This is something that I’m curious about; why can TF2 handle game modes like 2CP, but Overwatch couldn’t? I appreciate the fact that they’re two different games, but I just find it odd blizzard couldn’t make such a contemporary game mode work.
Its like if you played a shooter game and found out they had to remove Team Deathmatch. Wouldn’t that be odd? Such a basic mode didn’t work out? Why?
Is it an issue of level design, or something about the characters that made 2CP incompatible? I think 2CP worked well enough, but I do think some stages were designed strangely. You might think I’m talking about Paris, but I’m mostly talking about Hanamura’s wall; that’s just an annoying place to have to push through.
Believe it or not, I never actually struggled with Paris. Of course, I played tank, so I could kinda force my team into walking forward, you know? I didn’t ever get stuck in chokes unless everyone was having some epic battle in a choke.
The first was actually 6cp, like dustbowl and egypt. By making it three different sets of 2cp, increasing in difficulty each time, it wasn’t as binary win or lose. Worth pointing out that these maps are still terrible compared to the other ones in tf2. They’re the “so bad they’re good” maps, great fun, but not exactly peak game design.
The second is cp_gorge. Idk why that map is so good, but damn, that’s the perfect 2cp map.
2CP wasn’t that bad aside from Anubis which was a garbage map. I loved HLC and was sad when they removed it. Paris and Volskaya were alright. Hanamura was a top tier map.
Besides character differences (no shields, instakills possible on the only tank-type character, lower heals, etc), TF2 has a wave-based respawn system that spawns players in set intervals that differ depending on which team a player is on and, the match progress, the map, and the mode. This makes it more punishing for defenders to die and easier for attackers to continue putting pressure on a push. OW has a similar system, but it’s not as helpful to attackers (attackers need to outnumber defenders on the contested point, and the defender respawn timer only increases after 10 seconds of attackers holding advantage).
The characters and complexity is just completely different. OW may look like a cute and funny game, but it really is pretty deep when you think about all the stuff you have to do and track.
I’m actually not sure if 2CP in TF2 was that good.
Point Bs capped much faster, so at least there wasn’t the endless stalling of OW, but if OW did that, attackers would always win cos there’s no sentry nests (which imo were kinda horrible).
Also, it was 12v12, which is a bigger buffer against snowball scenarios. OW was never gonna be 12v12.
All in all, I think dustbowl and whatnot were, like a number of other maps in TF2, popular because they made for good backdrops to some mindless fragging for 15 minutes. OW wants to have teams work together to achieve an objective in about 6-7 minutes. Two different goals, so no wonder you look at them different.
I find this premise to be erroneous. Overwatch handled 2CP just fine for 6+ years. A lot of the community members didn’t like playing it, compared to the other modes. 6+ years of complaining did the trick and the Devs simply gave up.
I really love Dustbowl, and I was shocked to find out that others didn’t. Maybe you’re right about the mindless fragging part, though; there’s just something about shooting people in a desert that just feels right.
Doesn’t “giving up” imply failure, though? People didn’t like it to the point where the devs just stopped trying. Personally, I never had the experience of people mass leaving 2CP maps right at the start of the game. Some people left if they failed to defend the point, but that’s not unusual in games.
Best attack/defense map in tf2 is mountain lab. It’s really good. Dunno if that design would fit OW2, but the verticality of it is really great. Also the long sightlines give snipers something to do while also exposing them to counterattack from certain flank strategies.