pl_waste

Bonafide

L6: Sharp Member
Mar 18, 2008
313
25
CP version was fun but not as great as the tug-o-war PL version. From the half an hour play test it became obvious that whoever got the initial, difficult middle point would dominate the other team for the rest of the match. The middle was never recaptured by the opposite team in the full 30 minutes of testing.
 

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
In alot of 5 cp push maps, the middle is never re-captured. The point of 5 cp push maps is that the attackers get the advanteage, so if you had perfectly even teams, the team with less points should never re-capture.
 

CJLJ

L1: Registered
Apr 27, 2008
26
10
In alot of 5 cp push maps, the middle is never re-captured. The point of 5 cp push maps is that the attackers get the advanteage, so if you had perfectly even teams, the team with less points should never re-capture.

That's a terrible way to look at it. As you push up, the points become harder and harder to assault but to compensate they cap quicker when you do get through. Both teams should have a chance at winning. You want to make it so that when you kill off a wave of enemies you have the chance to move up and cap their point. Maps tend to get one sided and stalemate when this isn't possible.

I played cp_waste and it has issues. I haven't had enough time to diagnose the cause but i can relay the symptoms. The main problem was that once mid was capped there was no comeback. The defending team would be pushed back to the room cp 2 was in and if they tried to get any further they would be mowed down. This might be because of spawn times or it might be because they have to walk down an empty corridor to get to the doorways and they can't because of spam. Another problem was that it felt like it was taking a long time to get to the action. Assuming this wasn't because the map is physically bigger than other push maps, my best guess is that because the defenders were pushed back so quickly, the actual point of engagement was further away from attacker's forward spawn than usual. Finally, the last point was way too easy to cap. As soon as we capped cp2 we would always steamroll right though to win. Well fixed this by having the spawn and capture point raised from the approach to give the defenders and advantage, but i'll have to think about it before suggesting a solution because doing that would be too blatant. Overall though it's the best attempt at a push map since Freight!

For the arena version, as i said i love it. There does seem to be a bit of a problem with snipers being able to lock down the three main routes (left, right and sewer all have really long straight sight lines that are hard to avoid). After we were playing a while some good snipers got on and were able to lock it down until counter snipers cleared a path. This could also be a problem in the CP version but nobody was really playing sniper for me to notice then. It's in my top 3 custom arena maps though.
 
Last edited:

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
Me thinks take a cue from well and raise the final cp.
 

CJLJ

L1: Registered
Apr 27, 2008
26
10
Me thinks take a cue from well and raise the final cp.

The map is already stylistically similar to well, you don't want to copy its geometry too closely. I was thinking you could move the spawn up to the first floor, extend the barrier surrounding the point up as well so you can't sticky it from spawn or whatever. I really like how the area looks but the upper floor is under-utilised.
 

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
Well, like well, it has the 2 doors and the 1 way water door leading to well, and it looks kinda like it, and it already has a similar layout in the last point, so ya, it might be a bit too similar.

Me thinks that the main problem is that the main floor with the cp isn't hard enough for the attackers, and that they actually get that small health next to the doors that lead in, and from the stairs, they get a small height advantage that really helps out attacking soldiers.

Defense needs an easy to get to height advantage in the main room. Maybe, next to the point, throw up a box with a ramp to it to soldi have a small height advantage.
 

Icarus

aa
Sep 10, 2008
2,245
1,210
This is the cloud particle I was talking about. You can fix it by changing the position of the map so the cord 0 0 0 is not viewable.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3600/3355104318_26396d4d7a_o.jpg
Despite that looking totally awesome, I'll move the world origin down.

CP version was fun but not as great as the tug-o-war PL version. From the half an hour play test it became obvious that whoever got the initial, difficult middle point would dominate the other team for the rest of the match. The middle was never recaptured by the opposite team in the full 30 minutes of testing.
????
I remember clearly that the mid was recapped at least twice, once resulting in a comeback victory. In the test scrim I observed earlier, all rounds ended in a comeback victory.

The map is already stylistically similar to well, you don't want to copy its geometry too closely. I was thinking you could move the spawn up to the first floor, extend the barrier surrounding the point up as well so you can't sticky it from spawn or whatever. I really like how the area looks but the upper floor is under-utilised.
I am afraid of making the final CP too easy to defend. I want it to be a bloody defeat for turtling teams. My largest gripe with Freight was that it is totally lame how easy it is to stalemate because the Final CP was so turtle-friendly. I have already moved up the spawn doors so that it's closer to the stairways that lead up top, and so it's almost impossible to camp.

As an alternative solution, what do you think about lengthening the Attacker's spawn time vs the Final CP? It currently has a wave time of 4 seconds. (def. 10)

Better than the PL version for comp. Take away the setup time, and we got ourselves a new comp map!c
I like setup :(

What's so wrong with it?
 
Last edited:

Rexy

The Kwisatz Haderach
aa
Dec 22, 2008
1,798
2,533
I think as a game type, PL is much more entertaining to me. And waste is a map that pushes what payload maps can do...that's important. CP is fine, but I don't think it's smart to do away with the payload version.
 

Apom

L6: Sharp Member
Sep 14, 2008
366
65
Better than the PL version for comp. Take away the setup time, and we got ourselves a new comp map!
The map still clearly has a "main path" with a number of side routes. This isn't very fitting to competitive play IMHO, and it's much harder to remove than the setup time.

Icarus said:
I like setup :(

What's so wrong with it?
Setup is good for playing on public servers, but bad for competitive play. Lack of setup promotes smart rocket jumping and team coordination. But on public servers where there will be no medics (or bad ones) and zero teamplay, lack of setup promotes scouts and nothing else.
 
Last edited:

PMAvers

L6: Sharp Member
Jan 29, 2008
389
142
Setup is good for playing on public servers, but bad for competitive play. Lack of setup promotes smart rocket jumping and team coordination. But on public servers where there will be no medics (or bad ones) and zero teamplay, lack of setup promotes scouts and nothing else.

...
psyduck.gif


So, basically what you're saying is "if it's not 'competitive' (using the term loosely) play, it's crap", right?

At least he *did* have a point in that a lack of setup time is only good for scouts. That's the *only* plus to leaving out Setup time has, though. It's always infinitely preferable to have it than not, since it gives all the classes a chance to get... well... set up. Especially since the first battle for the center CP's often a important one, since it controls who has a forward spawn.
 
Last edited:

CJLJ

L1: Registered
Apr 27, 2008
26
10
????
I remember clearly that the mid was recapped at least twice, once resulting in a comeback victory. In the test scrim I observed earlier, all rounds ended in a comeback victory.

If that's the case then maybe it was just unbalanced teams when i played it. If it was so unbalanced that red never left their base after the initial fight though i think that means cp 2 has a lot of problems if it took blue that long to cap.

I am afraid of making the final CP too easy to defend. I want it to be a bloody defeat for turtling teams. My largest gripe with Freight was that it is totally lame how easy it is to stalemate because the Final CP was so turtle-friendly. I have already moved up the spawn doors so that it's closer to the stairways that lead up top, and so it's almost impossible to camp.

The thing with Freight is the final point area is too small. It's also basically an uphill corridor. The defense is too dense for assault to push through, and people instinctively try to get through that short ramp path which is way too easy to spam. You final CP is a lot more open though and the alternate routes don't put you in such a disadvantaged position. The way final CPs play out is the defending team gets a lot more conscious that they have to defend or they lose. They fall back into a defending role and wait for assault to mount their attack. It should take a lot to successfully assault the last point because it's a climatic battle. This also gives defense a chance to push back to CP 2 though. Because it's relatively difficult to take the last point, assault must devote a lot of people to attack it together. If defense manages to deal a crushing defeat to that assault and kill off a lot of players they are rewarded with the ability to get a relatively easy cap. If it's easy for the attacking team to take the last CP then the defending team are always on the defensive and never get a chance to cap CP 2 back.

As an alternative solution, what do you think about lengthening the Attacker's spawn time vs the Final CP? It currently has a wave time of 4 seconds. (def. 10)

This could be useful for the counter-cap, but if it's easy to assault cp1 it doesn't factor in. In the rounds i played yesterday i didn't have a chance to die between taking cp2 and cp1.

I like setup :(

What's so wrong with it?

No setup makes the round more dynamic. Classes arrive at varying times and soldiers and demomen can increase their speed if they're good at rocketjumping. Additionally, the medic has to work to get his uber which a lot of people find more fun than just being given one right off the bat. Well has a setup time but you can also spam or jump over the trains during setup so you aren't just waiting around. I think it's just that there's nothnig to do and you get a free uber that people don't like in 6v6. The downside of no setup though is it makes heavy less viable. In 6v6 the other team will probably have won mid since it's effectively 5v6 until he gets there.
 

Apom

L6: Sharp Member
Sep 14, 2008
366
65
So, basically what you're saying is "if it's not 'competitive' (using the term loosely) play, it's crap", right?
Absolutely not, I was answering Icarus's question about what makes setup time bad for competitive play, and nothing more. I'm not here to pass judgement on a play style versus another.
 

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
A good final point requires that the attackers build an uber before they can cap it, while the defense doesn't need an uber to take back the second point.

Does that make sense?
 

Apom

L6: Sharp Member
Sep 14, 2008
366
65
A good final point requires that the attackers build an uber before they can cap it, while the defense doesn't need an uber to take back the second point.

Does that make sense?
I absolutely disagree with this. Final points shouldn't be more than the confirmation of a team's domination. Capturing the middle point, and then the inermediary point, takes enough time as it is.
 

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
Ahg, I messed it up. I meant the other way around. Defense needs the uber, offense doesn't.

I just got fail all over myself.
 

Icarus

aa
Sep 10, 2008
2,245
1,210
I guess I should post this since everybody's asking me.

PL B4 is due Tuesday
CP B1 is due Tuesday
Arena B1 due Tuesday

PS It's fun running final compiles for 3 separate maps :D

Hurray for computer lockups!