FUNKei've got it guys
we need to add a dragon to snakewater
clearly a basilisk or hydra, i mean its snakewater
Ways to discourage stalemating in 5cp
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
[quote=FUNKe]i've got it guys
we need to add a dragon to snakewater[/quote]
clearly a basilisk or hydra, i mean its [b]snake[/b]water
we need to add a dragon to snakewater[/quote]
clearly a basilisk or hydra, i mean its [b]snake[/b]water
Play more maps/gametypes and allow more unlocks, watch people cry for 6 months, then watch teams learn new tactics and think of new ways to be inventive and the game becomes more interesting to watch and play.
And if this doesn't work at least I have 6 months worth of whining on the forums to read and laugh about.
Play more maps/gametypes and allow more unlocks, watch people cry for 6 months, then watch teams learn new tactics and think of new ways to be inventive and the game becomes more interesting to watch and play.
And if this doesn't work at least I have 6 months worth of whining on the forums to read and laugh about.
And if this doesn't work at least I have 6 months worth of whining on the forums to read and laugh about.
Give teams another lan to practice for and they'll all have arrow building down, get better with kritz, and use the banners too. FT have been playing against it for ages now and they're beginning to crack it. Compared to how they were playing before where they just gave up once pushed to last and lost 3-0 every time, they've gone a long way to cracking it. I would like to see slight map alterations for points that are crazy difficult to push and another koth map in the pool but overall I think it's something we'll see teams become good enough and creative enough to counter.
Give teams another lan to practice for and they'll all have arrow building down, get better with kritz, and use the banners too. FT have been playing against it for ages now and they're beginning to crack it. Compared to how they were playing before where they just gave up once pushed to last and lost 3-0 every time, they've gone a long way to cracking it. I would like to see slight map alterations for points that are crazy difficult to push and another koth map in the pool but overall I think it's something we'll see teams become good enough and creative enough to counter.
the solution needs to be thought of from the perspective of tf2 as a whole, and not just the 6s meta. points cap faster but cap progress can be instantly reverted by defenders, so attackers AND defenders need to both be stronger. cut down max cap time to 5 minutes so if a team wants multiple chances, they can't sit around forever. in the end though half of the class roster is built around stalemating so that needs to be changed.
the solution needs to be thought of from the perspective of tf2 as a whole, and not just the 6s meta. points cap faster but cap progress can be instantly reverted by defenders, so attackers AND defenders need to both be stronger. cut down max cap time to 5 minutes so if a team wants multiple chances, they can't sit around forever. in the end though half of the class roster is built around stalemating so that needs to be changed.
What about a SIMPLE mechanic where cap time of two unlocked points decreases over time (say 1 tick = 1 min) which could force teams holding last to push out asap to avoid a super hard and more methodical push as time dimishes and also 4/2nd would also have decreased captime overtime for more momentum? I'm still thinking about this and im not sure how it would play out in a perfect setting. Also a decreased roundtimer to compliment diminishing cap times would be cool
What about a SIMPLE mechanic where cap time of two unlocked points decreases over time (say 1 tick = 1 min) which could force teams holding last to push out asap to avoid a super hard and more methodical push as time dimishes and also 4/2nd would also have decreased captime overtime for more momentum? I'm still thinking about this and im not sure how it would play out in a perfect setting. Also a decreased roundtimer to compliment diminishing cap times would be cool
I've been thinking about this a bit and I think it requires a somewhat complex solution as just changing cap/respawn times seems like it will just encourage turtling on either the offensive or defensive side. There almost needs to be an imbalance in power, as if you promote pushing on both sides, you also encourage not attacking because teams would just wait for one team to make a mistake (or get a pick, etc) to create an easy low-risk push scenario.
Actual idea:
-After losing a point, a team gets a time (3 minutes?) of respawn advantage which would encourage them to try to retake the point. With a respawn advantage, they would not be punished as much for making aggressive pushes because they can get back to their point faster to defend if their push fails.
-After the 3(?) minutes is up, if the team still hasn't recapped the point, the advantage is given to the other team (without any pause in gameplay) as a reward for holding their point successfully. This means the team has a reason to push aggressively to the next point and so on. If neither team ends up capping the round resets.
The main problem that this would cause is a relatively flat meta of defending until you have the respawn advantage and then attacking (basically a series of attack/defense), but there would be no complete stalemates as there is always a reason for one team to be pushing the other. If the respawn advantage isn't too large I could see some risky surprise pushes working by one team when they "should" have been defending.
Hildreth and Sideshow also make good points about letting the meta form on its own through use of new unlocks and strategies, so this may not be necessary if the game ends up being fine.
If anyone has a reason why my idea is bad let me know and I'll think more. Or perhaps I could leave the thinking to people that understand the game better.
I've been thinking about this a bit and I think it requires a somewhat complex solution as just changing cap/respawn times seems like it will just encourage turtling on either the offensive or defensive side. There almost needs to be an imbalance in power, as if you promote pushing on both sides, you also encourage not attacking because teams would just wait for one team to make a mistake (or get a pick, etc) to create an easy low-risk push scenario.
Actual idea:
-After losing a point, a team gets a time (3 minutes?) of respawn advantage which would encourage them to try to retake the point. With a respawn advantage, they would not be punished as much for making aggressive pushes because they can get back to their point faster to defend if their push fails.
-After the 3(?) minutes is up, if the team still hasn't recapped the point, the advantage is given to the other team (without any pause in gameplay) as a reward for holding their point successfully. This means the team has a reason to push aggressively to the next point and so on. If neither team ends up capping the round resets.
The main problem that this would cause is a relatively flat meta of defending until you have the respawn advantage and then attacking (basically a series of attack/defense), but there would be no complete stalemates as there is always a reason for one team to be pushing the other. If the respawn advantage isn't too large I could see some risky surprise pushes working by one team when they "should" have been defending.
Hildreth and Sideshow also make good points about letting the meta form on its own through use of new unlocks and strategies, so this may not be necessary if the game ends up being fine.
If anyone has a reason why my idea is bad let me know and I'll think more. Or perhaps I could leave the thinking to people that understand the game better.
Actual idea:
-After losing a point, a team gets a time (3 minutes?) of respawn advantage which would encourage them to try to retake the point. With a respawn advantage, they would not be punished as much for making aggressive pushes because they can get back to their point faster to defend if their push fails.
-After the 3(?) minutes is up, if the team still hasn't recapped the point, the advantage is given to the other team (without any pause in gameplay) as a reward for holding their point successfully. This means the team has a reason to push aggressively to the next point and so on. If neither team ends up capping the round resets.
The main problem that this would cause is a relatively flat meta of defending until you have the respawn advantage and then attacking (basically a series of attack/defense), but there would be no complete stalemates as there is always a reason for one team to be pushing the other. If the respawn advantage isn't too large I could see some risky surprise pushes working by one team when they "should" have been defending.
Hildreth and Sideshow also make good points about letting the meta form on its own through use of new unlocks and strategies, so this may not be necessary if the game ends up being fine.
If anyone has a reason why my idea is bad let me know and I'll think more. Or perhaps I could leave the thinking to people that understand the game better.
Like others mentioned, map design. I'll just quote myself from an older thread:
skeejSince Quake was mentioned I tried to compare these kind of scenarios to Quake dueling as it simplifies the matter by having only 2 players. Why does Quake not have complete stalemates, or why does Quake have semi-stalematey situations that still remain interesting for both the players and the spectators?
In TF2, having CP3 can be compared to being in control. Having more round wins than the opposing team in TF2 is the same as having more frags than the other player in Quake.
On most maps in Quake it is not uncommon, and possibly even expected, to see a player out of the lead and out of control make a comeback, regain control, and make frags. Why does this happen? Because being in control in Quake is an active process and requires the player in control to give up positional advantage to maintain said control (circling the items means you will be traversing positionally disadvantageous areas). Also, as the player in control, staying completely passive and defensive between the major items allows the player out of control to gradually even the odds (stacks) by circling the minor items. Whichever the case, there is almost always some kind of possibility for the player out of the lead and out of control to make a comeback (up to certain limits of course). To retain game dominance, the player with the upper hand is forced to take certain risks constantly.
Now compare this to TF2. Being "in control" (having CP3 or CP4) is a passive state. Staying in control does not require the players to sacrifice superior positioning; in fact, the opposite is true: Keeping superior positioning is what maintains the control! Positioning in TF2 is a goal in itself (getting the position on CP5 means you win a round point) and not a means to an end, like in Quake. The means to an end in TF2 are the frags, as opposed to Quake.
With the nature of comp TF2 being about scoring through position and frags only being a means to an end, how can we ever fix this problem? Stalemates are indeed a natural state of the game; they are a result of the scoring meta.
Without changing entirely how comp TF2 works, I think the only solution can be found in changing map architecture. Why, when we talk about stalemates in TF2, the maps we see recurring are snakewater, gullywash and granary? All these maps have no open chokes between CP2 and CP3, and CP3 often offers a huge positional advantage (mostly height advantage) towards CP2.
Especially on snake, if the team in control (has CP3) has good spam on the chokes, its impossible for a roamer from the CP2 team to try and make a force play. Its near impossible for the demo from the CP2 team to do good spam (standing at the bottom medpack near green its hard to get a good spamming position without receiving more spam damage than you deal, and standing in saw room you will already get spammed before you even get close enough to the doorway to get a peek onto CP3. Compare this to badlands choke where the team that has CP2 can lob pipes/stickies through choke with enough room to dodge the counter-spam, and can launch bombers to make a play relatively freely.
So obviously badlands does a better job than other maps (of course, it's the best fucking map), but I propose we should experiment with new maps (or modified maps) that enable teams out of control to make plays more easily. This means that transitioning from CP2 -> CP3 should actually provide a positional advantage instead of disadvantage. The team that has CP3 already has logistical advantage (spawns) and another advantage for simply having a buffer before they can lose a point (if you lose CP3 you still have CP1 and CP2 before you actually are put back score-wise).
This means that we could experiment with maps being designed with an overall valley/dip style layout, where CP3 is the lowest point on the map, and where CP2 is elevated over CP3, so the team out of control can push with positional advantage. It should also be relatively easier to spam from CP2 to CP3 than the other way around. With this layout in mind, there is incentive for both teams to push. The CP3 team will have a worse position and will draw the shorter straw spam-wise if they keep that position, and will therefore eventually risk losing control of CP3, so it's in their best interest to push towards CP2/4, also just for the sake of eventually getting close to CP5 and actually scoring a point. The CP2 team will be incentivised to push for the sake of already having positional advantage and wanting to get out of their out-of-control (cp-wise) situation.
I hope that some of this makes sense and maybe some smart mapper will take the effort to experiment with these unorthodox map layout ideas.
note: I don't play Quake, I only watch a lot of streams and vods, so I might make some noobish or short sighted observations about its meta.
Like others mentioned, map design. I'll just quote myself from an older thread:
[quote=skeej]Since Quake was mentioned I tried to compare these kind of scenarios to Quake dueling as it simplifies the matter by having only 2 players. Why does Quake not have complete stalemates, or why does Quake have semi-stalematey situations that still remain interesting for both the players and the spectators?
In TF2, having CP3 can be compared to being in control. Having more round wins than the opposing team in TF2 is the same as having more frags than the other player in Quake.
On most maps in Quake it is not uncommon, and possibly even expected, to see a player out of the lead and out of control make a comeback, regain control, and make frags. Why does this happen? Because being in control in Quake is an active process and requires the player in control to give up positional advantage to maintain said control (circling the items means you will be traversing positionally disadvantageous areas). Also, as the player in control, staying completely passive and defensive between the major items allows the player out of control to gradually even the odds (stacks) by circling the minor items. Whichever the case, there is almost always some kind of possibility for the player out of the lead and out of control to make a comeback (up to certain limits of course). To retain game dominance, the player with the upper hand is forced to take certain risks constantly.
Now compare this to TF2. Being "in control" (having CP3 or CP4) is a passive state. Staying in control does not require the players to sacrifice superior positioning; in fact, the opposite is true: Keeping superior positioning is what maintains the control! Positioning in TF2 is a goal in itself (getting the position on CP5 means you win a round point) and not a means to an end, like in Quake. The means to an end in TF2 are the frags, as opposed to Quake.
With the nature of comp TF2 being about scoring through position and frags only being a means to an end, how can we ever fix this problem? Stalemates are indeed a natural state of the game; they are a result of the scoring meta.
Without changing entirely how comp TF2 works, I think the only solution can be found in changing map architecture. Why, when we talk about stalemates in TF2, the maps we see recurring are snakewater, gullywash and granary? All these maps have no open chokes between CP2 and CP3, and CP3 often offers a huge positional advantage (mostly height advantage) towards CP2.
Especially on snake, if the team in control (has CP3) has good spam on the chokes, its impossible for a roamer from the CP2 team to try and make a force play. Its near impossible for the demo from the CP2 team to do good spam (standing at the bottom medpack near green its hard to get a good spamming position without receiving more spam damage than you deal, and standing in saw room you will already get spammed before you even get close enough to the doorway to get a peek onto CP3. Compare this to badlands choke where the team that has CP2 can lob pipes/stickies through choke with enough room to dodge the counter-spam, and can launch bombers to make a play relatively freely.
So obviously badlands does a better job than other maps (of course, it's the best fucking map), but I propose we should experiment with new maps (or modified maps) that enable teams out of control to make plays more easily. This means that transitioning from CP2 -> CP3 should actually provide a positional advantage instead of disadvantage. The team that has CP3 already has logistical advantage (spawns) and another advantage for simply having a buffer before they can lose a point (if you lose CP3 you still have CP1 and CP2 before you actually are put back score-wise).
This means that we could experiment with maps being designed with an overall valley/dip style layout, where CP3 is the lowest point on the map, and where CP2 is elevated over CP3, so the team out of control can push with positional advantage. It should also be relatively easier to spam from CP2 to CP3 than the other way around. With this layout in mind, there is incentive for both teams to push. The CP3 team will have a worse position and will draw the shorter straw spam-wise if they keep that position, and will therefore eventually risk losing control of CP3, so it's in their best interest to push towards CP2/4, also just for the sake of eventually getting close to CP5 and actually scoring a point. The CP2 team will be incentivised to push for the sake of already having positional advantage and wanting to get out of their out-of-control (cp-wise) situation.
I hope that some of this makes sense and maybe some smart mapper will take the effort to experiment with these unorthodox map layout ideas.
[size=11]note: I don't play Quake, I only watch a lot of streams and vods, so I might make some noobish or short sighted observations about its meta.[/size][/quote]
[quote=skeej]Since Quake was mentioned I tried to compare these kind of scenarios to Quake dueling as it simplifies the matter by having only 2 players. Why does Quake not have complete stalemates, or why does Quake have semi-stalematey situations that still remain interesting for both the players and the spectators?
In TF2, having CP3 can be compared to being in control. Having more round wins than the opposing team in TF2 is the same as having more frags than the other player in Quake.
On most maps in Quake it is not uncommon, and possibly even expected, to see a player out of the lead and out of control make a comeback, regain control, and make frags. Why does this happen? Because being in control in Quake is an active process and requires the player in control to give up positional advantage to maintain said control (circling the items means you will be traversing positionally disadvantageous areas). Also, as the player in control, staying completely passive and defensive between the major items allows the player out of control to gradually even the odds (stacks) by circling the minor items. Whichever the case, there is almost always some kind of possibility for the player out of the lead and out of control to make a comeback (up to certain limits of course). To retain game dominance, the player with the upper hand is forced to take certain risks constantly.
Now compare this to TF2. Being "in control" (having CP3 or CP4) is a passive state. Staying in control does not require the players to sacrifice superior positioning; in fact, the opposite is true: Keeping superior positioning is what maintains the control! Positioning in TF2 is a goal in itself (getting the position on CP5 means you win a round point) and not a means to an end, like in Quake. The means to an end in TF2 are the frags, as opposed to Quake.
With the nature of comp TF2 being about scoring through position and frags only being a means to an end, how can we ever fix this problem? Stalemates are indeed a natural state of the game; they are a result of the scoring meta.
Without changing entirely how comp TF2 works, I think the only solution can be found in changing map architecture. Why, when we talk about stalemates in TF2, the maps we see recurring are snakewater, gullywash and granary? All these maps have no open chokes between CP2 and CP3, and CP3 often offers a huge positional advantage (mostly height advantage) towards CP2.
Especially on snake, if the team in control (has CP3) has good spam on the chokes, its impossible for a roamer from the CP2 team to try and make a force play. Its near impossible for the demo from the CP2 team to do good spam (standing at the bottom medpack near green its hard to get a good spamming position without receiving more spam damage than you deal, and standing in saw room you will already get spammed before you even get close enough to the doorway to get a peek onto CP3. Compare this to badlands choke where the team that has CP2 can lob pipes/stickies through choke with enough room to dodge the counter-spam, and can launch bombers to make a play relatively freely.
So obviously badlands does a better job than other maps (of course, it's the best fucking map), but I propose we should experiment with new maps (or modified maps) that enable teams out of control to make plays more easily. This means that transitioning from CP2 -> CP3 should actually provide a positional advantage instead of disadvantage. The team that has CP3 already has logistical advantage (spawns) and another advantage for simply having a buffer before they can lose a point (if you lose CP3 you still have CP1 and CP2 before you actually are put back score-wise).
This means that we could experiment with maps being designed with an overall valley/dip style layout, where CP3 is the lowest point on the map, and where CP2 is elevated over CP3, so the team out of control can push with positional advantage. It should also be relatively easier to spam from CP2 to CP3 than the other way around. With this layout in mind, there is incentive for both teams to push. The CP3 team will have a worse position and will draw the shorter straw spam-wise if they keep that position, and will therefore eventually risk losing control of CP3, so it's in their best interest to push towards CP2/4, also just for the sake of eventually getting close to CP5 and actually scoring a point. The CP2 team will be incentivised to push for the sake of already having positional advantage and wanting to get out of their out-of-control (cp-wise) situation.
I hope that some of this makes sense and maybe some smart mapper will take the effort to experiment with these unorthodox map layout ideas.
[size=11]note: I don't play Quake, I only watch a lot of streams and vods, so I might make some noobish or short sighted observations about its meta.[/size][/quote]
Make games bo5/bo7 without time limit
30-70 minutes for each game, excellent mercy rule, there is no need to play clock so defending and playing passive is to no avail as you cant acquire rounds without pushing
Make games bo5/bo7 without time limit
30-70 minutes for each game, excellent mercy rule, there is no need to play clock so defending and playing passive is to no avail as you cant acquire rounds without pushing
30-70 minutes for each game, excellent mercy rule, there is no need to play clock so defending and playing passive is to no avail as you cant acquire rounds without pushing
8 minute shotclock, only resets when mid gets capped.
Literally fixes every problem.
Forces attacking teams to be agressive, but gives plenty of time for multiple Ubers/pushes.
Doesn't encourage dropping back to 4th, and then retaking to reset the clock.
Doesn't fundamentally alter how the gamemode is played/
8 minute shotclock, only resets when mid gets capped.
Literally fixes every problem.
Forces attacking teams to be agressive, but gives plenty of time for multiple Ubers/pushes.
Doesn't encourage dropping back to 4th, and then retaking to reset the clock.
Doesn't fundamentally alter how the gamemode is played/
Literally fixes every problem.
Forces attacking teams to be agressive, but gives plenty of time for multiple Ubers/pushes.
Doesn't encourage dropping back to 4th, and then retaking to reset the clock.
Doesn't fundamentally alter how the gamemode is played/
a shorter shotclock would be generally good just because the concept of being forced to push or lose mid via a draw is something that already exists. So all it would do is force teams to settle for less significant advantages.
Another possibility could be lowering the time that gets added upon capping a point, but not lowering the max round timer. Since then stalling is an option if points have changed hands frequently but less so if the game had been slow recently. And also limits the viability of giving up ground just to stall the clock more.
a shorter shotclock would be generally good just because the concept of being forced to push or lose mid via a draw is something that already exists. So all it would do is force teams to settle for less significant advantages.
Another possibility could be lowering the time that gets added upon capping a point, but not lowering the max round timer. Since then stalling is an option if points have changed hands frequently but less so if the game had been slow recently. And also limits the viability of giving up ground just to stall the clock more.
Another possibility could be lowering the time that gets added upon capping a point, but not lowering the max round timer. Since then stalling is an option if points have changed hands frequently but less so if the game had been slow recently. And also limits the viability of giving up ground just to stall the clock more.
Not an original idea by any means but maybe if we could find a way to encourage the usage of backpacks we could see less stalemates. They'd give teams another reason to push and different teams/maps would use different banners which would make things more interesting from a spectators standpoint. I suspect that a lot of spectators who dont know anything about comp have a hard time seeing the differences in playstyles. 6v6 is symmetrical in team and often weapon composition most of the time so making teams more easily discernable would give new players something intuitive for them to analyze. They also make the stalemates themselves a little more interesting since spam actually leads to something.
That being said, there are definitely some problems with banners. They gimp you so fucking hard as a soldier until you can actually use them so running them on mids is almost never a good idea. Though I guess that is a good thing becuase it encourages aggressive mids opposed to 2009 style waddle pocket mids. In comparison to mediguns banners are very hard to track becuase they charge through damage and not through something that can be done at a consistent rate all of the time. I don't think there needs to be a huge change in how they charge, but making it more visually clear to players that someone is wearing a backpack and making it more obvious when someone's banner is charged would help a lot.
Now that i think of it, It would be pretty cool if valve gave demo a backpack. Im a terrible demo so im not too confident in the following but I believe it wouldn't have the problem soldier does with banners being a huge gimp until they're actually charged.
Not an original idea by any means but maybe if we could find a way to encourage the usage of backpacks we could see less stalemates. They'd give teams another reason to push and different teams/maps would use different banners which would make things more interesting from a spectators standpoint. I suspect that a lot of spectators who dont know anything about comp have a hard time seeing the differences in playstyles. 6v6 is symmetrical in team and often weapon composition most of the time so making teams more easily discernable would give new players something intuitive for them to analyze. They also make the stalemates themselves a little more interesting since spam actually leads to something.
That being said, there are definitely some problems with banners. They gimp you so fucking hard as a soldier until you can actually use them so running them on mids is almost never a good idea. Though I guess that is a good thing becuase it encourages aggressive mids opposed to 2009 style waddle pocket mids. In comparison to mediguns banners are very hard to track becuase they charge through damage and not through something that can be done at a consistent rate all of the time. I don't think there needs to be a huge change in how they charge, but making it more visually clear to players that someone is wearing a backpack and making it more obvious when someone's banner is charged would help a lot.
Now that i think of it, It would be pretty cool if valve gave demo a backpack. Im a terrible demo so im not too confident in the following but I believe it wouldn't have the problem soldier does with banners being a huge gimp until they're actually charged.
That being said, there are definitely some problems with banners. They gimp you so fucking hard as a soldier until you can actually use them so running them on mids is almost never a good idea. Though I guess that is a good thing becuase it encourages aggressive mids opposed to 2009 style waddle pocket mids. In comparison to mediguns banners are very hard to track becuase they charge through damage and not through something that can be done at a consistent rate all of the time. I don't think there needs to be a huge change in how they charge, but making it more visually clear to players that someone is wearing a backpack and making it more obvious when someone's banner is charged would help a lot.
Now that i think of it, It would be pretty cool if valve gave demo a backpack. Im a terrible demo so im not too confident in the following but I believe it wouldn't have the problem soldier does with banners being a huge gimp until they're actually charged.
capnfapnbackpacks
the idea is there, i get what youre saying. it would need a lot of thought/improvement. if buff banner somehow became the norm you would definitely expect to see much more pushing in the game, that is a given. it also doesnt have to change anything in the current game, which is good. idk about demo having a backpack, pipes and stickies are pretty much necessity. maybe a scout backpack to replace pistol, but i can see it being way too gimmicky and having something to do with movespeed, which would be annoying. i really like the buff banner i just wish you didnt have to lose out on a shotgun or gunboats. maybe a new medigun that works similarly? charges fast, gives AOE damage buff, still provides heals. you lose the uber of course but you wouldnt need it if youre trying to be aggressive and push with constant damage buffs. dunno. brainstorming here.
[quote=capnfapn]backpacks[/quote]
the idea is there, i get what youre saying. it would need a lot of thought/improvement. if buff banner somehow became the norm you would definitely expect to see much more pushing in the game, that is a given. it also doesnt have to change anything in the current game, which is good. idk about demo having a backpack, pipes and stickies are pretty much necessity. maybe a scout backpack to replace pistol, but i can see it being way too gimmicky and having something to do with movespeed, which would be annoying. i really like the buff banner i just wish you didnt have to lose out on a shotgun or gunboats. maybe a new medigun that works similarly? charges fast, gives AOE damage buff, still provides heals. you lose the uber of course but you wouldnt need it if youre trying to be aggressive and push with constant damage buffs. dunno. brainstorming here.
the idea is there, i get what youre saying. it would need a lot of thought/improvement. if buff banner somehow became the norm you would definitely expect to see much more pushing in the game, that is a given. it also doesnt have to change anything in the current game, which is good. idk about demo having a backpack, pipes and stickies are pretty much necessity. maybe a scout backpack to replace pistol, but i can see it being way too gimmicky and having something to do with movespeed, which would be annoying. i really like the buff banner i just wish you didnt have to lose out on a shotgun or gunboats. maybe a new medigun that works similarly? charges fast, gives AOE damage buff, still provides heals. you lose the uber of course but you wouldnt need it if youre trying to be aggressive and push with constant damage buffs. dunno. brainstorming here.
It's a bit counter intuitive but if you give teams more buffs it actually discourages pushing.
We saw this happen when the quick fix was allowed in 6s. People thought that getting more ubers more often would encourage pushing, but all it did was result in more stalemates since teams got uber faster and you couldn't do as much dry pushing.
Right now backpacks actually encourage you to stalemate because you're not supposed to push until your buff is charged.
It's a bit counter intuitive but if you give teams more buffs it actually discourages pushing.
We saw this happen when the quick fix was allowed in 6s. People thought that getting more ubers more often would encourage pushing, but all it did was result in more stalemates since teams got uber faster and you couldn't do as much dry pushing.
Right now backpacks actually encourage you to stalemate because you're not supposed to push until your buff is charged.
We saw this happen when the quick fix was allowed in 6s. People thought that getting more ubers more often would encourage pushing, but all it did was result in more stalemates since teams got uber faster and you couldn't do as much dry pushing.
Right now backpacks actually encourage you to stalemate because you're not supposed to push until your buff is charged.
I think a lot of the stalemates come from demonan traps. Having 8 stickies you can pretty much hold two chokes and force the other team to use uber just to get in without dying. If demo could only place 4-5 stickies it would be much easier to find the trap and push a different direction.
I think a lot of the stalemates come from demonan traps. Having 8 stickies you can pretty much hold two chokes and force the other team to use uber just to get in without dying. If demo could only place 4-5 stickies it would be much easier to find the trap and push a different direction.
I brainstormed a little bit, those ideas might be shit, they might be okay
But couldn't you make:
The longer no cap point has been capped, the longer respawn times get, this would make it easier to push onto 1 pick advantages because this person won't be in the fight for a longer time.
A much more complicated solution which would require a hell lot of effort and map makers would be to make last easy to push, but make last to second even easier to push, so people rather push out instead of having a risky last hold.
This could be a problem when the attacking team has uber and you don't
Just my 2 cents
I brainstormed a little bit, those ideas might be shit, they might be okay
But couldn't you make:
The longer no cap point has been capped, the longer respawn times get, this would make it easier to push onto 1 pick advantages because this person won't be in the fight for a longer time.
A much more complicated solution which would require a hell lot of effort and map makers would be to make last easy to push, but make last to second even easier to push, so people rather push out instead of having a risky last hold.
This could be a problem when the attacking team has uber and you don't
Just my 2 cents
But couldn't you make:
The longer no cap point has been capped, the longer respawn times get, this would make it easier to push onto 1 pick advantages because this person won't be in the fight for a longer time.
A much more complicated solution which would require a hell lot of effort and map makers would be to make last easy to push, but make last to second even easier to push, so people rather push out instead of having a risky last hold.
This could be a problem when the attacking team has uber and you don't
Just my 2 cents
MR_SLINRight now backpacks actually encourage you to stalemate because you're not supposed to push until your buff is charged.
Teams usually only run a banner to break a stalemate though, right? I could see that it would make the issue worse if it was run much more often, but as rare as it is now it slows the game up to the point where the banner is ready, at which point the team running it makes a move. I genuinely don't know how long teams will sit on a charged banner though, so I might be totally off-base there
[quote=MR_SLIN]Right now backpacks actually encourage you to stalemate because you're not supposed to push until your buff is charged.[/quote]
Teams usually only run a banner to break a stalemate though, right? I could see that it would make the issue worse if it was run much more often, but as rare as it is now it slows the game up to the point where the banner is ready, at which point the team running it makes a move. I genuinely don't know how long teams will sit on a charged banner though, so I might be totally off-base there
Teams usually only run a banner to break a stalemate though, right? I could see that it would make the issue worse if it was run much more often, but as rare as it is now it slows the game up to the point where the banner is ready, at which point the team running it makes a move. I genuinely don't know how long teams will sit on a charged banner though, so I might be totally off-base there
randoI think a lot of the stalemates come from demonan traps. Having 8 stickies you can pretty much hold two chokes and force the other team to use uber just to get in without dying. If demo could only place 4-5 stickies it would be much easier to find the trap and push a different direction.
If we get pre-nerf stickies back I'd be ok with this. Also remove the ridiculous detonation delay when you switch to melee.
[quote=rando]I think a lot of the stalemates come from demonan traps. Having 8 stickies you can pretty much hold two chokes and force the other team to use uber just to get in without dying. If demo could only place 4-5 stickies it would be much easier to find the trap and push a different direction.[/quote]
If we get pre-nerf stickies back I'd be ok with this. Also remove the ridiculous detonation delay when you switch to melee.
If we get pre-nerf stickies back I'd be ok with this. Also remove the ridiculous detonation delay when you switch to melee.
randoI think a lot of the stalemates come from demonan traps. Having 8 stickies you can pretty much hold two chokes and force the other team to use uber just to get in without dying. If demo could only place 4-5 stickies it would be much easier to find the trap and push a different direction.
on this note using the quickiebomb launcher would make pushing a bit easier, although i can't think of a way of enforcing that
[quote=rando]I think a lot of the stalemates come from demonan traps. Having 8 stickies you can pretty much hold two chokes and force the other team to use uber just to get in without dying. If demo could only place 4-5 stickies it would be much easier to find the trap and push a different direction.[/quote]
on this note using the quickiebomb launcher would make pushing a bit easier, although i can't think of a way of enforcing that
on this note using the quickiebomb launcher would make pushing a bit easier, although i can't think of a way of enforcing that
Here is my ignorant suggestion, so please take it with a grain of salt.
How about mixing up 5CP and A/D?
So it would be like this:
Round begins like a normal 5cp match
For this example lets say Team A Captures mid against Team B
Team A caps mid, locks it, and becomes the Attacking team 10 seconds after the capture finishes. (The 10 seconds are there in case the team who lost the point were still fighting like a 2v2 or 3v3 in mid but had to retreat out of the point area and wanted to contest back, a debatable feature)
After the point has been locked, a timer begins (it could vary on the map, but for example lets say 1,5-2,5 minutes)
In those minutes, Team A must capture 2nd and last from Team B.
If Team A caps 2nd, it becomes locked as well, last becomes unlocked and it will add time (around 1:30 min) onto the timer.
If the timer reaches 0, both second and last capture points from Team B will lock out with Team B's ownership. Mid would become neutral again and the spawns locations would be the same as at the beggining of the round.
However the spawn times will increase by 7-8 seconds for Team A until mid is captured again. (Incentive for Team B to push when the timer is close to 0)
Have in mind that the timer reaching 0 doesnt re-spawn the players.
With this system rounds could potentially last longer, so maybe there would need to be changes on the NA/EU time/score system required to decide a winner.
Here is my ignorant suggestion, so please take it with a grain of salt.
How about mixing up 5CP and A/D?
So it would be like this:
Round begins like a normal 5cp match
For this example lets say Team A Captures mid against Team B
Team A caps mid, locks it, and becomes the Attacking team 10 seconds after the capture finishes. (The 10 seconds are there in case the team who lost the point were still fighting like a 2v2 or 3v3 in mid but had to retreat out of the point area and wanted to contest back, a debatable feature)
After the point has been locked, a timer begins (it could vary on the map, but for example lets say 1,5-2,5 minutes)
In those minutes, Team A must capture 2nd and last from Team B.
If Team A caps 2nd, it becomes locked as well, last becomes unlocked and it will add time (around 1:30 min) onto the timer.
If the timer reaches 0, both second and last capture points from Team B will lock out with Team B's ownership. Mid would become neutral again and the spawns locations would be the same as at the beggining of the round.
However the spawn times will increase by 7-8 seconds for Team A until mid is captured again. (Incentive for Team B to push when the timer is close to 0)
Have in mind that the timer reaching 0 doesnt re-spawn the players.
With this system rounds could potentially last longer, so maybe there would need to be changes on the NA/EU time/score system required to decide a winner.
How about mixing up 5CP and A/D?
So it would be like this:
Round begins like a normal 5cp match
For this example lets say Team A Captures mid against Team B
Team A caps mid, locks it, and becomes the Attacking team 10 seconds after the capture finishes. (The 10 seconds are there in case the team who lost the point were still fighting like a 2v2 or 3v3 in mid but had to retreat out of the point area and wanted to contest back, a debatable feature)
After the point has been locked, a timer begins (it could vary on the map, but for example lets say 1,5-2,5 minutes)
In those minutes, Team A must capture 2nd and last from Team B.
If Team A caps 2nd, it becomes locked as well, last becomes unlocked and it will add time (around 1:30 min) onto the timer.
If the timer reaches 0, both second and last capture points from Team B will lock out with Team B's ownership. Mid would become neutral again and the spawns locations would be the same as at the beggining of the round.
However the spawn times will increase by 7-8 seconds for Team A until mid is captured again. (Incentive for Team B to push when the timer is close to 0)
Have in mind that the timer reaching 0 doesnt re-spawn the players.
With this system rounds could potentially last longer, so maybe there would need to be changes on the NA/EU time/score system required to decide a winner.
Make it so after 2 min (or w/e) of holding a super secret epic tunnel/entrance/bridge will open !!!
Make it so after 2 min (or w/e) of holding a super secret epic tunnel/entrance/bridge will open !!!
Every class is at least as good at defending compared to attacking, and most are much better at defending; no wonder teams can't win pushes without advantages. Valve needs to buff at least some class' attacking abilities relative to their defensive ones.
That's it. We don't need convoluted shot clocks or super secret epic tunnel entrances!!!11!!1! We just need valve to fix their broken shit. rip
Every class is at least as good at defending compared to attacking, and most are much better at defending; no wonder teams can't win pushes without advantages. Valve needs to buff at least some class' attacking abilities relative to their defensive ones.
That's it. We don't need convoluted shot clocks or super secret epic tunnel entrances!!!11!!1! We just need valve to fix their broken shit. rip
That's it. We don't need convoluted shot clocks or super secret epic tunnel entrances!!!11!!1! We just need valve to fix their broken shit. rip
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.