tl;dr I watched a CS:GO major and liked the defuse gamemode and tried to adapt something similar for TF2 that kept the things we like about 5cp.
Show Content
I watched TF2 dreamhack and was very unimpressed with the nameLess-Perilous matches, and then watched the cologne major and was very impressed. It felt like defused and it's 30 lighting short rounds made the game much more exciting than tf2's often long 3 or 4 rounds.
That said, I think 5cp is nearly perfect for TF2. One of the best parts about it is the back and forth momentum and knowing when to push, which is why I think 5cp is better than koth. However, 5cp has possibility of stalemates and draws, which combined with golden cap can be a long wait (as exemplified at Dreamhack). Last seems to usually be the biggest problem, with teams feeling stuck on last while their opponents fail to make good on their last pushes, with little pressure to change things up and lots of pressure in the moment to keep things as they are and not let them get any worse.
A/D lurks in the minds of many as an alternate, but so does it's problems. Gpit was the only A/D and it was played wit stopwatch rules, which meant if your opponent blitzed your defences and set an astounding time, there was very little you could do to make sure you had a chance of beating it next round, leaving several minutes of effectively dead time as both teams basically wait for the winner.
I've been trying to make a map around this game mode, but I'm tired now and it's late, and trying to use hammer makes me motion sick and makes me want to kill myself. Maybe I can throw the idea to tf.tv and someone can either inspire me with a good idea, or persuade me that this was never going to work.
How it works:
- Red team start with all 4 CPs.
- Red and Blue spawn equally far from cp1.
- ALA 5cp, Red and Blue contest CPs linearly, with spawns moving forward and back
- If Blue cap cp4, Blue win.
- If not, and the time runs out, and overtime expires, Red win.
- If Blue won, reset the CPs for the next round, otherwise, Blue keeps their progress.
- After 3? 4? 5? rounds, swap teams, splitting the map into 2 halves.
Goals:
- mid-fights / rollouts and initial clash are still a thing (equal distance from cp1)
- pushing back and forth still a thing (CPs that work like 5cp, 5 mins should be enough time for that to happen)
- "sitting on your ass at 2nd having lost mid, being 1-0 down, trying the safest, boringest strategy for 20 minutes before moving to the riskier stuff that gets the game moving again" no longer a thing (hard limit on round length, no stalemate win conditions)
- many rounds per match, but not so many that rounds are too short to allow for back-and-forth in one round
- doesn't defeat it's own purpose (I had another idea a few weeks ago that didn't manage this)
- minimal dead rounds (like you'd get in
- asymmetric gamemode, so at least one team is forced to do something this round
- round timer that actually forces teams to do something (10 minute before causing stalemate is /not enough/)
- all rounds end in one team winning
- overtime/golden cap can't litterally go on forever
- Red are never encouraged to park the bus and instead defend as one would in 5cp
- some way of taking the pressure off teams that's on them when they're holding last or on an A/D map
- a good chance that neither team will lose 3 rounds in a row (the progress-keeping thing was supposed to solve these 2)
- if the map is not Red-Blue balanced, the 2 halves make the map about doing better on the stronger side
tl;dr I watched a CS:GO major and liked the defuse gamemode and tried to adapt something similar for TF2 that kept the things we like about 5cp.
[spoiler]I watched TF2 dreamhack and was very unimpressed with the nameLess-Perilous matches, and then watched the cologne major and was very impressed. It felt like defused and it's 30 lighting short rounds made the game much more exciting than tf2's often long 3 or 4 rounds.
That said, I think 5cp is nearly perfect for TF2. One of the best parts about it is the back and forth momentum and knowing when to push, which is why I think 5cp is better than koth. However, 5cp has possibility of stalemates and draws, which combined with golden cap can be a long wait (as exemplified at Dreamhack). Last seems to usually be the biggest problem, with teams feeling stuck on last while their opponents fail to make good on their last pushes, with little pressure to change things up and lots of pressure in the moment to keep things as they are and not let them get any worse.
A/D lurks in the minds of many as an alternate, but so does it's problems. Gpit was the only A/D and it was played wit stopwatch rules, which meant if your opponent blitzed your defences and set an astounding time, there was very little you could do to make sure you had a chance of beating it next round, leaving several minutes of effectively dead time as both teams basically wait for the winner.[/spoiler]
I've been trying to make a map around this game mode, but I'm tired now and it's late, and trying to use hammer makes me motion sick and makes me want to kill myself. Maybe I can throw the idea to tf.tv and someone can either inspire me with a good idea, or persuade me that this was never going to work.
How it works:
[olist]
[*] Red team start with all 4 CPs.
[*] Red and Blue spawn equally far from cp1.
[*] ALA 5cp, Red and Blue contest CPs linearly, with spawns moving forward [b]and back[/b]
[*] If Blue cap cp4, Blue win.
[*] If not, and the time runs out, and overtime expires, Red win.
[*] If Blue won, reset the CPs for the next round, otherwise, Blue keeps their progress.
[*] After 3? 4? 5? rounds, swap teams, splitting the map into 2 halves.
[/olist]
Goals:
- mid-fights / rollouts and initial clash are still a thing (equal distance from cp1)
- pushing back and forth still a thing (CPs that work like 5cp, 5 mins should be enough time for that to happen)
- "sitting on your ass at 2nd having lost mid, being 1-0 down, trying the safest, boringest strategy for 20 minutes before moving to the riskier stuff that gets the game moving again" no longer a thing (hard limit on round length, no stalemate win conditions)
- many rounds per match, but not so many that rounds are too short to allow for back-and-forth in one round
- doesn't defeat it's own purpose (I had another idea a few weeks ago that didn't manage this)
- minimal dead rounds (like you'd get in
- asymmetric gamemode, so at least one team is forced to do something this round
- round timer that actually forces teams to do something (10 minute before causing stalemate is /not enough/)
- all rounds end in one team winning
- overtime/golden cap can't litterally go on forever
- Red are never encouraged to park the bus and instead defend as one would in 5cp
- some way of taking the pressure off teams that's on them when they're holding last or on an A/D map
- a good chance that neither team will lose 3 rounds in a row (the progress-keeping thing was supposed to solve these 2)
- if the map is not Red-Blue balanced, the 2 halves make the map about doing better on the stronger side
This sounds really exciting and fun to me. I wish someone would actually make a map to test this gamemode, but who would that be?
This sounds really exciting and fun to me. I wish someone would actually make a map to test this gamemode, but who would that be?
If I understood everything right then this gamemode requires a map with multiple cap points, who are all symmetrical since there is a possibility for midfights around every point. I think that might be very hard to pull off as it's not about making the map symmetrical but rather the points and the transitions between points.
If I understood everything right then this gamemode requires a map with multiple cap points, who are all symmetrical since there is a possibility for midfights around every point. I think that might be very hard to pull off as it's not about making the map symmetrical but rather the points and the transitions between points.
There are reasons that you can't backcap in A/D. It's hard to commit to an attack when you also have to defend your previous point. This gamemode seems like it would just buff defending even more, because Red team has the choice to either sit back and defend, or if the other team overcommits, send someone behind to backcap.
This idea also has shades of territorial control in it, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's quite complex and would probably be much harder for newer players/viewers to understand than 5cp or koth.
There are reasons that you can't backcap in A/D. It's hard to commit to an attack when you also have to defend your previous point. This gamemode seems like it would just buff defending even more, because Red team has the choice to either sit back and defend, or if the other team overcommits, send someone behind to backcap.
This idea also has shades of territorial control in it, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's quite complex and would probably be much harder for newer players/viewers to understand than 5cp or koth.
WRIf I understood everything right then this gamemode requires a map with multiple cap points, who are all symmetrical since there is a possibility for midfights around every point. I think that might be very hard to pull off as it's not about making the map symmetrical but rather the points and the transitions between points.
No only cp1 would have the old symmetrical-ish mid-fight, and even then only so players have something familiar. The other CPs need not even have a "mid-fight" should the round start there, and there's no reason for the initial engagement to be even. I actually wish there were a way of granting Red a round win when the time hits 0, and then adding 5 minutes and leting teams carry on without having to respawn (which breaks up the action that doesn't really have to because nothing is being reset).
nopeThere are reasons that you can't backcap in A/D. It's hard to commit to an attack when you also have to defend your previous point. This gamemode seems like it would just buff defending even more, because Red team has the choice to either sit back and defend, or if the other team overcommits, send someone behind to backcap.
This idea also has shades of territorial control in it, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's quite complex and would probably be much harder for newer players/viewers to understand than 5cp or koth.
Teams have no trouble attacking in 5cp, and points would be designed (hopefully) to discourage Red from camping up, by spawning them far back from the current point which encourages mobility classes. Also points would be designed to be easier to assail, like they are in 5cp, than they generally are in A/D.
Also how many rounds would it take to go "oh, so it's just A/D, oh, but Blue keep their progress"
[quote=WR]If I understood everything right then this gamemode requires a map with multiple cap points, who are all symmetrical since there is a possibility for midfights around every point. I think that might be very hard to pull off as it's not about making the map symmetrical but rather the points and the transitions between points.[/quote]
No only cp1 would have the old symmetrical-ish mid-fight, and even then only so players have something familiar. The other CPs need not even have a "mid-fight" should the round start there, and there's no reason for the initial engagement to be even. I actually wish there were a way of granting Red a round win when the time hits 0, and then adding 5 minutes and leting teams carry on without having to respawn (which breaks up the action that doesn't really have to because nothing is being reset).
[quote=nope]There are reasons that you can't backcap in A/D. It's hard to commit to an attack when you also have to defend your previous point. This gamemode seems like it would just buff defending even more, because Red team has the choice to either sit back and defend, or if the other team overcommits, send someone behind to backcap.
This idea also has shades of territorial control in it, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's quite complex and would probably be much harder for newer players/viewers to understand than 5cp or koth.[/quote]
Teams have no trouble attacking in 5cp, and points would be designed (hopefully) to discourage Red from camping up, by spawning them far back from the current point which encourages mobility classes. Also points would be designed to be easier to assail, like they are in 5cp, than they generally are in A/D.
Also how many rounds would it take to go "oh, so it's just A/D, oh, but Blue keep their progress"
Wouldnt people just play with heavy and sentry and keep defending one point? You cant actually win by capping as red right? So what is the point in taking back a point, just find the best point to hold in the map and just hold that point for the rest of the game? Or am i not getting this right :D
Wouldnt people just play with heavy and sentry and keep defending one point? You cant actually win by capping as red right? So what is the point in taking back a point, just find the best point to hold in the map and just hold that point for the rest of the game? Or am i not getting this right :D
DamnEasyWouldnt people just play with heavy and sentry and keep defending one point? You cant actually win by capping as red right? So what is the point in taking back a point, just find the best point to hold in the map and just hold that point for the rest of the game? Or am i not getting this right :D
Yeah hopefully the maps don't lets that happen. For a start, if you camp cp4, then next round, Blue gets a full 5 minutes to attack just 1 CP. The incentive for Red to re-cap CPs is to give Blue a tougher time both for the rest of the current round and the next round. Also as I said, spawn points are far back from the active CPs, like in 5cp, unlike on Gpit, making it hard to get an engie or heavy there in time to do anything.
[quote=DamnEasy]Wouldnt people just play with heavy and sentry and keep defending one point? You cant actually win by capping as red right? So what is the point in taking back a point, just find the best point to hold in the map and just hold that point for the rest of the game? Or am i not getting this right :D[/quote]
Yeah hopefully the maps don't lets that happen. For a start, if you camp cp4, then next round, Blue gets a full 5 minutes to attack just 1 CP. The incentive for Red to re-cap CPs is to give Blue a tougher time both for the rest of the current round and the next round. Also as I said, spawn points are far back from the active CPs, like in 5cp, unlike on Gpit, making it hard to get an engie or heavy there in time to do anything.
nopeThere are reasons that you can't backcap in A/D. It's hard to commit to an attack when you also have to defend your previous point. .
While this is true you can mitigate the issue by having earlier points cap more slowly than later ones just like mid/2nd/last in 5cp meaning that the defending team can't easily backcap where the attacking team can.
[quote=nope]There are reasons that you can't backcap in A/D. It's hard to commit to an attack when you also have to defend your previous point. .[/quote]
While this is true you can mitigate the issue by having earlier points cap more slowly than later ones just like mid/2nd/last in 5cp meaning that the defending team can't easily backcap where the attacking team can.
I think a good way of making the gamemode less stalematey is to make the points harder to defend and make the time limit only 5 min per point. This way teams can't just sit there but at the same time they'll be able to do something when they do push due to the difficulty the defending team will have. Tailoring towards offclasses (but not to the point where the game is slowed down) should also be something that's encouraged.
I think a good way of making the gamemode less stalematey is to make the points harder to defend and make the time limit only 5 min per point. This way teams can't just sit there but at the same time they'll be able to do something when they do push due to the difficulty the defending team will have. Tailoring towards offclasses (but not to the point where the game is slowed down) should also be something that's encouraged.
the problem with making custom gamemodes like this is that everyone in the community is eager to say that they'll test it out and then no one actually tests it, and a map like this would need significantly more playtesting than a traditional map. playtesters also dont consider that each gamemode and each map has a huge amount of nuance in the way they are played competitively and people have historically dismissed maps that didnt play out in a traditional (i.e. similar to other maps) way. look at basically every koth map other than viaduct, people try to play it like viaduct in testing, get angry that the viaduct strategies dont work and then call the map a bad koth map. that issue is only amplified when people try a new gamemode out. i dont know many (or any, for that matter) mappers who are willing to spend hundreds or thousands of hours building a map and designing a functional gamemode from scratch when the community is likely to just dismiss it outright.
consumonnI think a good way of making the gamemode less stalematey is to make the points harder to defend and make the time limit only 5 min per point. This way teams can't just sit there but at the same time they'll be able to do something when they do push due to the difficulty the defending team will have. Tailoring towards offclasses (but not to the point where the game is slowed down) should also be something that's encouraged.
this slows the game down even more, because now it becomes incredibly easy to stalemate a round and reset to a midfight instead of forcing a round to end.
the problem with making custom gamemodes like this is that everyone in the community is eager to say that they'll test it out and then no one actually tests it, and a map like this would need significantly more playtesting than a traditional map. playtesters also dont consider that each gamemode and each map has a huge amount of nuance in the way they are played competitively and people have historically dismissed maps that didnt play out in a traditional (i.e. similar to other maps) way. look at basically every koth map other than viaduct, people try to play it like viaduct in testing, get angry that the viaduct strategies dont work and then call the map a bad koth map. that issue is only amplified when people try a new gamemode out. i dont know many (or any, for that matter) mappers who are willing to spend hundreds or thousands of hours building a map and designing a functional gamemode from scratch when the community is likely to just dismiss it outright.
[quote=consumonn]I think a good way of making the gamemode less stalematey is to make the points harder to defend and make the time limit only 5 min per point. This way teams can't just sit there but at the same time they'll be able to do something when they do push due to the difficulty the defending team will have. Tailoring towards offclasses (but not to the point where the game is slowed down) should also be something that's encouraged.[/quote]
this slows the game down even more, because now it becomes incredibly easy to stalemate a round and reset to a midfight instead of forcing a round to end.
Right so I have an example map in the works, not for proper gameplay testing but more a proof of concept, but half the map has is 1 unit off the grid for some reason, and so most of the walls have a gap at the top or bottom and nothing's properly or obviously misaligned.
Frustration with hammer, laziness, plus this discussion is making me think "why don't we just steadily increase one team's spawn times (lets say the team that owns mid) after 30 seconds have past since the last cap cap?"
Right so I have an example map in the works, not for proper gameplay testing but more a proof of concept, but half the map has is 1 unit off the grid for some reason, and so most of the walls have a gap at the top or bottom and nothing's properly or obviously misaligned.
Frustration with hammer, laziness, plus this discussion is making me think "why don't we just steadily increase one team's spawn times (lets say the team that owns mid) after 30 seconds have past since the last cap cap?"
I am a bit confused by the concept to be honest- what is the difference between this and AD map? It appears to just count the number of cp sets capped in total over a certain amount of time, VS amount of time over a total number of caps, which is basically the same measurement. It serves to further confuse me when one of the aims is both to not allow teams to park the bus, but allow '5cp defense,' which is park the bus.
If I understand it correctly, it's an AD map where the other team can also push and recap. But there's also a mid? How does this mesh? Is there any reason why red would ever even want to turn up to mid considering if they do and lose they will then lose the next point, versus the possibility that they win and gain a point which is presumably the easiest to attack?
In my opinion, in order to justify an entire new gamemode, you have to clearly state the problems that it solves, and how it does it. I don't really understand how this solves the problems, I'm sure I am probably misunderstanding it completely.
I am a bit confused by the concept to be honest- what is the difference between this and AD map? It appears to just count the number of cp sets capped in total over a certain amount of time, VS amount of time over a total number of caps, which is basically the same measurement. It serves to further confuse me when one of the aims is both to not allow teams to park the bus, but allow '5cp defense,' which is park the bus.
If I understand it correctly, it's an AD map where the other team can also push and recap. But there's also a mid? How does this mesh? Is there any reason why red would ever even want to turn up to mid considering if they do and lose they will then lose the next point, versus the possibility that they win and gain a point which is presumably the easiest to attack?
In my opinion, in order to justify an entire new gamemode, you have to clearly state the problems that it solves, and how it does it. I don't really understand how this solves the problems, I'm sure I am probably misunderstanding it completely.