TC Caprock

Discussion in 'Map Factory' started by Waffe, Apr 4, 2014.

  1. Waffe

    Waffe L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    192
    Positive Ratings:
    191
    Work in progress.


    This map will use a special gamemode I've not seen made before (I haven't looked far though). The gamemode is a mash-up of TC, PL and PLR, where both teams take turns pushing their payload and capturing areas/territories.

    Pic of game logic (incomplete):

    [​IMG]

    Once the logic works I'll share a .vmf of it, and probably explain it in a more technical level.


    When the game starts, RED owns A and F, while BLU owns the points B through E (why BLU owns 2 points more than RED is because RED starts as attacking). For each miniround the team attacking can cap up to 3 CPs, in the pic below that would be B-C-D for RED.

    [​IMG]

    The map loops (potentially forever) and once all six control points are captured the game is won. Each area will also have two different tracks (near the CP), as each point can be the final CP, so one track for just passing by and the other for the bomb going boom.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2014
  2. YM

    aa YM LVL100 YM

    Messages:
    7,099
    Positive Ratings:
    5,920
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 7
  3. Bakscratch

    aa Bakscratch Finisher of Maps

    Messages:
    690
    Positive Ratings:
    1,256
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  4. Sergis

    aa Sergis L666: ])oo]v[

    Messages:
    1,871
    Positive Ratings:
    1,245
    tc_circlejerk?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  5. puxorb

    aa puxorb L69: Emoticon

    Messages:
    458
    Positive Ratings:
    663
    If you do this right, it could very well be my favorite gamemode.
     
  6. xzzy

    aa xzzy

    Messages:
    815
    Positive Ratings:
    500
    What kind of mess is the HUD when you got this mode running? Is it a CP layout or a PL layout?

    Seems like you'd want elements from both.


    I do like the idea though. It seems like it offers some of the ideas that makes PLR attractive, without the gameplay flaws of having two payload carts active.
     
  7. A Boojum Snark

    aa A Boojum Snark Toraipoddodezain Mazahabado

    Messages:
    4,769
    Positive Ratings:
    5,535
    Very interesting. A different take on TC-PLR than what I was working on years ago, and I'd say it looks more doable and fun. That is a lot of round entities though... there is definitely a lot of complexity, but I'm wondering if I might know some tcpr tricks that could help you streamline the rounds if you were to explain a bit.

    I'm not sure I agree with the 2/4 split reasoning. It prevents red from ever winning on their first attacking round, but makes it easier for blue on their first round as well. I guess it would really depend on the map balance, which itself will be difficult. You don't really want it so easy that it goes on forever with triple-cap each round, but being circular you can't have a layout-based difficulty ramp like a regular A/D map.
    Although perhaps you still could by having doors that are only open if it a CP is the first in a round, or closed only if it is the last.
     
  8. Waffe

    Waffe L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    192
    Positive Ratings:
    191
    I got two ideas for changing the difficulty of a cap: Changing the track and having dynamic doorways. But since every area must be designed as a final capture, it'll be hard to balance. But that's what playtesting is for. I also thought about using the timer to in a way, prevent games going on forever.

    Currently I have one round entity for each possible round. There is 48 of them, since there are 4 different round lenghts/types (1, 2, 3, 3 w/o final), 6 caps and 2 teams (4*6*2=48).
     
  9. A Boojum Snark

    aa A Boojum Snark Toraipoddodezain Mazahabado

    Messages:
    4,769
    Positive Ratings:
    5,535
    Hmm, yeah I guess those numbers make sense... Though, what do you need done that can't be handled by regular logic for the two different three-cap scenarios?
    Speaking of numbers, spawn times might actually be the best/easiest way to adjust difficulty with the added benefit of not making the map more difficult to learn with dynamic routes.
     
  10. RubbishyUser

    RubbishyUser L7: Fancy Member

    Messages:
    414
    Positive Ratings:
    243
    I was thinking about this over dinner and it occurred to me: why limit the amount of caps in a round? Then you could use a fixed timer each round, the match would tend towards a finish as eventually one team would gain the momentum to roll the other, the explanation would be simple - "catch the other team's cart", the HUD would be simpler, and the biggest complaint I could think of - that you have "too many points to cap" is neutered by the existence and success of 5-cap maps like cashworks and steel. As a bonus, the simple time restriction is guaranteed to make that 5-cap round hard - increasing the difficulty as time progresses.

    By fixed timer, btw, I mean say, 10 mins with no added time on cap, but spawns are moved. Note I am also assuming a 3-3 starting split of course. Another reason not to have a 3-3 split is that new players will immediately be upset that their team has fewer points - and I don't blame them.

    Finally, are the RED and BLU starting points going to be identical? In other words, do you expect the map to have 180 rotational symmetry? If you don't have it, the 6 points will be more interesting and so will their relationship. However, the points are also far more likely to be unbalanced, giving one team an advantage in what is supposed to be a symmetrical gamemode. Effectively, you're trying to pull off the asymmetry of arena_yunshu but with much higher stakes.

    EDIT: I thought up another way of examining the set-up problem. In each round, if RED caps more than BLU, then they gain that many points, and vice versa. Whoever gets a difference of 3 wins. By limiting the maximum number of caps per round, the only outcome is making it impossible to "win from behind" - surely not the desired effect, given that the game is supposed to reach a difficult climax rather than peter out when the attackers only have to claim a single point.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  11. Lenny

    Lenny L2: Junior Member

    Messages:
    90
    Positive Ratings:
    35
    So how long is it going to take for this ambitious project to be abandoned?
     
  12. Pocket

    aa Pocket func_croc

    Messages:
    4,489
    Positive Ratings:
    2,377
    Doesn't seem like that would be necessary; each round only needs the stock PLR setup the same way Hydro just has the two control points.
     
  13. Waffe

    Waffe L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    192
    Positive Ratings:
    191
    End path tracks are different for the watchers, but now when I think about it, you don't need an extra round entity for that.

    I thought about using the default PL hud (as only one cart is pushed at a time), and having a map at the start of the round showing who owns what (like in tc_hydro).

    Originally I wanted a bunch of short rounds, but this sounds a lot better. I might still limit it to 4, just to reduce the playable area per round and to make it easier to seal of the previous/next areas. The layout is already very big.

    A problem with having a 10 minute timer from the start is that if you are spawncamped as an attacker, you have to desperately fight for the whole time. I could go for a slightly longer than average timer at start with lesser time bonuses per cap. (6 to 7 mins at start with +2 to +3 mins per cap?)

    I also thought about giving time bonuses/penalties for winning/losing both as defence and offence.

    As for the 3-3 / 2-4 split, I think the RED would have a huge advantage having 3 captures and starting as an attacker.

    No symmetry

    The other idea you had might work as well, but it's not something I'd use.
     
  14. UKCS-Alias

    aa UKCS-Alias Mann vs Machine... or... Mapper vs Meta?

    Messages:
    1,264
    Positive Ratings:
    794
    In many pl maps the first capture is generaly taken quite fast. So starting at 6 minutes is fine. But since the 2nd cap can be hard maybe adding 5 minutes on the capture can work (normaly in pl the timer is capped at 10 minutes but in this case it could take a max of about 11 minutes in a round).

    Also, i wouldnt make the rounds too long. Note that 3cp stages in plr can be huge and normaly already require a shortcut (see both badwater and goldrush stage 3 which have shortcuts).

    For that reason i wouldnt go over 2cp's already. But then there is also the problem on how easy that final cap is (rollbacks? is the enemy spawn close? how easy is it to turtle the area?). If that cap is far too easy for 2cp systems then the 3rd cp might actualy be better to at least keep the captures going a bit faster and allow much more rotating of rounds.

    And about balancing the stages of the map:
    I wouldnt go for a fully balanced symetry. Its one of the things that would make the map dull by effectively only having 3 possible rounds again. The power of TC is to allow many types of rounds. And since your system would become 2-4 balancing on that already can be considered broken for pure balance. Dont bother about that perfect line of balance. The best balance would be switching sides on a map win anyway.
    It will require playtesting on each stage first to decide which start setup would be best. For example you could give them a position at first where the final capture is the hardest that exists in the map (if 3cps in 1 round, have the last 2 captures being the hardest). This means they probably wont win the first round allowing the other team a comeback. If they would start at the easiest, then it would be a waste because there is a higher chance that other rounds wont show up.
     
  15. RubbishyUser

    RubbishyUser L7: Fancy Member

    Messages:
    414
    Positive Ratings:
    243
    Can we just all agree to disagree until a playtest comes along? I really want to get my hands on this :)
     
  16. Waffe

    Waffe L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    192
    Positive Ratings:
    191
    Layout plans so far:

    [​IMG]

    Too high expectations, too much pressure

    [​IMG]
     
  17. RubbishyUser

    RubbishyUser L7: Fancy Member

    Messages:
    414
    Positive Ratings:
    243
    I'd say that's a pretty reasonable layout. What sort of scale are we talking about for each point and the whole map? Oh, and I presume the defender spawn moves back every two caps or so, starting at a spawn for their second defense? I think that'd be a reasonable difficulty progression, based on ordinary pl maps. What about the attackers? If they don't move, the push will slow down as the distance increases and engineers would be vital in both rounds. If they do, you're likely gonna make some points easier as time progresses thanks to spawn location. P.S. Just occurred to me that traditionally, blue should be attacking first ;P

    EDIT: I realized I was reading the diagram wrong. Here's how I was imagining it:

    Start: Blue to attack A, assuming red owns 5 points
    Blue spawns at 9, red at 3. When A is capped, nothing happens. When B is capped, red spawn moves to 6. When C is capped, if the attacking spawns move, move to... 3, I guess? Positioning seems to suggest it's facing B direction. When D is capped, red spawn moves to 9. And so on. If Red has an odd number of points, then when it gets to his last two points and the first is captured, his spawn only moves back one point.

    Oh, and another thing that occurred to me: all of your spawns are going to be used by both teams. That bars you from a lot of the strongly team-coloured themes. That basically leaves you with egyptian, unless you do a Upward type thing and just putt team coloured buildings everywhere
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2014
  18. A Boojum Snark

    aa A Boojum Snark Toraipoddodezain Mazahabado

    Messages:
    4,769
    Positive Ratings:
    5,535
    Hydro? :p
     
  19. UKCS-Alias

    aa UKCS-Alias Mann vs Machine... or... Mapper vs Meta?

    Messages:
    1,264
    Positive Ratings:
    794
    For the spawns i would recommend using the same 6 spawns rather than making a diffirent one for attacking and defending.

    The map when 2cps are active already would require 3 areas to be used. And if the spawn allways aims to direct you to the cp then that would still play smooth. With fences you can direct them to a side. Dont try to make it too complex. People probably would prefer the same spawn position to actualy recognise the part they spawn in better (and improve the feeling of playing a tc map).

    For the final pit idea i still have the idea that its going to bring an issue. Either the final pit is going to be harder to cap or easier. And that can provide a balance problem. You dont want 1 of those final pits to be too hard while also not too easy.
    I would recommend trying to come up with a system that the card can simply ride over the pit itself. And if thats too hard, why dont use the plr_pipeline approach which is simply to not have a pit?

    What if for example the card simply will ride further after capping going to the enemy spawnpoint and explodes there on the track? Or you could just add some props behind the pit which get enabled for the final cp? (i would already recommend such thing for normal rounds).

    To me i would simply have each cp as a pit itself. If its inactive for a round just board it up so you cant see inside it and have the traintrack continue (with the normal midcapture prop). If its the final cp for a normal round also add some props behind it to show it cant go further. And if its the true final cp use the pit itself.
     
  20. Waffe

    Waffe L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    192
    Positive Ratings:
    191
    Scale:
    Look at the picture I posted above. The long straight wall (at about a 25 degree angle) just below the first spawn is 1k HU wide. The average distance from cap to cap is 3.3k, which is fairly long.

    I haven't yet decided how/when to shift spawns. I thought to leave it simple, having each spawns shift on every cap.

    As for the textures/themes, that's TC for you. Hydro is all concrete and dirt (except for the final caps). I'll worry about it later. I could make every area a huge func_brush which toggles between textures, he.

    The distances from spawn to point would be too large, that's the only reason I'm splitting some of them up.

    The direction of the spawn can/will be changed depending on whether the team spawning is going to attack or defend.

    B and E will have the pit right beside the point, while all the others have an extra bit to push. This is to make it slightly harder to win final. For B and E I'll have a rollback before the capture (like upward). Also the F final is the only one that doesn't involve a pit. (also with final I mean the absolutely last point of the whole game, the bomb won't explode before that)

    I'll keep that in mind, seeing how people are somehow confused over Hydro's layout.