CTF vs other objectives, ease of spectating, match pacing

[JustinPierce]

Continuing the discussion from Deployables?:

I think there are a lot of weaknesses to the traditional ctf mode. Defending and doing nothing isn't fun and if you add deployables, the busy work of setting up deployables isn't what a traditional fps player would be consider fun. In pubs, where the majority of people are idiots it can be difficult to coordinate your team to both defend their flag and attack the enemy flag. Not to mention spectating being a near impossible feat if half a team is playing defensively and doing complex, unpredictable things, while at the same time the other half is playing offensively and doing complex, unpredictable things, and the other team is doing the same, thats at least 4 complex unpredictable things each involving multiple players, each happening at the same time, all very important to the outcome of the game, seems like it would be near impossible to spectate and follow.

I think a singular objective is ideal in that it is simple for strangers to all work together towards the single objective and it is easier to spectate and follow. In most traditional sports, there is a single objective, a ball of some kind. I think the objective moving is one of the things critical to the success of the ball. How the game changes if the ball is close to a goal helps create climaxes. The 3 singular, mobile objectives for fps i'm aware of is some modes of ctf, a ball which is like a flag, but you can pass and maybe shoot it, and i guess i could call it mobile capture points, like the push carts in tf2. I think the objective being greatly effected by netcode, like projectiles are, would be poor design, so i'm generally against a ball objective in fps. But i think either of the other two could work great. If designed with avoiding classic pitfalls like stalemates.

Yeah there's definitely pros and cons.

I think I simply disagree about defense being boring -- maybe it's not your cup of tea (which is ok, you can play other roles), but I can definitely have fun on defense. I guess it's worth pointing out that the "traditional FPS player" isn't the only kind of player I'm making the game for. I do want to create something new for FPS vets -- something they haven't experienced before -- something to bring excitement back to the genre. At the same time, I think I can appeal to people who might otherwise be bored of FPS games. I'm not interested in making an incremental change to the existing FPS model just to appease FPS fans with an optimized version of what they already like -- I want to find a new kind of FPS and it will require a lot of experimentation. My job is to discover things that people didn't even know they wanted. I'm not there yet -- this will be an ongoing effort.

I'm also not anti-downtime -- I think it can be really important for pacing. Some people might like the constant high speed pacing of a game like quake 3, but I think most people need some small breaks during a match so they can gather themselves, think, and plan strategies. Especially when the matches last ~30 minutes, smart pacing can help make sure the game feels less repetitive. In terms of pacing, I'm looking to create peaks and valleys instead of a constant barrage. I think Counter-Strike, MOBAs, and RTS games do this well. It also helps for spectating because it gives casters time to explain things.

I considered a single objective in order to make it easier to spectate, but ended up deciding against it. While it's definitely easier to spectate, I don't think that necessarily means it's more interesting to spectate. With a single objective, I think the game becomes a lot more monotonous. You spawn, race toward the objective, die, and repeat until the match is over. I think that's less interesting to play and it's also less interesting to spectate. CTF can facilitate big plays and more interesting dynamics. The game changes depending on the status of the flags -- both flags at base, one team's flag is taken, both teams' flags are taken. This mixup is both exciting for players and spectators. Ease of spectating can be addressed with spectator tools, but exciting and dynamic play is core to the game.

[PrettzL]

In pubs, where the majority of people are idiots it can be difficult to coordinate your team to both defend their flag and attack the enemy flag.

Pubs with game sizes that are large, 7+ players per team, I could agree with this. But this is 5 a side, each player will have a major impact on the match.

pitfalls like stalemates.

What's so bad about standoffs and stalemates? That's a sign that there's a good defense going and that the attacking team needs to change their strategy up in order to succeed.

Not to mention spectating being a near impossible

Spectating a match should be a long term concern for sure, if a match cannot be focused on by one person who's talking the play by plays of the match it's not ever going to be interesting to watch for an audience. (That's a big thing for eSports, but that'll take care of itself in time.) Like @atavax said, singular focus promotes ebb and flow of a match.

If there's a line of scrimmage easily defined it makes for a more cohesive team effort- and even if a team isn't coordinated they can at least contribute- and if they perceive where their team is failing and opt to bolster and contribute (rather than frag) their team will succeed even more. These are the kind of situations that need incentives that are difficult to nail down in team oriented FPS games.

[atavax]

I don't think defense in general is boring. i think lack of interaction with the enemy in a multiplayer game is boring. You play a multiplayer game to play against people. You watch competitions to watch people compete. Whether you do nothing while in defense at your base or you build deployables at your base, you are just waiting for the exciting part, when you fight the enemy. The most boring part of a SC2 match is the beginning when neither player is doing anything to the other. The first 5 minutes of a SC2 match, the announcers might say 2 sentences detailing what is happening in this match, and then spend the rest of the time talking about the current game's meta or the players or themselves personally, because nothing exciting is happening in the actual match because the players haven't interacted yet. Also, CTF isn't some new revolutionary mode. Its one of the oldest most used game modes in FPS...

I think mobile objectives mix things up and are desirable, i just don't think you need more then 1. If there was 1 flag in the middle, Does it not change things whether its still in the middle or at A teams base or B's? I'm not anti downtime either.

[JustinPierce]

I guess I'm confused because these seem contradictory to me:

i think lack of interaction with the enemy in a multiplayer game is boring.

I'm not anti downtime either.

Like, I'm ok with there being times where a defensive player is not interacting with the enemy (what I'd call downtime). Would it be boring to spectate that player? Sure, but there are other players to spectate.

What kind of downtime do you like?

Whether you do nothing while in defense at your base or you build deployables at your base, you are just waiting for the exciting part, when you fight the enemy. The most boring part of a SC2 match is the beginning when neither player is doing anything to the other.

Yeah, at the beginning of an AoT match, a couple players might be setting up defense but won't the rest be doing something else?

If there was 1 flag in the middle, Does it not change things whether its still in the middle or at A teams base or B's?

Where the flag is in a 1 flag CTF definitely changes the dynamic, but the same is true for 2 flag CTF -- 2 flag CTF also has the extra dimensions I mentioned, which are lost in 1 flag CTF.

[atavax]

A short downtime after a an exciting touchdown drive in football or after every 15 minutes of play in football, or after a successful bomb in cs or respawn times after dieing creating a lull after a big fight is perfectly reasonable pacing..

Waiting in your base for the enemy to come isn't downtime after excitement. Its at the very beginning of the game that isn't needed and is just boring. It doesn't automatically happen after a big engagement or a cool drive or after a prolonged period of play. You don't have control when it happens most of the time, its up to the team's strategies and tactics, it could frequently happen for a long time. Are you going to balance the game when people might come up with deep and interesting strategies that might involve more then typical down time? Someone comes up with a cool new tactic, you nerf it, sorry, that tactic on average created 5 minutes more down time then normal per match, had to nerf it to oblivion.

Waiting in your base for the enemy is also very different because it isn't actually down time because you aren't guaranteed that nothing will happen. So you need pay attention. Its like waiting for something to cook and having to watch attentively to get it off before it burns but after its cooked. Its very different then when you know for a fact that in the next 2 minutes, nothing exciting is going to happen. Watching something cook for 2 minutes and then taking it off or setting the timer for 2 minutes and then taking something off, which is a better experience?

[JustinPierce]

Waiting in your base for the enemy to come isn't downtime after excitement. Its at the very beginning of the game that isn't needed and is just boring.

So what are your thoughts on Counter-Strike? CS involves a lot of waiting. As a CT, you're spending a lot of time at an empty bombsite in case the Ts come. Even as a T, it's foolish to rush in every time so you're spending a lot of time sneaking around or simply waiting to confuse the enemy instead of directly interacting with the enemy.

Personally, I don't mind it at all -- I think that sort of downtime adds interesting tension and helps create those peaks and valleys. I really think the pacing is important to Counter-Strike's strategic depth and I don't think CS would be improved if you added quick respawns to minimize downtime.

I think that's another reason I like 2 flag CTF -- some players will naturally prefer the more varied pace of defense while others will prefer the more consistent push of offense -- and for people like me, I can enjoy both at different times and mix it up. If you don't want to play defense, you don't have to. People like me will gladly step in. It means the game can be enjoyed by a wider variety of players.

The timer creates a natural incentive for the offense to make plays (which ends the downtime for defense) so I'm not too worried about it. If for some reason defense isn't getting any action, wouldn't they be better off venturing outside the base so they can be more help to their team?

[atavax]

Ah, God, what a short question that could invoke a very lengthy reply.

What do i think about Counter-Strike? Counter Strike is built around the concept of very unforgiving gameplay. That very unforgiving equals very hardcore and the delusion of high skill. The short ttk and single life reflects this very unforgiving nature. The short ttk and single life creates the need for slow pace, it also creates suspense, that at any moment you could die almost instantly and pretty much milks as much as possible from the unforgiving formula. That if you were sitting in your base building a structure the suspense and strategy would be significantly less because it would simply serve as a distraction. One of my main frustrations with CS was the long downtime, while i guess competitively it might of added suspense, in pub play, it was a ton of boredom, especially if you died early and someone on the team that needs to actively do the objective either is unwilling to do it or afk. Competitively i would say there was far too much build up for tiny spurts of combat.

[Seahonk]

I think the talk about deployables provides a nice opportunity here. Maybe the battle over defensive equipment could give players something to do other than chase the flag/sit in base. Maybe things could be balanced to encourage a "spy vs. engineer" meta where in addition to chasing the enemy flag and defending your own, you have a player managing your turrets and AoE devices, and a player undermining the enemy's.

I definitely feel that roles should be situational, and it should be easy to trade spots with another player on the fly, but with this setup there could be 5 "soft" roles: point defense, chaser, "engineer," "spy," and capture. Each has its own exciting moments and downtime depending on the tempo of the game.