i couldn't think of a better term for the "clock" that once run down resets the 6v6 map, and a new mid is started..
i believe it is 10minutes for every control point on 5cp amd different on A/D
i feel atm it is nearly irrelevant - i.e: 10min is basically infinite time, but it is a good idea which just needs some adjustment.
should the timer be reduced to say 3minutes, it would put pressure on the attacking team to continue attacking, since they have more control points, and want to protect that advantage. at the moment, it is pretty tough for teams to deal with well executed suicide plays considering the "attacking" team has so much time to make these plays.
example: team A holds 4 control points on granary, and is attacking into team B's last point, each team has 6 players up and ubercharge.
team A can easily sticky defensively and sacrifice 1 player, or use 1 player to snipe aggressively, as losing 1 player while defensively positioned with equal ubers will be quite hard for team B to capatalise on.
if the 'stalemate timer' was smaller (3mins again, for example), perhaps 1 or 2 plays like this could be made, but it wouldn't be overly unfair for the defending team.
using 1 global time would probably be a bad idea however, and each maps' points should be considered when setting the stalemate timers. for instance a small timer on snakewater last may allow the defending team to get easy resets (especially with heavy engie etc..).
thoughts?
i couldn't think of a better term for the "clock" that once run down resets the 6v6 map, and a new mid is started..
i believe it is 10minutes for every control point on 5cp amd different on A/D
i feel atm it is nearly irrelevant - i.e: 10min is basically infinite time, but it is a good idea which just needs some adjustment.
should the timer be reduced to say 3minutes, it would put pressure on the attacking team to continue attacking, since they have more control points, and want to protect that advantage. at the moment, it is pretty tough for teams to deal with well executed suicide plays considering the "attacking" team has so much time to make these plays.
example: team A holds 4 control points on granary, and is attacking into team B's last point, each team has 6 players up and ubercharge.
team A can easily sticky defensively and sacrifice 1 player, or use 1 player to snipe aggressively, as losing 1 player while defensively positioned with equal ubers will be quite hard for team B to capatalise on.
if the 'stalemate timer' was smaller (3mins again, for example), perhaps 1 or 2 plays like this could be made, but it wouldn't be overly unfair for the defending team.
using 1 global time would probably be a bad idea however, and each maps' points should be considered when setting the stalemate timers. for instance a small timer on snakewater last may allow the defending team to get easy resets (especially with heavy engie etc..).
thoughts?
This was in one of the eXtravision videos, and has been talked about since forever. Everyone thinks it should be decreased, but it probably won't happen unless valve implements it.
This was in one of the eXtravision videos, and has been talked about since forever. Everyone thinks it should be decreased, but it probably won't happen unless valve implements it.
surely if the community feels that way it shouldn't be hard to implement, or "make" new maps for comp, like cp_pro_badlands or w/e, so pubbers can still use the original maps "as they were intended"
surely if the community feels that way it shouldn't be hard to implement, or "make" new maps for comp, like cp_pro_badlands or w/e, so pubbers can still use the original maps "as they were intended"
brownymasterEDIT: Also, we generally say no to pro_maps of stock maps. Except granary, since that map has been fucked with for so long like when they added gates then removed it and the lack of symmetry/spawn locations and what not.
And except koth_pro_viaduct, and then all the rest are custom maps designed for the comp community except gravelpit and badlands. I don't think there's anything wrong with making pro_ versions and they're often better, it just has to be done well. And on topic I don't think this is really an issue, lowering the time wouldn't add anything to the game imo.
[quote=brownymaster]EDIT: Also, we generally say no to pro_maps of stock maps. Except granary, since that map has been fucked with for so long like when they added gates then removed it and the lack of symmetry/spawn locations and what not.[/quote]
And except koth_pro_viaduct, and then all the rest are custom maps designed for the comp community except gravelpit and badlands. I don't think there's anything wrong with making pro_ versions and they're often better, it just has to be done well. And on topic I don't think this is really an issue, lowering the time wouldn't add anything to the game imo.
Kakiexample: team A holds 4 control points on granary, and is attacking into team B's last point, each team has 6 players up and ubercharge.
team A can easily sticky defensively and sacrifice 1 player, or use 1 player to snipe aggressively, as losing 1 player while defensively positioned with equal ubers will be quite hard for team B to capatalise on.
if the 'stalemate timer' was smaller (3mins again, for example), perhaps 1 or 2 plays like this could be made, but it wouldn't be overly unfair for the defending team.
using 1 global time would probably be a bad idea however, and each maps' points should be considered when setting the stalemate timers. for instance a small timer on snakewater last may allow the defending team to get easy resets (especially with heavy engie etc..).
thoughts?
Easy resets are really the biggest problem here. Take your granary example: A few suicide plays fail, then one works, the push however fails.
10 minute timer: The defending team will push out onto their 2nd so you can't repeat that.
3 minute time: There is less than a minute left, the defending team could either push their 2nd and then try push granary middle against a full team (lol) because of the cool forward spawn or they could just turtle and get a new midfight without taking the risk of getting backcapped twice.
[quote=Kaki]example: team A holds 4 control points on granary, and is attacking into team B's last point, each team has 6 players up and ubercharge.
team A can easily sticky defensively and sacrifice 1 player, or use 1 player to snipe aggressively, as losing 1 player while defensively positioned with equal ubers will be quite hard for team B to capatalise on.
if the 'stalemate timer' was smaller (3mins again, for example), perhaps 1 or 2 plays like this could be made, but it wouldn't be overly unfair for the defending team.
using 1 global time would probably be a bad idea however, and each maps' points should be considered when setting the stalemate timers. for instance a small timer on snakewater last may allow the defending team to [b]get easy resets[/b] (especially with heavy engie etc..).
thoughts?[/quote]
Easy resets are really the biggest problem here. Take your granary example: A few suicide plays fail, then one works, the push however fails.
10 minute timer: The defending team will push out onto their 2nd so you can't repeat that.
3 minute time: There is less than a minute left, the defending team could either push their 2nd and then try [b]push granary middle against a full team[/b] (lol) because of the cool forward spawn or they could just turtle and get a new midfight without taking the risk of getting backcapped twice.
u are taking the 3minute suggestion too far, like i said, each point on each map should have a timer best suited to it.
defenders should be rewarded tho imo.
u are taking the 3minute suggestion too far, like i said, each point on each map should have a timer best suited to it.
defenders should be rewarded tho imo.
the actual idea is that the "losing" team should be able to punish the winning team's mistakes more easily than vice versa
the actual idea is that the "losing" team should be able to punish the winning team's mistakes more easily than vice versa
Kakiu are taking the 3minute suggestion too far, like i said, each point on each map should have a timer best suited to it.
defenders should be rewarded tho imo.
Instead of reseting and starting a new round after every failpush onto last i'd rather try to fix the map and make both pushing into and out of last possible.
The reward for defending last should be the possibility to take 2nd back and not getting a free new round after you got pushed to your last and defended a point for the first time that round.
[quote=Kaki]u are taking the 3minute suggestion too far, like i said, each point on each map should have a timer best suited to it.
defenders should be rewarded tho imo.[/quote]
Instead of reseting and starting a new round after every failpush onto last i'd rather try to fix the map and make [b]both[/b] pushing into and out of last possible.
The reward for defending last should be the possibility to take 2nd back and not getting a free new round after you got pushed to your last and defended a point for the first time that round.
lol that's not what i'm suggesting. only that the attacking team should have an actual time constraint, as opposed to none.
would be interested in what the ppl who play euro rules had to say
lol that's not what i'm suggesting. only that the attacking team should have an actual time constraint, as opposed to none.
would be interested in what the ppl who play euro rules had to say
In general the stalemate timer almost never becomes a factor in the US format because our games can last upwards of an hour (due to the 2 30 minute halves).
I think the last time you commonly heard about people timing out rounds was when we had cp_ashville in the rotation - and I think all of us can agree that was the problem more so than the timer.
Sometimes if a team goes *really* tanky on a last (heavy, pyro, engee) and you fail push hard a few times the timer will get down into the 3 minute range, but then desperation will usually set in lol.
With the presumption of a 3 minute time, and the running of uber, you'll only get 3 shots at pushing last at best, and there's also absolutely NO incentive to push out, because pushing out to second is much harder than defending last 1 more time, not to mention if you harass the attacking team with a sniper (thus delaying the push for every pick you get). You could easily delay each push over one minute and limit them to 2 pushes in 3 minutes. Since you've gone all in defense it wouldn't be hard to keep them out and just reset the round to a new mid fight - which I think would be bad for the game in general :/
The issue with pushing out of last on most maps is:
1. The distance most teams put between themselves and the doorways into last, if you aren't holding close to the doors you simply can't push back to 2/4 as well, because by the time you mop up everybody and get to pushing they're respawning or respawned by the time you get to second because of the amount of distance you've forced yourself to have to cover.
2. Heavy/engineer off classes, that guy you had off classing, in general, not only has to participate in mopping up players, but then has to run back into spawn and then cover the length of the distance from spawn to 2/4, which again, makes you slow (often too slow) to 2/4
In general the stalemate timer almost never becomes a factor in the US format because our games can last upwards of an hour (due to the 2 30 minute halves).
I think the last time you commonly heard about people timing out rounds was when we had cp_ashville in the rotation - and I think all of us can agree that was the problem more so than the timer.
Sometimes if a team goes *really* tanky on a last (heavy, pyro, engee) and you fail push hard a few times the timer will get down into the 3 minute range, but then desperation will usually set in lol.
With the presumption of a 3 minute time, and the running of uber, you'll only get 3 shots at pushing last at best, and there's also absolutely [b]NO[/b] incentive to push out, because pushing out to second is much harder than defending last 1 more time, not to mention if you harass the attacking team with a sniper (thus delaying the push for every pick you get). You could easily delay each push over one minute and limit them to 2 pushes in 3 minutes. Since you've gone all in defense it wouldn't be hard to keep them out and just reset the round to a new mid fight - which I think would be bad for the game in general :/
The issue with pushing out of last on most maps is:
1. The distance most teams put between themselves and the doorways into last, if you aren't holding close to the doors you simply can't push back to 2/4 as well, because by the time you mop up everybody and get to pushing they're respawning or respawned by the time you get to second because of the amount of distance you've forced yourself to have to cover.
2. Heavy/engineer off classes, that guy you had off classing, in general, not only has to participate in mopping up players, but then has to run back into spawn and then cover the length of the distance from spawn to 2/4, which again, makes you slow (often too slow) to 2/4
terrible idea
teams would turtle up on last far more than they already do and be rewarded for it by a free 2nd retake they didn't have to actually win
terrible idea
teams would turtle up on last far more than they already do and be rewarded for it by a free 2nd retake they didn't have to actually win
Kakilol that's not what i'm suggesting. only that the attacking team should have an actual time constraint, as opposed to none.
would be interested in what the ppl who play euro rules had to say
There are two reason for a defending team in europe not to push out of last:
-not enough picks/über advantage (map dependent)
-they are ahead in rounds and are running the clock down (srs bsns official match tactic)
The defending team should have to earn second and mid by defending last really well and proper pushes and not by getting rewarded for defending last barely a couple of times. There is a reason why they were defending last.
For me this would make maps with hard-to-push last points really frustrating. Imagine a game, score is 2-1 against you, 12 minutes remaining, after a 10 minute back and forth round and 3 times barely not capping last the stalemate timing gives you a big fuck you lose the map.
[quote=Kaki]lol that's not what i'm suggesting. only that the attacking team should have an actual time constraint, as opposed to none.
would be interested in what the ppl who play euro rules had to say[/quote]
There are two reason for a defending team in europe not to push out of last:
-not enough picks/über advantage (map dependent)
-they are ahead in rounds and are running the clock down (srs bsns official match tactic)
The defending team should have to earn second and mid by defending last really well and proper pushes and not by getting rewarded for defending last barely a couple of times. There is a reason why they were defending last.
For me this would make maps with hard-to-push last points really frustrating. Imagine a game, score is 2-1 against you, 12 minutes remaining, after a 10 minute back and forth round and 3 times barely not capping last the stalemate timing gives you a big fuck you lose the map.
most of you seem to be caught up on the fact i suggested 3mins, but my intent is that you realise the 10minute timer is clearly not perfect, and each map could have a 'better' timer.
the timer being lower should increase incentive for the attacking team to move on small advantages, which is what i think the game should be more about.
most of you seem to be caught up on the fact i [i]suggested[/i] 3mins, but my intent is that you realise the 10minute timer is clearly not perfect, and each map could have a 'better' timer.
the timer being lower should increase incentive for the attacking team to move on small advantages, which is what i think the game should be more about.
clearly there is a time that would be a perfect balance. please realise that
clearly there is a time that would be a perfect balance. please realise that
I've heard this suggested many times in the past and it really is a terrible idea.
For one thing it is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. I haven't really seen many teams "parking the bus" in NA. I think the 5 round limit is plenty of incentive to keep attacking, because its much better to try and finish the game while you have the momentum, rather than giving the enemy team the breathing room to recover and potentially come back.
Apart from having no upside, I feel this change would be ruinous to the pace of the game. Simply put it encourages teams to turtle and run down the clock. Few teams would risk losing a round by failing to push out of last when they could just turtle with heavy and engineer and then be rewarded with a fresh midfight. I don't even think it would give the attacking team extra incentive to attack as the op suggests. I can't imagine a smart team attacking all out on the enemy second point when time is low, because if they wipe then they'll probably end up defending their own second point with a fresh timer and huge uber disadvantage.
I really don't think it is worth it to make a pro version of every single push map in rotation so we can have teams on the defense turtle ten times harder than ever before while the team on the offense attacks is just as conservative as before. So what if the round timer is mostly irrelevant on push maps? Not everything has to have a vital function and as a player and a spectator I'd rather have the round time remain meaningless than be bored out of my mind while teams play games with the clock. How can any change that limits aggression and rewards turtling be considered a positive one for this game?
If anyone makes a shot clock analogy I will vomit in rage.
I've heard this suggested many times in the past and it really is a terrible idea.
For one thing it is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. I haven't really seen many teams "parking the bus" in NA. I think the 5 round limit is plenty of incentive to keep attacking, because its much better to try and finish the game while you have the momentum, rather than giving the enemy team the breathing room to recover and potentially come back.
Apart from having no upside, I feel this change would be ruinous to the pace of the game. Simply put it encourages teams to turtle and run down the clock. Few teams would risk losing a round by failing to push out of last when they could just turtle with heavy and engineer and then be rewarded with a fresh midfight. I don't even think it would give the attacking team extra incentive to attack as the op suggests. I can't imagine a smart team attacking all out on the enemy second point when time is low, because if they wipe then they'll probably end up defending their own second point with a fresh timer and huge uber disadvantage.
I really don't think it is worth it to make a pro version of every single push map in rotation so we can have teams on the defense turtle ten times harder than ever before while the team on the offense attacks is just as conservative as before. So what if the round timer is mostly irrelevant on push maps? Not everything has to have a vital function and as a player and a spectator I'd rather have the round time remain meaningless than be bored out of my mind while teams play games with the clock. How can any change that limits aggression and rewards turtling be considered a positive one for this game?
If anyone makes a shot clock analogy I will vomit in rage.
Ten minutes is kind of long but shortening the timer might promote using a heavy and/or sentry to stall out the timer for a reset. If you take a minute or two off the clock, it won't really change anything at all. If you take five or six minutes off the clock, some teams may never push out.
Ten minutes is kind of long but shortening the timer might promote using a heavy and/or sentry to stall out the timer for a reset. If you take a minute or two off the clock, it won't really change anything at all. If you take five or six minutes off the clock, some teams may never push out.
Maybe on Granary where last is relatively easy to push. Making the timer shorter on maps like gullywash and snakewater would just make it unfair for the attacking team and promote even more pyro/engy/heavy stalemating.
Maybe on Granary where last is relatively easy to push. Making the timer shorter on maps like gullywash and snakewater would just make it unfair for the attacking team and promote even more pyro/engy/heavy stalemating.
anyone who thinks its bad to alter the timer: do you therefore feel 10minutes is optimal?
(that is my point)
anyone who thinks its bad to alter the timer: do you therefore feel 10minutes is optimal?
(that is my point)
ok then; how many games have u played where there was a stalemate out of your total?
it's honestly like some of u guys just can't read
ok then; how many games have u played where there was a stalemate out of your total?
it's honestly like some of u guys just can't read
Kakiok then; how many games have u played where there was a recent out of your total?
it's honestly like some of u guys just can't read
Speaking in proper English will make it more clear to us illiterate folks
[quote=Kaki]ok then; how many games have u played where there was a recent out of your total?
it's honestly like some of u guys just can't read[/quote]
Speaking in proper English will make it more clear to us illiterate folks
resets are boring. Noone wants to see a game where a team just turtles it out to get a free redo.
This idea is like the kid playing soccer at school who misses an easy goal and then goes and cries "do-over someone messed me up it's not fair etc"
If a team wins mid, they should be rewarded for winning mid. The other team shouldn't be rewarded for losing mid and then just sitting down and making no attempt to push out.
Of course, that's what'd happen if the timer was maybe 6-7 minutes long (or less).
Timer at 8+ minutes long honestly makes 0 difference. If it goes that long without either team budging, there's a high probability of it resetting at 10 minutes anyway. But you might as well give them that chance, doing the reset 1-2 minutes earlier isn't going to improve gameplay tenfold, despite how amazing you think this idea is.
There is no reason at all to change the timer honestly, resets are shit, and 10 minute timer helps prevent resets.
resets are boring. Noone wants to see a game where a team just turtles it out to get a free redo.
This idea is like the kid playing soccer at school who misses an easy goal and then goes and cries "do-over someone messed me up it's not fair etc"
If a team wins mid, they should be rewarded for winning mid. The other team shouldn't be rewarded for losing mid and then just sitting down and making no attempt to push out.
Of course, that's what'd happen if the timer was maybe 6-7 minutes long (or less).
Timer at 8+ minutes long honestly makes 0 difference. If it goes that long without either team budging, there's a high probability of it resetting at 10 minutes anyway. But you might as well give them that chance, doing the reset 1-2 minutes earlier isn't going to improve gameplay tenfold, despite how amazing you think this idea is.
There is no reason at all to change the timer honestly, resets are shit, and 10 minute timer helps prevent resets.
considering how wasted i was when i was posting this, that english fail wasn't too bad.
u guys keep thinking this is all about turtling and trying to get resets.. i think it would prevent teams from parking the bus, and make the game faster paced in general
considering how wasted i was when i was posting this, that english fail wasn't too bad.
u guys keep thinking this is all about turtling and trying to get resets.. i think it would prevent teams from parking the bus, and make the game faster paced in general
I've never observed in Competitive play where the "stalemate" timer in 5CP run down to zero. so honestly I'm not sure of the side effects of making it shorter would be.
There's a couple different options that can be done, it could be the stalemate (which nobody likes) or it can go to Sudden Death, which sends everybody back to their spawns based upon capped points (so if you own three you respawn at 1st forward). What might be interesting about that is, given that each player only has one life how it changes the playstyle of each class, and it also ensures a round win for one team or the other.
Alternatively we could take it away entirely, and just run off the half/match timer. Defenders could definitely try to hold out at last if they wanted but they'd face a losing fight, if it stalled out past 10 minutes it'd probably the attacking team's fault for not learning how to push.
I've never observed in Competitive play where the "stalemate" timer in 5CP run down to zero. so honestly I'm not sure of the side effects of making it shorter would be.
There's a couple different options that can be done, it could be the stalemate (which nobody likes) or it can go to Sudden Death, which sends everybody back to their spawns based upon capped points (so if you own three you respawn at 1st forward). What might be interesting about that is, given that each player only has one life how it changes the playstyle of each class, and it also ensures a round win for one team or the other.
Alternatively we could take it away entirely, and just run off the half/match timer. Defenders could definitely try to hold out at last if they wanted but they'd face a losing fight, if it stalled out past 10 minutes it'd probably the attacking team's fault for not learning how to push.
brownymasterAmerican's rarely park the bus. And parking the bus has more to do with the map timer, not the stalemate timer. You have zero proof that lower the timer would even increase the pace of the game, just that you think teams will conform to your mindset when in fact they won't and instead will do the opposite of parking the bus, which is blockading the bus.
please reread, then stop posting
[quote=brownymaster]
American's rarely park the bus. And parking the bus has more to do with the map timer, not the stalemate timer. You have zero proof that lower the timer would even increase the pace of the game, just that you think teams will conform to your mindset when in fact they won't and instead will do the opposite of parking the bus, which is blockading the bus.[/quote]
please reread, then stop posting
please ignore kaki's aggression, he is an A grade shitposter
http://pastebin.com/4BG52waS
please ignore kaki's aggression, he is an A grade shitposter
http://pastebin.com/4BG52waS
can't wait for more great ideas from the turkster.
can't wait for more great ideas from the turkster.
why would we want to lower the stalemate timer and thus cause constant forced pushes because if teams play passive (which is fine) then the round just has to restart. you'd get constantly gayed because of it (like when you're about to cap last when the end of half timer goes)
why would we want to lower the stalemate timer and thus cause constant forced pushes because if teams play passive (which is fine) then the round just has to restart. you'd get constantly gayed because of it (like when you're about to cap last when the end of half timer goes)
its not black and white. what you're saying might happen a lot if the timer was really low, but surely there is a good balance between the two.
again, i'm just saying that since its a part of the game, it should actually be a part of the game
its not black and white. what you're saying might happen a lot if the timer was really low, but surely there is a good balance between the two.
again, i'm just saying that since its a part of the game, it should actually be a part of the game
The main incentive for people to push in ESEA, is that the quickest/easiest way to generally win is to capture 5 times. Not pushing on an advantage and parking the bus only gives the enemy team time to swing things in their favor.
What you are suggesting is a high risk, low reward situation. Is there a certain time lower than ten minutes that could make the game move faster, not force turtling and not fuck over the attacking team? Maybe. But that time would be so specific on every single map and on every single point that any stalemate timer which is too long would do nothing to change how we play now (not warranting the change) or too short where it can easily do the opposite of what you want. Now if you were to get that perfect timing, if it exists, the benefit would be so negligible in comparison to all the other reasons we do play aggressively and all the other things we could change to make the game better.
So, we have a massive chance of lowering the stalemate timer to do the opposite of what the change is intended to do or it isn't going to change a fucking thing and we have a small chance, if it even exists, to make the game better by a fraction on why it is already good.
The main incentive for people to push in ESEA, is that the quickest/easiest way to generally win is to capture 5 times. Not pushing on an advantage and parking the bus only gives the enemy team time to swing things in their favor.
What you are suggesting is a high risk, low reward situation. Is there a certain time lower than ten minutes that could make the game move faster, not force turtling and not fuck over the attacking team? Maybe. But that time would be so specific on every single map and on every single point that any stalemate timer which is too long would do nothing to change how we play now (not warranting the change) or too short where it can easily do the opposite of what you want. Now if you were to get that perfect timing, if it exists, the benefit would be so negligible in comparison to all the other reasons we do play aggressively and all the other things we could change to make the game better.
So, we have a massive chance of lowering the stalemate timer to do the opposite of what the change is intended to do or it isn't going to change a fucking thing and we have a small chance, if it even exists, to make the game better by a fraction on why it is already good.