How CTW will be ruined. by Doppelganger_ December 30, 2014 at 5:12 AM UTC

Tell one of the Map Devs so that they know what to code for CTW maps.

Or it will turn out to be the best gamemode Avicus has ever had, it will be so good that hits new heights in popularity.

We can all make assumptions..truth is, none of us how well it will turn out until it happens.

Don't write it off, it hasn't even come out yet.

Or it will turn out to be the best gamemode Avicus has ever had, it will be so good that hits new heights in popularity.

We can all make assumptions..truth is, none of us how well it will turn out until it happens.

Don't write it off, it hasn't even come out yet.

This also can achieved, if you make no build regions around and above the map. As long the plug-in doesn't supports this, you'll need these non-build regions. Other than that good suggestion. I'll add this to my map as long it isn't supported plugin sided.

I've actually been wanting this for a while now, nothing has been done to implement it though. Hopefully your suggestion will be a reminder.
Is this just for CTW or all Nebula game modes?

Map Devs don't code. It's the developers that code.

I was talking about the YAML for certain maps.

I disagree. Restricting gameplay only worsens the situation. As the current YAML module stands, we allow limitless skybridging; giving freedom to players. Do you really want players restricted to certain areas to bridge? It just adds a whole different aspect to the gameplay; encouraging players to skybridge.

Yes but limitless sky bridging every match does not allow for other strategies and de motivates the minority of people who defend. No matter how high you build a wall or a pit a sky bridge will always get over it. Skybriding every match gets boring and stale quickly as it is almost always just a race to get the highest sky bridge up..

So you're saying we should removed an aspect of the gameplay?

Actually, how does it "de-motivate" defenders? It would instead, encourage it...

No I'm not saying to remove it. I'm saying to limit it so it's not as over powered and people will try other strategies.

Also it demotivates defenders because they know no matter how high they build a wall a person can get over it. So what's the point of defending if your attempts will be futile.

No I'm not saying to remove it. I'm saying to limit it so it's not as over powered and people will try other strategies.

Also it demotivates defenders because they know no matter how high they build a wall a person can get over it. So what's the point of defending if your attempts will be futile.

Incredibly high skybridging isn't really that useful for CTW. You gotta remember, once you get the wool you have to get back up to your skybridge, which is a hard thing to do with defenders shooting at you.

You know, I imagine that they will be testing them before they completely release it for a reason.

Is the testing public?

Is the testing public?

You know, I imagine that they will be testing them before they completely release it for a reason.

I will look into adding build limits.

Map Devs don't code. It's the developers that code.

Height limit is part of YAML afaik.

Really? Can you show me?

I am horrible at YAML, but I am pretty sure you can set regions.

Im pretty sure that is XML.
While placing blocks outside the map is good for attackers, deffenders can simply build a higher and wider deffence? Best of both worlds

I Think That CTW Will Be A Good Popularity Booster For Avicus Loads Of People Play CTW In Many Other Servers Its Normally The Best Gamemode Ive Seen In A Long Time Im All For CTW I Think Its Gonna Be Great The Only Bad Thing About CTW Is The Maps But I Trust The Map Makers On This Server They Always Make The Best Maps Its Really Wrong Of You To Say That CTW WIll Be Ruined But I Guess We All Have Opinions   - Jess :)

It differentiates the gameplay here from that at vercast.
U-bridging is not a term in overcast, because their plugin allows map makers to add limits around the map.
Extremely high sky bridging has the same fate too, most map makers choose not to allow it.

This server is not Overcast. Can you stop trying to make it like it.

huh? we don't use xml

Well you do have a point maybe talk to MAP DEV s or other staff about this problem ! :)

It differentiates the gameplay here from that at vercast.
U-bridging is not a term in overcast, because their plugin allows map makers to add limits around the map.
Extremely high sky bridging has the same fate too, most map makers choose not to allow it.

This server is not Overcast. Can you stop trying to make it like it.

Well, you should wait and see what happens, who knows.

I will say overcast did get it right. It's tried and true over there so are we going to discard a possibly game enhancing build restriction just because they did it first?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^↑↑↑↑↑^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆^^^^^^^^^^^

Just because I am suggesting one thing that Overcast has doesn't mean this server will be Overcast.

Even if gameplay is similar to overcast there are many other factors that will differentiate from that server (maps, administration, community, the feel of pvp etc.).


Also I suggested this idea because pretty much every single nebula match today is a race to see who can get the quickest sky bridge up and the other team has no choice, no way of defending but to try and either:

• Build a bridge of their own and connect it up to the opposing teams sky bridge and the map descends into a fight for the sky bridge (which takes away from the feel of the map
• Get one or two people to counterrush

This after a while becomes stale and repetitive. I'm merely trying to better this network and if it means it becomes a little bit more similar to Overcast. Then so be it. I would rather have that then boring and stale gameplay.

It makes up a core part of nebula and makes the gameplay more unique.

It actually only takes a few lines in YAML. I'm not sure what the impact of adding that would be on gameplay though.

Perhaps you could add how to do it the Yaml documentation or make a thread about it so more map makers will be thinking about it?

There are some map makers that are thinking about This, but most likely they disagree with you and don't add This to their maps.

So pretty much nothing can be done..........

Can you explain how it detracts from the gameplay?

Please refer to back to my replies to Fluey and Detty on pages 2 and 4 respectively. Also I have a question to ask you. Can you explain how it doesn't detract from gameplay?

Well I've read through the discussion. I would think it's just another challenge for defending. Doesn't it make it exceedingly easy if there are limited paths (like 2-3 at most?) to retrieve the wool?

I'm not trying to defend either side, I'm just bringing up what seems logical to me. I have never played a game of CTW so I am just getting any idea of how it functions.

OK my turn,

IMO a limit has to be somewhere, I'm taking it that wool rooms have protection for attackers, eg. you can't sit in your own wool or build there, like OCN. All you have to do is bridge 200 in the air and just water drop into wool room and because defenders can't go into own wool room, they cant do much. Sure they can shoot you but you'll just fall into your own water. Also in regards to sides, this can go either way but i reckon it should be limited so each team isnt trying to outflank each other 100 blocks wide of the map.                                                                                                                                                                                       Just what I think, Nathan

Well I've read through the discussion. I would think it's just another challenge for defending. Doesn't it make it exceedingly easy if there are limited paths (like 2-3 at most?) to retrieve the wool?

I'm not trying to defend either side, I'm just bringing up what seems logical to me. I have never played a game of CTW so I am just getting any idea of how it functions.

I haven't played much CTW; only in scrimmages and a few times on OCN. However, sneaking along the edge of a map is, in my opinion, a really useful tactic for tight situations, at least in DTM. It isn't that hard to defend against...just place buttons along the side..., but players should be able to build at least one block into the void. I agree that players shouldn't be able to build massive, 200 block high skybridges, or 100 blocks out into the void, but we should at least have some way to sneak besides tunneling. Again, I don't have much CTW experience, but this is based on my past experience in DTM.

YA as people previosly stated, CTW is a special case. CTW needs to be limited in order for better gameplay. I mean, if someone can bridge from one enemy wool room to another with out restrictions, it would pretty much suck. What makes CTW good is that it is challenging. ITs like capture the flag. Capture the flag would be ruined if there was no limits right?

I haven't played much CTW; only in scrimmages and a few times on OCN. However, sneaking along the edge of a map is, in my opinion, a really useful tactic for tight situations, at least in DTM. It isn't that hard to defend against...just place buttons along the side..., but players should be able to build at least one block into the void. I agree that players shouldn't be able to build massive, 200 block high skybridges, or 100 blocks out into the void, but we should at least have some way to sneak besides tunneling. Again, I don't have much CTW experience, but this is based on my past experience in DTM.

I don't agree with you here, you said players should be able to build out one block, I disagree. This is not the point of a CTW, CTW are on the main paths, not on the side of them. In that case what's the point of having paths? Feel free to 'argue' with me about this ;).

I would think added one block out should only be implemented in certain maps or under certain of the way the map plays and should only be implemented after thorough testing.

I don't agree with you here, you said players should be able to build out one block, I disagree. This is not the point of a CTW, CTW are on the main paths, not on the side of them. In that case what's the point of having paths? Feel free to 'argue' with me about this ;).

"In that case what 's the point of having paths?"

You could ask the same for DTM, or any other gamemode. Sure, you could sneak slowly along the edge, but if someone were to rush on the main path successfully, they'd beat you. Also, of course you wouldn't be able to build anywhere. But there are some useful tactics, like clutching to the side to prevent a death, then speeding off the enemy. You probably wouldn't be able to sneak too close to the wool room like that though. You have some good points there.

If find it game breaking actually, because you can spend 30 minutes setting up an awesome defence only for it too be beaten by someone rushing along the sides. Also, if you can't build a long the side, how can you clutch? ;)

Thinking of a compromise... 
How about noone can place blocks on the side of the walls near the wool room but you can if it's not near the wool room and noone can place blocks way above the wool room either (with a height limit) 
so 1. If someone is building on the side of the map then they're gonna have to come up eventually where players can see them going to the wool room
and 2. Lower Skybridges, but they can't directly be under the wool room

The first one I'd exactly what I said. The second one, if you minecart down, you can actually travel a relatively far distance midair if you do it right.

OK my turn,

IMO a limit has to be somewhere, I'm taking it that wool rooms have protection for attackers, eg. you can't sit in your own wool or build there, like OCN. All you have to do is bridge 200 in the air and just water drop into wool room and because defenders can't go into own wool room, they cant do much. Sure they can shoot you but you'll just fall into your own water. Also in regards to sides, this can go either way but i reckon it should be limited so each team isnt trying to outflank each other 100 blocks wide of the map.                                                                                                                                                                                       Just what I think, Nathan

There's a difference between in extra challenge for defenders and an exercise in futility.

In CTW with 200 block high sky bridges you can't shoot people off and as Nath said you can just bridge to the wool and just water down. Also we must also consider the fact that defenders have the least motivation to do what they do.

• They very rarely get appreciation.
• What they do is very boring and menial but a necessity  (digging pits, building walls and generally just digging stuff out).
• You don't get the same thrill as you do when you rush when you are defending.
  
  

So do defenders really need another challenge, as to counter an impossibly high sky bridge where if they shoot people they will simply respawn come back and keep continuing.

Hypothetically if there are 15 defenders versus 10 attackers on a sky bridge even if the defenders shoot them off they can just keep coming and coming, so the attackers win 9 times out of 10. Like Zombies in Call of Duty.

I understand defenders do what they do by choice but do they really need another challenge?

YA as people previosly stated, CTW is a special case. CTW needs to be limited in order for better gameplay. I mean, if someone can bridge from one enemy wool room to another with out restrictions, it would pretty much suck. What makes CTW good is that it is challenging. ITs like capture the flag. Capture the flag would be ruined if there was no limits right?

Anyhow the crux of the matter is that ctw maps need some restriction in order to play wall.

"you can just bridge to the wool and just water down"

You seem to be forgetting the other part of CTW, which is the part where you return the wool to your bass.

Assuming you have some evidence of this claim?

Pillaring up. You can just build a wall around you as you are pillaring up.

And even once you get it with 5 or more people getting all it is is a matter of charging through the defences together or tunnelling back.

Pillaring up. You can just build a wall around you as you are pillaring up. 

That doesn't work if something is defended to a basic extent.

And even once you get it with 5 or more people getting all it is is a matter of charging through the defences together or tunnelling back.

If you have 5 or more people actually working as an offensive team, a skybridge is redundant.

They don't have to work together. They all just have to scatter around. Esp. with wool room gear. And even if they fail they can just come back again because of the skybridge. Rinse and repeat.

Ivycode, I have a question. Could you please check out my friend's ban appeal, we really want to play together and he misses the avicus alot. His name is mineblocker213

Yeah, good point.

If we are trying to restrict this. Then how are the defenders going to learn new defending tatics? Its a bit absurd to do this. We need to let loose. There always a balance.

Give examples "New defending tactics." Unlike rushing there's very little to be discovered

 Also tell me how it's absurd when defending against 200 block high skybridging and 100 block wide u-bridges is an exercise in futility.

Given the fact that we want to be original, we don't want to do this. CTW are great. People need to learn how to defend against skybridgers. I have seen plenty of high sky bridges fail. Finding new tatics are easy for a small percentage of our player. But it acts as a ripple. Give it a try. There is always a positive to balance out the negatives.

Explain what this has to do with originality?

I'm going to quote kycraft from this thread also refer to my reply to Detty on page 4.

I will say overcast did get it right. It's tried and true over there so are we going to discard a possibly game enhancing build restriction just because they did it first? 

• Also just because you have seen many high skybridges fail doesn't mean it is not OP.
• You speak of finding new tactics in defending yet you fail to give me examples.
• I also I do not comprehend how you can say there is alway positives to balance out the negatives

Who said you were not allowed to balance out the the factors?

Just adding on, just because overcast has this does not mean that Avicus should make it diffferent. I would rather played a game that has already been invented and has better gameplay mechanics then a game that has been invented and has mechanics that ruin gameplay.



I would not say high skybridges are OP but their good and it sorta makes it to easy for CTW. just water drop and go back. Also, for those who say you can just shoot them off the water pillar, what if the person makes a sheild infront of the water pillar and you can shoot at them anymore? Any ways, again there needs to be restrictions or CTW wont be CTW.

Explain what this has to do with originality?

I'm going to quote kycraft from this thread also refer to my reply to Detty on page 4.

I will say overcast did get it right. It's tried and true over there so are we going to discard a possibly game enhancing build restriction just because they did it first? 

• Also just because you have seen many high skybridges fail doesn't mean it is not OP.
• You speak of finding new tactics in defending yet you fail to give me examples.
• I also I do not comprehend how you can say there is alway positives to balance out the negatives

"I will say overcast did get it right. It's tried and true over there so are we going to discard a possibly game enhancing build restriction just because they did it first? "

No. It's the only one that's been tried.

Who said you were not allowed to balance out the the factors?

You talk about balancing but having no void regions would make the gameplay more unbalanced then the current Nebula