1. Hey there Guest,

    The game servers have moved to semi-dedicated hardware and IPs have changed. Please see front page server widget for up-to-date game server information.

A question regarding 5-CP layout styles

Discussion in 'Mapping Questions & Discussion' started by Psy, Nov 26, 2009.

  1. Psy

    aa Psy The Imp Queen

    Messages:
    1,705
    Positive Ratings:
    1,480
    I'm currently designing a 5-CP map and I'm somewhat unsure about an element present in some 5-CP maps but not others.

    In Granary and Well there is 1 large 'no man's land' area that acts as a bridging between the 3rd and 2nd CP whilst in Yukon and Badlands there is no such thing and the 3rd CP simply connects directly into the area of the 2nd CP.

    Personally, I don't particularly like the first style as rounds are drawn out for extended periods of time as the team that has been pushed back focus completely on locking down the 2nd CP and rarely push out towards the 3rd CP due to the distance they have the travel.

    I'd like some thoughts on this. So do you prefer the first layout style or the second style and why?
     
  2. Rikka

    Rikka L5: Dapper Member

    Messages:
    207
    Positive Ratings:
    210
    The first style works better when the players don't just think of the "no man's land" as extra travel space" but as another part of the map like the CP's that needs to be controlled.

    I think I do enjoy the latter style more. Games are a bit faster there. But I enjoy the former as well.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  3. Randdalf

    aa Randdalf

    Messages:
    1,054
    Positive Ratings:
    466
    In granary it works really well, in Well it works really poorly, because in Granary, once you cross that area... you're at the point, but in Well you've got another line of defense again. Badlands, sort of has this area too, it's just more spread out, and more open.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  4. SPHinx

    SPHinx L2: Junior Member

    Messages:
    81
    Positive Ratings:
    24
    I think it also depends somewhat on the number of players. Fewer players favor the Yukon-style, making less running and more exploding. More players favor the Granary-style, as the extra space offers another line to defend (as Rikka says) and increases the time it takes for the attackers to reach the next point, giving the defenders more time to re-group and perhaps launch another assault.

    Whether or not the extra space gets used this way . . . well that will obviously vary with the organization of the team.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. lana

    aa lana Currently On: ?????

    Messages:
    3,077
    Positive Ratings:
    1,389
    Depends on the size of the server. More players would require a buffer to allow the defenders to regroup, while less players can usually be held off by the defenders to replace the buffer.

    In other words, Yukon and Badlands are better for ~12 players, while Well and Granary are better for 24.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. Icarus

    aa Icarus

    Messages:
    2,246
    Positive Ratings:
    1,182
    In Granary, you only need to break through the yard to get to the CP, but in Well, you have to break through the yard AND the interior area (which can also be very campable).

    It's not about how many yards you have, it's how many lines you must break through.

    Personally, I think the battles between CP2 and Mid should be the focus of 5CP maps. CP1 is supposed to act as a last-ditch attempt at a comeback, the losing team with their backs against the wall. I find it really irritating when custom maps treat CP1 like the rest and have long, drawn-out battles between it and CP2.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2009
  7. megawac

    megawac L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    180
    Positive Ratings:
    29
    I prefer fast pace badlands style and that ^
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  8. h3r1n6

    h3r1n6 L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    158
    Positive Ratings:
    95
    I don't think I can count myself to liking one or the other more, because there are so many more factors to it.

    I'd count badlands as the first style though, while it doesn't have an additional room between mid and 2nd cp (the area in front of the 1st forward spawn doesn't count), it does have the difference in vertical space, that kind of makes up for it.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. Stormcaller3801

    Stormcaller3801 L5: Dapper Member

    Messages:
    249
    Positive Ratings:
    28
    I don't really care for either. In terms of pure map layout, the maps are all very linear. You have some wiggle in hallways, but I've rarely seen these fought over- generally it's been a fight around storage containers at the third point (on traincars or off), then the losers fall back to build up around their second point so you've got people navigating twisty passages to reach another fairly open area with a point in it, and from there it's a straight shot to the last point.

    I understand it's how this should be done, and I get that the intent from Valve was to keep games from ending in a stalemate, but I get bored with the large open spaces where we fight and the small twisty corridors I have to navigate to get to the next large open space. And while I haven't had enough time with Yukon to say it's universal, Badlands, Granary, and Well are all large, straight rectangles in terms of overall shape. I'd love to see an S, or U, or just about anything that didn't boil down to 'run straight ahead, shoot people, run straight ahead some more.'
     
  10. Tinker

    aa Tinker

    Messages:
    672
    Positive Ratings:
    334
    Yes, this is also the main problem fastlane has, even though its other two point (mid and second) are great.

    There is not really a single way to describe a 5cp map though. Like mentioned by Icarus as well, for Well the buffer zones don't work as well as they do for Granary, and Badlands' and Yukon's connections work in a totally different way as well. Yes, it definitely has to do with how many "lines" you have to break through, but sometimes there are routes which can skip lines (such as the dropdown in Granary), or gets you an extra one (such as the midpoint house in Badlands). It might not be the best idea to create your map especially around a philosophy of having one or the other - instead, see if it works well for the gameflow in your specific layout.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  11. Randdalf

    aa Randdalf

    Messages:
    1,054
    Positive Ratings:
    466
    If you take another perspective: Well is really boring to play competitively, Granary is intense, and Badlands is exciting and intense.

    I still reckon that Badlands has a pretty sizable area between 2nd and mid, it's just not as clear cut as in the other maps.
     
  12. Sgt.Sausage

    Sgt.Sausage L7: Fancy Member

    Messages:
    420
    Positive Ratings:
    103
    That no mans land is very useful, and is one of the reasons why granary is the most played competitive map. When i used to play comp. tf2 as solider, granary was the main map we played, fastlane and badlands coming second and third.

    That area almost acts as a mini point. If they team can push in or out of the point and control the courtyard that is a big advancement, while the wait for the rest of their team to be ready to make a push. These areas between points are what make the maps more interesting instead of having every battle in the same place on the point.

    Of coarse if you didn't have this area, i am sure your map would still be great, but from the comp side its a great addition and would help with balance for defending teams pushing out, and attacking teams pushing in. Lots of times this area lowered stalemate chances because the teams did no have to walk as far.

    Anyway its up to you, but i highly recommend putting some areas like these, it make your map more interesting anyways. Especially in pl maps their is lots of no point areas where people setup to defend. This helps the gameplay stay fresh.
     
  13. Sgt.Sausage

    Sgt.Sausage L7: Fancy Member

    Messages:
    420
    Positive Ratings:
    103
    I agree with you, but the last points should be just as important. If 1 team gets points mid and 4th, and the other team still should have an even chance to take the point back. On granary the push for the final point is a huge one for the attacking team, because if they dont do it right the other can quick cap back second and push to third before the other team spawns. The last point should not be really easy to defend, but it should require a big push/distance from the 2/4 points so the attacks have to plan/attack carefully for risk of a backcap.
     
  14. grazr

    aa grazr Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle

    Messages:
    5,436
    Positive Ratings:
    3,768
    I find that ones "own" cp's are harder to take back than they are for the enemy to capture in the first place. With granary i believe that issue lies in the fact that if Red cap 4 of the 5 cp's their spawn is closer to their contested cp. I'm not sure whether this was intential, but it makes it incredibly difficult for a team who loses the middle, to fight back, and even less so when they lose their second. This kind of gameplay irritates me as i often find players realise the game is lost in the first 30 seconds and often leads to "ragequits". Consistantly that map gets stacked and empties servers (at least in my experience).

    for axle i went for a setup that focuses gameplay on the middle. The 3 cp's are close with no buffer, that allows the map to swing, whilst a buffer does exist between 1 and 2. I guess it is sort of an opposite approach to granary. I would like to think this gameplay works. A1 feedback seemed to suggest it did.

    I was working with an experimental setup in another map that allowed defenders to capture back their own cp's in around 50%/75% of the time it takes the enemy. This way the battle swings back and forth, not unnaturally but it gives a real sense of achievement to either team, that A) one can fight back, and B) to motivate a loss to a counter attack, to try and push harder next time. One of my worries is that pub players are never really aggressive, and even 30 missing hit points can cause them to hesitate to proceed to the next area, despite the fact that chances are good it's empty.

    A maps focus should be the area of great aesthetic appearence. Which could be between any cp's that a level designer whishes. As long as certain rewards are applied that motivate both sides without unbalancing them, gameplay should be smooth. This setup was designed for pub play, just as a sort of disclaimer.

    I'd have gone into more detail but i have to go now :(
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2009
  15. Tinker

    aa Tinker

    Messages:
    672
    Positive Ratings:
    334
    Caps get slowly easier to cap, which rewards playing well and capping points. It makes sense not to have each cap to be fair in comparison to the next one, as otherwise, where's the reward for capping mid? You don't want every cap to be an endlessly fair battle, because you already had that - at mid. You can still take it back with a strong pushback after a failed attack, or by tactically going through defenses, but it makes sense to make the losing team lose and the winning team win, not the other way around.
     
  16. Tinker

    aa Tinker

    Messages:
    672
    Positive Ratings:
    334
    Yes, this is a thing to note: Both Badlands' and Granary's last caps are really easy to attack from various sides in itself, but require lots of travel distance to GET there, forcing the winning team to regroup to attack and not die potshotting the enemy. But once they DO, they can fairly easily take it. This way, keeping together until the end rewards itself , while the defending team can have a good attempt at grabbing back second would the push fail.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  17. Stormcaller3801

    Stormcaller3801 L5: Dapper Member

    Messages:
    249
    Positive Ratings:
    28
    Honestly Tinker my experience is anything but that: generally speaking, if I'm playing Granary or Well and our second to last point is taken, the game will end within 30 seconds, if that. Defenders will fight hard to keep their second point, and having it taken will kill off a lot of them in the process. This sets up the 'wait and watch' endgame, where the time it takes to respawn and get to the final point is greater than the time it takes for a Scout to go from the second point to the last point and cap it. You end up watching the other team win via deathcam or they cap while you're running from spawn, leaving you very little to do except wait to get killed during humiliation.
     
  18. Sgt.Sausage

    Sgt.Sausage L7: Fancy Member

    Messages:
    420
    Positive Ratings:
    103
    Exactly, its not a free point, but easy to take if you organize.
     
  19. Titanium

    Titanium L1: Registered

    Messages:
    28
    Positive Ratings:
    11
    I think's that every 5cp maps got its own layout howewer the most important things is that last cp has to be not far from the second and that the midle should at the opposite be far from the second point (not too much of course). You need place to defend each point but not too much or progressing will be hard.

    Badland is different because the second point is fast to cap and on a tower so it is usually not defended between the second and third but more often with player on the balcony (so between first an second CP).

    Anyway it dempend of the maps wether is a fast or a slow map. So the best is to try the two and see wich one is better for your map plus you can try a totally new layout.
     
  20. Icarus

    aa Icarus

    Messages:
    2,246
    Positive Ratings:
    1,182
    When first designing a 5CP, it's best to keep close to the set standards valve has set for a reason.

    I've archived the respawn times and capture rates for all stock maps here:
    http://tf2wiki.net/wiki/Respawn_times
    http://tf2wiki.net/wiki/Control_point_timing

    A few things I feel that are necessary for 5CP maps:
    -Keep the final CP capture rate fast. Valve does this to prevent a turtling losing team from dragging on the round. The last point is supposed to be a last-ditch attempt at a comeback. The losing team should be required to make a quick, aggressive push at the 2nd CP, or fail.

    -Keep the final point hidden from the spawn doors. attackers should not be able to spawn camp them, nor should the defenders be able to defend from their spawn. Offender: Fastlane. Look how wonderful that turned out to be.

    -At least one team should have 10 second respawn waves at any given time. I've noticed a lot of custom maps never going longer than 8 seconds. You're cutting of 20% off the spawn time (4 seconds) and that can make a huge difference. Some players think that the respawn waves shouldn't change at all, but I think at the very least it should be reduced for attackers when facing off at the enemy's final CP. Granary is an excellent example of this.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2009