"Fun"ability of a gametype?

Discussion in 'Mapping Questions & Discussion' started by Kazhiim, Aug 12, 2009.

  1. Kazhiim

    Kazhiim L1: Registered

    Messages:
    4
    Positive Ratings:
    0
    Hello, tf2mappers!

    I've been toying with the idea of making a control point map which adheres to the Choose-Your-Own-Adventure philosophy.

    The basic idea is that red has to defend four control points, laid out in a square pattern. Blu is tasked with capturing all four points; however, capturing the first point locks the adjacent points, forcing blu to capture the "diagonal" on the square before they can assault the remaining points.

    Red would initially spawn in the center of the map and have access to all four points relatively easy from spawn. Blu, on the other hand, would spawn at the perimeter and be able to access any side of the map easily (though teleports). After the first capture is made, Blu's spawn is locked into that particular side, and red's spawn is moved to the opposite side.

    I've already figured out what needs to be triggered in order to get the right points to lock; my concern now is how to possibly balance this map. Paths between the different quadrants of the map need to work when blu is assaulting from either end (imagine playing gravelpit backwards!). A big problem is that after Blu takes the second point, they have a significant geographical advantage over red in taking the third and fourth points, which are now more or less behind the battlefront.

    I've toyed with a 5-CP version, which would play out like this:
    [​IMG]

    the same problem with the final point ending up in Blu territory is present, but swapping the spawns might fix it. Setting up the triggers becomes much more complicated (a six-point version is unthinkable!)


    So... do either of these ideas sound fun? Is the constant switching of spawnpoints going to be too confusing for players? Should I close certain paths at each stage, or let players move freely throughout the map at all times?
     
  2. Freyja

    aa Freyja ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Messages:
    2,816
    Positive Ratings:
    4,655
    It seems like a very complicated system (goodluck with it :p )

    You'd need a very very simple map to learn and an extremely good into video for this to work. If the map is too confusing everyone will have no idea where to go and give up. You should also clearly show which points are locked, which ones need to be captured, and, when red spawns, (and blu for that matter) show where they are right away.
     
  3. alecom

    alecom L8: Fancy Shmancy Member

    Messages:
    516
    Positive Ratings:
    120
    I actually think it sounds very fun!
    Would take a bit of getting used to, but if you have each area different and distinctive it could work okay maybe?

    I think if you blocked paths off upon captures, you could get people becoming lost and stuck, probably best to just keep routes open.
     
  4. Inqwel

    Inqwel L6: Sharp Member

    Messages:
    308
    Positive Ratings:
    57
    Unless they are of course one way doors leading out, Alecom.
     
  5. alecom

    alecom L8: Fancy Shmancy Member

    Messages:
    516
    Positive Ratings:
    120
    I just think it would flow a lot better with no one way doors and blocked routes.. but that's my opinion
     
  6. FaTony

    FaTony Banned

    Messages:
    902
    Positive Ratings:
    160
    Yeah, I've had the same idea too. Sounds fun. Btw one way exits and canging respawn rooms can make such map even more non-repeatable.
     
  7. shadowfax

    shadowfax L1: Registered

    Messages:
    28
    Positive Ratings:
    43
    It looks good. I think the biggest concern would be that red would simply pick the point that is determined to be the "easiest" to defend and let blu take the rest. Sort of like how gravelpit plays out. Most often red attempts to defend B and let blu have A since the general consensus is that B is easier to defend.

    Then if the point really is easier to defend (or even if it is a well balanced defend-able point), red will most often win. But if red doesn't defend that point, blu will win, which will re-enforce to people that they should simply defend only that point.

    Which leads to 4/5ths of your map not really being explored or played.

    Unfortunately I don't see a way to counter this behavior.
     
  8. notalbanian

    notalbanian L1: Registered

    Messages:
    36
    Positive Ratings:
    15
    I can see this ending in RED victory most of the time, since they're defending. If it's symmetrical then it'll end in stalemate often. Maybe a better idea would be to initially have one way for BLU to get to each point and a few other ways that are locked, with each capture locking some places and unlocking others.
     
  9. Kazhiim

    Kazhiim L1: Registered

    Messages:
    4
    Positive Ratings:
    0
    Thanks for the comments :)

    I thought about the problem with the game coming down to a battle at a single point. A possible solution, I think, is to provide BLU with more points to capture than is necessary: for the 4-CP version, only one of the last two points would be necessary. For the 5-CP version, perhaps the last point doesn't need to be captured.

    Then again, Blu might always end up making one particular point on a map the one they don't need to capture.
     
  10. alecom

    alecom L8: Fancy Shmancy Member

    Messages:
    516
    Positive Ratings:
    120
    Capturing one point electromagnetically explodes (trigger hurts buildings) the two points next to it, eliminating any defences, then a wave of BEES swarms in driving players out, and then the area is locked off, forcing players to not camp one point.
     
  11. shadowfax

    shadowfax L1: Registered

    Messages:
    28
    Positive Ratings:
    43
    Yea, or Blu would win too easily, as it can be difficult to defend against 2 points at once. How often do you see red defend both A and B on gravelpit? Usually only when red has far more skill then blu. But with even teams red would have to defend against the entire blu team with half its team at each point. I really like the idea, but it seems TF2 is played best when there is a single front to the battle. Steel manages to get away with 2 fronts because E takes so long to cap and until C is capped only scouts/soldiers/demos can get to the point. This means that one or 2 red players can clear E without moving the main battle front away from the other points.

    However, perhaps if you balance the timer correctly you could find a good balance point. If blu is very limited in time and only gains a maringal amount of time for each cap, it is in the best interest for red to stop blu early, since after blu caps 4 out of 5 that time would add up they would then have enough time to take their time on the last point. That way if red camps one point and blu easily takes the others, blu has lots of time to take down the last one. But if red slows down blu at each point blu will be left with a relatively small amount of time to take the last point.

    Also, as each point is captured, all the other points need to become more accessible. Similar to how with steel as more points are captured, E becomes easier to take (A provides and additional path, B provides the main path, C gives the bridge so all classes can get to E, D makes red take longer to get to E). WIth this there would have to be more paths opening up to all points since you don't know which points are going to be taken and which are left. This also promotes red to try and stop blu early and at every point. If red camps one point and it becomes the last point it needs to become harder to defend and easier for blu to take.