Payload Race Idea

Discussion in 'Mapping Questions & Discussion' started by ForbiddenDonut, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. ForbiddenDonut

    aa ForbiddenDonut

    Messages:
    391
    Positive Ratings:
    338
    Hello folks,

    I'm new to the TF2Maps community, but not new to Source mapping. I come to you today with an idea that I want to bounce off other TF2 mappers and get opinions about possibility and execution. I do not plan to submit this to the current contest, so don't worry about contest rules.

    Cruddy MS Paint diagram time!
    [​IMG]
    (I apologize if I broke any rules about picture uploading. I checked the information sticky, but the link to TF2Map's image upload space leads to a 404.)

    The idea here is this: there a technically two points within this payload race. RED's cart starts next to RED's spawn, while BLU's cart starts next to BLU's spawn. The teams push their carts to A. The first team to get to A has their cart roll onto the turntable, freezes it, time is added and the payload point is obtained for that team. The objective now is to prevent the slower team from getting their cart to the turntable (A).

    If the first team is successful, they win. If the slower team manages to push their cart onto the turntable, the table turns both carts 180 degrees and they start on opposite sides of the track facing the opposite direction. The teams now roll their carts to the opposing team's base (think Nightfall stage 1). The first team to get their cart to the end of the track wins.

    In a sense, this is a PLR that briefly changes over to a standard PL. The team that wins the race to A gets the benefit of having a chance to win early, but it doesn't knock the slower team out of the game yet. If the second team manages to get it to the table, then the game is effectively slated and now both teams have to push a cart on a track that is even more difficult than the first half. (As they are moving towards the enemy's spawn).

    I am using GameLibrary to try and recreate a basic example of this to see if it is even possible, but other thoughts that come to my head are of making sure players know what they are doing. A good way to ruin a map quickly is to make it overly confusing. I can make an intro video, and direct with signs, but any other ideas to get the idea that once Team A gets their cart to table, they need to focus on the on Team B's cart, would be appreciated.

    And, of course, suggestions are always welcome. Thank you.
     
  2. xzzy

    aa xzzy

    Messages:
    815
    Positive Ratings:
    393
    It doesn't deal with the fundamental problem with payload race: multiple objectives split team attention.

    This is why 5CP, A/D, PL, and KotH work. There is a single spot on the map where teams need to focus their efforts. PLR (and to some extent CTF) obligates some of the team to work on offense while the rest works on defense. Inevitably people are going to decide they're at the wrong end of the fight and waste time transitioning to a different part of the map.. removing them from the match as effectively as if they'd been killed.

    PLR also has the issue where the easiest way to win is ignore the carts and push for a spawn camp. Once you get the enemy bottled up, the match is effectively over.


    I don't think your idea sucks, it sounds fun, but you're going to have a lot more work than experimenting with the carts to make PLR enjoyable.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. Fr0Z3nR

    aa Fr0Z3nR Creator of blackholes & memes. Destroyer of forums

    Messages:
    6,391
    Positive Ratings:
    4,906
    To me, it sounds like a possible short version of plr, with a dash of Stopwatch in it. Nothing really new.

    xzzy basically hits the major points. plr is kind of flawed in that there isn't one clear objective, there is 2 (push, or not push).

    This doesn't really solve that issue, but nor does it make it worse. If anything, it just confuses players.
     
  4. ForbiddenDonut

    aa ForbiddenDonut

    Messages:
    391
    Positive Ratings:
    338
    Hmm. Alright. Bummer. PLR sounded fun to make.

    Well, off to the trash with this idea.
     
  5. xzzy

    aa xzzy

    Messages:
    815
    Positive Ratings:
    393
    One thing that might be worth a playtest is to keep the "one active cart" idea and just swap between which cart is active at any given time. Maybe a KotH component where teams fight over a CP to activate their cart, or capturing an enemy cart enables your own, or whatever.

    It'd probably be super confusing but if you could figure out some way to explain how it works to players, it might be an interesting diversion.
     
  6. grazr

    aa grazr Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle

    Messages:
    5,436
    Positive Ratings:
    3,570
    You could probably fix the mode (PLR) by making it more complex but then that's just replacing one problem with another. TF2 players are pretty dumb, dumb enough that even if you bold facedly tell them what to do, they still fail to do it.

    TF2 is a prime example of K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid). PL and KoTH are the most popular game modes for a number of reasons, but i like to think one of the primary reasons is their simplicity. CTF also tends to be popular for this reason, despite the fact the game mode is full of flaws it has simple mechanics. Mostly because it divulges into an unglorified DM, where people largely forgo the objective because it's simpler, easier and more rewarding just to kill each other in the no-mans land.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2012
  7. ForbiddenDonut

    aa ForbiddenDonut

    Messages:
    391
    Positive Ratings:
    338
    From my years of Portal mapping, I can tell you it's not much different. When I design a puzzle, I have to hit that perfect balance between stumping/ frustrating the player and outright telling them. Falling in either direction is a game-killer. I have to utilize so many tools to direct the player, from sounds to lighting to basic architectural design. Of course, I imagine it's no different in TF2, but it's a curious thing.

    And with so many levels of skill, I would giggle when I was told, about the same map, that it was both too easy and too difficult. The life of a mapper. :)