Territory Control with Payload Race mechanics?

Discussion in 'Mapping Questions & Discussion' started by x6herbius, Mar 6, 2011.

  1. x6herbius

    aa x6herbius

    Messages:
    377
    Positive Ratings:
    271
    I've always thought that the concept of Territory control was a good one but that it never really worked well in Hydro, mainly because the teams were split between two control points per round instead of fighting over one at a time. This got me thinking about whether a similar setup could be created using King of the Hill, but I'm pretty sure that the KOTH logic wouldn't work with control_point_round entities. Another alternative would be to have a PLR setup where each stage uses two carts and the final stage is a simple one-cart push while the other team defends, like a standard Payload game.

    Would that be possible? One problem I foresee could be relating to the team colour of each cart, since any of the four middle points could be controlled by any team and so the carts would have to be able to switch teams accordingly. I guess it could work in theory but it would be massively complicated to set up.
     
  2. Seba

    aa Seba DR. BIG FUCKER, PHD

    Messages:
    2,363
    Positive Ratings:
    2,365
    The reason why Hydro doesn't work is because every connector is a series of tunnels instead of e.g. a yard. KotH TC is possible (and I believe has been done before), and PLR TC has been attempted as well, but I can't find the thread. Solution: make a standard TC map that's not as chokey as Hydro.
     
  3. LeSwordfish

    aa LeSwordfish semi-trained quasi-professional

    Messages:
    4,112
    Positive Ratings:
    6,065
    Payload maps last much, much longer than your average TC round. Plus, PLR works best in less constricted spaces, and if hydro has taught us anything, it's that TC tends to be fairly constricted.
     
  4. Prestige

    aa Prestige im not gay anymore

    Messages:
    1,774
    Positive Ratings:
    1,530
    someone should probably try tckoth. tcplr sounds like it wouldn't work as well at all.
     
  5. ardysqrrl

    ardysqrrl L4: Comfortable Member

    Messages:
    173
    Positive Ratings:
    159
    I like the way you point out a flaw in territory control and then present a variation that doesn't address that flaw at all

    yes this is possible but it's not a good idea
     
  6. x6herbius

    aa x6herbius

    Messages:
    377
    Positive Ratings:
    271
    Fair point, but I was thinking more along the lines of PLR being centralised around the middle section between the bases, instead of the dual CPs having two centralised areas which breaks up the combat.
     
  7. Vincent

    aa Vincent 🔨 Grandmaster Lizard Wizard Jedi 🔨

    Messages:
    914
    Positive Ratings:
    580
    I tried, the last thread that brought up this idea showed that tcplr_ had a lot of dynamic entities that if not setup correctly crashed servers.

    The idea is interesting none the less, have fun trying though.