The role of sentries in maps and how it's affected by map design

  • If you're asking a question make sure to set the thread type to be a question!

Hawk

L7: Fancy Member
Dec 3, 2007
419
213
Man, this thread is growing faster than I can read it.

Honestly? The debate between competitive play and public servers is useless within this thread. It's a valid argument, but this is about keeping the properties of a sentry gun in mind as you design your map.

Mar has his own way of playing the game, and there's nothing wrong with that. We all decide how we play the games we play. But I'll be danged if I let competitive rules alter how I design a map... I design based on how the general public plays the game because I want the general public to enjoy my map. Somebody else can make maps for the leagues.

Because of this, I think it's very important to discuss how sentries govern our map creation. I wish we could start the thread over without the argument.

I think sentries have such an impact that they start to affect how long the hallways become, where the metal is placed, how open the open places are, and where the chokepoints are. It doesn't matter how you think a sentry should be used, somebody is going to try to use a sentry in your map, and they'll put it in places you didn't imagine. All of this must be considered as you design.

Sentry balance is HARD. You want there to be "good" places for sentries, but you also want them to be vulnerable in some way. Variance between those conditions mean the difference between a control point that is undefendable and a control point than cannot be won.

I'm still struggling with the right formula, myself. I'd love to hear insights from people about designing control point areas (or intelligence rooms). It seems like sometimes it comes down to a question: "Do I want it so nothing short of an uber (or two) will make this point capturable?" Unless you want it to have to fall back to ubers, I guess you have to make inherent weak points in sentry locations, which often cause people to think the point is undefendable.
 

MrAlBobo

L13: Stunning Member
Feb 20, 2008
1,059
219
you people need to stop with the grudges...sure, for most of the thread mar has been pulling out this comp play is much better crap, but when he actually stops that and posts a valid and justified opinion on sentry placement everyone shoots his head off

personally I do not regard that as an unstoppable sentry location, for the primary reason that I have played as engineer and seen how easily it can be destroyed if their is no other cover, I have no more difficultly getting there as spy then i have with any other sentry location. From what I have seen that sentry location only becomes a lockdown if the rest of the team plays a supportive role. For instant there will occasionally be a heavy medic or heavy dispenser team helping the engie block the point, this will make the sentry much more of a problem. Or another sentry over by the rocks will make both sentries that much better. Or even just a pyro running wild with the airblast makes it better. As you mentioned jumping down will send you off into the air, i would say that is only partially true, if you actually jump then yes that will happen, however if you just walk off it will not. I happen to think this sentry seems so much better for the sole reason that it is on the only available walking distance from the spawn. So it will be a high traffic area regardless.
 

Chilly

L6: Sharp Member
May 3, 2008
326
127
I don't mean to insult anyone, but you really can't argue about comp play if think dustbowl is a great map, becuase if you do think this a great map, then that shows that you really don't understand the comp scene.

My clanmate is one of the best demomen in TF2. He currently plays on a CEVO-Free team, but regularly subbed for AI (before they disbanded) and other CEVO-Pro teams in the past, and has been asked to join more than one of them. He also enjoys Dustbowl and plays it with us all the time. While he does prefer certain 5CP maps, he still likes Dustbowl quite a bit. So you're saying that one of the better competitive players in the game doesn't understand the competitive scene? I think you should stop making generalizations and realize you're projecting your opinion of the game onto others.

You also suggested that there's nothing to back up Valve designing the game around 12-12 play just as there's nothing backing up them designing it for 6-6. However, that's incorrect. If Valve designed and play tested the game with 6-6 in mind, they'd see the exact same class balance that you see in CEVO matches. That is, they'd realize that spy, engineer, pyro, and sometimes heavy weren't all that useful in 6-6 and would remove them outright from the game. It's far more likely that they designed the game with 8-12 players per team in mind based on that logic. Highlander really shows the strengths and weaknesses of each class and it's likely that a good deal of play testing and balancing was done in that mode.

An aside here... I think all mappers should try getting their maps tested in 6-6, highlander, and 12-12 before releasing. 6-6 will show how the competitive community will play the map, highlander will really show if it's overpowered or underpowered for certain classes, and 12-12 will obviously show how it will be played the most if it's a good map.

As for the Dustbowl 2-2 sentry nest, I agree that it can sometimes be hard to attack. However, it's extremely easy with a single good demoman and a team that will support him. More than that, a single location on a single map is not a good indicator of how classes play throughout the entire game.

I will say that I think 2-2 is designed well because it is the 2nd CP of the 2nd stage, and as a result should be harder to cap than 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, and 3-1. The only section that should be harder (and as a result require more teamwork to attack) is 3-2. I would have liked to see 2-2 with another spawn exit, or a more protected exit, but other than that there are a number of ways of attacking that area and it ends up being balanced as a result.
 

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
My clanmate is one of the best demomen in TF2. He currently plays on a CEVO-Free team, but regularly subbed for AI (before they disbanded) and other CEVO-Pro teams in the past, and has been asked to join more than one of them. He also enjoys Dustbowl and plays it with us all the time. While he does prefer certain 5CP maps, he still likes Dustbowl quite a bit. So you're saying that one of the better competitive players in the game doesn't understand the competitive scene? I think you should stop making generalizations and realize you're projecting your opinion of the game onto others.

1. You can like dustbowl, that doesn't mean it is a good well balanced map. And there tons of comp haters I can find. Your one friends doesn't prove anything.

2. You can't say he is one of the best demoman in the game without providing his name. And he is one of the best, why is he playing Cevo-free. Shouldn't he be on a sponsored team?



You also suggested that there's nothing to back up Valve designing the game around 12-12 play just as there's nothing backing up them designing it for 6-6. However, that's incorrect. If Valve designed and play tested the game with 6-6 in mind, they'd see the exact same class balance that you see in CEVO matches. That is, they'd realize that spy, engineer, pyro, and sometimes heavy weren't all that useful in 6-6 and would remove them outright from the game. It's far more likely that they designed the game with 8-12 players per team in mind based on that logic. Highlander really shows the strengths and weaknesses of each class and it's likely that a good deal of play testing and balancing was done in that mode.

Again, even if Valve did design it for 12v12, they did it for money, and to bring in as many new people as possible. If TF2 was like WoW where you pay a subscription, and Valve was trying to please customers long after they bought, the game would be run more differently

An aside here... I think all mappers should try getting their maps tested in 6-6, highlander, and 12-12 before releasing. 6-6 will show how the competitive community will play the map, highlander will really show if it's overpowered or underpowered for certain classes, and 12-12 will obviously show how it will be played the most if it's a good map.

Yep, most map makers should make their maps for all game types.

As for the Dustbowl 2-2 sentry nest, I agree that it can sometimes be hard to attack. However, it's extremely easy with a single good demoman and a team that will support him. More than that, a single location on a single map is not a good indicator of how classes play throughout the entire game.

But what about the Red team? How is one demoman going to counter them? That is beside the point though. The only thing I was trying to prove out is how this spot is way more harder to counter then all the other spots on round 2 of dustbowl.

I will say that I think 2-2 is designed well because it is the 2nd CP of the 2nd stage, and as a result should be harder to cap than 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, and 3-1. The only section that should be harder (and as a result require more teamwork to attack) is 3-2. I would have liked to see 2-2 with another spawn exit, or a more protected exit, but other than that there are a number of ways of attacking that area and it ends up being balanced as a result.

The problem with 2-2, and most of dustbowl in general, is that it involves tons of tight, cramped corridors and tunnels, that do very poorly against spam. I once killed 8 players with 2 krits rockets on 2-2. Dustbowl is too tiny for no splash damage classes to do as well as they should.

PS. If valve does some dumb stuff to the game, like the sandman, the pubbers won't care. They're just happy with their spam. But comp players actually really care about balance. So don't mess up the game for the comp players. Make a good, competitive game, and let the goodness trickle down from the pro's to the pubs.
 

Shmitz

Old Hat
aa
Nov 12, 2007
1,128
746
And there tons of comp haters I can find. Your one friends doesn't prove anything.

Time for a crash course in extremely basic logic.

The point wasn't to prove something. The point was to disprove what you claimed.

You made a statement to the effect of "If A is true, then B is true".
This entire statement can be considered true when any of the following conditions apply:
A is true and B is true: Whenever A is true, B is also true
A is false and B is true: B can be true even if A isn't
A is false and B is false: If B isn't true, A also isn't true

The entire statement is considered false when the following conditions apply:
A is true and B is false

In this case A is "someone likes dustbowl" and B is "that person knows nothing about the competetive scene."

Chilly is providing an example where A is true and B is false. Because it is so generalized as to encompass all TF2 players, it only takes one case to prove the entire statement false. Which is to say, someone can like dustbowl and still understand the competetive scene.

Chilly never made any claims that hating dustbowl means you don't understand the competetive scene, so being able to find other people who hate dustbowl is irrelevant to the argument.
 

Chilly

L6: Sharp Member
May 3, 2008
326
127
1. You can like dustbowl, that doesn't mean it is a good well balanced map. And there tons of comp haters I can find. Your one friends doesn't prove anything.

As Shmitz pointed out, it disproves your statement that no competitive players like Dustbowl.

2. You can't say he is one of the best demoman in the game without providing his name. And he is one of the best, why is he playing Cevo-free. Shouldn't he be on a sponsored team?

g0atrly. Has played recently as randyb. As I said, he subbed for some of the top TF2 teams in scrims. As for being on a sponsored team, I believe he just prefers playing with his friends and can't make that big of a time commitment.

Again, even if Valve did design it for 12v12, they did it for money, and to bring in as many new people as possible. If TF2 was like WoW where you pay a subscription, and Valve was trying to please customers long after they bought, the game would be run more differently

You keep saying this, but don't back it up with any facts. I provided clear facts about why Valve definitely didn't design TF2 specifically for 6-6, and you chose to ignore them and repeat your own opinion. At this point I seriously hope you're a troll because otherwise I feel sorry for anyone trying to have a discussion with you.

But what about the Red team? How is one demoman going to counter them? That is beside the point though. The only thing I was trying to prove out is how this spot is way more harder to counter then all the other spots on round 2 of dustbowl.

I specifically said that one demoman with his team supporting him can easily attack it. They just need to push hard on the rock side and allow him to lob stickies over the edge. It's extremely simple for any halfway decent demoman with at least a couple teammates defending him. This is a team game, remember? As for it being harder to counter, it should be. That's the point of the areas around control points, especially the 2nd CP in each stage. Do you not understand that maps should get more difficult as they progress?

PS. If valve does some dumb stuff to the game, like the sandman, the pubbers won't care. They're just happy with their spam. But comp players actually really care about balance. So don't mess up the game for the comp players. Make a good, competitive game, and let the goodness trickle down from the pro's to the pubs.

Ok, now you're being thick. Tons of pub players hate the sandman as well. However, saying that a game should be designed specifically for competitive players is stupid. There have been VERY few games designed specifically for competitive leagues, while most are made for general pub play and the competitive leagues have picked up on them. I don't have anything against league players, unless they're like you... where they think that their form of the game is better than other forms. It's not better... it's just different. Similar to comparing CTF and Payload... people play what they want, and you should realize that it's 100% your opinion if you like that mode or not.

I'll stop responding now because it's obvious you're either trolling or won't ever change your opinion in the slightest, and because you fail to understand or respond with simple logic. Back to discussing map design with regards to sentries... if you seriously think sentries shouldn't be in the game, you probably don't belong on this thread (or possibly in TF2 at all... but that's an entirely different discussion).
 

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
I apologize for being an asshat here. After a while I was just arguing for the sake of arguing, and I want to apologize for the trolling I've done in this thread. Lets not hold any grudges, and again I want to apologize for being so rude.
 

Hawk

L7: Fancy Member
Dec 3, 2007
419
213
Now that we're kind of back on the subject, which do you guys think works best near a control point?

- Having one good, secure are for a sentry, and it takes an uber or coordinated ubers to take it down... or well-time spy sappings.
- Having different places for a sentries, but each area features some kind of vulnerability (like being open to grenades from one side)
- Having no "ideal" area for a sentry to cover the control point, so sentries must be placed in waypoints and paths to the control point.
 

samn

L4: Comfortable Member
Mar 28, 2008
158
47
First one is too easy to camp with one sentry.
Second one is best as it encourages teamwork between engis to cover up each others vulnerabilities.
Third one, well when the fight gets to the control point the engineer becomes useless as he is only given sentry positions on the parts leading up to that point.

Perhaps design your map with two engineers in mind.
 
Last edited:

Sgt Frag

L14: Epic Member
May 20, 2008
1,443
710
I think there should probably be another thread to split this discussion up.

There should probably be a 'what competitive players like' thread.

Seriously, if competitve players are picky about what they do/don't like then they should point those things out specifically for any mappers who want to make maps for them. These maps could probably cross over ito the mainstream a bit, but to ask all mappers to keep these things in mind isn't very sensible IMO.

1st, most players like a more established TF2 play as Valve laid it out. So most mappers who want most people to play it will shoot for that.

Then there are offshoot players. Competitive, snipers, surfers, 'fun map players'. One map can never be everything to everyone.

2nd, there's a very good chance that there are very few mappers who are also competitive players. Mapping takes alot of time, time that comp players probably spend in game. Then a mapper might just not be that good of a player, then there's finding a clan/scene...
So I think a thread dedicated to that would help comp players possibly get more maps, it might also lead some comp scenes into getting mappers more involved with not only mapping by playing. I know I'd be more willing to make a map specifically for comp play if I got to play with those players on their server in my map.
 

samn

L4: Comfortable Member
Mar 28, 2008
158
47
Maps that work for mainstream players can also work for competitive players - Badlands is a good example of that.
 

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
Comp maps work fine for pubs, but pub maps usally don't work as well for comp players.
 

CJLJ

L1: Registered
Apr 27, 2008
26
10
I think there should probably be another thread to split this discussion up.

There should probably be a 'what competitive players like' thread.

Seriously, if competitve players are picky about what they do/don't like then they should point those things out specifically for any mappers who want to make maps for them. These maps could probably cross over ito the mainstream a bit, but to ask all mappers to keep these things in mind isn't very sensible IMO.

1st, most players like a more established TF2 play as Valve laid it out. So most mappers who want most people to play it will shoot for that.

Then there are offshoot players. Competitive, snipers, surfers, 'fun map players'. One map can never be everything to everyone.

2nd, there's a very good chance that there are very few mappers who are also competitive players. Mapping takes alot of time, time that comp players probably spend in game. Then a mapper might just not be that good of a player, then there's finding a clan/scene...
So I think a thread dedicated to that would help comp players possibly get more maps, it might also lead some comp scenes into getting mappers more involved with not only mapping by playing. I know I'd be more willing to make a map specifically for comp play if I got to play with those players on their server in my map.

The question you should be asking isn't what makes a map good for competitive play. It isn't some niche like sniper or jump maps. A good push map is a good competitive map. The reason people play 6v6 is because it is easier to organise getting 12 people online at once than 24 and also when people can aim and work as a team they can effectively cover a lot more area than 12 headless chickens ranging in skill from never missing a shot to unable to hit someone at close range with the flamethrower.

A push map that works well in 12v12 will very likely work in a 6v6. As for what to avoid, first and foremost is spam. Shooting blindly down a narrow corridor like in dustbowl isn't fun for anyone. The other thing is annoying variation. People say this is randomisation but it's more causing an annoyance as a result. The trains in well are fine but the trains in freight are annoying if they happen to come by at the wrong time.

You should make a thread on what makes a good push map though. The only ones that come close to being good are Fastlane and Freight.
 

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
Fastlane is ok, its good now that they fixed the last stalemate point.

Resonance and Frieght are examples of great custom comptieve push maps that work just as well in pubs.
 

Sgt Frag

L14: Epic Member
May 20, 2008
1,443
710
The question you should be asking isn't what makes a map good for competitive play. It isn't some niche like sniper or jump maps. A good push map is a good competitive map. The reason people play 6v6 is because it is easier to organise getting 12 people online at once than 24 and also when people can aim and work as a team they can effectively cover a lot more area than 12 headless chickens ranging in skill from never missing a shot to unable to hit someone at close range with the flamethrower.

A push map that works well in 12v12 will very likely work in a 6v6. As for what to avoid, first and foremost is spam. Shooting blindly down a narrow corridor like in dustbowl isn't fun for anyone. The other thing is annoying variation. People say this is randomisation but it's more causing an annoyance as a result. The trains in well are fine but the trains in freight are annoying if they happen to come by at the wrong time.

You should make a thread on what makes a good push map though. The only ones that come close to being good are Fastlane and Freight.

The reason I mentioned that a thread about that topic should be is that it would help mappers understand what comp players want/don't want specifically.
I'm not a comp player nor do I intend to make a map soley for that purpose or with that purpose specifically in mind.
I just figured having comp players give their opinions in one thread specifically towards that goal would help us (ie: not comp player/mappers) understand it better than weeding through 7 pages of this argument thread :D

But maybe YOU should post a thread on why you think those maps are good for comp play, or in general. I'm not knocking them but they both bored me after a little while. They both are well done maps, maybe I'm just not a big fan of 5 point CP's. To me they almost all seem the same, they almost always end up with one team holding mid and the other team fighting back and forth to try and hold point 4 and not lose 5. That goes for all 5 point CP maps, Well, Badlands, Fastlane, Frieght, Warpath, Switchback...

And I honestly don't think I'd like any of those maps 6v6. I think they are just too big. But I'm not a comp player, just seems like there'd be alot of empty ground looking for an encounter instead of playing.
 

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
Well, 5 cp maps are main what comp players use, the only other one being GPit. There is tons of action going though, because your team calls it out and goes for it, as oppsesed to wandering around the map.
 

TMP

Abuser of Site Rules
aa
Aug 11, 2008
947
560
Now that we're kind of back on the subject, which do you guys think works best near a control point?

- Having one good, secure are for a sentry, and it takes an uber or coordinated ubers to take it down... or well-time spy sappings.
- Having different places for a sentries, but each area features some kind of vulnerability (like being open to grenades from one side)
- Having no "ideal" area for a sentry to cover the control point, so sentries must be placed in waypoints and paths to the control point.

It's hard to say 1 works, because 1 never works. A sentry spot with no weakness is pretty much asking for it.

2 works best for control points: Look at Well, Gpit, etc.

3 works well for Payload and CTF.
 

NovaSilisko

L42: Life, the Universe and Everything
aa
Feb 3, 2009
502
270
Why won't this thread end.