Fortress Forever

Go Back   Fortress Forever > Projects > Fortress Forever > Feature

AvD Re-vamp Issue Tools
issueid=319 11-04-2010 12:37 AM
AvD Re-vamp
Yet another suggestion for improving AvD

*Disclaimer: For the purpose of this idea, I am removing SG's from the game. This does not mean I actually want them removed, and this suggestion can work with sg's, it's just easier to outline my idea without them complicating things

Currently the way FF works, everything revolves around the sg, this includes pub-CTF, league-CTF, and any and all forms of AvD. But since this is a suggestion for AvD I'm ignoring the CTF topic.

Suggestions are as follows:

Elminate the need of the sg in AvD. Right now it just seems to be inbalancable. You make the SG strong enough to be effective in AvD, it'll rape the shit out of CTF games, or make it too weak, and it fails all over.

So what's the purpose of the sg in AvD and if we scrap it, how would defense hope to win a round? The purpose of the sg is to create choke points throughout the map, slow the enemy down and let your defense die once or twice before they move on to the next choke point.

Problem is, it is not effective in AvD maps, as already stated a billion times on the forums. It dies too quick, and since Offense is just too fast 95% of the time, you can't even fall back to minor choke points.

Gonna use dustbowl as examples since it's easiest.

When the sg's go down at the start of the first round, and offense blasts out of the gates, what does defense usually do? We fall all the way back to the cap area cause we know it's practically impossible to defend the minor choke points in between.

Also when the sg's go down at the start of stage1, all it takes is one super star to get the flag, jump past the heavier slower units, then race to the cap. Even an sg at the cap can be ignored by this super star.

So what i'm thinking is: how about built in turrets or other destructable units on the path to the cap.

These turrets could be designed many different ways to actually balance out that specific area in that specific map.

For example, you could have a couple turrets sitting outside the gates to stage1, these could be slightly more powerfull, with higher amounts of hp's and once they're dead they stay dead.

Then you could have a 1 or two turrets sitting at the grenade pack. Ideally (and even back in TFC) this was the next choke point for offense to break through, in FF no big deal to get by. But this is a minor choke point, you don't want these to defend like the main gates turrets, you just want them there to provide a little cover to possibley hold that choke point for longer than what's currently the average time of 5 seconds. Once these are destroyed they stay dead.

Then moving on to the buildings, you could have 1 or 2 turrets in key locations. They could be even a little weaker, but since they're closer to Red's base, we could have these one's even repairable by engineers, not instantly repairable, something an engineer would have to wack many times to get it back up. The turret wouldn't be repairable until it's actually dead (ie: the engineer can't keep it alive by whacking it, but can bring it back to life once it's dead). (This is just one example on designing one of these objects, there are too many variations to count when it comes to designing them)

Mini turrets like this laid out across the map in key locations, would completely eliminate the dependancy of an inbalancable item like the sg, they would still serve the purpose of the sg with none of the current draw backs. It would stop the 1 or 2 superstars who join offense blow past the initial line of defense, and cap on an undefended capture point because none of the D could fall back in time.



Another suggestion I have is to actually make use of the different classes in AvD. Right now on offense, an entire team of sollies could accomplish everything they want to do. All it takes is a single player to accomplish the goal of walking over top of a location (not that interesting really). Even those maps like fusion, or genesis is the same concept, just layed out differently, but essentially all we're doing is running over a location to win the game.

Design a map where instead of a capture point, it's a giant destroyable wall, that only a demo man can destroy. Offense's goal in that case would be to keep a demo man alive while he try's to lay a detpack down.

You could have a map where each cap point is defended by a tank, the tank might not need to be destroyed,or maybe it does, you could make it so the tank's are the actual objectives to destroy in each stage of the map. The tanks would offer their support in damage, it could track on and target incoming people, or it could just keep shooting at set intervals at a specific location, again all customizable for that specific situation.

Or a map that has say a giant shield protecting the final cap point, and the only way to lower the shields is to have your team's snipers shoot at targets to disable them, and only make it so snipers can do it, that would provide a function for the snipers, and a reason to defend your teammates.

Or objects in the game where only a spy can manipulate to get past it.

Things like this would also stop that one superstar from ignoring the entire defensive team and capping with his leet awesome skills, make him rely on his teammates just as much as they're going to rely on him in his function.

Really there's like an infinite list of possibilities to use interactive objects and objectives out there.

If map designs were more focused on that sort of stuff, you wouldn't need to spend all sorts of time, just coming up with simple map geometry that attempts to balance the map, cause seriously you guys could design a thousand maps make a million class specific tweaks, but it's still the same old objects every map. You could invest your time instead in designing interactive objects that utilize the classes and give them a purpose, as far as creativity goes I would think you'd be more interested in those kinds of implementations than map geometry.

If the maps were designed in this manner, class balance wouldn't be as big of an issue. You wouldn't need to to go "Well this is a great idea but because of <insertclasshere> it breaks the whole idea, so we either can't use the idea, or we have to make a million different tweaks to make it work, and risk breaking something else in a different map.

In Closing: It is my personal belief that the game is actually very close to being balanced as far as CTF goes. You take two equally skilled teams and the final results will be pretty even, and to me that means the game is very close to being balanced. It is a huge diversity in skill that makes CTF fail for the most part. Use this belief of a fairly balanced game and go into designing AvD maps to work for you, not design something finding out it fails because of a specific class, then go "Well this is inbalanced this class needs to be fixed".

Ps. Oh and as far as the use of the engy goes in AvD, I'm sure if stuff like this were implemented we could definately come up with ideas to keep the engy still fun to play in AvD (Not like continously wacking your sg until it inevitibley blows up in your face was really that fun to begin with)
Issue Details
Issue Type Feature
Project Fortress Forever
Category Mapping
Status Suggested
Priority Unknown
Suggested Version Undefined
Implemented Version (none)
Votes for this feature 0
Votes against this feature 3
Assigned Users (none)
Tags (none)

11-04-2010 02:11 AM
 
Thoughts:

-You say the sg is unbalanceable, but it obviously worked in TFC otherwise people wouldn't have kept playing. What's the problem with making it similar to TFC values? Was TFC never really balanced for CTF?

-While I'm not opposed to the idea, it sounds like it would be a hell of a lot easier to have different values for different game modes, if the sg is truly unbalanceable. FF already does this. The citizen is faster in waterpolo than he is in hunted. Demomen do less damage to themselves with pipes in conc maps than they do elsewhere. What's the problem with tweaking values (of ALL classes if necesssary) between AvD and CTF maps? I don't think you can say "it will divide the community" anymore, the community is so small as it is. On the contrary, I think this would unite players, because it means you could custom-tailor the best possible experience for CTF AND AvD and please both parties. Pickups get what they want, AvD junkies get what they want, a load screen could explain the difference to new players, everybody wins.

-You're right about an entire O team of solly's working, they don't really have a weakness in that role. I've seen this happen once or twice. In 1.0 I could hold it back somewhat with hwguy, in 2.x I haven't found much of a solution to this offense strategy.

-Quake Wars already has the diverse objectives you discuss and it tends to work pretty well and assures some diversity on your team. It's never in your best interest to have only one class there. On the contrary, besides objectives, some classes have deployables that are ongoing (their spy has a deployable radar unit which only engineers can repair, their medics can call in supply crates, etc.), so their need doesn't vanish as soon as the objective is complete.

In short, I think the map-based turrents will be way too much work for the dev team, but I don't see the problem with making AvD a more diverse experience from CTF overall.
Reply
11-04-2010 02:58 AM
NeoNL
 
You could always revamp the maps with new gamemodes.
Reply
11-04-2010 03:52 PM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chilledsanity
-While I'm not opposed to the idea, it sounds like it would be a hell of a lot easier to have different values for different game modes, if the sg is truly unbalanceable. FF already does this. The citizen is faster in waterpolo than he is in hunted. Demomen do less damage to themselves with pipes in conc maps than they do elsewhere. What's the problem with tweaking values (of ALL classes if necesssary) between AvD and CTF maps? I don't think you can say "it will divide the community" anymore, the community is so small as it is. On the contrary, I think this would unite players, because it means you could custom-tailor the best possible experience for CTF AND AvD and please both parties. Pickups get what they want, AvD junkies get what they want, a load screen could explain the difference to new players, everybody wins.
What you're proposing here is essentially creating two whole games. A game for CTF and a game for AvD, right now the dev's are just focusing on one game, and patches and updates come out about once a year. You honestly think their work load would lessen by doubling it?

The SG worked in TFC that's fine, but this is not TFC, and repeating the notion of bringing the SG in FF back to the same stats as the sg in TFC is not going to work, because the scout in FF moves differently than TFC's, the medic's work differently, the mirvs work differently, the rockets shoot faster, the nail guns are different. The only way you could bring the SG back to how it worked in TFC is to convert all of FF to TFC, and if we're going to do that then we might as well just go back to playing TFC.

You may think it might be a lot of work to introduce these mini turrets throughout, and it very well could be... initially to create the models, base stats...etc. But this work invested in building these objects could then be used in different maps, different game play, well honstly they could be used anywhere. Interactive objects could then be used anywhere they'd like.

Then all it boils down to is, balancing a map, play test, figure out the correct values for that specific map.

So what sounds like more work? Doubling up their game, keeping track of two completely different sets of balanced stats simultaneously. Or investing the time to create new features to their game, which can be used to balance maps, add a variety of different objects and features, which can effect anything from CTF to AvD to...who knows.

Well you and I can't answer that question, only the Devs would know what's actually more work, but I could definately tell you what would sound more fun and interesting to work on for myself personally.
Reply
11-04-2010 04:30 PM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammock
What you're proposing here is essentially creating two whole games. A game for CTF and a game for AvD, right now the dev's are just focusing on one game, and patches and updates come out about once a year. You honestly think their work load would lessen by doubling it?
You're making it sound like they have to create new textures, animations, maps, etc. We're not talking about doubling the game, we're talking about 2 different game modes. Do you think waterpolo or murderball balance keeps the devs up at night? That's basically the degree we're talking about here. All I'm talking about is tweaking numbers. And yes, I think it would lessen their load, because then they wouldn't have to waste as much time balancing this one-size-fits-all mode that is NOT working. They could ask the community. Find out what pickup/CTF players want, try it out. Find out what AvD players want, try those values out.

You'd reach a consensus MUCH faster that way rather than trying to corral in every single person on different modes some of them don't really play. If you find values that work in dustbowl, then they work in palermo, then they work in avanti, you're basically done for that mode! You don't have to factor in what clans will think or how this plays in pickups, or if it means capping is too hard in 2fort, because those will be separate numbers that won't get touched except by pickup/CTF people.

Look at AvD today. It's balance got pretty shaky in 2.0 and it was utterly ruined in 2.1. That was over 2 years ago. Today, it's still pretty bad and the devs have only BEGUN to acknowledge that there may be a problem with it. So that's a lagtime of about 2 years to try and balance one game mode, that still isn't fixed? Is this efficient? Under the separate values system, 2.0 would have seen some boosts on D to compensate for O's extra abilities, and the massive nerf for 2.1 simply never would have happened for AvD modes. Pickups could have gotten every change they wanted without AvD getting in the way of things and vice-versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammock
The SG worked in TFC that's fine, but this is not TFC, and repeating the notion of bringing the SG in FF back to the same stats as the sg in TFC is not going to work, because the scout in FF moves differently than TFC's, the medic's work differently, the mirvs work differently, the rockets shoot faster, the nail guns are different. The only way you could bring the SG back to how it worked in TFC is to convert all of FF to TFC, and if we're going to do that then we might as well just go back to playing TFC.
The basic gameplay is not a world apart from TFC. The biggest difference is that O has many advantages compared to TFC. It's easier to bunnyhop, spies can sabotage sg's, spies can cloak, pyros can fly, scouts can enable their whole team to get to objectives in a fraction of the time. Hwguy is weaker, the sg is weaker, the demoman has a shorter range. I don't understand the problems with bringing the sg up to at least similar values. Simply saying "this isn't TFC" is a rather hollow argument when many of the same principles apply. What would be the PROBLEM with giving the sg similar push and damage values to TFC's? That's it's somehow too powerful even though it would still be easier to cap in FF than it was in TFC?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammock
So what sounds like more work? Doubling up their game, keeping track of two completely different sets of balanced stats simultaneously. Or investing the time to create new features to their game, which can be used to balance maps, add a variety of different objects and features, which can effect anything from CTF to AvD to...who knows.
You're phrasing the question wrong. What sounds like more work?

Having 2 separate easily tweaked lists of numbers with dedicated people working on them separately (thus better division of labor) that will prevent many arguments and fighting and allow both modes to move forward faster

OR

creating new models, new code, new textures, new animations, new entities, AND revamping many maps and hope this somehow manages to keep equilibrium between 2 different groups in balance.

You can't discount the endless amount of time that goes into balancing that seems to please no one and has done a horrendous job for AvD in general. Besides not needing extra development work, that's where the time-savings comes in. It would require less work AND would cut through the daunting task involved with trying to balance for 2 very different gameplay modes.

For the time I was on the beta team, I remember them saying it was easier to simply redo a map from scratch than to try and make substantial changes to it to accommodate balance for post 2.0. That should give you an idea of how much time is involved with redoing the maps. The separate values method won't even require the maps to be altered necessarily. Plus look at what we have right now! The devs are adding new features and it's taking an eternity. I'm not discouraging that, I'm saying separate values for the gamemodes is a potentially MUCH faster system.
Reply
11-04-2010 05:51 PM
 
You have hashed your idea out to the devs for like 2 years, and they have given you their answer, they want their game to be the same across the board. Which make sense to me, it's more intuitive for the player to know that when he jumps from one map to another, the physics and mechanics of the game are the same.

Bringing up maps like waterpolo and the civilian is not a valid response, since it's a novelty map. And we're talking about 1 specific class (a very underused class). They could make HW's run faster than scouts and have concs, the scout's shotgun could shoot flames out, and yet this might confuse people at first, they're going to figure it out, that it's an unusual map, and to just go for it.

You want an example of how your suggestion can go wrong, look at the Hunted with the snipers, and the fact that the AR can't damage the civilian. The Hunted itself is another novelty style map, but there's really no indication that the rules have been changed for it, and I've seen many new players continuously run in with the AR trying to kill the civi then bitch about it, and eventually just switch to red or leave, even after someone kindly tells them about that specific rule change in the map.

Obviously I can't speak for the dev's like you seem to soo surely believe you're qualified to, since you've soo clearly stated what's more work to do. But understand that there was a mental meaning behind my question just as much as a physical one.

Sometimes even though something may take more time to accomplish and it may be harder to do, it doesn't nescessarily mean it feels like more work.

Take a computer programmer for example, what do you think he's going to believe is more work, data entry for 8hours a day, 5 days a week, or designing a computer program? The data entry is obviously the easier task, but I can almost guarantee you that he's going to feel that it's far more work.

So what's more work in FF? re-hashing their game, to ultimately create nothing new, or to spend their time coming up with new ideas testing them out and implementing them if they're found to be fun or usefull.

A please, i'm tired of re-reading your same idea, it's already been vetoed by the devs, so coming onto this thread to take yet another opportunity to explain your idea is not constructive to this thread.

I don't care if the dev's respond to this thread, they don't even need to use the idea. I just had a thought and decided to post it cause to me it was something new and different.

And no I didn't rip any ideas off from any other game, as I do not play any other FPS games so I don't know what they're doing or what they've done. This was all with the intent of providing a different alternative to balancing AvD maps while introducing some new cool stuff to the game that can be used elsewhere.
Reply
11-04-2010 07:47 PM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammock
You have hashed your idea out to the devs for like 2 years, and they have given you their answer, they want their game to be the same across the board. Which make sense to me, it's more intuitive for the player to know that when he jumps from one map to another, the physics and mechanics of the game are the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammock
A please, i'm tired of re-reading your same idea, it's already been vetoed by the devs, so coming onto this thread to take yet another opportunity to explain your idea is not constructive to this thread.
Actually that idea is closer to 3 years. Here are some other ideas I've hashed out to the devs I was told no on at some point in the past:

-AvD defense being too weak
-sg push being too weak
-counters to new abilities added for 2.0

From what I've gathered, at least some of them may actually be happening for 2.5. You act like nothing has changed in the past few years. Player count is lower than ever. The "divide the community" argument which it was originally vetoed on has basically proven to have fallen since almost everyone who was split simply left the game instead of trying newer flawed, rules. The "consistent experience" between game modes already isn't that consistent.

I apologize if it got a little offtrack from your post, that wasn't really my original intention. I just think it's insanity to focus on something that's likely to take FAR more work, has an iffy chance of solving the problems, when changes are long overdue, playercount is lower than ever, and easier solutions exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammock
Obviously I can't speak for the dev's like you seem to soo surely believe you're qualified to, since you've soo clearly stated what's more work to do. But understand that there was a mental meaning behind my question just as much as a physical one.
I've put in a few thousand hours of modwork in the Source SDK. Granted, I don't do coding, but I've done a ton of work in Hammer, Face Poser, Photoshop textures, audio/video editing, sound effect generation, and done a lot of model converting and writing/fixing .qc files. Creating new content is a lot of work, even if it may be more fun for some. Changing numbers for damage values, push, etc. is not, not matter how you slice it. Regardless of how "fun" it is, the time differential we're talking about is minutes to hours (including compile time) versus days to weeks to months. Granted, testing will take time, but no moreso than any other change. In fact, it will likely take less change due to a tighter focus. And ultimately, if development ONLY focuses on things that are fun to develop, important problems can sometimes never get fixed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammock
You want an example of how your suggestion can go wrong, look at the Hunted with the snipers, and the fact that the AR can't damage the civilian. The Hunted itself is another novelty style map, but there's really no indication that the rules have been changed for it, and I've seen many new players continuously run in with the AR trying to kill the civi then bitch about it, and eventually just switch to red or leave, even after someone kindly tells them about that specific rule change in the map.
Well it does say so in the loading screen, but that's an example of an extreme change. Immunity to anything is a very extreme change. But consider the flipside. Say you're coming from ANY other team fortress game then start playing FF. One of the first things you'll notice is how weak the sentry gun and hwguy are. Do you think people haven't played that, been totally defeated trying to play D, then quit, assuming the mod sucks? What do you think accounts for the surge in player counts when a new patch is released then the rapid drop off?
Reply
11-04-2010 08:21 PM
 
This is my final post towards your comments in this thread.

You've pretty much turned this thread into yet another one of your own little private vendetta's to turn FF into TFC, I'm not going to humor this topic anymore. Go make TFC2 and make your SG as godly as you want it, because apparently the only way to play a TF game is to have the SG's carry your defense. And you know what? I hated that fact in TFC too, yes they were more balanced, but they were a nescessary evil cause you needed them to even hope to defend an AvD map. Heaven forbid we think of ways to change that dependancy

Infact every post except the original's and Neo's could be deleted as well, they're the only ones not swallowed up in your vendetta.

Oh and:

Quote:
Here are some other ideas I've hashed out to the devs I was told no on at some point in the past:

-AvD defense being too weak
-sg push being too weak
-counters to new abilities added for 2.0
Those are not ideas, those are complaints. My original post was an idea. One I've never pitched before, one I'm not going to pitch again, as there's not much point in pushing the same subject over and over again... hint..hint
Reply
11-04-2010 08:57 PM
 
You know, I point out some merits of your ideas, even point to an example where some of it has already been done successfully and criticize one aspect of it. You come back at me with what I consider a faulty analogy, so I clarify it and also apologize for the derailment. Then you say you don't want to hear my arguments then make an accusation that isn't even true. I was trying to be constructive before this mutated into a debate on a related topic. If you don't want to hear more about dual modes, fine, then quit driving the topic and doing things like making ad hominem attacks as to my experience.

I'm not trying to turn the game into TFC, I've only made analogies to that because it's an easy solution. What you're proposing sounds like such a radical and large change I'm not sure it's the most realistic. Considering the pace of current changes in FF it would be many years before something like this was implemented. If that's the timeframe you're aiming for, my apologies, I misunderstood. If not, my main point is this isn't very realistic otherwise (unless it was something almost all the devs wanted). It's not just a new ability, it's a total revamp of the gameplay of TF along with requiring an overhaul of the maps.

Oh and:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammock
Those are not ideas, those are complaints.
"new abilities" are not ideas? I've already mentioned slowing fields, constructable barriers, and aerial snares in other threads. Not to mention variable fire for demomen, healing auras for medics, variable fire modes for hwguy, etc. I didn't bring those examples up, because it's unlikely they'll ever be implemented. New ideas are generally disregarded, so they would just be poor examples to back my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammock
I'm not going to pitch again, as there's not much point in pushing the same subject over and over again...
You should expect your idea to die then. It simply won't sink in to the dev consciousness otherwise.

Anyway, you said that was your final post about my comments, fine. I'm willing to drop the dual system tangent if you are. Again, I apologized about that once, if you don't want to hear more about it, don't keep provoking new debate over it.
Reply
11-05-2010 05:20 AM
 
We've discussed most of these ideas, and even made some basic maps to try them out--Cap points that have to be damaged, a solid path that must be capped a few meters at a time, and I think a few more. We haven't tried the turret thing, but I think it's a good idea.

I'd rather not make objectives that require a specific class. It's not fun to have to switch to demo to detpack a wall.

chilled: HWguy is getting some abilities in this patch that I think you're going to like.
Reply
11-05-2010 02:50 PM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazycarl
I'd rather not make objectives that require a specific class. It's not fun to have to switch to demo to detpack a wall.
Ya, that's understandable, even when I was typing that one out, I knew some of the draw backs to it. Having to switch to a specific class to accomplish something doesn't bother me too much. What really sucks for me though is if you need a specific class and all those slots are taken by people who don't know what to do, or do know what to do, fail at doing it, but refuse to give it up out of continued persistence.

Like getting a really shitty player playing the civi on the hunted who refuses to give the class up.
Reply
11-29-2010 02:14 PM
I like Ceyx
 
I like this idea, and I'd like to test it. Though, I'm not in total agreement that "AvD is broken" - I like AvD but capping on some(not all) maps does seem a lil too easy(too hard to defend)

Let's see how 2.42 does for the issue and then if we still need to do something, I think this would be an excellent place to start.

btw chilled - no offense, but who are you in FF? You post here but I never see you in game.... I mean did you quit? Or do you use a diff alias? J/W
Reply
Reply

Issue Tools
Subscribe to this issue

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.