Reverse Invade CTF - A Gameplay Travesty

[Katsu! :3]

Hello. Today I would like to try and educate you on why Reverse Invade Capture the Flag, as a concept, falls flat on its face, and why it reasonably could continue to be neglected by level designers for the foreseeable future. I'm going to try and keep this relatively brief since this gamemode doesn't really deserve much of your attention as a level designer, due to its flaws. (Thank you for falling for the clickbait title by the way)

A preface before we start: I cannot stop you from making an RICTF map, nor am I telling you that you cannot enjoy it. My goal is to educate you as a level designer first and foremost, and that goal includes the "Dos and Don'ts" of gamemode design.

You may have heard of the terms "Invade Capture the Flag" and "Reverse Capture the Flag" before. If not, it's okay, we'll explain in a bit, but the one thing that I think should be said about these two is that they are the 1st and 3rd most popular Capture the Flag variants for a reason: They understand the idea of gameplay flow. A constant gameplay state of knowing you need to push is what makes the more "Take it to the enemy base!"-type flag gamemodes enticing to players that enjoy them. Now, what does "Reverse Invade" mean? Well, "Invade" means the flag is neutral, and it must be brought somewhere outside of mid. And "Reverse" means that the direction of the gamemode is flipped. Lost? Here, let me make it a bit simpler for you:

Not so difficult to understand NOW, right? Just bring the neutral flag to your own base. Simple and, hopefully, understandable enough for you.

Now, if you're an experienced level designer, you can likely see the issue this gamemode will run into immediately upon conception, but if you're a bit newer at this, let me explain. Basically, since the middle of the map is where you must fight over at the beginning of the round, the team who loses the first midfight of the game will almost always lose. "Why is this?" you could be asking. Well, since the flag is located in the center of the map, and your team's objective is to bring the flag to your own base and it instantly captures, you really only need to hold mid to win the entire game.

This is what we call The Percentage Rule. The percentage rule is a rule in certain flag-base gamemodes where, once the flag is past mid (and oftentimes even simply being outside your own base), the flag becomes exponentially to stop from being captured. This is an issue in Standard Capture the Flag as well, however the objective of that gamemode is to get in and get out of the enemy base with the flag, so it kind of makes sense and is rather unavoidable in the nature of Standard CTF.

...however, in Reverse Invade CTF, this issue becomes much more prevalent. Since you only need to hold mid to win, your team will always own roughly 50% of the total playspace in the map. And since the flag goes into your own team's area for it to be captured, guess what? That exponential increase in likelihood for it to be capped is suddenly even MORE exponentially likely because the enemy team has to fight your hold at mid in order to even get a chance to nab the flag. Are you seeing the problem here? The flag itself, once a team owns mid, is simply incontestable. The resources of the defending team (the team with the flag on their side) will always be located at mid with an intelligent team, meaning the flag will always be accessible to them and them only.

Now, let's say that despite these flaws, you're curious on how you could design a map to work around this. And while I have a solution for you, it too is also heavily flawed. The kind of layout I am describing is the Horseshoe. You may have experienced "Horseshoe," or alternatively "U-Turn" layout design in a gamemode like KOTH before, which if so is great! Let's explain it anyway though. Horseshoe design is where the map is designed in the shape of a big "U," as in, the letter U. A singular bend at one end and spawns at the other. Immediately, this may raise some red flags. "How does this make the map any better? It's literally a wall between the spawns!" or "How awful are the rotate times...?" Worry not, for I have a map that has tried this before.

Meet ctf_npire_v3, a Reverse Invade CTF map created in 2008 by the legendary mrmof. Npire is the most well-known Reverse Invade CTF map there is, and it's for a good reason: the map is actually competent for its gamemode. So let's take a critical analysis of what makes Npire so good.

To make a long story short, Npire understands the importance of Convergence Points in both Horseshoe design and Reverse Invade CTF design. When retreating makes it impossible for the enemy team to reach you (which is what Reverse Invade CTF does), you as a level designer need to make it so that the territory that you and your team retreats to is also territory that the enemy team is treading. This is the basis for what made Horseshoe level design in Reverse Invade CTF work, and is why even today the map still sort of stands up.

However, this way of level design is still not without its major flaws. For instance, notice how the capture zones are uh... really close to each other? Yeah imagine getting the flag to your spawn and then suddenly, oops! A soldier fires a crocket at you and you die instantly, dropping the flag and giving the enemy team a free capture. NOT VERY FUN! Another prime example of the horseshoe is that because the layout requires a large amount of convergence between the sides, oftentimes it is unavoidable for teams to have spawn basically right next to each other on the map at their spawn! This can very, very easily end up in a team getting the upper hand and then spawncamping to win, which I think is, needless to say, quite the boring game of TF2.

Reverse Invade Capture the Flag is an example of an interesting concept that simply cannot be executed to the level of quality that is expected in Team Fortress 2 maps. Put simply, it is a bad gamemode on a fundamental level, and I mean this with all of the sincerity in me: You would be wasting your time trying to make this gamemode work. I understand Exposure Theory, I understand that learning about this will likely make you want to try it, but I urge you: please do not set yourself back by attempting to make a map for this gamemode. You would be making a map that would be underplayed, unloved, and unfun-by-default due to the gamemode's ingrained issues, and I genuinely think you would be better off learning from the issues of this gamemode and moving on with your life with better maps for other gamemodes. This gamemode may be a train wreck of level design... but that doesn't mean you can't pick up the scraps of the wreckage and build something completely new from its remains.

To reiterate a bit from earlier: if you enjoy this gamemode, please feel free to keep enjoying it. It is okay to enjoy flawed things, we just need to not let our enjoyment of said thing cloud the fact that the thing we enjoy is flawed in it of itself. You are welcome to disagree with this post, but please make a comment explaining what you think is incorrect, inaccurate, or simply that you disagree with here. If you're struggling to understand the concepts proposed in this, please try to reread or DM me about it; I'd be more than happy to provide you with my time and knowledge.

Have a good day,
- Minty

(ps if you like this guide check out my A/D CTF one https://tf2maps.net/threads/playability-vs-identity-why-is-a-d-ctf-controversial.50012/)

 

[Pawlakov]

Wouldn't hybridizing this gamemode with KotH fix those issues? What is mean is a gamemode like this:

• objective is to take the neutral flag to your base and THEN TO HOLD IT
• flag starts neutral
• once it's captured by one team the flag changes ownership to the holding team and their timer starts to run

 

[Katsu! :3]

You are describing a gamemode known as Reverse Control the Keep, which is similar to another gamemode that I have made a design guide for already. Reverse CTK runs into similar, albeit not the same issues, as Reverse Invade Capture the Flag due to being closely related to its gameplay objective. The main issue present in R-CTK is that once you have the flag in your base, you have absolutely no incentive to attack the enemy team, and instead turtle to all hell for as long as you can. @Sonoma has actually talked about a similar issue in Cloaktype vs. KOTH where you're forced to struggle for 3 minutes instead of just instantly winning the round. This is obviously an undesirable outcome in a game, so you want to mitigate this.

Let me try and give you an example. @Aulli created an RCTK map named "Stratous" for a microcontest. The map was too long for the gamemode, and resulted in the main gameplay issue with RCTK (can't get the flag out of the enemy base) being overbearingly present in the map, and thus the map was not very good. On the opposite spectrum, a great example of an RCTK map is ctf_abyss, by @Blade x64. The reason Abyss soars while Stratous (ironically) stumbles is that Abyss understands the needed size for an RCTK map, which is very small. The issue with making RCTK maps in general, however... is that they are overtly outclassed by standard Control the Keep. This is because teams are always incentivized to attempt pushes into the enemy base to get their OWN flag ticking down, which is not the case in RCTK at all. (Putting it simply, players always push in CTK, whereas players always defend in RCTK.)

Additionally, let's go back to the 50% rule that I described in the article. In Reverse CTK, once the flag has been capture, the flag ALWAYS remain 100% in the defenders favour, and 0% in the attackers favour. (Since the flag is on their side) I don't know about you, but that seems very unfair and frankly unbalanced, especially for a KOTH timer of all things. CTK does not run into this issue because, once the flag is capture, the attackers are the players' whose base was capture, meaning the attackers still benefit from the flag being captured. (because it is easier for them to access, since it is located in their own base.) Defenders, meanwhile, just need to defend their podium until the flag is capped in their base, where the roles then switch. This continues until a team's timer ticks down, and one team deservingly wins because they were better at keeping the flag out of their base.

Neither gamemode is very flexible, but the gameplay loop of CTK is much more active than RCTK, which to the average player is a lot more fun. (ex: a good KOTH map usually changes point owner rather often, which isn't as accessible in RCTK maps due to the nature of the gamemode)

 

[Yrr]

Yea, RICTF just exacerbates my least favourite part of CTF.
Getting the flag is gameplay, but in most ctf designs, reaching that point means you've already busted through the enemy hold and so you're nigh-guaranteed a safe run home.
This can be remedied a bit with "chin-style" design (named after chin's design of ctf), where getting into the flag room is far easier than getting out.

Grabbing it from mid and taking it back to your own base just means entirely building the mode around that boring section. That sucks!!

That aside I do kind of question the naming scheme?

This sounds like what I'd call "Neutral Flag CTF" (Since the goal is Capture The Flag, but the flag is just neutral/central)
I feel that "Invade CTF" describes "CTF, with the distinction that you invade the enemy base to capture", but makes no specification about the kind of flag used, while "Reverse CTF" would describe the complete reversal of the CTF goal (Capture your own flag at the enemy base).

That is to say, "Invade CTF" seems like it would be a parent category that contains both "Neutral Flag Invade CTF" and "Reverse CTF".
Without additional clarification, "Reverse Invade CTF" just kind of cancels out, and implies standard CTF in my view.

 

[Lacry]

Meanwhile me sweating in case Katsu decided to check my custom game modes and tear them apart.

I know i'm gonna get a lot of hate for this but, CTF is my favourite gamemode, but i don't like so much the custom CTF modes, probably the only one I like is reverse one (like Epicenter in TFC). I think it's because they overcomplicated things, for example there is a CTF where you have to cap CPs with the flag... so whats the point? why it cant be a normal cp map? Same goes for CTF x KOTH, is just koth but you need the flag to score, i dont really see the point, is just adding steps for basically no reason.

The most important aspect of any gamemode, in my opinion, is that it has to be simple, Mannpower, PASS, RD, TC are complicated gamemodes and thus they barely have maps (also cause they are usually big maps), meanwhile CP, KOTH and PL are simple modes and they have a lot of maps. And even inside these gamemodes, the ones that people like are the simpler ones, like 1 stage PL, the last time a multistage PL map was added was in 2017 and before that it was in 2010.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, cause to be honest I want more new gamemodes in TF2, but it has to be easy to understand, and not making a custom gamemode for the sake of making a custom gamemode.

 

[Katsu! :3]

That aside I do kind of question the naming scheme?

To try and explain a little bit, we start by using "Invade Capture the Flag" as a base. This is because 1/2 of the core of Invade CTF, that being that the flag is neutral, is a main feature of RICTF as well. Then, we modify the meaning of "Invade" by using the word "Reverse," which reverses the direct of where the flag goes (This is also the case in Reverse CTF when compared to Standard CTF, thus the meaning is not lost). As the flag normally goes to the enemy base in both RCTF & ICTF, this means that the flag now goes to your own base in RICTF. Thus, "Reverse Invade." You reverse your team's invasion to your own base.

tldr, it's a matter of relativity. Invade = Neutral flag going to enemy base, Reverse = Reversing the direction the flag travels, thus Reverse Invade = Neutral Flag going to your own base.

 

[Yrr]

To try and explain a little bit, we start by using "Invade Capture the Flag" as a base. This is because 1/2 of the core of Invade CTF, that being that the flag is neutral, is a main feature of RICTF as well. Then, we modify the meaning of "Invade" by using the word "Reverse," which reverses the direct of where the flag goes (This is also the case in Reverse CTF when compared to Standard CTF, thus the meaning is not lost). As the flag normally goes to the enemy base in both RCTF & ICTF, this means that the flag now goes to your own base in RICTF. Thus, "Reverse Invade." You reverse your team's invasion to your own base.

tldr, it's a matter of relativity. Invade = Neutral flag going to enemy base, Reverse = Reversing the direction the flag travels, thus Reverse Invade = Neutral Flag going to your own base.

Mm, I understand this reasoning but just don't really agree with it. I feel like (at least the phrases) "Invade CTF" and "Reverse CTF" are both accurate descriptors of Crasher for example.

I think that's just down to the fact that, I specifically (but also, I think, most people), will read these terms as relative to base CTF rather than to a vast library of custom map knowledge, and I (personally) think it makes more sense to do so.

 

[Brokkhouse]

But then you lose the ability to differentiate between these modes at all. Katsu's system is clunky, but it's consistent and so far the only way to actually meaningfully talk about these different gamemodes in the same paragraph without it getting (even more) confusing. I suppose an alternate naming scheme would be to name these variations after the map that introduced them or the mapper who made one first, but that'd also lead to a lot of pointless discussion I guess. Might be something to look into though.

 

[Katsu! :3]

Mm, I understand this reasoning but just don't really agree with it. I feel like (at least the phrases) "Invade CTF" and "Reverse CTF" are both accurate descriptors of Crasher for example.

Mindsets like these are why people still foolishly call Attack / Defense CTF "Invade CTF." It just doesn't really make sense and feels like intentionally trying to confuse people about the nature of a map. It's best to, as a community, maintain a consistent set of definitions for gamemodes so that anyone can talk about then and everyone actually understand what to say. Let's take your phrase as an example; "Invade CTF" would be objectively incorrect to describe Crasher with, as Crasher does not contain a neutral flag in any form. "Reverse CTF" would be accurate, however due to the Giants mechanic of the gamemode, we instead use the term "Big Boys" for the gamemode. (Named after the Aprils Fools map that created the gamemode)

Again, the goal here is to provide consistency to the community, which I feel like you are ignoring, intentional or not. Everyone would benefit from a consistent set of definitions (like a dictionary), whereas nobody would benefit from these being unknowns to anyone talking to anyone else about a gamemode they call the same but are completely different. Invade and Reverse are actually a fantastic way to illustrate this point, as the discussion with RCTF vs. ICTF has died down quite a bit since these definitions were ingrained in the community via my simple guide for flags and my custom map sheet.

I suppose an alternate naming scheme would be to name these variations after the map that introduced them or the mapper who made one first, but that'd also lead to a lot of pointless discussion I guess. Might be something to look into though.

This is neither an uncommon or common practice in the map sheet, as displayed here:

(the reason why Big Boys' symbol is "LL" is because Basketball took the "BB" symbol years before Big Boys even existed. Internally, the symbol itself means "Large Lads" which imo is pretty funny)

 

[Yrr]

Nah I agree with your goal, I just think you're coming at it from the perspective of someone who knows all these modes intimately and I'm coming at it from the angle of people only knowing the base modes, with the view that a name should be indicative of how it varies from the base mode (ie, "Invade" doesn't tell anyone who isn't already familiar with your naming system that it means neutral flag).

Ultimately it doesn't matter, its a fight I'd lose and it really isn't important enough for me to defend my position forever, I'm just providing my perspective!