to be reverted back to the lock symbol, then it could be capped. With this, the team who won middle initially keeps their forward positioning advantage (as just reward for winning the middle point that round), however since the cap has gone over to neutral, neither team would have a forward respawn until it was reclaimed. This would allow the defending team a chance to make major gains, as the attacking team would have to revert and recap mid all the while without a forward respawn. This gives the defense some leverage without rewarding them with a complete do over after having lost middle. Conversely, all the attacking team would have to do is touch the 2nd point (like hitting the rim in basketball) for the "shot-clock" to restart.

I think we need to be careful because a major counter-point to the whole "reset the entire round" idea is that a team that loses middle never has to push within that round. They'll know they'll have it easier at the round restart so it makes more sense to park it until then, which really just flips the problem.

The same could be said with my idea, and that is something that would have to be considered, but it would be far less drastic of a problem. The defending team would be given a window, while the attacking team isn't completely penalized for failing to push (they did win the middle point after-all).

The shot-clock "reset" mechanic by touching point 2 ensures that the attacking team has to send at least someone in, or everyone in. If they try to bomb it with a roamer to reset the clock, he is a likely death, and the defending team now has a man advantage. They'll be faced with either working up a push, sending someone to reset the "shot-clock", or forced to revert and recap. They'll want to push.

sorta like what #101 said, haha

But I think you need something greater than just capping it again. Hence the whole "revert" time idea.

honestly i think if when both meds had uber whoever popped first got the "aggressors" benefit of an additional 1-2 seconds of uber people would play a fuckload more aggro while on the "defensive." you could at the very least come out EVEN in the exchange instead of getting kited to shit and then either not forcing their med or having to commit too deep to do it and getting shitslammed

i really really really really hate passive tf2. the worst part is its rewarded so fucking heavily when its done right and is way easier to do than aggro.

so are you suggesting whoever pops their uber first gets an additional 1-2 seconds of it? im sorry im just checking whether i read that right, because if you are suggesting that, i actually like that idea.

however what if the fight is at close quarters, and both meds get their uber at roughly the same time? isn't it a bit unfair that the guy who milked his harder gets no advantage because the other guy just gets an added 1-2 seconds anyway?

yeah, i am. while that's true, ubers exchanges like that aren't super common...maybe there'd be a way to throw in a timer or something so this "buff" doesnt kick in until both meds have had uber for 30 seconds or something

no idea at all if something along those lines is even possible though script/coding/what the fuck ever you would do to make that work-wise

I feel like the point of this thread is being missed by a lot of people.
That point being that tf2 (specifically 6s format) can be, and often is, boring to play/watch.

"Why is that?"
Well, affected thread viewer, that's because when both the attacking or defending team has no incentive to push in/out, they will 9 times out of 10 opt not to because it's just too risky.

"Well, how do we give incentive to people to push?"
I'm so glad you asked, a popular idea that's been passed around is implementing a shot clock where if neither team caps a point withing a certain amount of time, the round is then reset. Making both teams fight at mid once again, giving each team an equal opportunity to create an advantage for themselves.

"Okay, well can't the team that loses the mid fight just bring up classes like heavy, engineer, and/or pyro to hold last and wait for the round to reset?"
Well that's why disallowing those classes is so important, it would make 'turtling' an impossible thing to do against a team that's better or equal skill level to you.

I think implementing these ideas would make our beloved 6s format more spectator friendly, and much more fun to play. As well as keeping "the better team is going to win" aspect.

Is this what a couple people had in mind?
the point can also be disabled for a few seconds after going neutral, I just didn't bother

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKZ5DyQOFNI

I like this idea but why does it have to be that complicated? If you go with the control point = point idea, then just give each team as many points as control points they own when the clock runs out. Only capping mid gets you 3 points, losing team gets 2, giving you a net 1 point gain. Pushing the other team all the way back to last gets you 4 points, for a 3 point lead. Winning the map gets you a 5 point gain since losing team gets 0.

Your current scheme gives the team that owns 2nd but not mid a 1 point advantage over the team that won the midfight, which is odd.

Close, but the round would reset. As in you would have to rollout again and have another mid fight, not just go back to the mid point to cap it.

This wouldn't really discourage parking the bus. If you have their second, you can gain at most 1 point. You stand to lose up to 4 points if you fail a push into their last and they capitalize.

What if the team previously holding mid gets transported back to their first forward spawn while the defending team is left alone? I feel like sending both teams back to the beginning 5 minutes after every cap would get redundant.

What you're suggesting is that one team get a clear advantage instead of both teams starting on equal footing again
The point is that if nobody caps a point within a set amount of time(I personally like 4 minutes, but this can be expounded upon) both teams get reset, so you can't just sit around and do nothing, because then you'll be reset to a mid fight. Giving both teams an equal chance to get the advantage that the attacking team didn't act on.
This makes it so stalemating isn't an issue, and also makes sure that the better team will win.

If you're defending second you'll be as far back from mid as the first forward spawn, so that's about even. If you're defending last you have a longer walk back to mid than the other team, but you can anticipate it since the timer will be running out and maybe get a scout ahead. It's also arguably fair since they were on the defense. It'll obviously need to be played to see how it pans out.

On a different note, how does removing ammo packs from the map change game play? Granted a resupply cabinet in all forward spawns.

The point is to make the game much more entertaining to spectate and play.

I think most people would agree when I say that the mid fight is one of the most, if not the most, entertaining aspect(s).

Spawning them back to their forward instead of resetting the round is unnecessary and brings up issues like "Well do they keep the uber charge they had?" and "Are we talking about just holding mid, or second as well? If that's the case, then it depends on the map, really."

If you just reset the round and revert back to a mid fight, there is no argument as to whether or not it's fair. It is, that's the nature of a mid fight.

Yes, with the EU ruleset, the team with the disadvantage is encouraged to push. Why? Because otherwise they lose the game. The only motivation for a team to push with the US ruleset is because otherwise they will get completely bored out of their mind. When there is money involved, people are quite happy to sit there and be bored if it means they have an increased chance of walking away from the game with some cash in their pocket. This is why I'm a fan of the EU ruleset.

Excluding the scoreline, the advantages in TF2 are actually very small. You get a slight respawn advantage by having more capture points secured than your opponents, and a team with an uber advantage gets just several seconds of invulnerability. Even this advantage carries a risk, that if you do not accomplish anything with your uber push, the enemy team now has an uber advantage. Most of the time the uber advantage is partially negated by the 'defenders advantage' which includes height advantages and having a resupply near them.

The fact is, in a high stakes game, the advantage often isn't enough for the advantageous team to want to make a push with. So they will be content with staying put. TF2 having a clock is what promotes action during high stakes games and yes... the action comes from the team who NEED to make a play, which is the team who is losing.

This is the same in a number of sports. A team in football (soccer) will put more strikers on the field near the end of the game if they are losing. This means less defenders but it is a risk they need to take as they are the ones who need goals. Sure, the winning team might take off a striker and put on another defender because they are defending their advantage... their score advantage. This makes perfect sense and is just called being smart. If the defenders are too good at locking down, then sure, it might be boring to watch, but this is not always the case.

If you make it hard to teams to pull back points, it might encourage them to play smarter so that they don't get into a position where they are far behind and require drastic methods to get them back into the game.

So more onto the topic... if you want TF2 to be more entertaining / interesting, then you firstly need to play to a clock. Timers force teams to do something. Secondly, we need that round timer to actually come into play. Maybe change it so the round timer doesn't reset when a point is captured, but instead rewards half a point to the team with the most capture points after this timer expires. This should hopefully encourage more time based, ultimatums, whether that means a team might decide to just hold for 2 minutes or to make a push for the end of the round with nothing to lose. You will still get stalemates but they would be shorter and have more options for both teams. Don't know if that made perfect sense but rushing this :P