Upvote Upvoted 0 Downvote Downvoted
1 2
3cp In 6v6
1
#1
0 Frags +

Recently a thread about Granary and (mostly about) Badlands popped up. Most of the complaints about Badlands were that Last is easily defend-able but it is difficult to push out of it, thus bringing the game to a stalemate. Jokingly I thought "Why don't just remove last" but then I started thinking more seriously about 3cp maps such as Powerhouse, while the map in it's current state is quite clearly not suited for competitive play, I think there are some changes that could make the map competitive, such as; making the map symmetric as opposed to mirrored thus making it more like other maps in the rotation, changing something about that window and ledge over the Mid point, etc.... Following this I decided to make some sort of a first draft using MS paint https://imgur.com/aDULjyA (squares are points, circles are spawn, that green sludge color is water (the RED and BLU are accidentally swapped), and I decided to remove outside scenery so it would look similar to other map's layouts (also it is mirrored because I make a lot of mistakes)).

What do you think about 3cp maps? would there smaller size make the game faster paced or would it make the game more boring due to less change in scenery? and are they even fit for 6v6 and not 12v12

And what do you think about the map itself? I think the water could be interesting because of the movement mechanics allowing for some new jumps and bombings. In addition last could be quite interesting due to the spawn of the defending team.

(note: I read some other threads about this but most of them are from 4-5 years ago and that was before an official 3cp map was made and it was more about removing parts of existing maps)
(note 2: not talking about a/d 3cp maps)

Recently a thread about Granary and (mostly about) Badlands popped up. Most of the complaints about Badlands were that Last is easily defend-able but it is difficult to push out of it, thus bringing the game to a stalemate. Jokingly I thought "Why don't just remove last" but then I started thinking more seriously about 3cp maps such as Powerhouse, while the map in it's current state is quite clearly not suited for competitive play, I think there are some changes that could make the map competitive, such as; making the map symmetric as opposed to mirrored thus making it more like other maps in the rotation, changing something about that window and ledge over the Mid point, etc.... Following this I decided to make some sort of a first draft using MS paint https://imgur.com/aDULjyA (squares are points, circles are spawn, that green sludge color is water (the RED and BLU are accidentally swapped), and I decided to remove outside scenery so it would look similar to other map's layouts (also it is mirrored because I make a lot of mistakes)).

What do you think about 3cp maps? would there smaller size make the game faster paced or would it make the game more boring due to less change in scenery? and are they even fit for 6v6 and not 12v12

And what do you think about the map itself? I think the water could be interesting because of the movement mechanics allowing for some new jumps and bombings. In addition last could be quite interesting due to the spawn of the defending team.

(note: I read some other threads about this but most of them are from 4-5 years ago and that was before an official 3cp map was made and it was more about removing parts of existing maps)
(note 2: not talking about a/d 3cp maps)
2
#2
65 Frags +

lose mid lose the round?

lose mid lose the round?
3
#3
-8 Frags +
jimmijlose mid lose the round?

I'm pretty sure the spawn times are different and the last point is closer to spawn than the 2nd point on 5cp maps so losing mid and then losing 2nd is not the same in 3cp format

[quote=jimmij]lose mid lose the round?[/quote]
I'm pretty sure the spawn times are different and the last point is closer to spawn than the 2nd point on 5cp maps so losing mid and then losing 2nd is not the same in 3cp format
4
#4
15 Frags +
Asi_PasasiI'm pretty sure the spawn times are different and the last point is closer to spawn than the 2nd point on 5cp maps so losing mid and then losing 2nd is not the same in 3cp format

Teams already spawncamp you on last if your mid has gone horrible. It's just gonna be easier on 3cp.

[quote=Asi_Pasasi]I'm pretty sure the spawn times are different and the last point is closer to spawn than the 2nd point on 5cp maps so losing mid and then losing 2nd is not the same in 3cp format[/quote]

Teams already spawncamp you on last if your mid has gone horrible. It's just gonna be easier on 3cp.
5
#5
34 Frags +

7cp

7cp
6
#6
21 Frags +

1cp

1cp
7
#7
-3 Frags +

0cp

0cp
8
#8
4 Frags +

NOcp

NOcp
9
#9
39 Frags +

Koth

Koth
10
#10
-14 Frags +
GazKothdegu1cp
[quote=Gaz]Koth[/quote]
[quote=degu]1cp[/quote]
11
#11
17 Frags +
ElliotRGazKothdegu1cp

There's a difference between the two.

[quote=ElliotR][quote=Gaz]Koth[/quote]
[quote=degu]1cp[/quote][/quote]

There's a difference between the two.
12
#12
6 Frags +

I wouldn't be against trying some NEW 3cp maps, but taking a current 5cp map and hacking off 2 points isn't going to do anything other than make said map worse.

As long as we're on the topic of non-default 6s maps it would also be interesting to try a hybrid of 5cp and domination. The middle and 2nd points contribute to a domination Win if a team reaches 100% but if a team is capable of taking the last point the round automatically goes to the team that took last. Not sure if it's possible but it could help resolve alot of the stalemate issues a few maps have, could also be terrible don't know cause I've never tried it and not sure if it's possible.

I wouldn't be against trying some NEW 3cp maps, but taking a current 5cp map and hacking off 2 points isn't going to do anything other than make said map worse.

As long as we're on the topic of non-default 6s maps it would also be interesting to try a hybrid of 5cp and domination. The middle and 2nd points contribute to a domination Win if a team reaches 100% but if a team is capable of taking the last point the round automatically goes to the team that took last. Not sure if it's possible but it could help resolve alot of the stalemate issues a few maps have, could also be terrible don't know cause I've never tried it and not sure if it's possible.
13
#13
-7 Frags +

Thinking this community will want anything other than to stalemate for 10 minutes a round on boring 5cp maps like Prolands and Snakewater for the rest of this games existence is naive.

Hard enough to talk people into giving more Koth maps a chance.

Isn't going to happen and even if it did, makes very little difference.

Thinking this community will want anything other than to stalemate for 10 minutes a round on boring 5cp maps like Prolands and Snakewater for the rest of this games existence is naive.

Hard enough to talk people into giving more Koth maps a chance.

Isn't going to happen and even if it did, makes very little difference.
14
#14
-1 Frags +
ComangliaI wouldn't be against trying some NEW 3cp maps, but taking a current 5cp map and hacking off 2 points isn't going to do anything other than make said map worse.

Yeah I said that it was a joke.

DwapkingAsi_PasasiI'm pretty sure the spawn times are different and the last point is closer to spawn than the 2nd point on 5cp maps so losing mid and then losing 2nd is not the same in 3cp format
Teams already spawncamp you on last if your mid has gone horrible. It's just gonna be easier on 3cp.
Show Content
I don't think it will make it easier, first of all, the spawns on powerhouse are far apart and if someone is camping one door he can't camp the other because of a small door that interrupts the line of sight, in addition I tried some sort of comparison and what I did was just load both map and run as scout from mid to enemy spawn and while on Powerhouse it took 10+ seconds to get to the closer spawn and 11+ seconds to the last point (and essentially spawn camping distance for demos from the further spawn), on Gullywash, not only did it not take longer, it was a shorter time being at 9 seconds to reach all the way to spawn. So it seems to me that the feasibility of spawn camping on powerhouse isn't higher from a map that is in the rotation, Gullywash
ComangliaAs long as we're on the topic of non-default 6s maps it would also be interesting to try a hybrid of 5cp and domination. The middle and 2nd points contribute to a domination Win if a team reaches 100% but if a team is capable of taking the last point the round automatically goes to the team that took last. Not sure if it's possible but it could help resolve alot of the stalemate issues a few maps have, could also be terrible don't know cause I've never tried it and not sure if it's possible.
Show Content
While this is an interesting idea and can make the game more interesting because teams can't just be on an advantage and then lose a mid and decide to just park the bus but on the other hand I can see 2 problems: teams that have an advantage can have an engineer on 2nd and this makes pushing out of last even harder. Another problem (more of a philosophical problem) is that if two teams are pretty equal and play in a way that games just go from last to last over and over again then a team could get a round even if otherwise the other team would've got that round (I'm sure there were games that were like this but the team who won was the one with less time on the enemies 2nd).
HildrethThinking this community will want anything other than to stalemate for 10 minutes a round on boring 5cp maps like Prolands and Snakewater for the rest of this games existence is naive.

Hard enough to talk people into giving more Koth maps a chance.

Isn't going to happen and even if it did, makes very little difference.

yeah but I like discussing things like these and think it is fun and interesting seeing what other people think nevertheless.

[quote=Comanglia]I wouldn't be against trying some NEW 3cp maps, but taking a current 5cp map and hacking off 2 points isn't going to do anything other than make said map worse.[/quote]
Yeah I said that it was a joke.

[quote=Dwapking][quote=Asi_Pasasi]I'm pretty sure the spawn times are different and the last point is closer to spawn than the 2nd point on 5cp maps so losing mid and then losing 2nd is not the same in 3cp format[/quote]

Teams already spawncamp you on last if your mid has gone horrible. It's just gonna be easier on 3cp.[/quote]
[spoiler]I don't think it will make it easier, first of all, the spawns on powerhouse are far apart and if someone is camping one door he can't camp the other because of a small door that interrupts the line of sight, in addition I tried some sort of comparison and what I did was just load both map and run as scout from mid to enemy spawn and while on Powerhouse it took 10+ seconds to get to the closer spawn and 11+ seconds to the last point (and essentially spawn camping distance for demos from the further spawn), on Gullywash, not only did it not take longer, it was a shorter time being at 9 seconds to reach all the way to spawn. So it seems to me that the feasibility of spawn camping on powerhouse isn't higher from a map that is in the rotation, Gullywash[/spoiler]

[quote=Comanglia]As long as we're on the topic of non-default 6s maps it would also be interesting to try a hybrid of 5cp and domination. The middle and 2nd points contribute to a domination Win if a team reaches 100% but if a team is capable of taking the last point the round automatically goes to the team that took last. Not sure if it's possible but it could help resolve alot of the stalemate issues a few maps have, could also be terrible don't know cause I've never tried it and not sure if it's possible.[/quote]
[spoiler]While this is an interesting idea and can make the game more interesting because teams can't just be on an advantage and then lose a mid and decide to just park the bus but on the other hand I can see 2 problems: teams that have an advantage can have an engineer on 2nd and this makes pushing out of last even harder. Another problem (more of a philosophical problem) is that if two teams are pretty equal and play in a way that games just go from last to last over and over again then a team could get a round even if otherwise the other team would've got that round (I'm sure there were games that were like this but the team who won was the one with less time on the enemies 2nd).[/spoiler]

[quote=Hildreth]Thinking this community will want anything other than to stalemate for 10 minutes a round on boring 5cp maps like Prolands and Snakewater for the rest of this games existence is naive.

Hard enough to talk people into giving more Koth maps a chance.

Isn't going to happen and even if it did, makes very little difference.[/quote]
yeah but I like discussing things like these and think it is fun and interesting seeing what other people think nevertheless.
15
#15
-7 Frags +

pOwERhoUSe is bAlaNCeD fOR 6v6 TeAmfORtReSs2

pOwERhoUSe is bAlaNCeD fOR 6v6 TeAmfORtReSs2
16
#16
32 Frags +

you die on mid you die in real life

you die on mid you die in real life
17
#17
2 Frags +

3CP is a very interesting idea. If the maps are made correctly, I think it could end a lot of the stalemate TF2 we play on a nightly basis.

Make mid extremely large (maybe 2 times as large as process)
Add 3 "mini" cap points to Middle (You need all 3 to capture Middle)
Faster spawn times (allows both teams to continue fighting for Middle and allows creativity in back caps)

This way, mid-fights are not 2 teams smashing into each other every time. There could potentially be 2-3 straight up team fights for control of Middle before a single Last Push happens.
I believe a lot more strategy and creative teamplay will dominate the game instead of the current format.

3CP is a very interesting idea. If the maps are made correctly, I think it could end a lot of the stalemate TF2 we play on a nightly basis.

Make mid extremely large (maybe 2 times as large as process)
Add 3 "mini" cap points to Middle (You need all 3 to capture Middle)
Faster spawn times (allows both teams to continue fighting for Middle and allows creativity in back caps)

This way, mid-fights are not 2 teams smashing into each other every time. There could potentially be 2-3 straight up team fights for control of Middle before a single Last Push happens.
I believe a lot more strategy and creative teamplay will dominate the game instead of the current format.
18
#18
1 Frags +
jimmijlose mid lose the round?

well there should be a difference between losing mid giving up one or two frags, and getting wiped on mid.

Most of the complaints about Badlands were that Last is easily defend-able but it is difficult to push out of it, thus bringing the game to a stalemate

This is things that can get fixed on new map designs using height advantage and door width differently. For example, why do people standing on 4th CP get a defenders advantage from height (badlands/process/sunshine) or from doors impossible to get thru (snakewater)?
Or why is there a forward spawn on mid?
Theres lots of stuff that can be done and that does not depend on the number of control points on the map.

@Spacecadet : something similar exists : cp_standin. I'm not sure you want gameplay split between 3 or 4 different places in a game where getting outflanked too much led to many maps death.

ComangliaI wouldn't be against trying some NEW 3cp maps, but taking a current 5cp map and hacking off 2 points isn't going to do anything other than make said map worse.

As long as we're on the topic of non-default 6s maps it would also be interesting to try a hybrid of 5cp and domination. The middle and 2nd points contribute to a domination Win if a team reaches 100% but if a team is capable of taking the last point the round automatically goes to the team that took last. Not sure if it's possible but it could help resolve alot of the stalemate issues a few maps have, could also be terrible don't know cause I've never tried it and not sure if it's possible.

Without proper design of chokes and height differences between zones, this will lead people to go for the dom win all the time. Imagine ascent vs 7 on badlands with 7 going for the 0/0, and getting rewarded with it.

[quote=jimmij]lose mid lose the round?[/quote]
well there should be a difference between losing mid giving up one or two frags, and getting wiped on mid.

[quote]Most of the complaints about Badlands were that Last is easily defend-able but it is difficult to push out of it, thus bringing the game to a stalemate[/quote]

This is things that can get fixed on new map designs using height advantage and door width differently. For example, why do people standing on 4th CP get a defenders advantage from height (badlands/process/sunshine) or from doors impossible to get thru (snakewater)?
Or why is there a forward spawn on mid?
Theres lots of stuff that can be done and that does not depend on the number of control points on the map.

@Spacecadet : something similar exists : cp_standin. I'm not sure you want gameplay split between 3 or 4 different places in a game where getting outflanked too much led to many maps death.

[quote=Comanglia]I wouldn't be against trying some NEW 3cp maps, but taking a current 5cp map and hacking off 2 points isn't going to do anything other than make said map worse.

As long as we're on the topic of non-default 6s maps it would also be interesting to try a hybrid of 5cp and domination. The middle and 2nd points contribute to a domination Win if a team reaches 100% but if a team is capable of taking the last point the round automatically goes to the team that took last. Not sure if it's possible but it could help resolve alot of the stalemate issues a few maps have, could also be terrible don't know cause I've never tried it and not sure if it's possible.[/quote]
Without proper design of chokes and height differences between zones, this will lead people to go for the dom win all the time. Imagine ascent vs 7 on badlands with 7 going for the 0/0, and getting rewarded with it.
19
#19
0 Frags +
SpaceCadetAdd 3 "mini" cap points to Middle (You need all 3 to capture Middle)

this is basically 5cp unless you place all 3 points at an equal distance from each team. if one point is closer to each choke then that one will be capped first, turning the map into 5cp.

SpaceCadetThis way, mid-fights are not 2 teams smashing into each other every time. There could potentially be 2-3 straight up team fights for control of Middle before a single Last Push happens.

isn't this also somewhat a stalemate? an endless midfight settled by dm and/or better spawn waves? if you're missing part of your team for whatever reason during a postfight creative teamplay goes down the drain and you lose because of player advantage...

[quote=SpaceCadet]
Add 3 "mini" cap points to Middle (You need all 3 to capture Middle)[/quote]
this is basically 5cp unless you place all 3 points at an equal distance from each team. if one point is closer to each choke then that one will be capped first, turning the map into 5cp.

[quote=SpaceCadet]This way, mid-fights are not 2 teams smashing into each other every time. There could potentially be 2-3 straight up team fights for control of Middle before a single Last Push happens.[/quote]

isn't this also somewhat a stalemate? an endless midfight settled by dm and/or better spawn waves? if you're missing part of your team for whatever reason during a postfight creative teamplay goes down the drain and you lose because of player advantage...
20
#20
3 Frags +
Twiggy
@Spacecadet : something similar exists : cp_standin. I'm not sure you want gameplay split between 3 or 4 different places in a game where getting outflanked too much led to many maps death.

I'm familiar with Standin and that's why I said if the maps are made correctly, those problems will not exist. You simply can't have a 3CP map with a fast middle capture. Unless you make the cap time extremely slow, or add some type of gimmick (like 3 mini cap points) then pushing last happens too quickly and leaves the defending team with almost no chance to regain the momentum.

[quote=Twiggy]

@Spacecadet : something similar exists : cp_standin. I'm not sure you want gameplay split between 3 or 4 different places in a game where getting outflanked too much led to many maps death.[/quote]

I'm familiar with Standin and that's why I said if the maps are made correctly, those problems will not exist. You simply can't have a 3CP map with a fast middle capture. Unless you make the cap time extremely slow, or add some type of gimmick (like 3 mini cap points) then pushing last happens too quickly and leaves the defending team with almost no chance to regain the momentum.
21
#21
0 Frags +
SpaceCadet3CP is a very interesting idea. If the maps are made correctly, I think it could end a lot of the stalemate TF2 we play on a nightly basis.

Make mid extremely large (maybe 2 times as large as process)
Add 3 "mini" cap points to Middle (You need all 3 to capture Middle)
Faster spawn times (allows both teams to continue fighting for Middle and allows creativity in back caps)

This way, mid-fights are not 2 teams smashing into each other every time. There could potentially be 2-3 straight up team fights for control of Middle before a single Last Push happens.
I believe a lot more strategy and creative teamplay will dominate the game instead of the current format.

Make a super big mid, and sniper pretty much becomes an upgrade to scout, and we all know how much fun perma sniper is in 6's. Also, why would you not want teams smashing into eachother for midfights, that's one of the most exciting and entertaining parts of the game.

[quote=SpaceCadet]3CP is a very interesting idea. If the maps are made correctly, I think it could end a lot of the stalemate TF2 we play on a nightly basis.

Make mid extremely large (maybe 2 times as large as process)
Add 3 "mini" cap points to Middle (You need all 3 to capture Middle)
Faster spawn times (allows both teams to continue fighting for Middle and allows creativity in back caps)

This way, mid-fights are not 2 teams smashing into each other every time. There could potentially be 2-3 straight up team fights for control of Middle before a single Last Push happens.
I believe a lot more strategy and creative teamplay will dominate the game instead of the current format.[/quote]
Make a super big mid, and sniper pretty much becomes an upgrade to scout, and we all know how much fun perma sniper is in 6's. Also, why would you not want teams smashing into eachother for midfights, that's one of the most exciting and entertaining parts of the game.
22
#22
0 Frags +
Sherwoodfanisn't this also somewhat a stalemate? an endless midfight settled by dm and/or better spawn waves? if you're missing part of your team for whatever reason during a postfight creative teamplay goes down the drain and you lose because of player advantage...

I'd have to disagree, and I think the disconnect in our thinking is because we both envision different builds of the 3CP map in question.

In our current format, everything is basically a 6v6 fight or 6v5 fight. Mid fights, holding 2nd, etc.
1 team is full attack and the other full defense. One slip or break here or there gives an advantage and the whole team pushes and/or retreats. In my opinion, over 10 years, there is a lack of creativity and fresh strategy on this front.

If the 3 CP map was created properly, each middle CP could have its own enclosed area of sorts. Then, both teams flank players could actually do what their name suggests and be creative while making plays and not just to "force an uber".

6 ppl playing around a medic would also go away and more of a "team fighting" mentality would exist in different areas of the map because you need to defend points simultaneously while you stage an attack.
Player/Uber advantage would still remain the biggest factors so nothing changes at the core of the game.

AntimoonMake a super big mid, and sniper pretty much becomes an upgrade to scout, and we all know how much fun perma sniper is in 6's. Also, why would you not want teams smashing into eachother for midfights, that's one of the most exciting and entertaining parts of the game.

Like what I said above, we are thinking about 2 different builds of the map. My thinking is to have the mid very large but compartmentalized so each CP is basically a a stand alone point but all 3 points on Mid are connected. A sniper in that environment would not be effective in all 3 areas, maybe just 1 or 2 so that's not overpowered.

I feel you about mid fights being exciting and I agree to a point. If the teams are evenly matched, then mid fights tend to be very exciting. However, when teams are not evenly matched, the team with a skill disadvantage has a better chance to flip the results if the map is not so linear. With more options for creative play and strategy, even a team with a serious skill gap could put up more of a challenge. Isn't that more beneficial in the end? More competitive matches?

[quote=Sherwoodfan]
isn't this also somewhat a stalemate? an endless midfight settled by dm and/or better spawn waves? if you're missing part of your team for whatever reason during a postfight creative teamplay goes down the drain and you lose because of player advantage...[/quote]

I'd have to disagree, and I think the disconnect in our thinking is because we both envision different builds of the 3CP map in question.

In our current format, everything is basically a 6v6 fight or 6v5 fight. Mid fights, holding 2nd, etc.
1 team is full attack and the other full defense. One slip or break here or there gives an advantage and the whole team pushes and/or retreats. In my opinion, over 10 years, there is a lack of creativity and fresh strategy on this front.

If the 3 CP map was created properly, each middle CP could have its own enclosed area of sorts. Then, both teams flank players could actually do what their name suggests and be creative while making plays and not just to "force an uber".

6 ppl playing around a medic would also go away and more of a "team fighting" mentality would exist in different areas of the map because you need to defend points simultaneously while you stage an attack.
Player/Uber advantage would still remain the biggest factors so nothing changes at the core of the game.

[quote=Antimoon]
Make a super big mid, and sniper pretty much becomes an upgrade to scout, and we all know how much fun perma sniper is in 6's. Also, why would you not want teams smashing into eachother for midfights, that's one of the most exciting and entertaining parts of the game.[/quote]

Like what I said above, we are thinking about 2 different builds of the map. My thinking is to have the mid very large but compartmentalized so each CP is basically a a stand alone point but all 3 points on Mid are connected. A sniper in that environment would not be effective in all 3 areas, maybe just 1 or 2 so that's not overpowered.

I feel you about mid fights being exciting and I agree to a point. If the teams are evenly matched, then mid fights tend to be very exciting. However, when teams are not evenly matched, the team with a skill disadvantage has a better chance to flip the results if the map is not so linear. With more options for creative play and strategy, even a team with a serious skill gap could put up more of a challenge. Isn't that more beneficial in the end? More competitive matches?
23
#23
5 Frags +

in ugc 4s there is a 3cp map and nobody likes it because when you lose mid and lose the round that is dumb and stupid

in ugc 4s there is a 3cp map and nobody likes it because when you lose mid and lose the round that is dumb and stupid
24
#24
3 Frags +
SpaceCadetSherwoodfanisn't this also somewhat a stalemate? an endless midfight settled by dm and/or better spawn waves? if you're missing part of your team for whatever reason during a postfight creative teamplay goes down the drain and you lose because of player advantage...
I'd have to disagree, and I think the disconnect in our thinking is because we both envision different builds of the 3CP map in question.

In our current format, everything is basically a 6v6 fight or 6v5 fight. Mid fights, holding 2nd, etc.
1 team is full attack and the other full defense. One slip or break here or there gives an advantage and the whole team pushes and/or retreats. In my opinion, over 10 years, there is a lack of creativity and fresh strategy on this front.

If the 3 CP map was created properly, each middle CP could have its own enclosed area of sorts. Then, both teams flank players could actually do what their name suggests and be creative while making plays and not just to "force an uber".

If you've played for 10 years, and you think that all the flank does is force ubers, then you've wasted a decade.

6 ppl playing around a medic would also go away and more of a "team fighting" mentality would exist in different areas of the map because you need to defend points simultaneously while you stage an attack.
Player/Uber advantage would still remain the biggest factors so nothing changes at the core of the game.

...what exactly do you think team fights are? It's not a roamer fighting a scout while everyone else is halfway across the map, that's for sure.

SpaceCadetAntimoonMake a super big mid, and sniper pretty much becomes an upgrade to scout, and we all know how much fun perma sniper is in 6's. Also, why would you not want teams smashing into eachother for midfights, that's one of the most exciting and entertaining parts of the game.
Like what I said above, we are thinking about 2 different builds of the map. My thinking is to have the mid very large but compartmentalized so each CP is basically a a stand alone point but all 3 points on Mid are connected. A sniper in that environment would not be effective in all 3 areas, maybe just 1 or 2 so that's not overpowered.

I feel you about mid fights being exciting and I agree to a point. If the teams are evenly matched, then mid fights tend to be very exciting. However, when teams are not evenly matched, the team with a skill disadvantage has a better chance to flip the results if the map is not so linear. With more options for creative play and strategy, even a team with a serious skill gap could put up more of a challenge. Isn't that more beneficial in the end? More competitive matches?

The team with less skill should, in a skill-based game, lose.

It seems like the way you think this map would play out is "each team starts trying to push each of the cappable points simultaneously and takes small engagements" when in reality it's going to be each team picking one of the three points to go to, having a fight if the other team went there, and just stacking the cap and moving to the next one if they didn't. Once they win that fight then they just have a scout cap the last cappable point while the rest of the team goes and spawncamps or chases the people leaving the fight.

It's basically "Let's Make a Deal" but the thing behind door number 3 is a midfight.

[quote=SpaceCadet][quote=Sherwoodfan]
isn't this also somewhat a stalemate? an endless midfight settled by dm and/or better spawn waves? if you're missing part of your team for whatever reason during a postfight creative teamplay goes down the drain and you lose because of player advantage...[/quote]

I'd have to disagree, and I think the disconnect in our thinking is because we both envision different builds of the 3CP map in question.

In our current format, everything is basically a 6v6 fight or 6v5 fight. Mid fights, holding 2nd, etc.
1 team is full attack and the other full defense. One slip or break here or there gives an advantage and the whole team pushes and/or retreats. In my opinion, over 10 years, there is a lack of creativity and fresh strategy on this front.

If the 3 CP map was created properly, each middle CP could have its own enclosed area of sorts. Then, both teams flank players could actually do what their name suggests and be creative while making plays and not just to "force an uber". [/quote]
If you've played for 10 years, and you think that all the flank does is force ubers, then you've wasted a decade.

[quote]
6 ppl playing around a medic would also go away and more of a "team fighting" mentality would exist in different areas of the map because you need to defend points simultaneously while you stage an attack.
Player/Uber advantage would still remain the biggest factors so nothing changes at the core of the game.
[/quote]
...what exactly do you think team fights are? It's not a roamer fighting a scout while everyone else is halfway across the map, that's for sure.

[quote=SpaceCadet][quote=Antimoon]
Make a super big mid, and sniper pretty much becomes an upgrade to scout, and we all know how much fun perma sniper is in 6's. Also, why would you not want teams smashing into eachother for midfights, that's one of the most exciting and entertaining parts of the game.[/quote]

Like what I said above, we are thinking about 2 different builds of the map. My thinking is to have the mid very large but compartmentalized so each CP is basically a a stand alone point but all 3 points on Mid are connected. A sniper in that environment would not be effective in all 3 areas, maybe just 1 or 2 so that's not overpowered.

I feel you about mid fights being exciting and I agree to a point. If the teams are evenly matched, then mid fights tend to be very exciting. However, when teams are not evenly matched, the team with a skill disadvantage has a better chance to flip the results if the map is not so linear. With more options for creative play and strategy, even a team with a serious skill gap could put up more of a challenge. Isn't that more beneficial in the end? More competitive matches?[/quote]
The team with less skill should, in a skill-based game, lose.

It seems like the way you think this map would play out is "each team starts trying to push each of the cappable points simultaneously and takes small engagements" when in reality it's going to be each team picking one of the three points to go to, having a fight if the other team went there, and just stacking the cap and moving to the next one if they didn't. Once they win that fight then they just have a scout cap the last cappable point while the rest of the team goes and spawncamps or chases the people leaving the fight.

It's basically "Let's Make a Deal" but the thing behind door number 3 is a midfight.
25
#25
0 Frags +

I'm not going to get into the finer points of what you said. I disagree with several things but it seems like more of an argument with you instead of a discussion.

I'll just leave it at this. I came from a time where we successfully transitioned from strictly CTF maps to playing half CTF / half CP maps over the years. We saw increased competition across the board in every division as a result. Our CP maps were large, spread out and in some cases had 10 or more CP's per map. 1v1's and 1v2's would happen for control of a single point and could swing a game. That's where strategy and team play count just as much as individual skill when deciding what to attack and how to do it but I guess that's just my opinion from past experiences.

Granted, that was 8v8 and 9v9 play from long ago but with the right maps tailored for 6v6, I see no reason it could not be successful or at the very least, play-tested for results.

I'm not going to get into the finer points of what you said. I disagree with several things but it seems like more of an argument with you instead of a discussion.

I'll just leave it at this. I came from a time where we successfully transitioned from strictly CTF maps to playing half CTF / half CP maps over the years. We saw increased competition across the board in every division as a result. Our CP maps were large, spread out and in some cases had 10 or more CP's per map. 1v1's and 1v2's would happen for control of a single point and could swing a game. That's where strategy and team play count just as much as individual skill when deciding what to attack and how to do it but I guess that's just my opinion from past experiences.

Granted, that was 8v8 and 9v9 play from long ago but with the right maps tailored for 6v6, I see no reason it could not be successful or at the very least, play-tested for results.
26
#26
0 Frags +
SpaceCadetI'm not going to get into the finer points of what you said. I disagree with several things but it seems like more of an argument with you instead of a discussion.

I'll just leave it at this. I came from a time where we successfully transitioned from strictly CTF maps to playing half CTF / half CP maps over the years. We saw increased competition across the board in every division as a result. Our CP maps were large, spread out and in some cases had 10 or more CP's per map. 1v1's and 1v2's would happen for control of a single point and could swing a game. That's where strategy and team play count just as much as individual skill when deciding what to attack and how to do it but I guess that's just my opinion from past experiences.

Granted, that was 8v8 and 9v9 play from long ago but with the right maps tailored for 6v6, I see no reason it could not be successful or at the very least, play-tested for results.

Yeah I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that map design has evolved a bit since 8v8 was a thing. 10 capture points to a map sounds like the darkest timeline version of Granary. Furthermore, deciding a game on the back of a 1v1 doesn't sound fun. I don't play 6's for those times when I'm standing on second while my scout is fighting another scout on last to keep us from getting backcapped.

Even if you do long for clutch plays from players defending points on their own, there is no reason why any team that's halfway decent at the game would split their team across points in this theoretical "3 CP mid" map of yours, if they need to capture all three points. The encounter scenarios are either:

  • the players on one point encounter 6 players, and have a high probability to lose due to numbers disadvantage
  • they encounter the enemy team split across all three points, and have a net neutral chance of winning

On the other hand, the encounter scenarios for a team that plays together are:

  • they encounter a couple players from a split team, and have a high probability of winning the fight
  • they encounter another full team and have a net neutral chance of winning
  • they encounter no resistance when they reach the control point, as the other team is a group and has chosen a different point, also neutral

Given that playing as a unit is objectively better here, what is the purpose of having 3 simultaneously capturable mid points? The best case scenario is that one team wipes the other at the first mid fight, at which point a scout can just go capture the other two points while the rest of the team spawncamps. A more realistic scenario is that the three points change hands cyclically until the map timer runs out. In any case, there is no way in which such a map could be considered an improvement to current 5cp maps.

[quote=SpaceCadet]I'm not going to get into the finer points of what you said. I disagree with several things but it seems like more of an argument with you instead of a discussion.

I'll just leave it at this. I came from a time where we successfully transitioned from strictly CTF maps to playing half CTF / half CP maps over the years. We saw increased competition across the board in every division as a result. Our CP maps were large, spread out and in some cases had 10 or more CP's per map. 1v1's and 1v2's would happen for control of a single point and could swing a game. That's where strategy and team play count just as much as individual skill when deciding what to attack and how to do it but I guess that's just my opinion from past experiences.

Granted, that was 8v8 and 9v9 play from long ago but with the right maps tailored for 6v6, I see no reason it could not be successful or at the very least, play-tested for results.[/quote]

Yeah I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that map design has evolved a bit since 8v8 was a thing. 10 capture points to a map sounds like the darkest timeline version of Granary. Furthermore, deciding a game on the back of a 1v1 doesn't sound fun. I don't play 6's for those times when I'm standing on second while my scout is fighting another scout on last to keep us from getting backcapped.

Even if you do long for clutch plays from players defending points on their own, there is no reason why any team that's halfway decent at the game would split their team across points in this theoretical "3 CP mid" map of yours, if they need to capture all three points. The encounter scenarios are either:
[list]
[*] the players on one point encounter 6 players, and have a high probability to lose due to numbers disadvantage
[*] they encounter the enemy team split across all three points, and have a net neutral chance of winning
[/list]

On the other hand, the encounter scenarios for a team that plays together are:
[list]
[*] they encounter a couple players from a split team, and have a high probability of winning the fight
[*] they encounter another full team and have a net neutral chance of winning
[*] they encounter no resistance when they reach the control point, as the other team is a group and has chosen a different point, also neutral
[/list]

Given that playing as a unit is objectively better here, what is the purpose of having 3 simultaneously capturable mid points? The best case scenario is that one team wipes the other at the first mid fight, at which point a scout can just go capture the other two points while the rest of the team spawncamps. A more realistic scenario is that the three points change hands cyclically until the map timer runs out. In any case, there is no way in which such a map could be considered an improvement to current 5cp maps.
27
#27
-1 Frags +
SpaceCadetTwiggy
@Spacecadet : something similar exists : cp_standin. I'm not sure you want gameplay split between 3 or 4 different places in a game where getting outflanked too much led to many maps death.

I'm familiar with Standin and that's why I said if the maps are made correctly, those problems will not exist.

Sure, but that argument can be applied to koth/5cp/whatever else too :)

[quote=SpaceCadet][quote=Twiggy]

@Spacecadet : something similar exists : cp_standin. I'm not sure you want gameplay split between 3 or 4 different places in a game where getting outflanked too much led to many maps death.[/quote]

I'm familiar with Standin and that's why I said if the maps are made correctly, those problems will not exist. [/quote]

Sure, but that argument can be applied to koth/5cp/whatever else too :)
28
#28
0 Frags +

Might be viable if mids took twice as long to cap and maps were built to favour the defending team on last. Or maybe with instaspawn, I feel like that could be fun.

Might be viable if mids took twice as long to cap and maps were built to favour the defending team on last. Or maybe with instaspawn, I feel like that could be fun.
29
#29
3 Frags +

the floor is lava

the floor is lava
30
#30
-4 Frags +

holy broking spam

holy broking spam
1 2
Please sign in through STEAM to post a comment.