Thoughts on Red attacking...

[Boylee]

I started a 3 stage cp map a while back and I set it up so Red are attacking. I had a couple of reasons to do this, one was because I wanted to root around in the logic and gameplay entities to get familiar with them and the other was because I wanted the style of the map to be a Blu mountain base.

I've now got to the stage where I know it plays pretty well and I'd like to start detailing it. However, before I do I need to decide whether having Red attack is a good idea. I know it worked in bloodstained, and I find that most people have no problem with it once they get over the initial "OMG WTF RED R ATTACKING". Also I think that in some ways it's a memorable feature for a map to have and once people know about it they can come to love it.

Anyway I thought I'd start a thread to garner a bit of public opinion here, so if you have an opinion on whether Red should attack or not then let it rip.

 

[JMRboosties]

I think while the idea for red to attack is cool, ultimately most people will just be confused and think it's weird. If you made a map where you had some kind of theme where Blue has won and red is looking to take back what is their's or something that might work.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

No. It is a stupid gimmick. Everyone who plays TF2 has universally agreed that red is defending, and not blu. Don't screw with people like this! It just adds another level to a map that the new player has to get around. In short: Don't do it.

 

[The Political Gamer]

cp_bloostained did this... yeah that was a great map >.>

 

[J4CK8]

While I agree to an extent with Grim, I could easily get over the whole fact that RED are attacking. I don't see how people get confused, it's pretty simple. But, if the map can easily work as BLU attacking then you might as well keep it that way to keep things simple and less confusion.

 

[Boylee]

No. It is a stupid gimmick. Everyone who plays TF2 has universally agreed that red is defending, and not blu. Don't screw with people like this! It just adds another level to a map that the new player has to get around. In short: Don't do it.

I agree that it's a bit gimmicky but I don't think it's stupid. In fact I think it's more stupid that RED never fight back.

Also please show me this universal agreement, I imagine it would be quite an impressive document.

Seriously though I'm not 100% sold on the idea I just thought it would be interesting to try. Funnily enough most of the people who've playtested it have reacted to it like this: "Wait what? Red are attacking? Oh. Ok, well that's cool."
Either way I think in the long run I'll probably just go back to Red defending since there are always a few people who really don't like it. It just seems like less hassle to go with the norm and keep everyone happy.

cp_bloostained did this... yeah that was a great map >.>

Real constructive and useful. :glare:
I've enjoyed many a good game on bloodstained.

 

[grazr]

BLU assaulting RED is a game mechanic, there's no need to mess with it.

There's simply no need to make RED attack, "I want my map to be different/unique" is a BS excuse mappers use when they lack originality or real design ideas that allow their map to stand out in other more awe striking ways.

 

[Fireman]

It's one of those conventions that's probably better left untouched. Having set teams for offense and defense allow a player to join a map and immediately know what their team needs to do.

 

[NovaSilisko]

BLU has always attacked.

RED has always defended.

No. Exceptions. It's just ALWAYS been that way.

 

[Boylee]

I considered adding a poll to this but I think it's pretty clear what most people think about it. Thanks for the input folks, time to rewrite my entity set-up I guess.

 

[AgeNt_]

i was thinking on doing this for promotion. but i found out that it was going to be a big pain later on and so i did it with red defending. that and i forgot to switch it over lol.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I considered adding a poll to this but I think it's pretty clear what most people think about it. Thanks for the input folks, time to rewrite my entity set-up I guess.

ABS(pack of prefabs) TO THE RESCUE!

 

[Tapp]

What I never understood is why RED attacking isn't the norm. Red winds up having more sentries (despite Builder's league united) and BLU is the one blowing up the RED base in Payload (despite Reliable Effective Demolition). It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Firest0rm]

What I never understood is why RED attacking isn't the norm. Red winds up having more sentries (despite Builder's league united) and BLU is the one blowing up the RED base in Payload (despite Reliable Effective Demolition). It just doesn't make sense.

they probably made the maps before the acronyms

 

[TheBladeRoden]

the thing I don't like about this mechanic is that A/D levels must all be Red-themed by default, save for the spawn areas.

 

[Leminnes]

BLU assaulting RED is a game mechanic, there's no need to mess with it.

There's simply no need to make RED attack, "I want my map to be different/unique" is a BS excuse mappers use when they lack originality or real design ideas that allow their map to stand out in other more awe striking ways.

Boylee does not lack originality or real design ideas, he wants to do red attacking blue because the "blue mountain" idea is cool (which I agree.) General statements like this sort of annoy me, because they can never be fully true.

I've never honestly understood the big deal about this. (I'm actually unsure why this should effect Boylee's decision on his map, because all-in-all who is defending only makes a difference aesthetically.)

 

[Icarus]

they probably made the maps before the acronyms

It was the same way for TFC.

Red team had a skull for a logo
Blue team had a fortress for a logo

At least TF2 explains it a little. In the launch A/D maps, RED is always has some sort of doomsday-like device, and BLU is trying to stop them.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Here, let me give you a story/premise for a blu detailed payload map: Red has taken over most of the Blu base. However, Blu's only hope lies in pushing a small bomb to red forward base, on the outside of the mountain.

See, it even lets you start indoors, and push out, instead of the usual way around. Plus, the map can be blu themed, with red stuff stuck over it, to create a totally new theme!

 

[grazr]

Boylee does not lack originality or real design ideas

I never said he did, stop being so defensive. I was making a comment on the general reason why mappers would want to have RED attacking. "I want to be different" is usually the reason, as if having RED attack would make their map more popular than the gameplay or aesthetics that make any map good. Unfortunately it's this way for several reasons.

...all-in-all who is defending only makes a difference aesthetically.

I just told you it's a game mechanic to simplify the understanding of player roles. It's not just aesthetic.

When a player joins an A/D map he/she knows whether they will be defending or attacking by their team colour. If you take that away players will get confused. Sure, eventually players may play your map enough that they'll probably come to understand this, but why bother going through this needless confusion when there's absolutely no need. You're just shooting yourself in the foot.

If you want some blue in your map do what badwater does and start the map in blue, then go to red; and yes, it's ultimately up to BoyLee what he chooses to do. But he asked and he got a response, which happened to be almost unanimous in opinion. There's no big deal.

 

[Leminnes]

I just told you it's a game mechanic to simplify the understanding of player roles. It's not just aesthetic.

When a player joins an A/D map he/she knows whether they will be defending or attacking by their team colour. If you take that away players will get confused. Sure, eventually players will play your map enough that they'll probably come to understand this, but why bother going through this needless confusion when there's absolutely no need.

If you want some blue in your map do what badwater does and start the map in blue, then go to red; and yes, it's ultimately up to BoyLee what he chooses to do. But he asked and he got a response. There's no big deal.

This seems like a very minor problem to me. If Boylee (or anyone) wishes to do red attacking blue, and is willing to sacrifice a small bit of confusion the first few seconds a person is playing, I am fairly certain he is completely allowed to.