- Jul 30, 2021
- 646
- 365
In the recent mapping landscape, you've probably heard of a variation of Arena Mode called 2CP Arena. This gamemode, while cool in concept, has some deep-seeded flaws that I'd like to talk about today. But first, if you're a bit newer around here, what is 2CP Arena? Well, put simply, it's Arena Mode but with two Control Points.
Let's compare 2CP Arena and 1CP Arena for a bit; What 2CP Arena sorely lacks, especially compared to its singular-point sibling, is that direct motivation to get players to one particular spot of the map in the center. This is what we call "The Clash" of a map, where the initial midfight of a map takes place during the start of the round. The Clash is very important to Arena mode, as the results of it will determine your team's playercount for the remainder of the round. This is where we run into our first problem: Teams being split. Due to the nature of there being two control points, players on both teams will want to defend their respective points. What ends up happening is that approximately 1/2 to 1/4 of both teams will wind up defending the point rather than attacking, which severely effects how The Clash of a map plays out. Because of how variable your post-Clash team numbers will be, and how low the odds are of the team sizes are two participate in the clash being the same, you often end up with a really inequitable dynamic such as a 5-vs-9. This almost always results in players having no choice but to hunker down and stall out the other team into trying to deathball onto your team's defensive hold.
This lack of choice also serves as being prevalent across the whole gamemode, rather than just the final two interactions between the teams. For example, what is the riskiest thing to do in Arena Mode? That's right, go into a fight without backup. This risk forces players to play much more passively than they otherwise would in other gamemodes, but it's even more amplified in 2CP Arena mode due to the constant threat of your Control Point being capture while your teammates are not looking. Thanks to the way 2CP Arena works, the points have to be unlocked the entire round in order for teams to properly have motivation to attack and/or defend them. However, the only real choice players will make if they want to win the game (what most players want) is to stick back and work with their team in clunky, nonexistent coordinated pushes. This typically ends up forcing players into boring positions where they don't want to keep back, but they also don't want to risk their life just to spectate an increasingly boring match.
What 2CP Arena suffers from the most is a lack of team cohesion. Whether the map use the implementation of both points being neutral or 1 point being owned by each team, teams always trend to splitting up in favour of falling into your typical roles of Attack and Defense respective. This is normally not a problem in other gamemodes with a similar concept (CTF, Symm. CP) because players can respawn, and they'll always be able to move to where the action is happening when needed. Their player deficits in fights are temporary. However, in Arena Mode, this is completely not the case. Players end up running into situations they simply cannot win because half of their team is trying to defend the control point that they own, which isn't very fun.
One additional major fault in 2CP Arena is that of what we'll call "The Loop," or the action of teams repeatedly rotating between the two points, capping them and recapping them over and over without much team interaction happening whatsoever. It ends up making games that both last too long and are boring to spectate, which is already in it of itself an overarching problem of Arena mode. This flaw, thankfully, could be very easily patched with the addition of a round timer being put into the fray, as it would force players to have some urgency in directly getting rid of the enemy team instead of always playing a passive role.
In a casual setting, where Arena is most prevalently played, 2CP Arena cannot function correctly. What the gamemode needs to flourish is team coordination, but this is next to impossible in a casual environment simply due to the nature of how people treat casual TF2 play. (This includes community servers) Without the coordination of an entire team, 2CP Arena splits players in a way that is irrecoverable in most ways since one team will always have a numbers disadvantage. Again, in another gamemode like Pyramid-style A/D for example, this problem is incredibly mitigated due to players being able to respawn, however in Arena Mode the execution falls flat on its face because whoever wins the split fight effectively wins the round. The gameplay flow of 2CP Arena is too freeform for players to consistently work together between rounds, as without a distinct driving force to force players to group in in their own teams and move towards the other, players often find themselves roaming the spaghetti connectors between the RED and BLU areas.
To quote something I said to a friend of mine, "Given we put 1,000 TF2 players in a room, separated them off into a 500-500 setting where one half plays 1CP Arena and the other half plays 2CP Arena, I think we could statistically prove that 1CP Arena is the more enjoyable mode in a 'casual as we can get' setting. It simply has the better game flow for what a deathmatch mode needs, which is players moving towards each other." Now, ask yourself: What is the purpose of a gamemode that is directly outclassed by its predecessor? Maybe if you're a bit more open-minded to giving gamemodes a shot, you'll have said "Variety!" While I respect the noble mindset of always wanting to give something a chance, the fact of the matter is it'd be creating a niche that will inevitably be uncared about for years at a time. And to say that's not good, well, that'd be the understatement of the century.
A reminder to you, the reader: It's okay to enjoy bad things, but as level designers we must never forget they are bad. Nobody can stop you from creating something for a bad gamemode or even enjoying a bad gamemode, but you need to remember and understand why it is a bad thing at the end of the day. If you can't acknowledge the faults of a gamemode, then how can you expect to make a better map for it in the first place?
Have a good day,
- Minty
Let's compare 2CP Arena and 1CP Arena for a bit; What 2CP Arena sorely lacks, especially compared to its singular-point sibling, is that direct motivation to get players to one particular spot of the map in the center. This is what we call "The Clash" of a map, where the initial midfight of a map takes place during the start of the round. The Clash is very important to Arena mode, as the results of it will determine your team's playercount for the remainder of the round. This is where we run into our first problem: Teams being split. Due to the nature of there being two control points, players on both teams will want to defend their respective points. What ends up happening is that approximately 1/2 to 1/4 of both teams will wind up defending the point rather than attacking, which severely effects how The Clash of a map plays out. Because of how variable your post-Clash team numbers will be, and how low the odds are of the team sizes are two participate in the clash being the same, you often end up with a really inequitable dynamic such as a 5-vs-9. This almost always results in players having no choice but to hunker down and stall out the other team into trying to deathball onto your team's defensive hold.
This lack of choice also serves as being prevalent across the whole gamemode, rather than just the final two interactions between the teams. For example, what is the riskiest thing to do in Arena Mode? That's right, go into a fight without backup. This risk forces players to play much more passively than they otherwise would in other gamemodes, but it's even more amplified in 2CP Arena mode due to the constant threat of your Control Point being capture while your teammates are not looking. Thanks to the way 2CP Arena works, the points have to be unlocked the entire round in order for teams to properly have motivation to attack and/or defend them. However, the only real choice players will make if they want to win the game (what most players want) is to stick back and work with their team in clunky, nonexistent coordinated pushes. This typically ends up forcing players into boring positions where they don't want to keep back, but they also don't want to risk their life just to spectate an increasingly boring match.
What 2CP Arena suffers from the most is a lack of team cohesion. Whether the map use the implementation of both points being neutral or 1 point being owned by each team, teams always trend to splitting up in favour of falling into your typical roles of Attack and Defense respective. This is normally not a problem in other gamemodes with a similar concept (CTF, Symm. CP) because players can respawn, and they'll always be able to move to where the action is happening when needed. Their player deficits in fights are temporary. However, in Arena Mode, this is completely not the case. Players end up running into situations they simply cannot win because half of their team is trying to defend the control point that they own, which isn't very fun.
One additional major fault in 2CP Arena is that of what we'll call "The Loop," or the action of teams repeatedly rotating between the two points, capping them and recapping them over and over without much team interaction happening whatsoever. It ends up making games that both last too long and are boring to spectate, which is already in it of itself an overarching problem of Arena mode. This flaw, thankfully, could be very easily patched with the addition of a round timer being put into the fray, as it would force players to have some urgency in directly getting rid of the enemy team instead of always playing a passive role.
In a casual setting, where Arena is most prevalently played, 2CP Arena cannot function correctly. What the gamemode needs to flourish is team coordination, but this is next to impossible in a casual environment simply due to the nature of how people treat casual TF2 play. (This includes community servers) Without the coordination of an entire team, 2CP Arena splits players in a way that is irrecoverable in most ways since one team will always have a numbers disadvantage. Again, in another gamemode like Pyramid-style A/D for example, this problem is incredibly mitigated due to players being able to respawn, however in Arena Mode the execution falls flat on its face because whoever wins the split fight effectively wins the round. The gameplay flow of 2CP Arena is too freeform for players to consistently work together between rounds, as without a distinct driving force to force players to group in in their own teams and move towards the other, players often find themselves roaming the spaghetti connectors between the RED and BLU areas.
To quote something I said to a friend of mine, "Given we put 1,000 TF2 players in a room, separated them off into a 500-500 setting where one half plays 1CP Arena and the other half plays 2CP Arena, I think we could statistically prove that 1CP Arena is the more enjoyable mode in a 'casual as we can get' setting. It simply has the better game flow for what a deathmatch mode needs, which is players moving towards each other." Now, ask yourself: What is the purpose of a gamemode that is directly outclassed by its predecessor? Maybe if you're a bit more open-minded to giving gamemodes a shot, you'll have said "Variety!" While I respect the noble mindset of always wanting to give something a chance, the fact of the matter is it'd be creating a niche that will inevitably be uncared about for years at a time. And to say that's not good, well, that'd be the understatement of the century.
A reminder to you, the reader: It's okay to enjoy bad things, but as level designers we must never forget they are bad. Nobody can stop you from creating something for a bad gamemode or even enjoying a bad gamemode, but you need to remember and understand why it is a bad thing at the end of the day. If you can't acknowledge the faults of a gamemode, then how can you expect to make a better map for it in the first place?
Have a good day,
- Minty
