What do you think of non-assault territories maps?

[dwhee]

I believe they are Red Barracks, Pavlov's House, Fallen Fighters, and Gumrak.

In these maps, there is no lockdown timer and no one is on offense or defense. The map is decided either when one team owns all of the points, or when the time runs out the winner is whoever owns the majority of the points. If the teams are tied for number of points controlled, then the map is decided by whichever team has earned the most "team points" when time expires.

Is all of this true? Is, therefore, a historically defensive map like Pavlov's House technically not offensive or defensive?

And I really hope I'm not right about the "team points" thing. Incentivize teamwork all you want, but factoring it in as a victory condition is ridiculous. Teamwork should be its own reward. Why not go by reinforcements??

Personally, I dislike these maps. It seems like too much of a departure from the assault maps and the ending to every one (except when one team wipes out another) seems arbitrary and forced. I don't like the lockdown timer mechanic particularly, but I miss it in these maps. By not using a lockdown timer, the main timer is made too important.

It seems like every other server is playing Barracks or Pavlov, and I just don't get the maps...

 

[melipone]

I don't really like the victory conditions on these maps. It feels like neither team won really most of the time, or encourages people to just camp in an objective to get "teamwork" points. Prefer it when each team have a clear win or lose situation, otherwise you get static gameplay

 

[Nenjin]

I like them, even if FF and Pavlov's can each become their own kind of drudgery when you're pinned down.

I like them mostly because they're different than the assault maps. Scenarios are great and all, but there must be maps where neither side has a categorical advantage over the other. It's true that people seem even less inclined to assault points on these kinds of territory maps because they're not forced to....but don't all maps in the end come down to player willingness to go after the objectives?

So I think they're alright. Not every map needs to be do or die. It's funny because half of people's "the maps are OP for one side or another!" probably come from them misunderstanding that there are really two kinds of territory matches.

 

[Lyndhen]

I like Pavlov's and barracks for game play, always having to be aware of potential counterattacks (where and when) but I've never been bothered about team points or who wins. They're similar to RO Stalingradkessel, but winning there was very satisfying - maybe these maps have to be tweaked. Countdown ruins the other maps for me.

 

[Sifer2]

They seem a bit flawed in their design. Since you don't really earn more points or anything like that for holding more territory. This gives little incentive to actually attack. You often see both sides just camping it up with only a handful of players actually taking the points back an forth occasionally.

I'm not even sure if the team with more territory when lockdown is called wins or if its based on the team points. Even if it was based on territory you wouldn't have incentive to attack an hold until the last few minutes.

 

[Snuffeldjuret]

I don't really like the victory conditions on these maps. It feels like neither team won really most of the time, or encourages people to just camp in an objective to get "teamwork" points. Prefer it when each team have a clear win or lose situation, otherwise you get static gameplay

I agree.

 

[Frostedfire]

I like Pavlov's and barracks for game play, always having to be aware of potential counterattacks (where and when) but I've never been bothered about team points or who wins. They're similar to RO Stalingradkessel, but winning there was very satisfying - maybe these maps have to be tweaked. Countdown ruins the other maps for me.

found ironically that redoctober plays more like stalingrad kessel for me - I think it's something to do with epic door breaches on the first point using the shambeh bambeh :IS2: