Having a charge timer still allows for clutch plays, it just keeps people who can't put up a fight from dragging the intel away or keeping it ready for someone else to come get it -- you can deny CP cap progress completely, but you can't do that for flag cap progress. Having a charging timer actually makes flags more like CPs.
It's really not more complicated than allowing for throwing or flag returning. In fact, they affect the way the gamemode's state lines up a lot more. The only reason to think of them as more normal is because so many other games do them, but the charge mechanic's only done by one.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. I don't care about the flag return timer either way as long as it has a sane default, but I think touch returns are too much for a TF style game, which is why I care about this particular idea. When you pick up the flag, it retains the time it had when you picked it up, and it recharges while you're holding it. Then, when you drop it, it drops with that charge. When you pick up the intel from its base, it'll either start with an empty charge. I don't know what a good charge rate would be for TF2, but in Gang Garrison 2, three seconds for an entire timer works fine. The only real point is so that if you die right after tagging the intel, you don't get a full reset, so it's less rewarding and you don't get people suiciding into the intel for just that reason.

Can you make it so the flag timer charges up after you grab it instead of instantly resetting
That's really the only thing that I think TF CTF is missing, suicides to reset the flag timer are too useful right now
Also from experience warsow's ctf maps are worse dogtrash than tf2's mediocre ones, regardless how good their designs look. They would be even worse in TF2.

http://wareya.bandcamp.com/album/into-the-dark - silly chiptunes from when i was silly and edgy
https://soundcloud.com/wareya/ - i have a couple complete songs on here

I'm saying that your examples about TF2 CTF are ambiguous and don't mean anything. I provided the (not random) quotes out of order because they were an example of a lack of communication which could be easily construed as self-contradiction. A lot of people don't like dying 50 times before they accomplish something. A lot of people don't like to need advanced movement skills just to engage the objective properly.

TF2 rewards slow controlled pushes due to how easy it is to die and the punishments for dying. If it's harder to die or the punishments for dying are lesser, it's not a problem, and map design can do either -- low respawns, tactical advantages for attackers instead of defenders like every god damn last CTF map in the game gives, etc -- this is still assuming that you don't want to require slow controlled pushes for the map to work, which I only partially agree with. Thank you for finally explaining what "brute force" means to you, though I disagree with what it means and what you're saying about it.

Would be nice if you gave some kind of concrete example instead of just drawing the conclusion that push based gameplay gives TF2 less variety and less "fun" in CTF modes in TF2. What reduces the variety? What reduces the fun? Do you like jellonoxioing into the intelligence just to die 10 time before you even take it out of the base, thanks to the high respawns and fast movement in TFC? Do you like killing the same people over and over again before they finally get it right and escape with the intelligence? Both are reasonable ideas, but you're not giving anyone anything to work with here, you're just stating your opinions as facts without direct reasons for them.

Where did fast pacing come from? The only time I've hard you talk about CTF being fun when it's fast is with regards to movement. In that case, you're stating that fast paced CTF is something TF2 cannot achieve in comparison to TFC, without any reason for it. If I recall, the last things you mentioned were slow controlled pushes and "variety" and "fun". Please explain how these things or lack thereof make TF2 CTF necessarily slower than TFC CTF. Don't simply say that it is.

In your original post I see a perspective which was poorly communicated due to lack of sufficient explanation. Something not worth trying to understand, except as a thing like "this is what this person thinks".

??????? You're trying to argue something about TF2 relative to TFC that is completely divorced from your points, please fix.

I know this sounds silly, but try enabling/disabling multicore rendering. I get a similar sounding kind of microstuttering when I disable it, might be related.

it also reduces how cpu and gpu intensive the game is, so it does prevent overheating for people with bad cooling. because it helps some people in this way it is not "not true whatsoever".

I drink whole milk all the time, but for some reason it's absolutely disgusting unless I'm drinking it with some kind of pastry or sweet bread. I cook brownies all the time pretty much just so that I can chug half a gallon of milk along with it and feel good doing it.

nice self +frag in a cancer thread

ban pls

I think that, to appeal to the "mainstream" tf2 audience, bans and limits need to be decided on a game per game basis. I don't care how it's done necesarily, I just care that whatever happens works. Pre-set banlists and rule lists don't appeal to pubs. It's like they're being bossed around by something that they don't understand, because they're not into it. If someone figures out and implements a PUG system where every game there's some kind of decision making for the weapon ban list and the classlimits (sans highlander), it would benefit the kind of people who are worried or upset about what seem like arbitrary or selfish restrictions to them.

Unlike I've been hearing about from time to time, I don't think a dota-like pick/ban system would work. For a couple reasons. First, it wouldn't work for classlimits because a class isn't something you "have or don't have" in TF2. You can change classes in the middle of the game necessarily, and you can have multiple of the same thing. Also, blocking out a class entirely could completely ruin the game. So it doesn't seem like the concept of picking or banning applies. Second, it wouldn't work for weapons, because there are just so many, and being able to pick something that happens to be broken hurts the game more than DotA, because counters don't work the same way in DotA as in TF2. That is, there are "necessary" things in TF2 that can be "broken" by weapons, like the pomson draining uber, where similar things don't exist in DotA because the game doesn't rely around singular aspects like TF2 does.

There are a bunch of other ideas, like giving players a list that automatically votes on every weapon for them, or changing a few bans every game, but my favorite idea is a system where you start with a banlist that's similar to what people tend to play with and you do nominations for which weapons to change and then vote on the nominations.

AI are almost always more expensive to process than real players though.

sandstone
proper metal sheeting
a good building game like not minecraft I mean really 1m units what the hell

Normally, yes, but not in this graphics pipeline, which is kind of the whole point.