OvD pickups

[angrypyro]

I was wondering why pickup games and leagues play OvD instead of regular ctf where both teams attack and defend at the same time. Is it because there aren't enough people playing for a full game? Why don't they play Attack and Defend maps instead then?

[Ricey]

Originally Posted by angrypyro

I was wondering why pickup games and leagues play OvD instead of regular ctf where both teams attack and defend at the same time. Is it because there aren't enough people playing for a full game? Why don't they play Attack and Defend maps instead then?

They do OvD because of people, not enough numbers, and they don't do AvD because they aren't CTF Maps.

[squeek.]

• You get to play both offense and defense in OvD
• OvD games mimic their full game counterpart really well; the only thing that is missing is the "swing" defender and maybe last minute scrambles/strategy switch-ups (the latter can still exist in OvD, but only for the second round).
• Full games mostly benefit from structured teams with set rosters, so you can actually employ strategies that you have practiced, people can play the roles they have practiced, etc. UGC ran 5v5 full for a few seasons, but the teams involved wanted to change it to 4v4 OvD because 5v5 full didn't offer the same benefits that 8v8 full has over 4v4 OvD.
• OvD doesn't require as many people. It's not that there aren't enough people (there aren't, but that's besides the point), it's that 8 people per game is always better than 16 if the 16 player game is not way more beneficial. With less people per game, you can have more games going no matter what.
• Attack and Defend requires more people (5v5 or 6v6 at least), and is generally... different. The removal of most secondary grens (concs especially) makes it different, and the consensus seems to be that CTF, maybe due to the fact that it requires less people, is a better time investment.

[GenghisTron]

5v5's and AvD pickups would make pickups much more appealing, imo.

[Bridget]

So would not having a pickup scene full of cunts. :>

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Bridget

So would not having a pickup scene full of cunts. :>

Only reason why it's primarily cunts is because dozens of people have given the pickup community a chance, and were scared away.

[angrypyro]

Wouldn't a full 8v8 be much better though because:

players can be more specialized at their specific role, someone may be a great offensive scout but not a good defender and therefore can just attack the whole game instead of having to defend during half the game

you wouldn't know how many points are needed to win the game since it isn't split into rounds

classes can both attack and defend
for example: a scout decloaks a spy/difuses a detpack while bunnyhopping towards the enemy base or a pyro can set a scout on fire on the way to the other team's base

there is more strategy to the number of offense/defense players
for example if the other team has a good defense and is winning, more players can be switched over to offense or on the flip side if their defense is weak less offensive players since only one person can have the flag at a time anyways

[CHURCHMOUTH]

i think that might be part of the reason the pickup scenes are small and stuff. people who arent comfortable playing offense and defense. Some people specialize on offense and some on defense.

[zE]

angrypyro the reason is simple -> Lack of players
I just remenber 4 or 5 times that we had pickups with 16 dudes.
Sometimes is hard to get 8 to play a pickup imagine if 16 people here required to play pickups = fail / pickups death,
even tfc pickups now are 4 vs 4. But yes i agree with your point about specializing and stuff.

[squeek.]

players can be more specialized at their specific role, someone may be a great offensive scout but not a good defender and therefore can just attack the whole game instead of having to defend during half the game

Pickups are semi-casual, so playing a class/role you don't normally play can be a good thing. It could be a great place to practice it, depending on who you are playing with or how competitive the particular game is.

you wouldn't know how many points are needed to win the game since it isn't split into rounds

In the second round you do, and in the first round you can usually tell if the offense is capping a lot or not very much.

classes can both attack and defend
for example: a scout decloaks a spy/difuses a detpack while bunnyhopping towards the enemy base or a pyro can set a scout on fire on the way to the other team's base

In CTF full games, offense vs offense combat is either heavily frowned upon or outright banned. This "rule" comes from TFC league play and just helps the game be more focused in general (doesn't devolve into OvO yard DM fests, etc).

there is more strategy to the number of offense/defense players
for example if the other team has a good defense and is winning, more players can be switched over to offense or on the flip side if their defense is weak less offensive players since only one person can have the flag at a time anyways

Yes, this is really the only thing that is lost when you do OvD instead of a full game. But, it is not so significant to warrant the DOUBLING of players necessary to play a pickup. And, again, it is more geared towards league/tournament/clan play.

[Bridget]

I think it would be tons more fun if there were 8 player teams with half dedicated to offense and half to defense. You could easily come up with a small set of rules to prevent yard deathmatch and the like. However, good luck finding people to play that setup with you. People are too preoccupied with having the rules spoonfed to them instead of invoking a little challenge now and then.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by Bridget

I think it would be tons more fun if there were 8 player teams with half dedicated to offense and half to defense. You could easily come up with a small set of rules to prevent yard deathmatch and the like. However, good luck finding people to play that setup with you. People are too preoccupied with having the rules spoonfed to them instead of invoking a little challenge now and then.

Finally, a new idea. That is, if you are ignoring the fact that 8v8 was the standard format for TFC league play for years (mostly euro, I believe US league play was 9v9).

That's the whole point of this thread, Bridget. We are discussing why 4v4 OvD is preferred in pickups over 8v8 full. It's got nothing to do with "the rules" and "challenge". It's got everything to do with the lack of tangible benefits and the abundance of tangible negatives in 8v8 pickup play.

[Crazycarl]

Here's a new idea: can we fix the midmap DM problem through code, in a way that people will find acceptable? Or can we take some of the good aspects of a full CTF, and apply them to OvD?

[Elmo]

only way through code would be to use location points that are set to neutral teams and select through lua and/or cvar as to whether we wanted to enforce such rules... perhaps if the flag was in a neutral zone then attacking would be permitted.

Even then I wouldn't be sold on the idea if only because of those playing the game for the first time might find it rather strange and annoying.

Between a cvar and LUA neutral locations it's certainly possible.

[Elmo]

God my first pass at posts always read like pure shit lol.

[Ricey]

Originally Posted by Elmo

only way through code would be to use location points that are set to neutral teams and select through lua and/or cvar as to whether we wanted to enforce such rules... perhaps if the flag was in a neutral zone then attacking would be permitted.

Even then I wouldn't be sold on the idea if only because of those playing the game for the first time might find it rather strange and annoying.

Between a cvar and LUA neutral locations it's certainly possible.

God Elmo, learn to type!

That would be restricting to the player and would confuse newbies. It'd also annoy people who play by the rules and sometimes do like to potshot.

[Bridget]

Fortress Forever is destined to fail because the public environment has no structure or organization. You might take that fact and wringe out a conclusion that calls for making class roles more obvious, but that's another reason this game is failing too. The solution is to implement a very basic and non-biased server GUI that allows people to observe matches in progress or add up to them. The installation can come with configurations whether you want to play a vanilla competitive game with timed capture the flag or first to x captures or fastest avd time or whatever.

Then, make every class viable on both offense and defense. This gives people the power to choose how they want to play the game instead of being restricted to the same two offensive classes or the same ol' defensive classes. It would also remove the burden now placed on teams when someone ignores regulations and plays how they wish, such as going Medic on defense and ridding your team of a better defensive class for the surviviability.

So, in summary, you can design the foundations and develop the game, but I find the games work best when people are allowed to make their own choices. It works in every other aspect of life, so why not make it work here? My worst competitive games in FF were when we were restricted to playing the same two lame classes on offense or the same classes on defense. My favorite matches were when we just got rid of those rules (save for agreeable 'core' rules such as not entering the enemy base when they're going to capture and spawn camping them, or spawn camping the defense, etc, etc) and let people play whatever class and position they want.

Do take these 'core rules' and make an in-server GUI that makes the game more predictable and understandable and with actual goals to achieve in a certain non-exhausting time period, and you won't have people deathmatching around in the middle of the yard. Right now, the game is too 'bare bones'. There are no rules in the public environment that people can determine how to play from; you must already know how to play from past experience. You've given new players the ingredients but no recipe. The only way to understand how to play FF is to join the now highly regulated competitive communities which are full of discouraging elitist pricks too.

</extremeideas></wasteofmytime>

[squeek.]

If every class and every position is viable, then wouldn't every class have to be the same (or at least a lot more similar)? And are you talking about CTF?

No matter how you slice it, in a class based game, certain classes are going to be better at certain things. It is entirely unrealistic to think we can achieve everyone playing whatever they want, wherever they want, regardless of the other classes on their team in a structured format without making every class exactly the same.

For example: Making scout a "viable" defensive class would mean a watering down of his offensive capability (movement). The balance of classes in this game revolves around POWER vs MOVEMENT. The more power you have, the less movement you have; the less movement you have, the more defensive you are; the less power, the more offensive; etc. If everyone has enough power to viably defend, then everyone will have to have similar movement abilities. That sounds like removing choice to me. The choice of classes will be less meaningful if every class is similarly viable for many situations.

[angrypyro]

Originally Posted by Bridget

Fortress Forever is destined to fail because the public environment has no structure or organization. You might take that fact and wringe out a conclusion that calls for making class roles more obvious, but that's another reason this game is failing too. The solution is to implement a very basic and non-biased server GUI that allows people to observe matches in progress or add up to them. The installation can come with configurations whether you want to play a vanilla competitive game with timed capture the flag or first to x captures or fastest avd time or whatever.

Then, make every class viable on both offense and defense. This gives people the power to choose how they want to play the game instead of being restricted to the same two offensive classes or the same ol' defensive classes. It would also remove the burden now placed on teams when someone ignores regulations and plays how they wish, such as going Medic on defense and ridding your team of a better defensive class for the surviviability.

So, in summary, you can design the foundations and develop the game, but I find the games work best when people are allowed to make their own choices. It works in every other aspect of life, so why not make it work here? My worst competitive games in FF were when we were restricted to playing the same two lame classes on offense or the same classes on defense. My favorite matches were when we just got rid of those rules (save for agreeable 'core' rules such as not entering the enemy base when they're going to capture and spawn camping them, or spawn camping the defense, etc, etc) and let people play whatever class and position they want.

Do take these 'core rules' and make an in-server GUI that makes the game more predictable and understandable and with actual goals to achieve in a certain non-exhausting time period, and you won't have people deathmatching around in the middle of the yard. Right now, the game is too 'bare bones'. There are no rules in the public environment that people can determine how to play from; you must already know how to play from past experience. You've given new players the ingredients but no recipe. The only way to understand how to play FF is to join the now highly regulated competitive communities which are full of discouraging elitist pricks too.

</extremeideas></wasteofmytime>

Don't pretty much all games have no organization in the public environment? It's not until you get to the clan level where people take it seriously.

[maximi]

offtopic...
Just wtf it is with Bridget and hes walls of text these days? Why so serious....