Team Fortress 2 Classic V3 - Games

[QUOTE=The_Rad;49634614]It's Just the gamemode, on 4 teams King of the hill is more balanced, trust me.[/QUOTE] I still do not see any reason to replace what Valve had good reasons for removing.

[QUOTE=DohEntertainmen;49634629]I still do not see any reason to replace what Valve had good reasons for removing.[/QUOTE] it was still one of the best games i had in a while, the map is pretty unbalanced.

[QUOTE=cha0s;49634676]it was still one of the best games i had in a while, the map is pretty unbalanced.[/QUOTE] Unbalance is something you should never find acceptable, under any circumstances, when you're balancing a game. This is why they had the Vae Victis system, which made stalemates near-impossible in the vanilla game.

[QUOTE=DohEntertainmen;49634629]I still do not see any reason to replace what Valve had good reasons for removing.[/QUOTE] I can see one reason: Team Fortress at that time didn't have things like payload and koth if I'm not mistaken, so an attempt to rebalance that which couldn't be balanced due to gamemode restrictions and such in the past is more viable when more modes and current information are available for consideration. Though taking what was originally a 2 team map and hacking it up into 4 bases with very different areas is pretty dumb, but it was just an experiment/test for 4teams so if we had a map actually built and balanced around 4 teams there would be less bullshit. But thinking of it, there are problems such as extreme stalemates due to constant fighting if there was something like 1-cp koth or a 4cp map or one flag in the center, yet people have made ideas that would remedy this, such as the reverse-ctf format, having multiple points to capture in koth, and other things.

[QUOTE=LondierX;49634883]Team Fortress at that time didn't have things like payload and koth if I'm not mistaken, so an attempt to balance that which couldn't be balanced due to gamemode restrictions and such in the past is more viable when more modes and current information are available for consideration.[/QUOTE] That's because Payload itself is a recreation of Hunted, with a single, non-player escort, which you lead to an end-point, and guard the position of. Escort itself was seen as a bloat to the game, along with the addition of separate teams, which only serve to break up the basic three questions you have while playing; "What team, what class and what weapon?" This is complicated heavily by the addition of more teams and weapons, which only serve to make things worse for the simple game. Additions should be secondary to the game, and not first. Never the other way around, like it is here, where you apparently need to make your own server and enforce your own rules on vanilla. [QUOTE=LondierX;49634883]Though taking what was originally a 2 team map and hacking it up into 4 bases with very different areas is pretty dumb, but it was just an experiment/test for 4teams so if we had a map actually built and balanced around 4 teams there would be less bullshit.[/QUOTE] Creating a map balanced around four teams is also a very complicated issue, as you cannot create a simple binary team map. You cannot have a constant conflict between four groups the same way you can with two. No linear falls to shoot downwards from your quarters with as a soldier, but four constant directions to worry about, rather than forwards, and backwards. [QUOTE=LondierX;49634883]But thinking of it, there are problems such as extreme stalemates due to constant fighting if there was something like 1-cp koth or a 4cp map or one flag in the center, yet people have made ideas that would remedy this, such as the reverse-ctf format, having multiple points to capture in koth, and other things.[/QUOTE] That only serves to complicate things, as I've said. In the end, there will be so much conflict coming about, that there will be little room for concise strategy. Battles like this in real-life aren't exactly the most interesting, aside from their unusual nature.

[QUOTE=Drury;49632891]You know who else has ideas? Literally fucking everyone. Ideas are the cheapest fucking shit in this universe. Not even dirt is as cheap as ideas. Where do most devs get the ideas? Sitting on the toilet. The same fucking place they go to take a shit. They're that cheap. Nobody needs you to hurl your ideas at them. I'm harsh but you sound to me like the type of person who has yet to realize this.[/QUOTE]Ideas are actually really hard to have. That's why so few people have good ones. Also, protip for anyone recompiling the office map for SFM who wants to save about 20 minutes of hair-pulling: SFM's version of VBSP doesn't like the physics mesh or whatever on powerhouse_pencil.mdl, so you'll have to either recompile that or delete all instances of it before it'll compile properly.

[QUOTE=The Kins;49634993][B]Good[/B] Ideas are actually really hard to have. That's why so few people have good ones. [/QUOTE] Fixed [editline]29th January 2016[/editline] Just had a revelation from the Payload and Hunted thing, so for people who don't feel like reading and disagree with DohEntertainmen: Payload simplified The Hunted 4Teams complicates original 2Team format Thus fucking up game balance and game play, or rather the victory state. If there were some way to simplify the 4 teams format, then it could feasibly be balanced I guess.

[QUOTE=LondierX;49635020]Payload simplified The Hunted 4Teams complicates original 2Team format Thus fucking up game balance and game play, or rather the victory state. If there were some way to simplify the 4 teams format, then it could feasibly be balanced I guess.[/QUOTE] One of the important things we should remember about TF2's development is that it was a very precise, and methodical one. There was plenty of trial-and-error. So many things they added, removed, and reworked for later. In the end, after nine years of development, they had come up with one of the most simple, yet complicated multiplayer games ever to grace the internet. To discard all of that, and attempt to re-add things because of a latent curiosity for what is no longer, will only lead to the rediscovery of why it was removed, in the first place. One must be very wary in adding new things to the whole game, for the sake of "more fun", when there is a balance to pay attention to, here.

[QUOTE=John N. Workovi;49633634]For the SWAT Knight response, that was for the TF2 Demo with a shotgun, and if you recall that version of the Demo has the shields and various melees,and someone would have used the Shotgun with the Demoknight Loadout. I mentioned that as a interesting tidbit, not for the sake of the addition. Especially when some of the current classes in TF2C have only one complete loadout set adn a bit here and there for the other options. Demoman had shotguns in the earlier Team Fortress Games, but whatever. No DemoShotgun. If removing Class weakness is a problem, why not make everyone OP? On your Espionage Opinion concerning the Sidearms I suggested, I think that we could wait and see how it would play, and then add or remove the Sidearms. I am still for Sidearms for all though. It is one thing to reply to my posts, but another to do what amounts to "stamp something and go away while flipping the owner of that something the bird". THAT I have a Problem with. Hell, for my Grenade damage suggestion, I got 4 "Disagree" and 1 "Dumb", even though it would have been a good basis, not to mention that I also took account the possible spam and made it so that you can have lower or equal to 5, but the higher amount of your utility item the lower the damage is. Which is why I called one of them a brat. And I am sorry for that and the rage fueled sentence. Truce?[/QUOTE] Please, the single shotguns in previous TF are nothing but pea shooters, it's a redundant weapon that deal so little damage that it's more effective to try to melee them anyway. Every other classes always choose to use the Super shotgun as it is more effective. The only reason one would use the single shotgun is because they're Scouts. Also, :toadleave: and go back to removing kebab.

Ok I can see tensions are getting high so why not a silly video of a mercenary flipping out for no good reason in Gmod? [video=youtube;PdWtNosbIco]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdWtNosbIco&feature=youtu.be[/video] EDIT: so when should we get a VIP game mode to mess around in before going back to death match?

Alright, so in response to a few people up there arguing about gamemodes, I'll just throw in my two cents: [B]Four Team gamemodes:[/B] Yeah, it's true, at the moment, any four team map is about as stalemate-y as the Western Front, and frankly, it does make one wonder if it will ever work. But personally, I want it to work out, I want it to be playable, even if it will never be as simple or balanced as two-team maps. Part of that is mainly because I've been playing quite a bit of Pirates, Vikings and Knights II, and loved how well they pulled of a three-team game. (Granted, they had the advantage of having a mostly melee-based game, cutting down on the chaos, but still) I think the main thing that needs to be done is a complete overhaul of the gamemode. PVKII's territory mode (basically a multi-point KotH mode) did this sort of thing pretty well. Also, maps need to be actually balanced for the mode itself. (copy-pasting Hydro was just not a good idea) [B]VIP Escort:[/B] As some of you pointed out, Payload was basically Valve's replacement for the Hunted gamemode. I'll admit, I never played TFC, but I read somewhere that if the Civilian died, the Assassins immediately won, and so Valve decided that it relied too heavily on the skill of the Civvie player. I'm not sure myself, but didn't the TF2C devs experiment with a different type of Escort mode, one where BLU had to get X number of Civilians to the escape vehicle? I'm pretty sure I saw something like that in an earlier thread. My point is, VIP - much like Four teams - is nothing that can't be fixed with some changes to gameplay.

So remember how I was complaining about the shading in Office? Of course you do, I went for a whole page on that shit, but aside from that, I finally got it fixed: [t]http://i.imgur.com/TFkR79o.jpg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/jZPQweo.jpg[/t][t]http://i.imgur.com/U08D2Xi.jpg[/t] Yeah, the lighting in that hallway isnt the best, but I'll fix that in a bit. But aside from that, look at how beautiful that looks, the light casting onto the ground like a church. Plus a bonus as well, so not everything in this post is about lighting: [t]http://i.imgur.com/YYtl0Co.jpg[/t] Right now its supposed to be an actual "Entrance" into the building, aside from the storage room's entrances. Yeah I know, ugly as fuck right now, but soon enough I'll buff out those rather large scratches and make it look good. [sp]hopefully[/sp]

[QUOTE=Barbarossa;49635930][B]Four Team gamemodes:[/B] Yeah, it's true, at the moment, any four team map is about as stalemate-y as the Western Front, and frankly, it does make one wonder if it will ever work. But personally, I want it to work out, I want it to be playable, even if it will never be as simple or balanced as two-team maps. Part of that is mainly because I've been playing quite a bit of Pirates, Vikings and Knights II, and loved how well they pulled of a three-team game. (Granted, they had the advantage of having a mostly melee-based game, cutting down on the chaos, but still) I think the main thing that needs to be done is a complete overhaul of the gamemode. PVKII's territory mode (basically a multi-point KotH mode) did this sort of thing pretty well. Also, maps need to be actually balanced for the mode itself. (copy-pasting Hydro was just not a good idea)[/QUOTE] There really is no way to stop the chaos from happening, though. PVK's balance itself was very chaotic, and was only helped by the fact the game was even more simplified, in terms of gameplay. TF2 is made to be a simple game. Two teams, nine classes, and three weapons each, with one objective going against the other. More than that will always ruin the dynamic of the game, as you will have to think about multiple battles at once. [QUOTE=Barbarossa;49635930][B]VIP Escort:[/B] As some of you pointed out, Payload was basically Valve's replacement for the Hunted gamemode. I'll admit, I never played TFC, but I read somewhere that if the Civilian died, the Assassins immediately won, and so Valve decided that it relied too heavily on the skill of the Civvie player. I'm not sure myself, but didn't the TF2C devs experiment with a different type of Escort mode, one where BLU had to get X number of Civilians to the escape vehicle? I'm pretty sure I saw something like that in an earlier thread. My point is, VIP - much like Four teams - is nothing that can't be fixed with some changes to gameplay.[/QUOTE] Valve tried the very same thing, and they found that there was still difficulty in it's implementation, ultimately resulting in the removal, and moving on, as there was bounds of more content they could experiment, and that's with their team of a dozen or so people working for nine years.

[QUOTE=The Kins;49634993]Ideas are actually really hard to have. That's why so few people have good ones.[/QUOTE] If you want to make videogames and you have to rely on ideas guys, don't even bother. Feedback >>> ideas.

About Territory control. I like the idea of it, two teams fighting for areas for their employers. Rather on the fast paced side. I think that what Valve releaced in the Gun Mettle Update with the Powerhouse map that has 3 control Points, that is a simple fix to the Territory Control Issue. Just make 3cp areas of the maps. Do you think that the Main Game would benefit from 3cp per area Hydro? Tell me, and no flaming and /or trolling. Thank you in advance.

[QUOTE=John N. Workovi;49636149]About Territory control. I like the idea of it, two teams fighting for areas for their employers. Rather on the fast paced side. I think that what Valve releaced in the Gun Mettle Update with the Powerhouse map that has 3 control Points, that is a simple fix to the Territory Control Issue. Just make 3cp areas of the maps. Do you think that the Main Game would benefit from 3cp per area Hydro? Tell me, and no flaming and /or trolling. Thank you in advance.[/QUOTE] It would be interesting to experiment with. At least, more than simply adding new weapons to the game.

[QUOTE=DohEntertainmen;49636175]It would be interesting to experiment with. At least, more than simply adding new weapons to the game.[/QUOTE] Well we could test it out in TF2Classic, if there are map makers willing to make 3cp per area Territory Control Maps.

[QUOTE=John N. Workovi;49636149]Do you think that the Main Game would benefit from 3cp per area Hydro?.[/QUOTE] [t]http://files.gamebanana.com/img/ss/maps/52ed9c3294f44.jpg[/t] [t]http://files.gamebanana.com/img/ss/maps/52ed9c35dbf3c.jpg[/t] [t]http://files.gamebanana.com/img/ss/maps/52ed9c3449c41.jpg[/t] [url]http://tf2.gamebanana.com/maps/178900[/url] by Sergis

[QUOTE=DrPyspy;49636436][t]http://files.gamebanana.com/img/ss/maps/52ed9c3294f44.jpg[/t] [t]http://files.gamebanana.com/img/ss/maps/52ed9c35dbf3c.jpg[/t] [t]http://files.gamebanana.com/img/ss/maps/52ed9c3449c41.jpg[/t] [url]http://tf2.gamebanana.com/maps/178900[/url] by Sergis[/QUOTE] Ljubi te Ivke!!! <3 Did the person that made this map change put it in the TF2 map Workshop? After some interenet Searching, yes they did. Did the TF2C Devs put it in the game, or will they put it in the game? Anyway, I am glad for the information(which is my first sentance) and thank you for the links.

TBH I just think the game would be better off if 4CP was scrapped completely. So far it's showed that it's more frustrating than fun, it would take a lot of work to actually be balanced and isn't really worth it anyway, especially with the current player counts. I wouldn't mind it that much if it weren't so hard to find a normal 2CP server.

I think 4cp was implemented primarily as a way to test 4-team gamemodes but now we have 4koth so - we might as well remove it.

Why not use my idea i've posted previously for 4 team mode. Here's a short version of it: -One map with 3 areas: 2 sub areas and 1 main one. -2 of the 4 teams fight at each sub areas. RED and BLU in 1st one, GRN and YLW at 2nd one. -The main area is locked until both points at sub areas are captured. -The only way to win is to capture the point at the main area.

[QUOTE=KenjiKusanagi;49637173]Why not use my idea i've posted previously for 4 team mode. Here's a short version of it: -One map with 3 areas: 2 sub areas and 1 main one. -2 of the 4 teams fight at each sub areas. RED and BLU in 1st one, GRN and YLW at 2nd one. -The main area is locked until both points at sub areas are captured. -The only way to win is to capture the point at the main area.[/QUOTE] I might go and try prototyping that with some 4 team capture logic.

[QUOTE=TheRealRudy;49636703]i think it's something that's far better suited to return and test out once the mod has gained enough attraction and popularity[/QUOTE] Of course, the thing that must happen is [i]fixing all of the glitches accumulated by the mod that aren't in the game[/i], which are most assuredly apparent.

or there could just be maps that feature grn and ylw instead of blu and red...

For 4cp to really work, all routes need to go through a central point that can be locked down with sentries. Direct routes from point to point make it way too hard for the dominant team to defend.

the only real way to come up with good ideas is to play test, so lets play test on the A/D server, testing out 4 team maps.

[QUOTE=Rageguy;49638092]or there could just be maps that featured grn and ylw instead of blu and red...[/QUOTE] I don't really see the point in that. Of course, more options for map makers is just fine. Could be someone would rather use the aesthetics of GRN/YLW instead of RED/BLU for something. imo though, 4cp is never going to work, you have to defend against three teams while attacking as well, it's never going to work 4koth you can at least prioritize defending or attacking and your team won't be as split up; 4plr you don't need to prioritize whether you attack or defend as much so it'll probably work as well I think 4ctf where there's one briefcase that all four teams are trying to capture might work as well, but traditional ctf would be the horrible campfest it is normally

[QUOTE=Ott;49638328]For 4cp to really work, all routes need to go through a central point that can be locked down with sentries. Direct routes from point to point make it way too hard for the dominant team to defend.[/QUOTE] That basically ruins any sense of creativity, as you cannot have a direct binary route for soldiers to take the high-ground with, or demos to lob grenades towards. You have to always keep the four teams in mind, which only means to complicate things. This is the exact reason Valve abandoned the four-team dynamic, in the first place.

[QUOTE=iiboharz;49636891]I think 4cp was implemented primarily as a way to test 4-team gamemodes but now we have 4koth so - we might as well remove it.[/QUOTE] Should we remove regular Hydro too? Dustbowl? 2Fort?