Tell me your issues with the CTF Push gametype
- Thread starter Icarus
- Start date
To back track:
This would be more suited to a different mode, a la canalzone style. For an A/D map Blu capped the flag mostly because Red did venture out to try and counter attack, leaving the oppotunity for a scout to do his rush and cap before he dies routine and ending the round.
For the most part i believe the success of the mode relies on the map design. Plus if there was a better HUD that also showed some sort of onscreen sprite like PG showed us, that would just be amazing.
I'd like to enter for the sakes of producing a map based on my impression of the mode and what would be beneficial to its mechanics but i doubt i have the time.
- Nov 12, 2007
- 1,128
- 746
Right, going out would entail a risk that you have fewer people at the last point, but it would at least be an option with a potential payoff. Part of the problem is that options are limited, and even with turtling, there are still a lot of moments where the defenders go "Wait, what, How'd they cap? When did the flag carrier get in here?"
I agree the ever-present sprite would be huge, as it would help mitigate the pressing need for everyone to pile on top of the last point. It's still worth considering other tactical options that will spread players out more and keep the flow of battle dynamic.
I agree the ever-present sprite would be huge, as it would help mitigate the pressing need for everyone to pile on top of the last point. It's still worth considering other tactical options that will spread players out more and keep the flow of battle dynamic.
Kronixx
L5: Dapper Member
- Apr 17, 2009
- 205
- 38
i think i would find a giant arrow to be a nuisance...nothing better than those times when a sniper manages to be lucky enough to hide behind the giant arrow running at you and you get an arrow in the face cause you never saw it coming from this giant arrow hogging your screen. It has good potential and good intentions, but i don't think it's the best solution.
Not to float my own boat, but so far i think i like my light idea. The HUD goes without saying, that needs to be added as well. But i think lights/alarm sirens would go along way for taking out confusion.
Let me post this point about the arrow problem, red is sittin there all quietly, listening to the constant *ping* *ping**ping**ping**ping**ping**ping**ping**ping* of engie's whacking on their crap. The few straggler freelance reds are roaming around waiting for the attack. All of a sudden the attack comes, and here comes this guy with a giant huge freakin arrow above his head, this guy will have no chance IN HELL to get through the defense alive. EVERY single other blue guy will be utterly and completely ignored once red is able to see the arrow. Mind you sentries don't have a choice, but the humans do have a choice who to target and all fire is going to fall on that arrow. The reason i think my lights will work is it gives red the needed information to defend their point without giving them TOO MUCH information. They will still need to assess the coming threat and react accordingly, is the flag-runner in the front, in the back, wait on the uber, or hit it now and hopefully reach the flagger...what should we do? With a giant arrow above the flaggers head, red's decisions now only include 2 options basically, ignore blue and kill the arrow, or kill everyone between said player and the arrow...either way, all attention is IMMEDIATELY going to that arrow. Which is the major downfall of this system in my mind.
What TF2 needs is when spies disguise as your own team, and you disguise as the guy with the intel, it should give you fake intel. You can run in, take all the fire and die...but then the intel is still safely on the back of the true holder, maybe giving him the confusion he needs to slip through the chaos and make his charge. That would add a sweet aspect to the spy of having to pick disguise as enemy, or disguise as your team and sacrafice the kills for the safety of the runner. What you guys think of any of this?
Not to float my own boat, but so far i think i like my light idea. The HUD goes without saying, that needs to be added as well. But i think lights/alarm sirens would go along way for taking out confusion.
Let me post this point about the arrow problem, red is sittin there all quietly, listening to the constant *ping* *ping**ping**ping**ping**ping**ping**ping**ping* of engie's whacking on their crap. The few straggler freelance reds are roaming around waiting for the attack. All of a sudden the attack comes, and here comes this guy with a giant huge freakin arrow above his head, this guy will have no chance IN HELL to get through the defense alive. EVERY single other blue guy will be utterly and completely ignored once red is able to see the arrow. Mind you sentries don't have a choice, but the humans do have a choice who to target and all fire is going to fall on that arrow. The reason i think my lights will work is it gives red the needed information to defend their point without giving them TOO MUCH information. They will still need to assess the coming threat and react accordingly, is the flag-runner in the front, in the back, wait on the uber, or hit it now and hopefully reach the flagger...what should we do? With a giant arrow above the flaggers head, red's decisions now only include 2 options basically, ignore blue and kill the arrow, or kill everyone between said player and the arrow...either way, all attention is IMMEDIATELY going to that arrow. Which is the major downfall of this system in my mind.
What TF2 needs is when spies disguise as your own team, and you disguise as the guy with the intel, it should give you fake intel. You can run in, take all the fire and die...but then the intel is still safely on the back of the true holder, maybe giving him the confusion he needs to slip through the chaos and make his charge. That would add a sweet aspect to the spy of having to pick disguise as enemy, or disguise as your team and sacrafice the kills for the safety of the runner. What you guys think of any of this?
Kronixx
L5: Dapper Member
- Apr 17, 2009
- 205
- 38
Yeah, trails would be a good addition. I think Battledome is the name of the map that uses one. Cool because you can see it through terrain, but doesn't block view.
And it already works.
And it already works.
I was saying this in the chat, but I'm not a fan of these ways to make the flag carrier obvious. Do we really need to strap a neon sign on his back? Plus, simply making the flag carrier more obvious is sidestepping some of the more serious problems people have with ctf-push.
I'm trying a different approach: rethinking the level design. Make a level that has more noticeable central areas, without paths that are too disconnected from those areas. Creating obvious paths for the intel carrier is a better way to help players not lose track of it.
Afterall, in CP maps there aren't flashing lights and sparkles flying out of the capture points that beat you over the head. When you walk into the B site in gravel pit, for instance, it's just obvious where the CP is. So by that same design, we can make maps where it's obvious where the intel-carrier will run.
Also, the flashy markers on the intel carrier will be more unnecessary once the maps get out of alpha and start getting detailed. Right now people are getting lost in a sea of dev textures, and it's making things more confusing than they will be later on.
I'm trying a different approach: rethinking the level design. Make a level that has more noticeable central areas, without paths that are too disconnected from those areas. Creating obvious paths for the intel carrier is a better way to help players not lose track of it.
Afterall, in CP maps there aren't flashing lights and sparkles flying out of the capture points that beat you over the head. When you walk into the B site in gravel pit, for instance, it's just obvious where the CP is. So by that same design, we can make maps where it's obvious where the intel-carrier will run.
Also, the flashy markers on the intel carrier will be more unnecessary once the maps get out of alpha and start getting detailed. Right now people are getting lost in a sea of dev textures, and it's making things more confusing than they will be later on.
Atleast if the map maker was able to balance the map with this in mind, it may work. But this, unfortunately, hasn't happened yet, atleast with the simple counter-attacks occuring so far. But i can see that recapturing the first protects the second again. My experience so far is of only a couple of the maps in the competition, but pretty much every second CP capture was a "wtf" moment. Interestingly people seem to have an affinity with placing their cp's in huts, presumably with the presumption that it means more protection and defensive capabilities for defenders when it just means a slower reaction time and time in general to deal damage to the courrier before he reaches the CP.
The tactics employed should be quite different ingame between A/D CP and CTF, but map makers are taking it simply as A/D being something that has a standard gameplay regardless of the mode utilised. Although they realise that the insta-cap is a problem (and the blocking capability has helped) i've seen no physcal regard for this fact.
Players need to settle somewhat into the new mode to get used to it and this will only happen through experience (of which there is little other than right here right now). Map makers also need to realise the pro's and con's involved for A/D CTF in order to design a map that doesn't fall into the basic flaws for which Valve dropped the mode in the first place.
For the general design of the maps so far i have noticed a fair assumption that players will be throwing themselves at a meat wall, but with the lack of instant respawn from TFC in TF2 this and a lot of other things are not the same. Thus the differing gameplay.
Maybe i'm just stating the obvious but it doesn't seem to be something that has been practicly applied yet, otherwise we wouldn't have a half-broken game mode still.
Valve did drop this mode for a reason and it will be difficult for people to pull out a response that works as well as Valve's CP replacement. Especially with so many of the entrants being inexperienced level designers.
But back to your point, how do you suppose a CP be retaken? I can imagine it being retaken like the standard CP would, because they lack their own intel for a start. but this would probably have to add time to the clock, it would be a dynamic that needs testing, but we're in the middle of a competition. As long as the flag remained stable between CP captures, the game remained balanced, that the counter attacks don't break flow and capture points could be captures by 2 different means, one by each team. I could see it as an option.
I would like to see a more physical response to this design problem first, personally.
I believe ctf push gametype doesn't really differentiate itself from push cp...I mean it does, but not enough to cause it to be something innovative (gameplay wise) and something that is more distinguishable than a push cp map.
I mean, if anything is unique considering ctf gametypes, Meridian tops them all...and it's been going for what, over a year at this point? I considered the tc/ctf combo more innovative than push ctf.
I mean, if anything is unique considering ctf gametypes, Meridian tops them all...and it's been going for what, over a year at this point? I considered the tc/ctf combo more innovative than push ctf.
I like meridian. I think it's a great map and a great take on tc. I think the main reason it doesn't become a sentry fest is that each stage really is more like a typical ctf map. Each team is split between defending and attacking. So there's alot less chance of having 3+ engies.
The exception is the last point where one team is only defending. This stage is much more like the ctf push maps and can become a sentry fest. So if comparing you really have to compare the last point.
The main difference is that it is one point and that a team has had to work hard to get there by winning several earlier stages.
I don't know where I'm going with this.... But there seems to be a different dynamic in capping/defendng that last point then there is capping the second point of a push ctf map.
---------
I'd have to say that alot of the complaints and mine also have stemmed from having so many maps to test at an early stage of a new gamemode. Time will tell if people ever grow to like this gamemode or not as a whole.
----------
I think grazr made a really good point about the last caps tending to be in a 'shack', I have noticed that on several of them. That makes it hard to defend with insta cap, even if a sentry is there there's a chance you ccan get on the point without it getting you because it can't shoot at you until you are already inside.
So maybe a shack would be a better first point, and the second point might be better out in the open.
The exception is the last point where one team is only defending. This stage is much more like the ctf push maps and can become a sentry fest. So if comparing you really have to compare the last point.
The main difference is that it is one point and that a team has had to work hard to get there by winning several earlier stages.
I don't know where I'm going with this.... But there seems to be a different dynamic in capping/defendng that last point then there is capping the second point of a push ctf map.
---------
I'd have to say that alot of the complaints and mine also have stemmed from having so many maps to test at an early stage of a new gamemode. Time will tell if people ever grow to like this gamemode or not as a whole.
----------
I think grazr made a really good point about the last caps tending to be in a 'shack', I have noticed that on several of them. That makes it hard to defend with insta cap, even if a sentry is there there's a chance you ccan get on the point without it getting you because it can't shoot at you until you are already inside.
So maybe a shack would be a better first point, and the second point might be better out in the open.
It would be far more difficult to defend if it was out in the open. In CP mode that's not the case, but with instant captures, if a cap is out in the open it's super easy. all you need to do is rush a few times until you get lucky, or even have one demoman sticky-jump a few times until he gets lucky.
Honestly, this is what I think is the problem.
People are thinking too much "A/D with CTF added in" and much less "CTF with A/D qualities". Believe it or not, the difference is quite large.
The main thing I see in all the maps is a plentitude of routes and sideroutes. This needs to go, at least near the points. The flag carrier on most maps right now has a number of routes to get to the point, making more a guessing game and leading to that feeling of constant losing. What needs to happen is that all the routes lead to the same place, so that the flag must go through that area, so you know where to defend. In most maps, you want ways to circumvent chokepoints--Goldrush has the attic, Dustbowl has the underground passages--in this game mode, what we need is more chokepoint. Make it where the attacking team can approach the choke from two+ routes, but make them have to still break through the chokepoint.
A second thing, the classes I normally see with the intel are scouts and the occasional spy. It just leads to a constant kamikaze rush. What needs to happen is that the other classes need to have more use, so that they don't sit there and deathmatch while scouts get the intel. My proposal to fix this is not a really great idea, but it's a good place to start. I think the points need to be defendable by a single sentry. When you apply this with the first point, it sounds like a terrible idea--something like the courtyard on 2fort, where 1 sentry kills all possible routes to the intel, however, I'm sure with good placement...
People are thinking too much "A/D with CTF added in" and much less "CTF with A/D qualities". Believe it or not, the difference is quite large.
The main thing I see in all the maps is a plentitude of routes and sideroutes. This needs to go, at least near the points. The flag carrier on most maps right now has a number of routes to get to the point, making more a guessing game and leading to that feeling of constant losing. What needs to happen is that all the routes lead to the same place, so that the flag must go through that area, so you know where to defend. In most maps, you want ways to circumvent chokepoints--Goldrush has the attic, Dustbowl has the underground passages--in this game mode, what we need is more chokepoint. Make it where the attacking team can approach the choke from two+ routes, but make them have to still break through the chokepoint.
A second thing, the classes I normally see with the intel are scouts and the occasional spy. It just leads to a constant kamikaze rush. What needs to happen is that the other classes need to have more use, so that they don't sit there and deathmatch while scouts get the intel. My proposal to fix this is not a really great idea, but it's a good place to start. I think the points need to be defendable by a single sentry. When you apply this with the first point, it sounds like a terrible idea--something like the courtyard on 2fort, where 1 sentry kills all possible routes to the intel, however, I'm sure with good placement...
But if you have a sentry pointed at an open area it will push the carrier away.
whether a rushing scout or jumping demo. It would take another player/s to draw that sentries attention so the player can get by.
If the point is in an enclosed area and that area blocks sentries views the player can use that for cover. And if there is a sentry in a small shack with the point, by the time the sentry can get an aim on the player they can already be on the point.
Sentries are more effective in open areas. When they are in a tight area, or just around a corner they can be reached and busted easier. I take out lvl3 sentries like this all the time as a pyro. If it's out in the open a pyro can't get near.
Also, if it's in the open defenders can see it easier, so they can see that scout coming left, or that demo chargin mid or whatever. If the areas are tight and close it limits the defenders views, making it easier for offense to sneak in and cut the distance to the point. it limits soldiers and snipers attacks and snipers often hang back behind the point where it's safe to keep attackers at bay.
It also give spies less cover to sneak in and take out snipers/sentries.
Demomen fly faster than a sentry can lock on.
Midel
L1: Registered
- Aug 24, 2008
- 45
- 14
Here's a question. Isn't there a VMT property to make a texture render through geometry? If that is applied to any entity that will support I/O without glitching like a env_sprite wouldn't that be a more proactive solution? Then you could just program the texture colored entity to hide whenever the intel case is picked up and make it appear when dropped. Maybe base it on a spawn visualizer tied to a red spawn and made non solid to blu? The new inputs and outputs should help in there support? Also maybe to fix the distance is to move the intel to a forward location near the cap? Make it protected and closer to the blue sides of the field.
- Sep 10, 2008
- 2,245
- 1,210
Trying out different setups for the game_texts
#1 - Basic, you get all the information you need
#2 - Minimalist, get only the bare details, but saves space
#3 - Detailed, but might hog too much screen space
Where it is is just as important as what it displays. The CTF HUD might already be pretty big so putting it on top might work out better screen-space wise, but unconventional. Usually Goal HUDs are displayed at the bottom.
Example: http://files.getdropbox.com/u/831776/4.jpg
#1 - Basic, you get all the information you need
#2 - Minimalist, get only the bare details, but saves space
#3 - Detailed, but might hog too much screen space
Where it is is just as important as what it displays. The CTF HUD might already be pretty big so putting it on top might work out better screen-space wise, but unconventional. Usually Goal HUDs are displayed at the bottom.
Example: http://files.getdropbox.com/u/831776/4.jpg
Last edited:
I was going to try putting:
Current Capture Point:
XXX
on the right of the screen, above the ammo. It looks good in the top center too. I think it's sort of awkward when it's on the bottom above the CTF hud.
For the record, I think the 1st pic you posted is the most intuitive. I don't like having both CPs displayed in text. It might be better if the number is displayed in red, though.
Current Capture Point:
XXX
on the right of the screen, above the ammo. It looks good in the top center too. I think it's sort of awkward when it's on the bottom above the CTF hud.
For the record, I think the 1st pic you posted is the most intuitive. I don't like having both CPs displayed in text. It might be better if the number is displayed in red, though.
Last edited: