Combining Territory Control and Gravelpit-style CP

Discussion in 'Mapping Questions & Discussion' started by Jimmy Nicholls, Feb 17, 2011.

  1. Jimmy Nicholls

    Jimmy Nicholls L2: Junior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Positive Ratings:
    8
    I had this idea that I wanted to share with some people here to see what you made of it.

    The point of Territory Control was to add some inherent replayability to a map and also create a map where players would be faced with new ways to play through the same spaces again and again. Unfortunately TC_hydro usually ends in a stalemate if there are any more than 6 players on either side, except for the last stage at each end which are impossible to defend.

    Gravelpit is the one attack/defend map that could have you fighting for a different CP depending on how the game goes. When the game starts the defending team has the option to split their force into two, put all their players onto one point or most of their players on to one point and send a token force over to the other. The attackers have a similar choice. This means the first stage of the game can unwind in several different ways, although often A is captured first because B is easier to defend.

    [​IMG]

    The idea is pretty much a combination of those two things. As you can see on the diagram below, there are 4 CPs. At the start of the round the server selects 2 points of of A, B and C. The BLU team then must take these two points before moving on to D. This adds some of that replayability that TC had in mind while keeping the basic gameplay of Gravelpit.

    [​IMG]

    It would be important to make sure that people don't pay too much attention to the point that is closed down. My plans for the map would involve the area of A, B and C being not too far apart and more or less part of the same area, instead of Gravelpit's definite separation between the areas. (Although I would have to make sure Snipers don't get too much of a free ride and ensure map optimisation remains possible.)

    When a CP point is not selected at the start of the round I will also partially shut down that area and do things to encourage people not to linger there too long (shutting up buildings etc).

    I'm fairly certain this sort of gameplay would be possible to implement, although it may require a bit of fiddling about to do. It would also be important to balance A, B and C so we don't get the Gravelpit situation of A being abandoned most of the time.

    So, what do you think? Do you think this would be a fun game type? Is it worth attempting? Is it even possible? Would it be better just to stick with a standard Gravelpit style?
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2011
  2. LeSwordfish

    aa LeSwordfish semi-trained quasi-professional

    Messages:
    4,102
    Positive Ratings:
    5,982
    Might work, might work... *strokes chin*
     
  3. Sgt Frag

    Sgt Frag L14: Epic Member

    Messages:
    1,443
    Positive Ratings:
    294
    I think the basic premise is a good one.

    But might be better to have the round just choose either A&B or B&C. Then you could have tunnels between them (like A>B GPit) and you only need to close doors for the unchosen point.

    Put area portals in those doors that close when the doors are closed and optimization will be done.

    I wouldn't close buildings behind the team, that just adds to confusion/weirdenss. Screws with gameplay (I could hide here before, now I'm being chased and I run into a locked door and die)
     
  4. Jimmy Nicholls

    Jimmy Nicholls L2: Junior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Positive Ratings:
    8
    Yeah I didn't mean to imply that you close off areas that have been capped. That would be unnecessary. But there needs to be a way through map design to indicate that the point being used is not for use (duh), and also to encourage snipers not to just hold up in there are start picking people off.

    When I spoke of optimisation difficulties I plan on having the map quite open, with strategically placed buildings/rocks etc to stop snipers from having it too easy.

    I don't know yet what we will do if the computer chose A and C, because you could have a lot of dead ground in the middle. One option would be to not let it do that, but then there would be 2 variations of the map instead of 3 which means less replayability (although TF2ers seem happy to play Dustbowl for hours on end so maybe replayability is less of the issue than variation).

    I think one thing I might go with that Gravelpit did not do is the use of extra spawns when the team moves up, so people don't have to traverse over points they have already capped. Or at least a fast route to Point D when that opens up.
     
  5. LeSwordfish

    aa LeSwordfish semi-trained quasi-professional

    Messages:
    4,102
    Positive Ratings:
    5,982
    I think splitting it up into seperate areas would work far better. Much easier to seal areas off, definitely. B might have to be quite small, but that could be made a focus on vertical space
     
  6. Sgt Frag

    Sgt Frag L14: Epic Member

    Messages:
    1,443
    Positive Ratings:
    294
    Much better for optimizing too.

    Gravel pit is really 4 areas. blu spawn, a,b and c (red spawn).

    Each is a fairly large area but the tunnels seal them off from each other area. If you don't have those 'seals' between the areas it will be much too big for optimizing and I believe game play will suffer also.

    Of course there are ways to make it feel more like one large environment, rather than GPit's 4 'holes'.

    A could be open ground to one side, next to it is B (a compound of buildings) and on the other side of B is C, another open area. Instead of having tunnels like GPit has you can just have hallways leading into the B building. That way you have good transitions for optimizing and breaking sight lines (good idea to keep battle grounds for A,B,C,D their own areas imo).

    Having only A>b or b>C would still give similar game play and feel as you'd have an open area and a more enclosed area per game. But mixing up a and c would keep it fresher. It would also keep players more concentrated which is better for games.
    (A>C split would put them far apart and spread players thin, would also be less consistant through rounds. Would also be hard to go from A>C in a timely fashion, lots of running time wasted).
    too many options is one of hydros downfalls imo. When learning the map you really have to play like 40 rounds to learn the areas, how to attack/defend. It's a very hard map to learn. So people play a few times, get confused, don't like it, then never play and learn it... self defeating.
     
  7. Icarus

    aa Icarus

    Messages:
    2,246
    Positive Ratings:
    1,181
    I've been pondering something similar, with dustbowl-sized rounds. Except instead of being random players could decide which path they wanted to take by capping either of two final CPs (which were close to each other) in the first round.

    I say go for it. Could be very interesting.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2011
  8. Jimmy Nicholls

    Jimmy Nicholls L2: Junior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Positive Ratings:
    8
    That's a very cool idea actually. Having vertical space means that it would not take much time to cross it but the area would be satisfyingly complex on its own.

    I think from the response that I'll have to make them seperate areas, but hopefully there are means that I can make it seem like they are one big area. I'll keep ya posted.