@shotaway on a philosophical level sure it’s dishonest to an extent but on a practical level it’s like your mechanic throwing in a free oil change after you paid him for a tune up, realistically speaking there should be no complaints
Information about Alto
i > u
Posts made by Alto
in relation to both paid divisions and round-robin
make all RR divisions paid + prize pool > include a deposit ($15 per main?) in addition to div fee > players lose their deposit if teams die
enable paid RR divs while also disincentivizing team deaths, 2 birds 1 stone
anyone who’s arguing against the removal of the crack shot on the B needs to lose their human rights immediately
the amount of pearl-clutching in this thread my god
this is only tangentially related to div size but i didn’t really realize that until i had typed up most of this because it’s been on my mind for a while
i don’t have the knowhow for the methodology to prove this statistically and i wouldn’t really have the drive to do so even if i did, so you’re gonna have to trust me when i say that a significant amount of frustration re: swiss comes from the fact that RGL runs an odd number of matches
anecdotally speaking, six weeks is generally a decent amount of time for the general structure of a division to form given the average size of divisions. further, due to how the bottom of playoffs tends to be around the 4-3 mark in the higher divs, it means the large mass of 3-3 teams swiss helps to guarantee in week 6 have an inordinately large effect on playoff seedings, because of all those 3-3 teams, some of those should be 3-4 and some should 4-3 but 6 weeks isn’t enough time for the stratification of those teams by MP to be accurate (even if the general “shape” of the div is). so the top 3-3 team playing “up” a record gets screwed, the bottom 3-3 team playing “down” gets boosted, and within the inter-3-3 matches you could have two theoretical 4-3 teams playing and two theoretical 3-4 teams playing, leading to some cases where worse teams end up making short term gains over better teams. an 8th week would correct a lot this.
i don’t mean to say that 6 weeks is better than 7 weeks, as each week helps to further align the standings to their “true” form, but if the marginal gain in accuracy from week 6>7 is x, the marginal from week 7 to week 8 would probably be closer to 2x. that would continue further with 8>9 being something like .5x and 9>10 being around x.
more in line with the topic of the thread, increasing div size to the point that the playoff cutoff is less near the middle of the pack and closer to the top (to the point that lower 5-2s miss playoffs) you eliminate a lot of this frustration, but i’d still be in favor of increasing season length to 8 weeks for swiss divs regardless
@pajaro it’s not really that simple
the map files we play on are not the true map files. when a map maker makes a map in Hammer, they save that map on their own computer and it’s the only true version that exists. we can call this the “parent” map. the map files that we put on servers are derivations of that parent map, or a “child” map. you /can/ load up a child map in hammer but there’s going to be a decent amount of weird issues if you try to make any meaningful changes because hammer’s reverse-engineering the parent map off of the child map.
it happened with ashville because the original creator of ashville passed off the original parent map, but mapmakers tend to be very reluctant to hand those out since it’s like handing over control of an intellectual property to someone else.
i’m not 100% on the process because i don’t actually work with maps directly, but i know gobitoe was having a ton of problems related to this when he was working on lakeside_pro. that being said, we have pro badwaters and lakeside_r, so i don’t know exactly how the process works when it comes to valve maps, but i’d imagine doing it on a custom map isn’t that simple.
the issue with threads like this is that most of the commenters are people who have been playing comp for years and are kinda bored with the map(because theyve been playing it for years)
especially these days, tf2 is made up of a lot more than the few invite players that have been playing for so long, and to have a a koth and a payload that are played every season is a very important thing for lower level players to learn how to play the game better
i know that personally, learning the flow of payload through playing upward repeatedly helped me tremendously, and same thing with product
This is a solid point, but here’s a counterargument: ashville’s been played every RGL season without being swapped out (as it should be IMO), as has swiftwater. No one’s calling out swiftwater out to be rotated despite having been played every season of rgl (although it wasn’t played in ugc s25, the last real ugc season before rgl, or in s22) because of reasons jacob mentioned earlier in the thread: the map is dynamic and still seeing changes even after all these years of being played. Swiftwater and ashville are IMO the maps that should be staples because they teach you more about how to play PL, koth, and HL as a whole due to their fluidity rather than upward and product which teach new players to fear sniper and be hyper-passive because those maps punish aggression unless your team is operating on a high level.
Consistency is good, but to counter @scaredy-bat’s point on when a map should be rotated out: if you’re only playing the same 7/8 maps every season and never have to learn new maps, you don’t actually learn how to play the game mode, you learn how to play the map. UGC would have 2-3 maps rotate every season and while I think that may have been indexing too far in the other direction, going from swift/borneo/steel to badwater/barnblitz/gpit and gully to process every season meant you couldn’t just rely on stock strategies every season and actually had to learn how the “theory” of the game mode applied to each map individually.
I’ve made a similar point in the past, but considering the relatively low stakes of this league, adhering to a ‘best maps at all possible times no questions asked’ policy in spite of poll numbers showing a large amount of players wanting maps to switch out doesn’t make a lot of sense.
also edit @scaredy-bat: i don’t know how meaningful playoff map picks are either way, since upward may have been played 5 times in season 8 main playoffs but it (or ashville, fwiw) wasn’t played a single time in s9 playoffs. playoff map picks tend to be extremely context dependent, like this season we had ashville 1st banned against us all 3 games and we banned upward all of our games, so that alone removes those two maps from half of the 6 total playoff matches. teams being good/bad at certain maps and aware of that doesn’t lend credence to a map being good or bad, necessary or rotatable either way imo.
blease understand i’m not willing to die on the borneo hill here
i just want upward gone and borneo is probably the most realistic way to make that happen next season
upward is a good map
upward has considerable flaws as map (every point is ridiculously sniper dominant, last is a shitshow even without the dispenser block, aggressive forward holds on 2nd leave attackers with 0 options unless defenders make a mistake)
upward has been played in:
UGC seasons: 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13* 14 15* 16* 17 18 19* 20* 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 (* denotes multiple plays in a season)
RGL seasons: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
upward was first played in rgl s3 on 5/16/11
the current date is 8/21/21
the only time upward was not played was in ugc s7, which was a summer season without playoffs and only had meme maps
it has been more than a decade since the last time upward was not played in a season without playoffs
there has been a growing number of people asking for borneo than in years past
the league would be better off playing a single [one (1)] season without upward in the rotation
dogmatically sticking to poll results until the end of time does not a good league make
another third opinion, this one with feeling:
swapping out swiftwater instead of upward for another PL like has been suggested is beyond fucking stupid
rotate out upward for borneo
it gives the map a break
it either lets a new meta develop on borneo or silences proponents of the map once and for all
i can stop making these threads
thanks for reading
spu need not respond to this thread
i don’t need borneo to win i just need upward to lose
millstone, gully, vanguard, rapids, synthetic, hell even sunnycoast would be tolerable
just give me a season without upward
normal taco bell is extremely solid for the price but taco bell breakfast is beyond goated
anyone who eats burger king should be sterilized
gg garbagemenn, great season!
@Alto Ask and you shall recieve. via windows paint.
excellent, thank you.
Isn’t that still going to be the case in RR, as an inverse of the “top teams will have the easiest schedule because they can’t play themselves” thing that Tua pointed out?
yes, it’ll be the case in RR but it shouldn’t be the case in swiss, as bad teams in swiss will presumably play other bad teams leading to lower opponent MP (OMP), whereas good teams play other good teams and thus accumulate more OMP. there is still some basis for it (if you say there are 6 top teams and 6 bottom teams, a top team has a 6/11 chance to play a bottom team vs a 5/11 top team and vice versa), but it shouldn’t be as pronounced. it’s very difficult to draw any hard data from this because ultimately teams don’t control their schedules and good teams will win regardless of who they play and bad teams will lose regardless of who they play, but you can likely use it as a basis to investigate other trends. I was going to say something about asian being an outlier here, but apparently their match against :3 wasn’t counted and they should have 71.67.
you have to be careful with this stuff though because nothing here is conclusive and it’s very easy to use the data to support an argument that may not be right. that being said, you could choose to interpret the data here (combined with the fact that everyone in adv other than :3 was within a game of each other) to come to the conclusion that since making playoffs or missing it were a matter of one game, the fact that there’s a slightly higher point total to the bottom implies that teams who were “unlucky” (played 4 top teams and 3 bottom teams leading to a higher OMP) missed out on playoffs over the team who were “lucky” (played 3 top teams and 4 bottoms for a lower OMP). that’s a sound argument but not necessarily a correct one; you’d have to go and define top and bottom teams and then actually compare individual team schedules.
and even if you can confirm that, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. the best team in the div could get “lucky” and play 2 top teams/5 bad teams because they happened to catch bad teams when they were relatively over-ranked by swiss, and still end up rolling the div because they were the best team. stuff like this is (really) fun to look and conjecture over but not nearly as indicative of trends as it may seem, with no offense meant to tua for making it.
rr good swiss bad
personally i think this graph becomes more meaningful if you order the teams in seeding order so that you can see where the trends naturally fall with placement rather than needing to mentally reconstruct everything, like the top teams having the least mp against becomes naturally apparent that way and you can actually see outliers
really cool to see this though, thanks!
i know most main engis barely qualify as single celled organisms but yall need to stop putting your teles on the window on 2nd i got 3 telefrags this week and i wasn’t even trying for them
gg to mentally challenger, close as h*ck
edit: I just re-read the OP, and I missed the point with what you were going for in terms of the fast cap time, fast respawns and large amount of packs. That being said, everything just seems too much. I might’ve been a little too conservative with some of my suggestions, but the instant cap on low ground/9 packs per side/4 second respawns aren’t going to lead to healthy gameplay, imo. It’d be worth testing some timings different than traditional maps, for sure, but even as someone who likes to buck the system I think it’s a little too extreme.
Just took a look at it, it’s pretty rough but I’d be interested in seeing how some of it plays with some touchups.
For the love of god, raise the spawn floor. I get the map is small and you can artificially increase spawn timers by increasing the time taken to walk out of spawn, but why am I taking fall damage to leave spawn?
If I leave the main spawn door, there should be a way to quickly make it onto batts without having to do a prop jump on the barrel on the right. The raised pathway on the left side of the spawn, and the need to go down, jump up, and then take a spiral up to the batts on left side is also somewhat tedious.
2a. The jump into vent should probably be a little easier. I might just be ass, but it feels needlessly difficult.
On the topic of the vent, it can’t stay as it is. A direct dropdown into the center of point with no way to see anyone inside of it other than by camping the bottom of it leads to poor gameplay. If you really want to keep it, I’d recommend getting rid of the 90 degree turn at the end and maybe putting some kind of transparent shutter on it? Feels really wonky, all things considered.
The point caps ludicrously fast. Three seconds at x1? It’s basically unplayable. Combine that with the lower cap zone (which can’t even be shot at??) and you’re basically asking for control to flip every 10 seconds. Increase the cap time to like 10 seconds minimum, increase the size of the point, and remove the lower capture zones.
I can’t speak to 6s, but something needs to be done about this sightline if you want the map to even get tested in HL. You can’t rush a sniper, you realistically can’t bomb him, and there’s such massive runups for spy that they can’t get on him either. I don’t know what you could do without drastically changing the entire map, but it’s a problem.
There’s way, way, way, way, way, waaaaaaay too much health. Each side has 3 smalls (on mid too, so there are 6 small packs on mid?), 3 mediums, and 3 fulls?? Product has 4 mediums and 1 small on both sides, and you’ve got almost 4x that. The only full kit on a koth is on lakeside, and that’s in contested ground. My suggestion? Get rid of the smalls on mid other than the one by the crate, turn the medium in the left shutter into a small, turn the full kit on right side into a medium, delete the other fulls, and delete the medium on left batts. That leaves you with 2 mediums and 2 small for each side, which feels far more reasonable.
Get rid of the window above vent. It’s cute, but it gives defense a laughable amount of power.
The raised ground that the ramps on the point lead to strike me as potential pain points with how difficult they might be to clear out, considering that other than batts every single approach to point puts you on low ground. Difficult to say anything without playing it, though.
General mapping advice, watch your walls. Places where you can get caught on when strafing along a wall add nothing but frustration to a player’s experience. There’s not too many of them, but places like here and both sides of the shutter here stand out a little.
It might seem like I’m just shittalking it, but I think the smallness of the map and the wideness of the point could, at best case, play like a better of version of product. Interested to see where you take it.
upward was played for the first time in HL on Jan 7, 2011 and excepting ugc s7 (which was a no-playoffs joke summer season filled with meme maps) it has not missed a single season in a fucking decade
the poll can eat my ass, no map where dealing with a dispenser block is a crucial part of pushing is good enough to warrant a decade of continuous play
haha hey guys what if we took established koth map design theory where ‘the point is the highest risk highest reward area on the map’ and flipped it on its head??? so now the point is the highest risk, lowest reward area on the map and you’re rewarded for playing as far away from it as possible?
haha nah fuck having objective standards one time i flanked behind them and got a 3k (it was epic)
on the real talk though if you want to play a koth map that encourages flanking and also punishes you for being in the same zip code as the point leading to degenerative gameplay of 2 teams either mexican standoff-ing each other from opposite sides of the map or complete whirlpool theory chaos, synthetic does everything ramjam does and better while also not having dogshit fps and a map maker that would rather make a christmas version with exploding presents instead of fixing the actual issues on the map
if a single one of u mouthbreathers complains about ‘sniper op’ tomorrow i will personally wage righteous jihad against your bloodline until the end of time, the work defcon put in to making sniper manageable on this latest version is herculean
some things you should keep in mind instead:
- does the raised point help (by limiting sightlines) or hurt (by giving defenders potential height advantage) the gameplay flow of the map?
subpoint: what’s the strength vs. difficulty for holding on the point vs. holding behind it? traditional HL logic suggests that holding on the point is stronger but more difficult to pull off. how does that dynamic play here?
- related: does the increased tunnel height (as a result of the point increase) make forcing a defensive soldier out of your own tunnel unreasonably difficult due to having height disad?
- do the geometry changes to concrete that make backing out more difficult have any major repercussions on kiting ubers?
- how do the new catwalks (on left outside of tunnel) affect gameplay? is it viable option for a fast combo push?
- i can’t believe i’m typing this, but after running around on the map and ringing in a scrim on it the idea ran through my head: do the nerfed sightlines + raised height of mid make it too difficult to push point? have we finally reached the point where we need to buff a map’s sightlines?
- how does the redesigned first floor feel? does it give attackers viable options to reach point and rotate safely?
- does the raised point help (by limiting sightlines) or hurt (by giving defenders potential height advantage) the gameplay flow of the map?
In My Opinion For An Ideal Payload:
- No throwaway points. Each point can defended to some degree.
- No single point is dominated by one class.
- Average Time is around 7-8 minutes long. The average time on Upward is 7:57, and Vigil’s is 7:01 from sand’s spreadsheet.
Points 1 and 3 are in direct competition with each other. Vhalin and sean, the guys who made borneo, had a shitton of testing on rushingriver as a map where ‘every point could be held’ and people were really supportive of that until every point was “defended to some degree” and someone capped in 22 minutes. The only way I could see all three of these being upheld is with a map shorter than 4 points, which isn’t necessarily a problem (we tested a 3 point PL map one time, daybreak or eclipse was the name?) but it breaks with conventional logic.