- Feb 10, 2009
- 208
- 388
You should read this.
- Thread starter Rikka
- Start date
Mexican Apple Thief
L3: Junior Member<br>LEAD FARMER
- Aug 23, 2008
- 345
- 60
Isn't this that boring paper about how comp players are the best ever?
He makes some interesting arguments in there. But this bugs me:
I don't think the gameplay needs to move around and be totally "dynamic" to be fun. Sure, when a 5 CP push map gets stuck between 2 points it grows stale. But some of my favorite times playing TF2 are from defending or attacking one point in dustbowl for a long time.
Similarly, some of my least favorite moments are when I play a map where the attackers sweep. I hate being pushed through area after area after area without spending time on them. There's definitely a balance you have to strike between staying in one area and moving around. His argument that more movement = better is one I do not agree with.
Also, nothing against Cashworks or anything (it's a fine map), but ooooooh god I hate 32 players on it.:O I'm not sure I've ever really enjoyed 32 player games over similar 24 player games.
edit: If I hear people throwing around "dynamic gameplay" as the new buzzword, I will hate them forever.
I don't think the gameplay needs to move around and be totally "dynamic" to be fun. Sure, when a 5 CP push map gets stuck between 2 points it grows stale. But some of my favorite times playing TF2 are from defending or attacking one point in dustbowl for a long time.
Similarly, some of my least favorite moments are when I play a map where the attackers sweep. I hate being pushed through area after area after area without spending time on them. There's definitely a balance you have to strike between staying in one area and moving around. His argument that more movement = better is one I do not agree with.
Also, nothing against Cashworks or anything (it's a fine map), but ooooooh god I hate 32 players on it.:O I'm not sure I've ever really enjoyed 32 player games over similar 24 player games.
edit: If I hear people throwing around "dynamic gameplay" as the new buzzword, I will hate them forever.
There are some obvious issues in there that are obvious enough to be "stating the obvious", and others that the author seems to acknowlegde Valve are already resolving. Seems like a redundant arguement at first, then half way through he starts moaning about map design issues. When the issues at hand are more to do with public player intelligence rather than map design issues.
For instance the safest route in Goldrush's first chokepoint happens to lead the player furthest away from the objective, coupled with giving them a height advantage that most public players will not want to give up for fear of a worthless death. It only takes one person to push the cart even just a little bit and until the majority of the public players start to realise that you win a map by completing the objective rather than through kills, it will continue to be this way. Partly it is a result of Goldrush's previous reputation, which never improved after the map changes because players continued to fear pushing past this chokepoint due to the high probability of dying.
I find the problem does not ultimately lie with bad map design but player mentality. A team that does not fear the enemy will ultimately push past these difficult locations, but to find a team with more than a single intelligent player is another problem altogether. I find that the source of this issue resides in how Valve have implemented a lot of focus on killing individuals. In TFC you were rewarded with 10 points per capture, in TF2 you are rewarded 3 for intel, or 1 for payload, and i think 2 for cp. Players have become vain with scores and kill ratio's and as far as they care a 2:1 KD ratio is well worth a single team loss and potential single death during the massacre. Valve has put too much emphasis on killing and need to reward players more for completing objectives. Which is why you'll find me doubling the points worth of objectives for players in my own maps.
I find myself playing 2fort the most, simply because it has the reputation for being a stalement frag fest. I'm a fairly good player, good enough to kill 8 players on the way in and 8 on the way out and capture the intel. I play 2fort consistantly merely for the satisfaction of surprising players who thought it wasn't possible to capture the intel on a full 32 man server. 3fort's issue resides in the fear of dying and waiting 20 seconds to respawn. assaulting a base has it's benefits, but ultimately, the benefits for assaulting don't outweigh the benefits of defending.
I see it like this:
Rewards for killing.
higher rate of points harvesting.
Dominations
Revenges
Crits
Rewards for capturing.
a chance for a few easy kills before map end.
bonus point/s to your score.
But this wasn't even an issue discussed, where he proceeded to list his dislikes 1 by 1 for maps and class inadequicies or OP.
Valve made a mistake in terms of game mechanics by taking away player control in certain updates. Having no control is not fun. But beyond this it seems like just another moan, and the only valid "stating the obvious" point he made was the dislike for players to use heavy.
Everytime i see one of these it just seems like someone trying to look intelligent by posing an obvious arguement with redundant or irrelavent resolutions. Making the guy look like a whiny, naive kid who doesn't actually understand what he's talking about. Other than the fact that he doesn't like losing. He seems to pass the buck too much from the idiot players who break balanced gameplay and onto Valve.
For instance the safest route in Goldrush's first chokepoint happens to lead the player furthest away from the objective, coupled with giving them a height advantage that most public players will not want to give up for fear of a worthless death. It only takes one person to push the cart even just a little bit and until the majority of the public players start to realise that you win a map by completing the objective rather than through kills, it will continue to be this way. Partly it is a result of Goldrush's previous reputation, which never improved after the map changes because players continued to fear pushing past this chokepoint due to the high probability of dying.
I find the problem does not ultimately lie with bad map design but player mentality. A team that does not fear the enemy will ultimately push past these difficult locations, but to find a team with more than a single intelligent player is another problem altogether. I find that the source of this issue resides in how Valve have implemented a lot of focus on killing individuals. In TFC you were rewarded with 10 points per capture, in TF2 you are rewarded 3 for intel, or 1 for payload, and i think 2 for cp. Players have become vain with scores and kill ratio's and as far as they care a 2:1 KD ratio is well worth a single team loss and potential single death during the massacre. Valve has put too much emphasis on killing and need to reward players more for completing objectives. Which is why you'll find me doubling the points worth of objectives for players in my own maps.
I find myself playing 2fort the most, simply because it has the reputation for being a stalement frag fest. I'm a fairly good player, good enough to kill 8 players on the way in and 8 on the way out and capture the intel. I play 2fort consistantly merely for the satisfaction of surprising players who thought it wasn't possible to capture the intel on a full 32 man server. 3fort's issue resides in the fear of dying and waiting 20 seconds to respawn. assaulting a base has it's benefits, but ultimately, the benefits for assaulting don't outweigh the benefits of defending.
I see it like this:
Rewards for killing.
higher rate of points harvesting.
Dominations
Revenges
Crits
Rewards for capturing.
a chance for a few easy kills before map end.
bonus point/s to your score.
But this wasn't even an issue discussed, where he proceeded to list his dislikes 1 by 1 for maps and class inadequicies or OP.
Valve made a mistake in terms of game mechanics by taking away player control in certain updates. Having no control is not fun. But beyond this it seems like just another moan, and the only valid "stating the obvious" point he made was the dislike for players to use heavy.
Everytime i see one of these it just seems like someone trying to look intelligent by posing an obvious arguement with redundant or irrelavent resolutions. Making the guy look like a whiny, naive kid who doesn't actually understand what he's talking about. Other than the fact that he doesn't like losing. He seems to pass the buck too much from the idiot players who break balanced gameplay and onto Valve.
Last edited:
Shoomonger
L4: Comfortable Member
- Jul 8, 2009
- 185
- 55
oh no!! everyone here is starting to talk like him with these huge paragraphs of opinionated info!!!
....................................................................................................................................................
This is pretty good article. I disagree with his perspective of the demoman though. If anything he should become more powered in every way, not nerfed in one and upgraded in another.
....................................................................................................................................................
This is pretty good article. I disagree with his perspective of the demoman though. If anything he should become more powered in every way, not nerfed in one and upgraded in another.
Idiot players have to be taken into account with game design. That's one of the hardest parts, and every developer has to do it. If part of a game doesn't play well, blaming it on stupid players is a cop-out. The designer should have done a better job teaching or encouraging those players to do things correctly.