the problem with 2fort

Discussion in 'Team Fortress 2 Talk' started by bobotype, Oct 14, 2014.

  1. bobotype

    bobotype L1: Registered

    Messages:
    39
    Positive Ratings:
    16
    So how do we/Valve fix 2fort?
    I was thinking that the best way to do it would be a connection from somewhere in the sewer to the small health and ammo room that leads down to the intel.
    2fort's hugest problem is that really the small courtyard is the only way to the intel for all non-jump classes. There needs to be another path somewhere so you don't have to go up the courtyard stairs. Map would really be fine otherwise, even with absurd sight lines it would be way harder to turtle the final room if there was an access not forced to go past one room.
    I mean it's called two-fort, there should be two paths, right?
     
  2. YM

    aa YM LVL100 YM

    Messages:
    7,099
    Positive Ratings:
    5,741
    lol 'fix 2fort'

    good one
     
  3. wareya

    wareya L7: Fancy Member

    Messages:
    493
    Positive Ratings:
    172
    Remove propspam
    Remove roof bridge
    Raise water level
    Replace back stairway with elevator
    Replace capture area to battlements
    Nerf sentries, stickies, and scout's movement speed
    Add bunnyhopping
     
  4. Idolon

    aa Idolon the worst admin

    Messages:
    1,439
    Positive Ratings:
    4,193
    Doublecross, from what I understand, was Valve's attempt to 'fix' 2fort. Whether or not they succeeded is up to your discretion (I think they did alright).
     
  5. wareya

    wareya L7: Fancy Member

    Messages:
    493
    Positive Ratings:
    172
    doublecross is legitimately worse than 2fort
    - my discretion
     
  6. Sergis

    aa Sergis L666: ])oo]v[

    Messages:
    1,871
    Positive Ratings:
    1,130
    one of the most played tf2 maps needs fixing, good one

    direct your orderbringing energies towards junction and watchtower instead
     
  7. Aman

    Aman L5: Dapper Member

    Messages:
    229
    Positive Ratings:
    75
    Place a no build area in the Intel rooms. Lol
     
  8. Egan

    aa Egan

    Messages:
    1,304
    Positive Ratings:
    1,485
    Sorta like what Sergis is saying, 2fort does have a place, and evidently is popular with the players of TF2 already. Is it broken that the gameplay enforces a lengthy stalemate, but keeps the players safe enough to explore the game at their own pace?

    When I first started playing TF2 in 2008, my experience with computer FPSs was non-existent, so I mainly stuck with engineer since you don't have to aim that much, and I liked playing on 2fort because if I was scared of combat I could at least secure our intelligence room. If I was feeling more prepared I could try to secure the courtyard with building placements I learned from the other engineers, and if I was feeling really adventurous I could set up a forward base in their sewers (as useful as that was, right).

    After seeing the standard of what the experienced roaming-loving TF2 players enjoy playing on, of course 2fort's gameplay might seem like a mess, but I like that this gameplay exists somewhere, and breaking that with an 'official fix to the map' would probably make the game harder to get into.

    A while ago, Valkyrie typed up a guide to mapping for competitive TF2 where he talked about the major problems of 2fort, and why it was removed from the competitive scene - you might want to take a look at that (ctrl + f: 2fort).
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  9. Aman

    Aman L5: Dapper Member

    Messages:
    229
    Positive Ratings:
    75
    Yeah. If I remember correctly 2fort was the first map I ever played and I must say I enjoyed it.
     
  10. ok comp

    ok comp L2: Junior Member

    Messages:
    51
    Positive Ratings:
    15
    2Fort is popular because it expects nothing of you. The map combined with the CTF game mode make for extremely drawn out rounds, to the point that the objective no longer becomes the goal. This makes 2Fort a playground (I'd describe Hightower the same way, for similar reasons). The areas are diverse enough to make it interesting (deep intel area, sewers, middle bridge, battlements, etc), and there are clearly defined areas of difficulty (own base- safe, mid- a little risky, enemy base- dangerous!) This lines up perfectly with what Egan described above; learning how to play a class in your own base is low risk, and once you're more comfortable you venture out. 2Fort is where I recall learning how to snipe, rocket jump and cloak behind enemy lines.

    I also agree that 2Fort is its own beast and should be left as it is. However, I do think there's value in analyzing why 2Fort is a poor CTF map and what can be learned from it for future designs. Though my gut feeling is that TF2 is just not built to do CTF well. I feel like I've enjoyed CTF a lot more in games where there is a lot of motion and less emphasis on proactively defending. Halo is a good example of this; CTF was so awesome in Halo because everyone moved at the same speed, the flag was very loosely guarded, and the thrill came from escaping as the flag carrier or hunting the flag carrier down (usually in vehicles!) In TF2 you spend 95% of the time just trying to get the flag out of the base... which is the less exciting part of the process IMO, and the escape favors the mobile classes.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  11. Pocket

    aa Pocket func_croc

    Messages:
    4,489
    Positive Ratings:
    2,215
    Asteroid used to have a thing where players got a spawn advantage if one of their teammates had reached the inside of the enemy base. I actually like this idea and it could theoretically make the worse CTF maps more playable without disrupting the "good for new players" quality that Egan mentioned. I don't know why they got rid of it, or never tried adding it to CTF.

    I would also accept a mechanic wherein holding the intel continually heals you, similar to how the payload cart works. Or both. Either would make far more sense than the capture crits they have now.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  12. The Asylum

    aa The Asylum

    Messages:
    1,658
    Positive Ratings:
    439
    The big, big, big problem with 2Fort is that that by the time a competent team pushes into the basement of an equally competent opposing team, their pack is whittled down, and oftentimes the basement is just as secured as the ramp room was- essentially the pushing team has to break a thick defensive wall twice. Getting in and back out of the ramp room is easy. Getting in and through the ramp room, into and out of the basement, and back through the ramp room is a trip to hell and back.

    I've always wondered what 2Fort would be like with the intel moved into the ramp room, and the basements removed altogether. Maybe I should continue working on the idea...
     
  13. wareya

    wareya L7: Fancy Member

    Messages:
    493
    Positive Ratings:
    172
    there's a game just as slow and campy as TF2 called "gang garrison" and its CTF works because the maps don't fucking suck

    have fun replicating gg2's path mechanics in tf2 without infuriating players over awkward sightlines and weird spiraling paths oh wait that's 50% 2fort and 50% turbine
     
  14. UKCS-Alias

    aa UKCS-Alias Mann vs Machine... or... Mapper vs Meta?

    Messages:
    1,264
    Positive Ratings:
    748
    2fort is good for people who want to deathmatch... the map supports that perfectly while still giving an objective for those being very good at deathmatch. Getting the flag is just an extra reward. Casuals realy like this because it simply prevents any steamrolls from happening and has a very static difficulty for them to play on.

    It also features good spots for snipers which are simply popular in any fps game. And this is what made it better than for example dustbowl (since there it only realy works for 1 side).

    Players with more skills are often disliking it because they actualy prefer the objective part. And even then they pick maps that often give a quite deathmatch like gameplay. Payload being a very good example since every captures happens slow. And this slow pace again gives them some rest while playing.

    Note that in a cp map once cp1 is taken cp2 sometimes is taken within 10 seconds. Something payload doesnt have making it more forgiving on mistakes. For comp being punished for mistakes is good, for pubs it usualy isnt.
     
  15. HQDefault

    aa HQDefault ...what

    Messages:
    1,015
    Positive Ratings:
    356
    2fort is a bad map for one reason: It's NOT designed for Team Fortress 2. It was designed for the original quake TeamFortress mod. The QWTF was a ton different than TF2, especially when you consider having TFC in the middle. Also, in the earlier TF games, sentries basically had a COMPLETELY different strategy guide, along with the rest of the game. The design of the TF2 made the weapons flourish a lot more in chokey areas, and, that being said, only a few of the carry-overs from TFC actually somewhat worked in TF2. (Personally, I think dustbowl was the best port.)
     
  16. Muddy

    Server Staff Muddy Muddy

    Messages:
    2,372
    Positive Ratings:
    4,173
    At the end of the day, there's nothing to be gained from "fixing" 2fort. If we spend all our time trying to improve things from several years ago, we'll get absolutely nowhere - it's better to just learn from your (well, Valve's) mistakes, move on, and make something new. And better.
     
  17. bobotype

    bobotype L1: Registered

    Messages:
    39
    Positive Ratings:
    16
    Wow, there were way more responses to this than I intended, I'm so glad other people like talking about maps as much as I do. :)

    Well, sure, it's an old as hell map, one of the oldest in the series, but it also sees a lot of play in pubs, so it's definitely still relevant despite its age. Making something new and better is absolutely good but revisiting older maps to refresh them or fix something is good too. Like they did with Badwater. There really is something to be gained for the effort it would take.
     
  18. Muddy

    Server Staff Muddy Muddy

    Messages:
    2,372
    Positive Ratings:
    4,173
    Patches and bug fixes are one thing, but modifying the actual layout of a map released with the game itself several years after is going to piss off all the people who play it regularly (in 2fort's case, 98% of the entire TF2 playerbase... give or take the odd digit). Maybe it would have been okay if the changes were made, say, a month after its release, but not seven years.

    2fort is fine as it is. It's not a great Mao, but it's still fun to play on and as was said before, it's good for newbies learning the ropes. If you don't like it, there are upwards of 100 other maps you could play on instead...
     
  19. wareya

    wareya L7: Fancy Member

    Messages:
    493
    Positive Ratings:
    172
    when someone talks about the weapon differences instead of the mobility or spawn balance for why old maps are different from new ones I choke up somewhere inside

    By the way, I went and looked at the very first version of 2fort yesterday, just to see what was different from the TFC version:
    - There's no respawn rooms
    - That means the whole "primary" respawn room area, and the lobby bypass it connects to, is gone
    - There's only one ramp upwards in the courtyard
    - A lot of the geometry is different with taller height differences and longer connectors etc
    - The flag room is just this dinky gg_thumbs-tier box with a single tunnel into it
    - The long straight ramp room, which was an elevator shaft before TF2, doesn't even have an elevator in it

    Getting around was much harder all around for both teams. Most of the changes between this version and the TFC version are simply meant to open the map up and allow for more complex territorial control. Now, I feel like any other changes to the map would be just as tacky as all the nonofficial 2fort spinoffs that have ever existed: they'll be tacky, not fit in with the map well at all, and ultimately make it seem silly.

    I would like it if the sewers in tf2fort were properly flooded and the bridge roof removed though.
     
  20. Aman

    Aman L5: Dapper Member

    Messages:
    229
    Positive Ratings:
    75
    Wasn't there also no covering over the bridge connecting the forts?