multiple-team TBD

[silent skies]

Okay, so while using the map editor I eventually discovered that, if one wanted to, one could place 'neutral turrets' on a TBD map (turrets for a 3rd team, that would fire at anyone) and it got me thinking about TBD games with more than 2 teams.

How one would make a map or balance said map might be difficult, of course. I've tried sketching up a basic format for how I think a 4-way TBD map might look:


Legend:
Orange circles -> Neutral bombs
Other circles -> Team-specific PUs
Squares -> Turrets
Rectangles -> Bases

[Yeah, the bases look kind of cramped. I could widen those out significantly for a final version, but this image is just for discussion purposes only.]

Basically, players would ideally be split evenly between (in this case) four teams. Once a team is defeated (base destroyed), the players from that team can migrate over to the other teams (public games) or spectate (matches, leagues, etc.)

I'm not sure how it would work out for team sizes ... it might be necessary to start each team off with fewer players, maybe 3v3v3v3, which then becomes 4v4v4 after one team loses, and then 6v6 after the 2nd team loses, making the final show-down similar in size to what 2-team TBD is now.

I think it would be interesting because it could change the dynamics of how the game is played. Taking RTS games as an example, it's pretty obvious that a 1v1 plays different from a 2v2 or a 3v3, and completely different from an FFA.

[rotflolocopter]

There's a couple of things worth considering as possible fun spoilers if your idea is put into practice:
1) gravity - making a map that is neutral for 2 teams is easier than one that does not give advantage to some of the teams
2) in other multi-player, multi-team games I've played, frequently there's a team x agreeing with team y to partner up against team z to knock them out first. it feels very unfair if you are part of team z, especially if there is a 4th team that notices what is going on and joins the alliance

[[Y]]

http://altitudegame.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1996

Aside from a ton of coding, the main problem was figuring out how to balance the 2D nature of the game/maps to remove advantages that positioning would give the teams (i.e. gravity).

[JWhatever]

Edit: My idea has been mentioned earlier, my bad.

-J

[ex~]

i dig this idea

[Fartface]

I've thought about this idea, but figured it would never work completely successfully. I realized that 4 teams would never be balanced as long as the teams were at different height levels, like in that map you drew-- you can see that the top teams have the advantage of speed and gravity. So the only way for this to work in a balanced way would be to lay out all 4 bases equidistantly in a row on the map, and making the map wrap around as well, which would be cramped. Good luck though $_$

[andy]

Im just tossing this idea here for discussion, its not anything like what you suggested but it could be a solution:

3 TEAMS- lets say blue/red/green

3 BASES- STACKED one on top of the other. this would be like having a neutral base so everyone bombs the same base but does damage only to the one they are actually bombing. The only problem i see with this is the fact that if you stack bases atm the first one will block the bomb whatever team is bombing it.

3 DIFFERENT BOMBS - one to bomb each base, anyone can pick them up (you cannot bomb ur own base with ur own bomb) blue bomb will hit ONLY blue base, red bomb red base etc etc.

ALL MAP SPAWNS- just like TDM you will spawn near your allies

[silent skies]

Regarding the gravity of the situation:

1) Balancing for gravity is, in my mind, somewhat similar to the concept of balancing a rounded running track for a race:



It shouldn't be impossible, just require slight compensation for the bases located lower on the map. What I tried to do in the concept sketch in my first post was make the bases lower down have a longer diagonal shaft to reach the base, in an attempt to balance out the short vertical distance they'd have to go to reach the top bases. On second glance, it'd probably be necessary to make said diagonal shaft much longer for the lower bases than what I portrayed above.

2) If Mandrad's idea for vertical wrapping on maps ever got implemented, balancing for gravity would instantly become a moot point.

3) Along the same line as two, it's also possible to balance a 4-team map along the horizontal wrap. I sketched this up just now:



The Good:
- In such a setup, each team in the 4v4 would be surrounded by 2 teams (until there are only 2 left). Except in those situations where there's a conscious, coordinated effort by three teams to gang up against one team, every team is going to be fighting a two front battle.
- The only 'balance inconsistency' in the map above is that the teams on the 'edges' have have to deal with the (dis)advantages of having a wraparound, as opposed to being able to see everything.

The Bad:
- The aforementioned wrapping issue.
- Consider this:

<- A -> <- B -> <- C -> <- D ->

If team A is defeated, that makes the distance between teams B and D equal to two bases, but the distances between B/C and C/D only equal to one base. Thus, it's far more likely that teams B and D are going to double up against C, which won't last for very long. Map balance would then be restored after it's B vs. D.

However, knowing such at outcome is likely if Team A dies first, Team C isn't going to be too willing to gang up against team A at the start, so this might just take care of most instances of an initial 3v1 gang-up.