CP Akuchi A9

[DrLambda]

The funny thing is that i start reading posts by you, begin thinking about them, then you write down the thing i was thinking about in the last sentence. I wasn't able to do a whole lot on the map (I mostly cleaned up the lighting spam,) but during the weekend i will get quite a bit of work done, finishing up the spawns etc and probably add the domination area. I fear that adding more unusual stuff to it would make the map to gimmicky.

 

[Jekyllson]

I agree, and having just now given the map a proper look (I haven't been able to make any of the impromptus lately ), I'm guessing that adding a "sacred ground" spot at the midpoint probably wouldn't actually add that much to Akuchi. I pictured your mid being more like Snakewater's, but the control point itself in your map is actually in a relatively unobtrusive spot.

By the way, the map has a nice feel to it. It's fun to blast jump around on, it includes some useful Scout jumps, and it doesn't feel so big that slower classes would feel like complete burdens to play on offense without a teleporter.

 

[DrLambda]

Alpha 7 - Let there be light and a cap-able last

Changelog

• Reduced light prop spam
• Improved artifical lighting inside buildings
• Reworked last
• Made last control point a bit smaller
• Lowered last control point by 64hu
• Moved spawn exits to the side, forcing you to commit to defend last
• Added small fence as sniper protection for east exit
• Increased cap time of last from 4s to 5s
• Increased KOTH timer from 180s to 240s
• Widened the doors to last

Screenshots


Read the rest of this update entry...

 

[DrLambda]

As you might see, i didn't go with the "domination door" idea for now. That's because i changed a lot of things at the last CP that might make capping easier without relying on a (possibly not easy to understand) gimmick. I'll run the map through a few more imps before making that decision.

 

[DrLambda]

So, i haven't watched the demo of the gameday yet, just read the feedback. Sorry for not playing myself, i still have huge problems with my internet connection (The ISP is supposed to fix them on monday.)
It seems like i might have gone slightly over the top with the changes to last? There seems to be quite some feedback that points in that direction, per example from @Illius, @worMatty and @Poof - For those who didn't test earlier, it was almost impossible to cap last within the time frame (like about 90% of the games ended on the KOTH timer.) So, i guess i have to find a middle ground between A6 and A7.
@Muddy - I was going for an unsafe mid, because i want the team defending last to have a slight advantage pushing mid after they successfully defended or if the leading team just tries to hold mid. I want to make them consider to either hold slightly behind mid or push to the connectors.
@Illius again - The spawn room WAS symetrical until the last update, but if i would've kept it that way, i would either have to get rid of the window (Which i think is not a good idea) or have one exit have a longer time to reach last, which is also suboptimal, so i kept it that way.

Thanks everyone for testing, and thanks @Crowbar for the clipping feedback. I'll clip corners for the next alphas, i just forgot it when i moved everything over A5-A7.

 

[Illius]

Well, I was referring more to the lockers, I found it confusing to find where the locker was when I switched sides.

 

[Aeix]

When I played this map on the gameday, I felt that the cap time on last needs to be reduced by 0.5 seconds. I think that without a med with a charge, it's practically impossible to push last, as the cap time is just a little bit too long. Unless of course, you want people to build before pushing last with a charge. I really enjoyed the map though

 

[Jekyllson]

I just noticed that the map is "mirrored" instead of "flipped". By that, I mean that the fastest rollout from spawn for Soldiers for RED is on the left side, while for BLU, it's on the right side. Similarly, the strongest side from which to push last is currently on the right for BLU and on the left for RED. I would imagine that that would cause some amount of inherent imbalance with the last capture points, since all rocket launchers other than the Original fire out from the right side, allowing Soldiers to fire rockets around corners without exposing themselves to counter fire if the opening is to their right.

I didn't notice it before, since 5CP maps usually have near-identical final capture point layouts, and I assumed that the same was true of Akuchi. Is there some reason why the map is mirrored, instead of flipped?

 

[DrLambda]

I just noticed that the map is "mirrored" instead of "flipped". By that, I mean that the fastest rollout from spawn for Soldiers for RED is on the left side, while for BLU, it's on the right side. Similarly, the strongest side from which to push last is currently on the right for BLU and on the left for RED. I would imagine that that would cause some amount of inherent imbalance with the last capture points, since all rocket launchers other than the Original fire out from the right side, allowing Soldiers to fire rockets around corners without exposing themselves to counter fire if the opening is to their right.

I didn't notice it before, since 5CP maps usually have near-identical final capture point layouts, and I assumed that the same was true of Akuchi. Is there some reason why the map is mirrored, instead of flipped?

This was a thing i was thinking about when creating the map. The reason is basically that i had successful competitive KOTH maps in mind when designing mid, especially Viaduct and Lakeside, both of which are mirrored. Also, it might be helpful to know that the only official 3CP map, Powerhouse, is also mirrored.
While the viaducty layout changed quite a bit, it still takes advantage of being mirrored. The sniper flank sightlines would be really problematic on a flipped map, and of course the connection of both flanks with areas parallel to the point wouldn't work the way it is currently working - The fact that it is mirrored is so deeply ingrained into the mid that nothing short of a complete redesign would fix that.
So, while i agree that it might pose a slight problem, the advantages it gives you when designing the KOTH point should be enough to compensate that.

PS: The rocket launchers actually fire from the side corresponding from the viewmodel settings, so if you enabled lefthanded viewmodels, it would fire from the left. You can only switch when being able to switch loadout as far as i know though. This is not an excuse, switching viewmodels would obviously fuck with what they trained, it's just to say that the advantage doesn't come from rightside corners per se.

 

[DrLambda]

Changelog

• Changed ramp on east flank, hopefully making it easier to navigate up there.
• Changed mid connector building, making the western exit flow better
• Closed outer western sniper window, limiting a few scary sightlines unless you expose yourself on the balcony
• Reset KOTH timer back to 180s for now
• Added a lot of smooth movement playerclips
• Fixed a few brushes where BLU and RED last looked slightly different. Oops.
• Turned around the red spawn door that was enabling BLU to look into the spawn
• Changed sky, lighting and floor texture to get a feeling for the theme. Sorry, astroturf lovers.

Pictures


Read the rest of this update entry...

 

[Crowbar]

Reworked on lighting? Looks a little bit darker and more natural.

 

[DrLambda]

@Wilson - You have been quite vocal on the feedback again, and i want to include your opinion on the map a bit more than i did for Hierarch. I just watched the replays of the imps, and i want to know a bit more of what you're thinking.
But first of all, let me get something out of the way - I agree that Hierarch didn't change too much over the versions, but you said the same about Akuchi for multiple times, and i consider that a bit unfair. For reference:

The only parts that didn't change or move around over the 8 alphas were the placement of the tunnel, the backwards building and parts of the east flank. I'm willing to change a lot, and depending on how this test goes (I submitted it to both gamedays and an imp,) I'll go back to the drawing board.
I admit that there weren't a lot of changes to mid from A6-A8, because A7 was mostly about redesigning last and A8 did quite a bit of cleanup work in the areas that felt a bit wonky to move around in. But that was also partially because the only negative feedback around mid was that it was lower than usual or on Viaduct (Also tagging @Muddy and @chin here for additional feedback.)
Now, let's talk about mid. People seem to be unhappy with the lowered mid, because it is easy to spam people out from there, when this was deliberately changed in A3 or A4 because the feedback there was that mid was too easy to defend and there was no motivation to push last. I actually was fine with that, because if you read the first few posts, i originally wanted the map to be a KOTH map with a few additional motivators, but it always kept coming up, so i changed it. From then on, i got feedback that called to make mid more like Viaduct - so i'm a bit torn here. What would everyone that cares enough suggest?
I really have no idea how to continue, because whenever i change something, there is vocal support to change it back or even make it how it was before i changed it without them knowing that i changed it recently. When i change last to make it easier to push in, people tell me that it should be harder to push in, when i change mid to make it harder to defend, people tell me that i should make it easier to defend. When i don't do these things, the feedback tells me to do them. I'm currently feeling like i'm trying to make changes until everyone is equally unhappy, and that's not something that i want to do. Like i said before, i'm always open to scrap a project if it doesn't turn out good, but i'm again not seeing what i could learn from that right now, because all i have is a clusterfuck of differing opinions, both if i change things and if i don't change the same things, which even with filtering through them makes it hard to see what the players actually want, especially considering that the only easy things to filter out are the ones talking about the parts of the map that work exactly like viaduct.

 

[Skullio]

I dont remember people making much feedback on the test today but maybe that's a good thing. I still like the concept and had a fun game I think others were enjoying it too.

You did change the layout/size of the final cap area quite a bit and I think it's a lot better now and that was the only crits I had last time

If the feedback is confused maybe you just need to get it tested more and get a better sample size

 

[Jekyllson]

@DrLambda I've been following your map fairly closely, because it really would mean a lot to me if a terrific 3CP/KotH hybrid succeeded. Due to conflicts and an IP problem, though, I haven't yet actually been able to play it in any of the imps or gamedays That should hopefully change today, though, so I can finally get a sense of how the map flows.

You can't listen to all feedback, especially not if it's contradictory. I'm guessing people are probably comparing your map to standard KotH maps, but your map shouldn't be (and possibly can't be) designed like a good KotH map, because it doesn't make sense for a good KotH point to be easy to attack, because in KotH you're not trying to discourage people from just camping mid the entire time.

Ultimately, I still think that you should hold onto those three goals I mentioned awhile back:

• It should be possible for a good team to defend last for a limited amount of time, so that whoever first takes mid isn't guaranteed the win
• The attacking team should be able to break into last after a certain amount of time, to avoid stalemates
• It should be significantly harder for the current winning team to defend mid than your average KotH map, to encourage the team with the temporary advantage to push forward (especially if they're currently losing in terms of time left on the clocks)

I imagine it's something of a delicate balancing act, but how does the flow seem to play out on Akuchi right now? Are people not pushing out onto mid? Is it too hard for teams to push into last? Or is it impossible to do so?

 

[Viemärirotta]

I haven't played this yet, though I'm interested to try. I like the green for some reason.

 

[Muddy]

The thing I don't like much about mid is how I can be attacked from all different angles, and each angle gives my attackers a height advantage over me. Viaduct is fun to attack and defend because there's only so many different areas enemies can easily attack from, and the height advantages/disadvantages aren't quite as nasty.

Here's where people can approach the point in Viaduct: ignore the black spot

There are multiple points of attack to provide attackers with a choice, but at the same time the defenders still have ample cover and can forsee and prepare for attacks as long as they're looking in the general direction of the enemy base.

Here's Harvest's point:

This is a bit different in that enemies can easily show up from behind you, but there's still only three routes into the point (quite chokey routes, too) and if you park yourself in a corner you can overlook all three entrances at once. (Some people still consider this bad design and it muddies my point a bit but I figure someone else is gonna bring it up if I don't)

Now look at Akuchi:

There are four different routes onto the point (not including the second window on the right, which I marked anyway 'cos it's easy for one team to have control over both windows and alternate between them, and also the awning on the left on which soldiers and demomen can hop onto and spam down from), and they're coming in from all over the place, so anyone trying to capture the point has to be looking in every direction to make sure they don't get flanked - especially given that there are two routes completely bypassing the point, allowing people to go around the attackers/defenders and attack them from behind, something which is much harder to do in Viaduct. hoowee that was a long sentence, good job I'm not a professional writer

I've said in the past that I'm not a fan of Viaduct's funnelly layout (which it looks like you're going for here), but that's a subjective opinion rather than a criticism of the map, and similarly some people might prefer it over Harvest's less-linear layout. But it looks like you're trying to incorporate both styles of layout into your map, and I'm not sure if it works terribly well. Consider removing/blocking off the building on the right, and perhaps the awning of the left too. Or remove the flank routes. Experiment a bunch, that's what alphas are for!

 

[DrLambda]

Thanks everyone for the words of encouragement, and thanks Muddy for the long answer. Let me take some time to answer a few things.

I dont remember people making much feedback on the test today but maybe that's a good thing. I still like the concept and had a fun game I think others were enjoying it too.

You did change the layout/size of the final cap area quite a bit and I think it's a lot better now and that was the only crits I had last time

If the feedback is confused maybe you just need to get it tested more and get a better sample size

Yeah, there wasn't a lot of !fb and !gf on the US gameday, but i usually try to watch the demo and take the feedback page as a reminder. I wasn't able to watch it yet, but i'll do that today or tomorrow.
And about the sample size - I agree, but i don't want to repeat testing the same version too often, because the TF2M group tends to not be happy about that, and i don't really have a big external group willing to test the map until they dream of it.

@Jekyllson - Yeah, i know you've been following very closely. You've given the most feedback and have been very helpful, and i'm quite thankful for that.
The problem currently seems to be that i overshoot my goals whenever i try to do something, which means rolling back some of them with every version while also making other changes. It's quite a delicate balancing act, and while i really really want start detailing the map, i think there'lll still be quite a few alpha versions before i can do that.

The thing I don't like much about mid is how I can be attacked from all different angles, and each angle gives my attackers a height advantage over me. Viaduct is fun to attack and defend because there's only so many different areas enemies can easily attack from, and the height advantages/disadvantages aren't quite as nasty.

Here's where people can approach the point in Viaduct: ignore the black spot
[snip]

There are multiple points of attack to provide attackers with a choice, but at the same time the defenders still have ample cover and can forsee and prepare for attacks as long as they're looking in the general direction of the enemy base.

Here's Harvest's point:
[snip]

This is a bit different in that enemies can easily show up from behind you, but there's still only three routes into the point (quite chokey routes, too) and if you park yourself in a corner you can overlook all three entrances at once. (Some people still consider this bad design and it muddies my point a bit but I figure someone else is gonna bring it up if I don't)

Now look at Akuchi:
[snip]

There are four different routes onto the point (not including the second window on the right, which I marked anyway 'cos it's easy for one team to have control over both windows and alternate between them, and also the awning on the left on which soldiers and demomen can hop onto and spam down from), and they're coming in from all over the place, so anyone trying to capture the point has to be looking in every direction to make sure they don't get flanked - especially given that there are two routes completely bypassing the point, allowing people to go around the attackers/defenders and attack them from behind, something which is much harder to do in Viaduct. hoowee that was a long sentence, good job I'm not a professional writer

I've said in the past that I'm not a fan of Viaduct's funnelly layout (which it looks like you're going for here), but that's a subjective opinion rather than a criticism of the map, and similarly some people might prefer it over Harvest's less-linear layout. But it looks like you're trying to incorporate both styles of layout into your map, and I'm not sure if it works terribly well. Consider removing/blocking off the building on the right, and perhaps the awning of the left too. Or remove the flank routes. Experiment a bunch, that's what alphas are for!

First of all, thanks for the long answer, i appreciate that.
Yes, i'm trying to go for a "viaducty" experience. The reason is mostly, even though i know this is not a particulary well-tested gamemode, i'm trying to keep competitive in mind when designing the map (the first post has quite a lengthy explanation why) - I think that with the advent of matchmaking, there'll be some experimentation with the gamemodes, and i'm trying to fix a few of the key problems of the other gamemodes that are played competitively. And viaduct is simply said the most successful competitive KOTH map by far. So i tried to incorporate a lot of gameplay elements from it. Even a few combat areas are quite similar in size - The flat area of mid is only a few units shorter than mid on Viaduct, the ramps up to it have the same size and same height difference etc. I know about the funnely design, it's also not my usual approach to a KOTH point (usually people tend to critizise my maps because they have too MANY paths) and i'm trying to add some of my personal preferences with the flanks.
I didn't take Harvest into consideration when designing the map, especially because, while i like a lot of the design of Harvest, capping the point there is just an afterthought when you don't currently have anyone to DM, and the only reason that it is ever contested is because Valve pubs have a lot of newer players that try anyway.
About the angles of attack of Akuchi compared with VIaduct - I always considered the windows and the battlements to be the same angle of attack, similar to the battlements on Viaduct (Which you didn't mark as an angle of attack on the Viaduct picture) but i understand the differences and will strongly consider closing the windows for the next version. That would only leave the tunnel as an angle of attack that isn't present on Viaduct (or better said Product because that also has a path that bypasses the point in a similar fashion.) I fear that sentries on the point might become very powerful in pub play, but i think there are still enough ways to take them out.

Taking all your feedback into consideration, i'll wait for the results of the EU gameday, then think about it for a few days before implementing anything. This has always helped me to get a clearer view on what i need to do.

 

[DrLambda]

Changelog
Last:

• Removed the fence because the sightline was fixed by the layout change in A8
• Widened the west ramp, making movement flow better
• Replaced the jump to last with a ramp (for now)
• Widened nobuild to include said ramp

Connectors:

• Added multiple closed windows to give players a better overview
• Removed small pickups in mid connector
• Added medium pickups in mid connector that are better usable by attackers (but visible to defenders)

Mid:

• Closed the east windows. You can still look through though.
• Raised mid back up again. Still slight height disadvantage, but should matter way less often
• Reworked some doorframe clips that weren't working as intended

Pictures


Read the rest of this update entry...

 

[DrLambda]

As the feedback from the last imp has been negative again, i'll stop development on this version of Akuchi. I agree with @worMatty and think that redesigning the layout will do the map good. It's been a nice learning experience, but by trying to patch up everything problematic i broke the map down into so many small areas that it became hard for players to know what was going on. The layout of the new version will be similar, but back to the drawing board it is. I fell back into a few bad habits too fast.

So, Akuchi isn't dead, but will be reborn, with all the new information i gained (and a bit more research on my part.) This will take a few days, maybe even weeks, but i think that it's worth it.

@Berry - I saw that you said that it's unfair to let this map run as a CP map with increased testing times while most of the action comes from KOTH gameplay. I agree that the additional 10 minutes are unnecessary (and that's why i usually try to add a note that ~20 minutes is enough - which currently isn't possible for the imp bot afaik) but i still think that prefixing this as koth is way more confusing for players than naming it cp as a 3CP with KOTH timer - i don't intend to unnecessarily hog up the tester's time, but i'd rather send a clearer message what to expect from a map than renaming the map for the sake of automation.

 

[Berry]

@Berry - I saw that you said that it's unfair to let this map run as a CP map with increased testing times while most of the action comes from KOTH gameplay. I agree that the additional 10 minutes are unnecessary (and that's why i usually try to add a note that ~20 minutes is enough - which currently isn't possible for the imp bot afaik) but i still think that prefixing this as koth is way more confusing for players than naming it cp as a 3CP with KOTH timer - i don't intend to unnecessarily hog up the tester's time, but i'd rather send a clearer message what to expect from a map than renaming the map for the sake of automation.

I completely agree with every other reason for it being titled CP_ for the record, I just wanted to put in it's an easy way for it to get fair time (it does fit more as CP imo)