FlipFTWcapnnofapnIn 5cp if you're rotating as the offensive team its probably to get in through a better entranceCan you clarify this a bit? The way I think of this is that a lot of the intentions are the same (creating temporary imbalance by disturbing static hold positions), it’s just applied at a larger scale. That’s also the general concept I was trying to convey - Ask the question of what does the increased scale positively contribute. With the idea that we should be encouraging faster rotations and faster general gameplay it just seems awkward.
On gpit you aren't just choosing a different entrance, you're choosing a whole different area to push into.
rotations on gpit take much longer and are much bigger decisions to make than flipping your combo between big door and choke on gully.
…intentions behind rotations are pretty different…
capnnofapnCounter stike is played attack vs defense and there's plenty of room for complexity. The big difference is that CS defusal maps have better balance between A/B than gravelpit so you're more likely to actually have to make a choice about which point to focus on.Uh I mean, I would say the big difference between CS and TF2 is that you don’t have respawns in CS, the timer isn’t an active element (stopwatch), and there isn’t hyper mobile classes to bust chokepoints. This analogy seems a bit scattered, but I don’t really think the “counter strike has better map design” holds too much water, what would be good 6s 3cp map design in your opinion - you said in CS you have to make a choice while TF2 you don’t? Doesn’t that go against what you say earlier about options?
In general I think that there is also a bit of a misunderstanding for options necessarily equaling complexity, the easiest analogy I can think of is that HL has a lot more class & loadout options, but that doesn’t make it necessarily more tactically complex.
in 5cp when you rotate you are just picking another entrance to get through or pressure, on gravelpit a rotation means choosing to engage with a completely different part of the map. The thought process and reasoning behind these are pretty different even if they both consist of your team moving from one door to another. You're right that I contradicted myself about the game mode providing options, however earlier in the thread I brought up that teams might have more options nowadays to defend A than they did in 2010 due to the medic speed buff and overall higher skill of players. Sorry if I said anything confusing. Its kinda hard to talk about a game mode where only a single map for it has ever really been played competitively and the game has changed so much since it was last played.
tf2 and cs are totally different games and the maps and modes need to make tons of different considerations. My point was that you can still have interesting strategic choices in an attack/defense based format if the map and mode are well designed.
edit: I forgot to respond to your question about what a well designed 3cp map would be like. it would be a map where both A and B are considered defensible and players have to make choices about which one to pressure or defend. The consensus for gravelpit is that its basically a 2cp map because you make the attacking team deal with a silly play on A and then the bulk of it is just defending B and C. Its very linear. If teams could actually viably defend A it gets a lot more interesting and the right choice to make might not always be so obvious. Your team could go all in on attacking A and then your flank scout could fuck off to B and get a ton cap time on it before the team reacts to it. From the defenders perspective they have to make the choice to give up on B and use their man advantage to help win the fight on A, or to send a player or two to defend B. Depending on the circumstances, either one could be the right choice. In essence, if 5cp asks you to decide on if youre defending or pushing, gpit style maps should be asking you what youre attacking and what you are defending.