Hey everyone! Sorry about using TF2 as the Team deathmatch image, not sure what I was thinking! Using Call of Duty, or Halo would have been a much better example. Sorry again!
There are 3 main principles that I consider (And what every player should consider thinking about) when identifying/creating a balanced asymmetrical map: 1. There needs to be a MINIMUM OF 3 ROUTES to a "conflict point" or objective 2. A single player/group (Or a device such as a sentry) should NOT be able to cover more than 2 exits of said routes at any given time 3. The longest route to a "conflict point" or objective MUST provide some sort of advantage (Being much closer to the objective, high ground, etc.)
None of these are specific to asymmetric maps though. You're describing rules for conflict points, and even then the video talked about how you can break these rules by balancing conflict points so that one may give an advantage for one team in the beginning, but later in the match another one will give the advantage to the other team.
I'm guessing they avoided naming a specific level because it's likely that a patch would fix any balance problems (and possibly create new ones) sometime between when the script is written and when the episode came out.
Also, they generally try to make videos open to as many people as possible and not just people who play Overwatch. The instant they start citing specifics they lose 1/2 of their audience who have not played that game.
I'm curious to see what they think is balanced and not as well. In my case, I think Volskaya is a bit too strong for the defenders on point B, and Hanamura is a wee bit easy for the attackers on point B (As long as you have a competent flanker).
I find temple of Anubis completely to be in the defender's favor, as the first AND second points are both single hallways you have to grind through as an attacker. If you have a competent defense, you will always hold the first point on ToA until at least 30 seconds, and at that point, the attackers don't have the time to break the second defense which has little cover for attackers to walk through, and lots for the defenders. Volskaya has much of the same problem with few proper flanking areas, and the defenders having so much cover.
I haven't heard anyone argue Volskaya is remotely balanced. That map needs a rework imo. Even though it's doable at the higher levels, it's a huge pain for lower skilled players.
hmm, strange, everything you have jsut said about maps seems like Rush maps on battlefield 4. I'm not sure how they comapre to overwatch, I dint play it, but the discription of gameplay seem to fit perfectly. I will wait for the second part about characters which may highlight why you seem to be thinking this is so different than bf4 then :)
I feel like Dirty Bomb does Asymmetric level designs way better than Overwatch, even if there are not very many maps. But each map is HUGE with a string of objectives to keep going through.
Shows TF2 for Team Deathmatch while it's most iconic map is made for Capture the Flag, then shows Halo for Capture the Flag when Team Deathmatch is the vastly more popular and used mode.
I feel like you guys put less work or thought into this episode compared to usual effort. I enjoy Overwatch but there is nothing inherently special about how they created maps. The Assault and Payload maps are just as assymetrical as those you see in Team Fortress 2, it's most cited competitor/inspiration. Also just like TF2 the KOTH maps are completely symmetrical. You guys said they were partly assymetrical for these maps but in Overwatch that's patently untrue. Some of them seem like they're laid out differently because of moved around clutter objects but a passing glance at the overheads show the buildings are all perfectly symmetrical areas, except in Nepal Village. (Where the amount of area used on left side is slightly larger than right)
Mm, I'm not sure I agree that TF2 used the same design philosophy. Even in Payload maps in TF2 there tended to be a labyrinth of side passages and inner courtyards that could let people sidestep the front lines or come at the payload track from unexpected directions. In control points and attack defend, there are often places where you can choose to go to point A, B, or C even though only one point was unlocked at the moment. This has a lot to do with the difference in pacing between Overwatch and TF2. Overwatch goes for eight-to-fifteen minute matches with teams of six each, while TF2 goes for a more sprawling match of up to a dozen fighters on a side and battles that are designed to go on for more like fifteen minutes to three quarters of an hour. Even if Overwatch is just a refinement on asymmetrical mapping that's already present in a couple of TF2 maps, I think it's interesting to pin down exactly the level design philosophy, since it's a much leaner game.
Gordon Graham the point is there is no depth to the reason payload maps are not symmetrical. It's very simple. Symmetrical maps would not make sense when you have to escort something. That's it.
I hope they talk about GTA 5's weird spawning system in free-roam multiplayer. How when you kill another player, they always respawn like 20 feet away from you. It gets really annoying when you just want that player to screw off but they just keep making their way back to kill you.
it doesn't help in GTA that because of close spawns, the one getting killed 3 seconds after spawn 20 times cant get away easily, but neither can the player doing the killing.
Symmetra reduces/removes the respawn run back for the first point on most A/D maps and can make the attackers take way longer to push the second part. Granted she's not very good outside of first point defense though which sucks.
stupid momo thats actually a good point. symettra is a defense character who is only completely effective at the first point. Her niche is too specific.
I think arena was just an Experiment, it isn't even in the MyM list. And even then, Arena isn't TDM, it doesn't exist, maybe some Community server has it, but that would be like saying,, TF2 has a MLP+Hello Kitty Roleplay Gamemode"
it is capture the point. that's the way the game is supposed to be played. doesn't matter if f2p pubbers don't play it the way it's supposed to. team deathmatch doesn't exist in tf2. arena is not team deathmatch either.
We need wallpapers of all the little overwatch extra credits characters ! And they need to include the extra credit design of the characters as tags in OW ! This needs to happen !!! Great episode btw !
>Hanzo player runs into swarm of enemy players >Screaming at Mercy play "Why you no heal me?!" Yeah no bud, you're a sniper, you don't need to be three feet from all enemy players.
Leedark3 The difference is that in deathmatch type gamemodes players will continually be spawning and progress is tracked in the metric number of kills. In arena gamemodes each player spawns once per round and progress is tracked in the metric rounds won. Sources: Quake based afps usually make this distinction: Clan Arena being an arena gamemode in quake live where team deathmatch is a deathmatch gamemode in quake live.
Arena was literally the same thing, mind you nobody played it because it was less interesting and there was more downtime. (eg sometimes you would have to wait up to 4 minutes just for everyone to go pop). I know this because myself and an old friend tried to make an arena map, which he is still working on now and is awesome! Everyone likes it, yet it again belongs to possibly the most boring type of matchup. As to the other type of death match that you are saying, it again does have it but the mode is even less popular. It is possible to do in almost any game yet you just need to have server controls and set the death timers to 0. It is good mindless fun but... it gets boring quick. See trade servers.
I wonder why people always say TF2 is about TDM when that's not really the main game mode. If you're going to credit TF2 for something innovative, it should be Payload. It's the game mode that has moving spawning points of the attackers and defenders depending on which checkpoints are captured with the cart. Anyway, on to Overwatch. I agree that the map design is as you say it in the video, but the problem is that most, if not all, of the maps in a specific game mode have this same design philosophy which can get a little stale. The Your Overwatch channel made an excellent video about this. Take hybrid for example. All hybrid maps have a first control point with a small choke and 1 or 2 flanking options. The 2nd phase is known as "streets phase" where you push the payload down a street that makes a few turns. Then you have the last point which has a choke that opens up a little to give some options for the attackers. I'm not saying that this is bad. Each map looks great and unique and that can make it feel a little different, but it also means that you'll see the same heroes over and over for that game mode since they have the same design philosophy.
...Aren't all of the maps where both teams are attacking perfectly symmetrical, though? _Team Fortress 2_ already has asymmetric level design for every map in an asymmetric gamemode (anything with an attacking and defending team), and, on top of that, Sawmill is a map in a _symmetric_ gamemode that is actually assymetric. There is nothing that can be said about _Overwatch_ in this regard that can't also be said about _Team Fortress 2_, and _TF2_ in this video doesn't get any mention at all aside from being very erroneously referred to as a team deathmatch game.
When i hear 7 minute grind fest all i hear is the 2nd point on CP_Gorge ; the memory of those engineer camps still haunts me to this day. Also, on the fixed spawn point topic. I believe that having a fixed spawn point actually does add some important elements of strategy in terms of "mini-objectives". For example, in TF2 and Planet Side 2 , Engineers and Sunderers are extreme priorities as both allow the attacking team to subvert the long distance from the initial spawn point. Therefore the defending team no has to destroy them or risk their defensible position being overwhelmed through sheer attrition,thus forcing them to be attackers in a sense. Meanwhile the attackers must keep their supply lines safe thus, becoming defenders in a sense as well. I just think thats a cool mechanic some games have to help break those gridlocks on final points and whatnot.
It has been said already but saying 'team deathmatch' and putting a nice big TF2 poster on the screen is like saying master chief and putting a handkerchief on the screen, only one word in common. I disapprove of this one second of this video.
TF2 nailed this kind of asymmetrical map design years ago. While Overwatch is great, well designed, and a great example of this. Come on, TF2 made it an artform on any of its payload maps. And Push maps become asymmetrical as you push your spawn points forward as points are captured.
Halo decided that the only thing to do was to make everything completely symmetrical, so now every map is one giant doughnut... I loved Boneyard in Reach... There were plenty of interesting spaces, and since weapon spawns and sight-lines made things change up, there was never an ONE spot. Also, there were several game types like Assault, that could be played like the example above where it went in stages. Nope - the top players only want open doughnuts, so that's what all maps will be!
A game that I've always enjoyed the asymmetrical level design in was an Xbox 360 FPS called Shadowrun. While I've never played Overwatch to compare, Shadowrun follows the exact system of asymmetrical level designed described in this video, with the attackers having many flank options, but the final rush into the defense's point is a single unblocked path most of the time. The maps are also not just an attacker's advantage early on, but built so the attackers are at an inherit disadvantage to begin, usually starting on the lower ground, but depending on your use of the countless flank tatics the maps and gameplay offer, the defenders are hard pressed despite having the high ground advantage. Very interesting video to me, because I had a nice reference point in mind that lived by this design. Wish Shadowrun was still a relevant game, as it would have been a topic I would have been interested in hearing about from this channel.
Not too long ago, MatPat had a TF2 vs Overwatch video which was woefully under-researched. This spread so much misinformation and misconceptions about both games. Misconceptions are bad for games because they turn away those who would have played them, and set people up for disillusionment if they play that game. Not to mention making related online discussion difficult. One of the things MatPat claimed was that TF2 had a team deathmatch gamemode, which it doesn't. That's not how TF2 works. At all. Here, Extra Credits is perpetuating this misconception. Its incredibly frustrating seeing people with influence spreading lies.
The sharp people in that studio solved it by deleting the game mode completely and turning Overwatch into a generic, over monetized, free-to-play game.
Did you seriously show Team Fortress 2 to exemplify Team Deathmatch? I mean, it _has_ a mode like that, but even that is not strictly TD. Surely, something like Unreal Tournament would have been a better fit.
+keybladelovers I can understand his frustration as TF2's Team Deathnatch mode is virtually non-existent and anyone who plays it knows it mostly for its objective-based structure similar to that of Overwatch's.
A good example for this is Splatoon’s Rainmaker and Tower Control. The Rainmaker and Tower Control start in the middle of the map, and when someone claims it, you can see that person on your map. Naturally, you will defend them or attack them. There’s always something going on around the tower or Rainmaker, which draws in people. You also have to claim these to make them move and get more points to win before the time runs out. The other team has to get to the point to obtain it, and the team that has it must defend it by keeping in groups.
For a good look at asymmetrical gameplay in a game, I recommend looking at Mount and Blade: Napoleonic Wars as an example. The siege game mode has one team assaulting a fortress, with the other team trying to defend it. The attacking team has unlimited spawns, but only a given amount of time in which to capture a fortress (or other secured position). The defender only has to hold out until the time is up, but has only a limited amount of spawns. The attacker spawns in a camp somewhere outside the fortifications, usually behind cover. The defender spawns near (but never at) the flag, the central point of the fort. If the flag is occupied and held for a given amount of time, the fortress is taken. The siege game mode has a few 'stages' of the siege you can observe. These are not really seperate, but flow into each other, giving precisely the kind of effect described in the video. The idea of one line of defence falling, with another standing by to take her place. Now, during the first stage, players set up. The gunners find their wall-mounted cannon, the musketeers take to the walls. The attackers, in the meantime, rush forward towards the walls, like a human wave. Their life is worth little, since they have infinite respawns. They too set up cannon, and they begin pummeling the walls. At first, every attempt at assault seems futile. Volleys of musket fire keep the endless hoard of attackers at bay, cannon loaded with canister shot do their dirty work. Slowly but surely, however, the attackers gain ground. Either a cannon punches a hole in a wall, allowing soldiers to attack on equal footing, or the walls are finally scaled with siege ladders. If that happens, a bloody and chaotic brawl ensues on the parapets, bayonet fighting really testing out the skill of each player. This, of course, under the thunder of musket fire. Usually, a group of players fight their way into the gatehouse, allowing them to open the gates from the inside. At that moment, the rest of the players (who were either firing at the walls or who just respawned) can walk straight into the fortifications, tipping the balance heavily in the favour of the attackers. The defenders usually pull back, as their lives are actually worth something, with some brave souls staying behind to cover their retreat. The defenders regroup at the next choke point, the next wall or fortification, and so the whole scene starts anew. These two stages follow each other up (unless the defenders hold firm in the first place), until the attackers finally reach the flag square. By this time, however, the engineers of the defending party have usually constructed elaborate defensive works around the flag, which turns the place into a kill zone. After some very bloody firing, and some even bloodier melee, either the defenders hold the flag, or the attackers overwhelm the defenders with superior numbers. The attackers then form a defensive parameter at the flag, holding back any defender who tries to reclaim the spot. I myself find this superbly done. It takes effort from both sides to win, each side having her own set of difficulties to overcome. The asymmetry is solved with the spawn system leaving the rest of the game intact. The chaotic nature of the game, the suspenseful reloading of a single-shot musket, the flying of rounds and cannon balls all round all make it work. The attacker, running at the walls through a hail of musket fire, trying to get a ladder against the wall or trying to attack a breach. The defender, himself under fire, having to quickly fend off anyone who gets to close, finally having to resort to the bayonet to defend his place. And, of course, having to realise when a position becomes hopeless, and retreat is the only option. And both sides actually win on a regular basis, so they must be doing something right.
This analysis could've used some "ethos". Some examples of this "team deathmatch philosophy", games, so you don't look like you're speaking entirely from theory.
4:30 Overwatch's king of the hill mode does have multiple spawn points because it's played as best-of-three rounds with each round taking place on a different map. 5:50 I would argue that most maps do have flanking paths on the final objective and that there are always extra paths for characters with the right movement ability for a particular area. On escort objectives these side paths tend to reconnect to the main path very quickly because the central path itself is the objective.
I think one point that you guys missed a talking point about how player skill interacts with the asymmetrical level design. This is one of the biggest hurdles that the Overwatch LD's have to struggle with and tbh, I don't think they do that great of a job in dealing with it (granted it's a very tough variable to consider and try to deal with). A match taking place on an asymmetrical map with professional players will play out a lot different and quicker than a match with lower skilled players due to the players ability to aim/work together/general awareness. Mix in choke points without flanking options and you then run into a large problem of losing player interest/engagement due to the lower ability players not wanting to bang their heads against a brick wall till the match ends (and why you see players switching to longer ranges characters such as Widowmaker and Hanzo). So in part, you have 3 factors taking place in the difficulty curve of the map which are, attacker/defender priority, skill of the player and character choice/balance. This also raises the interesting question of what kind of player do you balance a competitive asymmetrical map around. You make it too easy and you lose the higher skill bases attention (and your competitive scene) but on the other hand, make it too hard and you lose your 'casual' player base (which is larger and the ones normally paying the bills).
darthsebious the same thing can be said about tf2. The same maps will have a very different feel when you're in a standard pub when compared to playing a comp match in UGC.
Absolutely. This isn't an issue just that Overwatch has to deal with. I just felt it was worth bringing up due to how player skill can have a profound effect on map balance and how level designers have to keep that in mind when the map is being designed.
I'll note that fewer flanking paths in general work more in favour of defenders (the closer to their spawn point you get) while more is good for attackers. I'm guessing the maximum amount of separate approach flanking paths you should have before defenders stop being able to see attacks coming is around 3. (I'm not counting "there's a short split in a path before they rejoin due to wall").
It would have been extra nice (you would have got Extra Credit from me ... geddit?) if you'd shown which asymmetric maps you thought were particularly good examples of both the best and worst. As something of an Overwatch novice I don't really know the maps well enough to be able to tell.
yeah that kinda annoyed me - they were making vague references to how "some were masterpieces and some turn into a 7 minute grind fest" and I wanted to know which maps they were referring to!
I feel that may have been intentional. Opinions regarding maps and characters in Overwatch can be extremely divisive, and could incite comments in the thread that would ultimately derail reasonable discussion.
"Team Death Match" Now we know the guys at Extra Credits only play CTF in TF2... Also: All the "points" you make are the basic formula for ever multiplayer map, is nothing new dude....
Congratulations on getting the point of the video--Extra Credits isn't exactly supposed to be anything new or revelatory. They're simply teaching game design. It's what they've been doing for years.
>nothing new Yeah did they preface the video by saying "HEY GUYS GUESS WHAT WE JUST DISCOVERED!!!!"? Or, maybe, just maybe, are they just teaching game design concepts and using a specific game (ie; overwatch) to exemplify that information, as they have done with practically every other video they've made? Think before you shitpost m8.
I eagerly support a video on the effect of various spawn mechanisms. It's something I've often thought about when swapping between the different shooters I play, since just changing the spawn system can completely change the game. Not just location, but also spawn number - such as the difference between 1-life/no respawn, infinite respawn, and limited "ticket" respawn.
Yeah when it comes to level design then both games are pretty equal. There some slight differences in focus. But you see the same dynamic in play. And of course the two teams use similar metric tools craft these finely tuned maps. Also why I hate when people start messing to much with spawn timers on maps on that in TF2. Generally it tend to screw the balance in favour of one side. Which actually shows off a lot of why Overwatch is set up as it it.
**In Dave Chappelle as P Diddy Voice** So we jus gon' act like TF2 didn't create this asymmetric-map-that-tells-a-story-with-the-battle-leading-to-one-last-stand shit? that's what's hot in these streets now?
Which map do you think favors defense too heavily on the last point? Temple of Anubis and Volstyia Industries have a set up there there are definiately multiple paths to the final objective point as opposed to the unflankable hall way design. Hollywood as side doors leading to the final capture point, with cover making it so no one point can fire on all of them. Same on Route 66, lots of side paths that give cover. Mumbai uses buildings to give flanking paths and cover that lead right up to the final destination for the cart. Einchward and King's Row do have one choke point that you have to go through to get to the point, but it is not a hallway, but rather a single narrowing of the travel path, which seems to be meant to encourage the use of Tracer and Reaper, who can get through that area unassailed and this is about 5 meters off from the final point, small enough that one wipe of the enemy team can get the cart through to the end.
Arma 3, deployed deep into enemy lines with a buddy, in a city. Set up explosives in building flanking us, and pinned down several advancing squads, helping our team hold a numbers advantage. Enemy enters building behind us, I trigger explosion wiping out most of a squad, costing them more cover. Eventually we are taken out after running out of ammo in out main weapons. Best asymmetric design I've seen yet.
You are wrong. They care a lot. Maybe not in WoW, i dont know. In Overwatch there will also be always a strategy that is a bit stronger then others. But they nerf and buff their way through the game, the meta changes every month/two months. It is really good balanced.
People did not complain about mei due to being op. People complained due to being unfun to play against. The mei buff was great and has put her is a great place as a hero witha high skill ceiling.
So they had a video on this (Don't remember which one.) But the original reasoning behind it was Dan I think his name was, had to make a video for some school project but couldn't cut it down to the maximum length. So he sped it up. WHAM squeaky voice.
Pretty much the last three games that blizzard has made has just been profiting already popular game genres, hearthstone, heroes of the storm, and overwatch. Heck, they probably wouldn't have made heroes of the storm if they weren't battling for copyright of Dota 2 with valve.
I always figured the self-correcting feature in breaking "unbalanced points" were the Ults. Even when an attacking team wipes, progress is made either by building ult charge or forcing the defenders to spend their Ults. While both sides have access to ults at the final point, attackers benefit more because they can withdraw or try again if a defensive ult/ ult combo foils an attack. On the other hand, the attackers only need to get lucky once or twice with their ults to break the defense. Long story short, as long as the skill difference isn't ludicrous (something Bliz's matchmaker handles reasonably well), all attacking teams will eventually break a final defense given enough time. So: all Bliz really needs to do to keep the asymmetry balanced is tweak the time limit based on how many wipes it generally takes before attackers are finally able to "ult through" a defensive last stand. Bliz's big data analytics approach to game balance really comes into its own here.
That Sombra graphic at the end of the video though! Good stuff, I didn't even think of Overwatch as an Asymmetric game, but after it was explained it made complete sense.
I like how this basically applies to tf2, but nope Overwatch is the thing now these days and made "Superior" Maps to the ones that have been working well for tf2 for the past *10 years* And really? Team Death Match? TF2 has more modes than Overwatch, both Symmetic and Asymmetric designs
Through the whole episode I was mentally scrolling through maps in World of Tanks, since that's the competitive multiplayer game I play the most. There's quite a bit of asymmetry on some maps like Steppes and Fjords, but one map stuck out a lot in my mind because it's used both symmetrically AND asymmetrically: Siegfried Line. The basic layout of the map is this: Dominating most of the eastern side of the map is town that gives a lot of cover and a high-ground advantage. To the north and south of it are two fields that, while not that similar in appearance or method both provide a good amount of cover from the town. The west half of the map, separated from the east by dragons' teeth with occasional gaps you can drive through, is basically one big open field dotted with a few bunkers and bisected by a raised road leading into the town. Now how the map can be both asymmetric and symmetric is all in the spawn points. In a standard deathmatch-like battle the spawn points are just east of the dragons' teeth in the north and south. But in the attacker/defender battles one team spawns split up in the western field, while the other spawns on either side of the town with the capture point in the square at the town's east end. And this basically makes a whole series of encounter points leading up to and through the town that have to be defended. Of course one difference World of Tanks has from a game like Overwatch is that you don't respawn, so spawn positioning only matters for the first minute or so of the game, but I thought this was a neat example none-the-less.
The amount of people getting salty about the team deathmatch thing w/r/t tf2 are kind of why I always found the community surrounding tf2 to be really, really uninviting.
See, you're asking the wrong person? Because as I might have mentioned, the community surrounding TF2 turned me off of ever looking at the game, so I don't know.
I just found it really funny that TF2 was showed for Team Deathmatch when the most iconic map is CTF, and showed Halo for CTF when the most common is TDM
See, then maybe it was a joke? Like, idk, again, I don't play tf2 and to be TOTALLY honest, competitive fps ain't my jam. So... maybe a joke? That just... didn't land well? idk.
I'm sitting here trying to process all of the posters freaking out over it, myself. I mean I know it's been at least three or four years since I last opened and played TF2, but I pretty clearly remember TF:C and TF2 having a team elimination mode. Did they remove it, do people not run those servers, or what? I really don't have a clue, because outside of some very rare titles I dropped out of the online gaming circuit when the amount of received death threats per match exceeded my "1 per minute" threshold.
BrotherLazarus well theres arena but thats not Team Deathmatch. That's an elimination mode. And its also not really used anymore either. But yeah it sounded kinda like a joke, i thought it was funny but..it didnt seem like it was being presented as one. I'm sure most of the Tf2 players are just in panic mode because the game has been severly mistreated by Valve recently and the comparison between Overwatch and TF2 doesn't help. Even though both games are VASTLY different from each other. They just want people to know what their game. It would be kinda like calling something a strategy game when it's really about something else.
There are some games - not many - which use fixed spawn points as part of how they control who has the advantage in different parts of the map. Always spawn at your home base = less travel time to the conflict zones closer to your base. Also means longer delays getting reinforcements when your team's already taking the initiative, meaning you have to be more careful, or actually perform better to maintain the pressure. And once you're right on the enemy's doorstep, it becomes more extreme, since they'll be spawning almost directly into the fight, while your team spawns a long distance back and need some time to get back into battle.
I feel these kinds of episodes are your weakest, because it's clear you wanted to talk about Overwatch and Overwatch alone, then found a topic to haphazardly hammer into Overwatch, instead of picking a topic (Asymmetrical Map Design) and then ACTUALLY RESEARCHING games that use this design choice. And the result is...well...this episode. Misinformation about TF2. And it's not that TF2 is some special sheep that must be protected, but because it's possibly the MOST PROMINENT EXAMPLE OF ASYMMETRICAL MAP DESIGN IN FPS GAMING FOR THE PAST DECADE. You could have picked, literally, any other game, any other example, and it would have been reasonable. But as for the episode itself: eight minutes of Overwatch wank, but ultimately little real substance on the topic (I mean, really, no specific examples? I could explain for over an hour the intricacies of Dustbowl ALONE). This is just...a really weak style of episode making. Don't take this as hate, I just believe, no, I KNOW, you guys can do better.
-"MOST PROMINENT EXAMPLE OF ASYMMETRICAL MAP DESIGN IN FPS GAMING FOR THE PAST DECADE. "_ Are you certain? Because a lot of FPS use quite a bit of asymmetry. I mean Battlefield does, CSGO does, etc. What is so special about TF2 here?
Used to have a team deathmatch mode called arena, but it's only accessible via community servers, other than that TF2 indeed does not have a team deathmatch mode
Actually, in overwatch, most maps have an easy to defend chokepoint near the first objective (Temple of Anubis, Volkskaia Industries, Route 66...) while the final objective gives the attackers a lot of flanking options. This is probably to balance the distance to objective for defenders first and then the time pressure for attackers last.
If there's another game that I played that had good examples of points of action and Asymmetry, it was Elder Scrolls Online. Sure, the game has hosts of flaws, but Cyrodiil was designed as an incredibly vast and diverse battlefield. During the closed beta, I recall fighting large scale battles at a number of points - not just at the forts, but also at bridges that hung over Slaughterfish infested water; bridge fights did not happen often since there's only a few in all of Cyrodiil, but it was an excellent place to hold off a large push, even though there was technically no 'objective' on the bridge. Then there were the fort fights. A fort had added defenses when its three surrounding resources - a farm, lumber mill and mine - were intact. It was difficult to defend all three of these points due to the fact attackers could attack any one of them from any angle, but they would become slightly easier to defend when there was only one left, since you'd know where the attack would happen. Forts themselves would be difficult to bust, requiring siege to break; Defenders could line their own siege weapons against the wall and, thanks to a slight defender's advantage, had more range but less space. Once the attackers broke through the outer wall, the inner keep would be under assault, and the offense could actually use the fort's walls to set up siege weapons and begin firing on the defense, the same terrain being used for different purposes. The mode had problems, like balance between the different siege weapons (why would you ever use a Frost Ballista that can slow players when the Fire Ballista could nearly kill someone?), but from a terrain standpoint, it created exactly the sorts of asymmetrical balance that this video points out, with the offense starting with an advantage until the defenders were pushed back to the very inside of the inner keep for the last stand.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey everyone! Sorry about using TF2 as the Team deathmatch image, not sure what I was thinking! Using Call of Duty, or Halo would have been a much better example. Sorry again!
Commenting to boost visibility. People need to see this.
Dan Jones apology accepted
Same, no biggie since you acknowledged it
Thank you for acknowledging it!
this comment needs to get pinned or something, this comment is way below.
Big tip, don't use TF2 as an example of TDM. It's the equivilant of smashing a hundred eggshells with your foot at once.
FUNKe oh shit its the funk
Hey funke
Only 100?
you can tell how much fun the artist had drawing these characters
There are 3 main principles that I consider (And what every player should consider thinking about) when identifying/creating a balanced asymmetrical map:
1. There needs to be a MINIMUM OF 3 ROUTES to a "conflict point" or objective
2. A single player/group (Or a device such as a sentry) should NOT be able to cover more than 2 exits of said routes at any given time
3. The longest route to a "conflict point" or objective MUST provide some sort of advantage (Being much closer to the objective, high ground, etc.)
While not asymmetrical, #2 is why old Urchin Underpass in Splatoon was awful. One sniper could cover everything.
i sort of disagree with the 3 lane idea. it works in most cases, you can make good maps with just 2
Agreedo on all cases, but I'd say that in point 1. that "3" is a variable number that changes according to what your base player count is.
None of these are specific to asymmetric maps though. You're describing rules for conflict points, and even then the video talked about how you can break these rules by balancing conflict points so that one may give an advantage for one team in the beginning, but later in the match another one will give the advantage to the other team.
Sera Young Wich does not solve the problem as Overwatch has proven.
Could you have named examples of well crafted and slightly unbalanced maps within the game so that we could have had a frame of reference?
I'm guessing they avoided naming a specific level because it's likely that a patch would fix any balance problems (and possibly create new ones) sometime between when the script is written and when the episode came out.
Also, they generally try to make videos open to as many people as possible and not just people who play Overwatch. The instant they start citing specifics they lose 1/2 of their audience who have not played that game.
I'm curious to see what they think is balanced and not as well.
In my case, I think Volskaya is a bit too strong for the defenders on point B, and Hanamura is a wee bit easy for the attackers on point B (As long as you have a competent flanker).
I find temple of Anubis completely to be in the defender's favor, as the first AND second points are both single hallways you have to grind through as an attacker. If you have a competent defense, you will always hold the first point on ToA until at least 30 seconds, and at that point, the attackers don't have the time to break the second defense which has little cover for attackers to walk through, and lots for the defenders.
Volskaya has much of the same problem with few proper flanking areas, and the defenders having so much cover.
I haven't heard anyone argue Volskaya is remotely balanced. That map needs a rework imo. Even though it's doable at the higher levels, it's a huge pain for lower skilled players.
Overwatch has the most wildly asymmetric levels we've seen in a multiplayer FPS. What makes them work?
Owen Bracy Wait. what does TDM mean? Team Death match? if so that's dumb, Tf2 is awesome, and this is coming from an Overwatch fanboy.
hmm, strange, everything you have jsut said about maps seems like Rush maps on battlefield 4. I'm not sure how they comapre to overwatch, I dint play it, but the discription of gameplay seem to fit perfectly. I will wait for the second part about characters which may highlight why you seem to be thinking this is so different than bf4 then :)
You've never played tf2? Because you described every good payload map there is
Wabajuba: haha, it seems I'm not the only one who feels its more common than described in the video ;D
I feel like Dirty Bomb does Asymmetric level designs way better than Overwatch, even if there are not very many maps. But each map is HUGE with a string of objectives to keep going through.
There's only one tdm map in tf2.
I am of course talking of pl_hightower.
Noice m8
*cough* plr_hightower *cough*
2fort
Dagda Mor that too
Purifyerino Kripperino *tdm_hightower
Shows TF2 for Team Deathmatch while it's most iconic map is made for Capture the Flag, then shows Halo for Capture the Flag when Team Deathmatch is the vastly more popular and used mode.
* cough* Hightower * cough*
E
Really disappointed to not see symmetra disappointed by the term "asymmetry" .3.
Tbh I think Symmetra is more concerned about the asymmetry on Tracers' hair.
i wonder... is symmetra ambidextrous?
very mad guy I think she just wants some asymmetry in her life. That's still not satisfied with her Halloween costume
You mean Frank Symmetra, the jazz singer?
Standa Novák *Sinatra
I feel like you guys put less work or thought into this episode compared to usual effort. I enjoy Overwatch but there is nothing inherently special about how they created maps. The Assault and Payload maps are just as assymetrical as those you see in Team Fortress 2, it's most cited competitor/inspiration. Also just like TF2 the KOTH maps are completely symmetrical. You guys said they were partly assymetrical for these maps but in Overwatch that's patently untrue. Some of them seem like they're laid out differently because of moved around clutter objects but a passing glance at the overheads show the buildings are all perfectly symmetrical areas, except in Nepal Village. (Where the amount of area used on left side is slightly larger than right)
OgreSamanosuke exactly. an 8 min video explaining and over thinking a non issue.
Yeah, I kept waiting for the punch line or the revelation that never came. The whole episode felt pretty flat.
Mm, I'm not sure I agree that TF2 used the same design philosophy. Even in Payload maps in TF2 there tended to be a labyrinth of side passages and inner courtyards that could let people sidestep the front lines or come at the payload track from unexpected directions. In control points and attack defend, there are often places where you can choose to go to point A, B, or C even though only one point was unlocked at the moment.
This has a lot to do with the difference in pacing between Overwatch and TF2. Overwatch goes for eight-to-fifteen minute matches with teams of six each, while TF2 goes for a more sprawling match of up to a dozen fighters on a side and battles that are designed to go on for more like fifteen minutes to three quarters of an hour.
Even if Overwatch is just a refinement on asymmetrical mapping that's already present in a couple of TF2 maps, I think it's interesting to pin down exactly the level design philosophy, since it's a much leaner game.
Well and they even didn't speak about the really thing that overwatch has that actually surpass the other fps, the publicity. :P
Gordon Graham the point is there is no depth to the reason payload maps are not symmetrical. It's very simple. Symmetrical maps would not make sense when you have to escort something. That's it.
hey hey hey hey hey hey HEY. WHAT WAS THAT SOMBRA SKULL?
Another teaser. Set your watch for "another month of waiting".
Quien es sombra?
sneaky
giff sombra!
Yep it was a Sombra Skull
love the Overwatch characters in this art style.
Please do make a video regarding _spawn points_ ( that would be awesome hearing from you lot~ )
yes, spawn points. SHOW ME ALL THE IDEAS OF SPAWN POINTS SO AS SPAWN CAMPING IS MORE VIABLE IN OVERWATCH!
I hope they talk about GTA 5's weird spawning system in free-roam multiplayer.
How when you kill another player, they always respawn like 20 feet away from you. It gets really annoying when you just want that player to screw off but they just keep making their way back to kill you.
it doesn't help in GTA that because of close spawns, the one getting killed 3 seconds after spawn 20 times cant get away easily, but neither can the player doing the killing.
i'm guessing this was a reasonable excuse to have the artist draw their favorite overwatch characters
So THAT'S why Symmetra is not viable.
Symmetra reduces/removes the respawn run back for the first point on most A/D maps and can make the attackers take way longer to push the second part.
Granted she's not very good outside of first point defense though which sucks.
... I was making a pun on the maps not being "symmetrical"
stupid momo lol
stupid momo thats actually a good point. symettra is a defense character who is only completely effective at the first point. Her niche is too specific.
Not anymore. I've seen some carrying Symmetras
...On ATTACK
There's a Sombra hidden in the video
levarnu Just saw that too! 🤓
levarnu best comment I've seen after the disappointment XD
What is it with people thinking TF2 has Team death match?
Because Matt pat...he´s the problem.
Exactly my thoughts. He should've done his research...
I'm a simple man. I see overwatch. I click video
1:05 i think i found MatPats long lost Brother. Protip:TF2 doesn't have TDM
I mean it does but no one plays it cuz it's pretty bad.
Benington it does tho
I think arena was just an Experiment, it isn't even in the MyM list. And even then, Arena isn't TDM, it doesn't exist, maybe some Community server has it, but that would be like saying,, TF2 has a MLP+Hello Kitty Roleplay Gamemode"
Axel Burned kek
it is capture the point. that's the way the game is supposed to be played. doesn't matter if f2p pubbers don't play it the way it's supposed to. team deathmatch doesn't exist in tf2. arena is not team deathmatch either.
We need wallpapers of all the little overwatch extra credits characters ! And they need to include the extra credit design of the characters as tags in OW ! This needs to happen !!! Great episode btw !
Aaah! What a fantastic idea! I wish I was one of the artists! --Belinda
5:28
A Mercy left unguarded by her team.
Well, we all know that never happens :,(
>Hanzo player runs into swarm of enemy players
>Screaming at Mercy play "Why you no heal me?!"
Yeah no bud, you're a sniper, you don't need to be three feet from all enemy players.
Fun fact. Tf2 doesn't have team death match.
Not anymore. It used to have one though. It was called "Arena".
That's not team deathmatch though, that's team arena. There's a difference.
Although pug scout is basically tdm
No, there isn't a difference.
Leedark3 The difference is that in deathmatch type gamemodes players will continually be spawning and progress is tracked in the metric number of kills.
In arena gamemodes each player spawns once per round and progress is tracked in the metric rounds won.
Sources: Quake based afps usually make this distinction: Clan Arena being an arena gamemode in quake live where team deathmatch is a deathmatch gamemode in quake live.
Arena was literally the same thing, mind you nobody played it because it was less interesting and there was more downtime. (eg sometimes you would have to wait up to 4 minutes just for everyone to go pop). I know this because myself and an old friend tried to make an arena map, which he is still working on now and is awesome! Everyone likes it, yet it again belongs to possibly the most boring type of matchup.
As to the other type of death match that you are saying, it again does have it but the mode is even less popular. It is possible to do in almost any game yet you just need to have server controls and set the death timers to 0. It is good mindless fun but... it gets boring quick. See trade servers.
I wonder why people always say TF2 is about TDM when that's not really the main game mode. If you're going to credit TF2 for something innovative, it should be Payload. It's the game mode that has moving spawning points of the attackers and defenders depending on which checkpoints are captured with the cart.
Anyway, on to Overwatch. I agree that the map design is as you say it in the video, but the problem is that most, if not all, of the maps in a specific game mode have this same design philosophy which can get a little stale. The Your Overwatch channel made an excellent video about this. Take hybrid for example. All hybrid maps have a first control point with a small choke and 1 or 2 flanking options. The 2nd phase is known as "streets phase" where you push the payload down a street that makes a few turns. Then you have the last point which has a choke that opens up a little to give some options for the attackers.
I'm not saying that this is bad. Each map looks great and unique and that can make it feel a little different, but it also means that you'll see the same heroes over and over for that game mode since they have the same design philosophy.
...Aren't all of the maps where both teams are attacking perfectly symmetrical, though? _Team Fortress 2_ already has asymmetric level design for every map in an asymmetric gamemode (anything with an attacking and defending team), and, on top of that, Sawmill is a map in a _symmetric_ gamemode that is actually assymetric. There is nothing that can be said about _Overwatch_ in this regard that can't also be said about _Team Fortress 2_, and _TF2_ in this video doesn't get any mention at all aside from being very erroneously referred to as a team deathmatch game.
Wanted to say this.
It bothers me more than it should that when he mentioned a Team Deathmatch, TF2 popped up....
no, halo did?
No. Team Fortress 2 did. 1:03
i think it was a play on the fact that it's "team" fortress 2, but i still feel it was a poor choice
Ari Ruggeri didn't notice
*****
Then why would you tell them "no"? Double check next time >_>
tf2 for team death match -_-
It's MatPat allover again
everyone knows no one plays the objective in TF2, so quit yer bitching.
Carlos Macias fare point
Hmm? What did MatPat do? :o
If you don't mind me asking? ^^;
Tobbe sama he said tf2 had death match
When i hear 7 minute grind fest all i hear is the 2nd point on CP_Gorge ; the memory of those engineer camps still haunts me to this day. Also, on the fixed spawn point topic. I believe that having a fixed spawn point actually does add some important elements of strategy in terms of "mini-objectives". For example, in TF2 and Planet Side 2 , Engineers and Sunderers are extreme priorities as both allow the attacking team to subvert the long distance from the initial spawn point. Therefore the defending team no has to destroy them or risk their defensible position being overwhelmed through sheer attrition,thus forcing them to be attackers in a sense. Meanwhile the attackers must keep their supply lines safe thus, becoming defenders in a sense as well. I just think thats a cool mechanic some games have to help break those gridlocks on final points and whatnot.
It has been said already but saying 'team deathmatch' and putting a nice big TF2 poster on the screen is like saying master chief and putting a handkerchief on the screen, only one word in common.
I disapprove of this one second of this video.
TF2 nailed this kind of asymmetrical map design years ago. While Overwatch is great, well designed, and a great example of this. Come on, TF2 made it an artform on any of its payload maps. And Push maps become asymmetrical as you push your spawn points forward as points are captured.
6:10, there's an Undertale reference, look at the bottom blue skull's eyes.
Senya Borovikov I thought it was supposed to be Ana's bad eye maybe. Wrong side for Sans, isn't it?
Perhaps, you probably know it better than I do.
gtfo
Was kinda hoping for some examples :/
Halo decided that the only thing to do was to make everything completely symmetrical, so now every map is one giant doughnut...
I loved Boneyard in Reach... There were plenty of interesting spaces, and since weapon spawns and sight-lines made things change up, there was never an ONE spot.
Also, there were several game types like Assault, that could be played like the example above where it went in stages. Nope - the top players only want open doughnuts, so that's what all maps will be!
Man, the completely symmetrical maps in the Halo games are the worst. All the best maps are asymmetrical.
notoriouswhitemoth Yeah I feel you. Just like Temple of Anubis map and explaining what the assymetry is in it and stuff
A game that I've always enjoyed the asymmetrical level design in was an Xbox 360 FPS called Shadowrun. While I've never played Overwatch to compare, Shadowrun follows the exact system of asymmetrical level designed described in this video, with the attackers having many flank options, but the final rush into the defense's point is a single unblocked path most of the time. The maps are also not just an attacker's advantage early on, but built so the attackers are at an inherit disadvantage to begin, usually starting on the lower ground, but depending on your use of the countless flank tatics the maps and gameplay offer, the defenders are hard pressed despite having the high ground advantage.
Very interesting video to me, because I had a nice reference point in mind that lived by this design. Wish Shadowrun was still a relevant game, as it would have been a topic I would have been interested in hearing about from this channel.
1:03
Teamdeath match
Teeeaamdeeath maatch!
T R I G G E R E D !
MatPat why! You had one job. OOONNEEE JOB
Or as we call it in the tf2 lingo, plr_hightower
matpat WHY DID YOU INFECTED THE KIDS WITH CRAPPY VIDEOS also
sans is ness 10/10 IGN
Explain the issue?
Not too long ago, MatPat had a TF2 vs Overwatch video which was woefully under-researched. This spread so much misinformation and misconceptions about both games. Misconceptions are bad for games because they turn away those who would have played them, and set people up for disillusionment if they play that game. Not to mention making related online discussion difficult.
One of the things MatPat claimed was that TF2 had a team deathmatch gamemode, which it doesn't. That's not how TF2 works. At all. Here, Extra Credits is perpetuating this misconception. Its incredibly frustrating seeing people with influence spreading lies.
The sharp people in that studio solved it by deleting the game mode completely and turning Overwatch into a generic, over monetized, free-to-play game.
wow..the art for the overwatch characters is amazing in this video!
hope u had fun drawing the overwatch characters scott
Did you seriously show Team Fortress 2 to exemplify Team Deathmatch? I mean, it _has_ a mode like that, but even that is not strictly TD. Surely, something like Unreal Tournament would have been a better fit.
bruh it was an example chill
Nixitur salt
keybladelovers
I know it was an example. My point is that it's not a particularly _good_ one.
+keybladelovers I can understand his frustration as TF2's Team Deathnatch mode is virtually non-existent and anyone who plays it knows it mostly for its objective-based structure similar to that of Overwatch's.
Radix Token
I don't know what you're talking about with "frustration". I merely criticized an odd image choice, nothing more.
Loved how the Overwatch characters looked in the Extra Credits art style :D!!
1:00
Please do not use Matpat as a source of information on Team fortress 2...
A good example for this is Splatoon’s Rainmaker and Tower Control. The Rainmaker and Tower Control start in the middle of the map, and when someone claims it, you can see that person on your map. Naturally, you will defend them or attack them. There’s always something going on around the tower or Rainmaker, which draws in people. You also have to claim these to make them move and get more points to win before the time runs out. The other team has to get to the point to obtain it, and the team that has it must defend it by keeping in groups.
What's with the lowest blue skull's left eye being brighter?
For a good look at asymmetrical gameplay in a game, I recommend looking at Mount and Blade: Napoleonic Wars as an example. The siege game mode has one team assaulting a fortress, with the other team trying to defend it. The attacking team has unlimited spawns, but only a given amount of time in which to capture a fortress (or other secured position). The defender only has to hold out until the time is up, but has only a limited amount of spawns. The attacker spawns in a camp somewhere outside the fortifications, usually behind cover. The defender spawns near (but never at) the flag, the central point of the fort. If the flag is occupied and held for a given amount of time, the fortress is taken.
The siege game mode has a few 'stages' of the siege you can observe. These are not really seperate, but flow into each other, giving precisely the kind of effect described in the video. The idea of one line of defence falling, with another standing by to take her place. Now, during the first stage, players set up. The gunners find their wall-mounted cannon, the musketeers take to the walls. The attackers, in the meantime, rush forward towards the walls, like a human wave. Their life is worth little, since they have infinite respawns. They too set up cannon, and they begin pummeling the walls. At first, every attempt at assault seems futile. Volleys of musket fire keep the endless hoard of attackers at bay, cannon loaded with canister shot do their dirty work. Slowly but surely, however, the attackers gain ground. Either a cannon punches a hole in a wall, allowing soldiers to attack on equal footing, or the walls are finally scaled with siege ladders. If that happens, a bloody and chaotic brawl ensues on the parapets, bayonet fighting really testing out the skill of each player. This, of course, under the thunder of musket fire.
Usually, a group of players fight their way into the gatehouse, allowing them to open the gates from the inside. At that moment, the rest of the players (who were either firing at the walls or who just respawned) can walk straight into the fortifications, tipping the balance heavily in the favour of the attackers. The defenders usually pull back, as their lives are actually worth something, with some brave souls staying behind to cover their retreat. The defenders regroup at the next choke point, the next wall or fortification, and so the whole scene starts anew. These two stages follow each other up (unless the defenders hold firm in the first place), until the attackers finally reach the flag square. By this time, however, the engineers of the defending party have usually constructed elaborate defensive works around the flag, which turns the place into a kill zone. After some very bloody firing, and some even bloodier melee, either the defenders hold the flag, or the attackers overwhelm the defenders with superior numbers. The attackers then form a defensive parameter at the flag, holding back any defender who tries to reclaim the spot.
I myself find this superbly done. It takes effort from both sides to win, each side having her own set of difficulties to overcome. The asymmetry is solved with the spawn system leaving the rest of the game intact. The chaotic nature of the game, the suspenseful reloading of a single-shot musket, the flying of rounds and cannon balls all round all make it work. The attacker, running at the walls through a hail of musket fire, trying to get a ladder against the wall or trying to attack a breach. The defender, himself under fire, having to quickly fend off anyone who gets to close, finally having to resort to the bayonet to defend his place. And, of course, having to realise when a position becomes hopeless, and retreat is the only option. And both sides actually win on a regular basis, so they must be doing something right.
This analysis could've used some "ethos". Some examples of this "team deathmatch philosophy", games, so you don't look like you're speaking entirely from theory.
4:30 Overwatch's king of the hill mode does have multiple spawn points because it's played as best-of-three rounds with each round taking place on a different map.
5:50 I would argue that most maps do have flanking paths on the final objective and that there are always extra paths for characters with the right movement ability for a particular area. On escort objectives these side paths tend to reconnect to the main path very quickly because the central path itself is the objective.
I see you Sombra. I can't wait for your characters video!
so looking forward to the characters, I love how they can allow for a massive change in battle in seconds.
I think one point that you guys missed a talking point about how player skill interacts with the asymmetrical level design. This is one of the biggest hurdles that the Overwatch LD's have to struggle with and tbh, I don't think they do that great of a job in dealing with it (granted it's a very tough variable to consider and try to deal with). A match taking place on an asymmetrical map with professional players will play out a lot different and quicker than a match with lower skilled players due to the players ability to aim/work together/general awareness. Mix in choke points without flanking options and you then run into a large problem of losing player interest/engagement due to the lower ability players not wanting to bang their heads against a brick wall till the match ends (and why you see players switching to longer ranges characters such as Widowmaker and Hanzo).
So in part, you have 3 factors taking place in the difficulty curve of the map which are, attacker/defender priority, skill of the player and character choice/balance. This also raises the interesting question of what kind of player do you balance a competitive asymmetrical map around. You make it too easy and you lose the higher skill bases attention (and your competitive scene) but on the other hand, make it too hard and you lose your 'casual' player base (which is larger and the ones normally paying the bills).
darthsebious the same thing can be said about tf2. The same maps will have a very different feel when you're in a standard pub when compared to playing a comp match in UGC.
Absolutely. This isn't an issue just that Overwatch has to deal with. I just felt it was worth bringing up due to how player skill can have a profound effect on map balance and how level designers have to keep that in mind when the map is being designed.
I'll note that fewer flanking paths in general work more in favour of defenders (the closer to their spawn point you get) while more is good for attackers. I'm guessing the maximum amount of separate approach flanking paths you should have before defenders stop being able to see attacks coming is around 3. (I'm not counting "there's a short split in a path before they rejoin due to wall").
YES! THIS is the EC episode I've been waiting for! thank you!
1:03 "Team deathmatch" ....
MatPat is EC Comfirmed?
oh no its spreading
Tf2 has a tdm mode, stop circlejerking
Tf2 does not have a TDM mode. Have you even played it?
Father Shrimp I think the better question to ask is "Who the fuck plays it?"
Your artist clearly had fun with this episode. Loving your take on Overwatch characters. ^^
mfw people say team fortress 2 has team deathmatch.
which is true, seeing as how people only farm and go for kills
Chanceler64 Arena Mode.
pl_hightower
Blu Apple I wish that counted, but we always have f2p's and tryhards who never seem to unterstand the "no caping rule".
It would have been extra nice (you would have got Extra Credit from me ... geddit?) if you'd shown which asymmetric maps you thought were particularly good examples of both the best and worst. As something of an Overwatch novice I don't really know the maps well enough to be able to tell.
No map examples?
yeah that kinda annoyed me - they were making vague references to how "some were masterpieces and some turn into a 7 minute grind fest" and I wanted to know which maps they were referring to!
Probably Hanamura - breaking through point B can be a pain.
I feel that may have been intentional. Opinions regarding maps and characters in Overwatch can be extremely divisive, and could incite comments in the thread that would ultimately derail reasonable discussion.
***** Fair point, but should they compromise accuracy and clarity for a peaceful comment section?
You guys had a lot of fun making Overwatch character versions for your show, nice
"Team Death Match" Now we know the guys at Extra Credits only play CTF in TF2...
Also:
All the "points" you make are the basic formula for ever multiplayer map, is nothing new dude....
Im pretty sure it is a joke about matpat's video
Oliver Kill me now Hughes My comment was a joke too, in tf2 capture the flag often transform itself into a team death match.
Congratulations on getting the point of the video--Extra Credits isn't exactly supposed to be anything new or revelatory. They're simply teaching game design. It's what they've been doing for years.
Dagda Mor You need to watch the video again, they talk about Overwatch and the maps is has, as is something new...
>nothing new
Yeah did they preface the video by saying "HEY GUYS GUESS WHAT WE JUST DISCOVERED!!!!"?
Or, maybe, just maybe, are they just teaching game design concepts and using a specific game (ie; overwatch) to exemplify that information, as they have done with practically every other video they've made?
Think before you shitpost m8.
I eagerly support a video on the effect of various spawn mechanisms. It's something I've often thought about when swapping between the different shooters I play, since just changing the spawn system can completely change the game. Not just location, but also spawn number - such as the difference between 1-life/no respawn, infinite respawn, and limited "ticket" respawn.
6:15 IT'S not HIGH NOON!!!
I think you did it wrong. You see, you write the NOT in caps and everything else normal.
Royal 97
Happens to the best of us.
*****
Exctly!
Gamergasm. I love when you talk about actual design :D
of course they use tf2 as the example for tdm..... stop taking information from matpat
I love seeing the Overwatch characters drawn in the Extra Credits style!
Pretty much all the points here, apply to tf2 maps as well yet you don't discuss them till ow is out seeming amazed by it and saying tf2 is tdm
You can't mention 7 minute grind fest without mentioning half the final zone CP maps.....The sentry nests...the horror...
As an engie main, sorry about that.:P
Yeah when it comes to level design then both games are pretty equal. There some slight differences in focus. But you see the same dynamic in play. And of course the two teams use similar metric tools craft these finely tuned maps.
Also why I hate when people start messing to much with spawn timers on maps on that in TF2. Generally it tend to screw the balance in favour of one side. Which actually shows off a lot of why Overwatch is set up as it it.
i just started Overwatch today and i was thinking on this subject during those long times i was hauling ass back to the def/attack point
**In Dave Chappelle as P Diddy Voice** So we jus gon' act like TF2 didn't create this asymmetric-map-that-tells-a-story-with-the-battle-leading-to-one-last-stand shit? that's what's hot in these streets now?
Which map do you think favors defense too heavily on the last point?
Temple of Anubis and Volstyia Industries have a set up there there are definiately multiple paths to the final objective point as opposed to the unflankable hall way design.
Hollywood as side doors leading to the final capture point, with cover making it so no one point can fire on all of them. Same on Route 66, lots of side paths that give cover.
Mumbai uses buildings to give flanking paths and cover that lead right up to the final destination for the cart.
Einchward and King's Row do have one choke point that you have to go through to get to the point, but it is not a hallway, but rather a single narrowing of the travel path, which seems to be meant to encourage the use of Tracer and Reaper, who can get through that area unassailed and this is about 5 meters off from the final point, small enough that one wipe of the enemy team can get the cart through to the end.
Did anyone else notice Sombra's symbol at the end?
Don't think we didn't notice that Sombra skull before the credits, EC.
7:54 You cheeky bastards.
Arma 3, deployed deep into enemy lines with a buddy, in a city. Set up explosives in building flanking us, and pinned down several advancing squads, helping our team hold a numbers advantage. Enemy enters building behind us, I trigger explosion wiping out most of a squad, costing them more cover. Eventually we are taken out after running out of ammo in out main weapons. Best asymmetric design I've seen yet.
Intended Sombra hint at the?
Episode on arg incoming?
I feel like the animator was hyped to draw the overwatch characters in their style
1:05
"Team Deathmatch"
*Shows Team Fortress 2*
Why
i love when you said death match the tf2 box art popped up, nice matpat reference
This is Blizzard we're talking about. They don't care about game balance.
You are wrong. They care a lot.
Maybe not in WoW, i dont know. In Overwatch there will also be always a strategy that is a bit stronger then others. But they nerf and buff their way through the game, the meta changes every month/two months. It is really good balanced.
People did not complain about mei due to being op. People complained due to being unfun to play against.
The mei buff was great and has put her is a great place as a hero witha high skill ceiling.
the art is so good for this episode omg.
Just curious why you pitch up your voice?
So they had a video on this (Don't remember which one.) But the original reasoning behind it was Dan I think his name was, had to make a video for some school project but couldn't cut it down to the maximum length. So he sped it up. WHAM squeaky voice.
oh wow! Thanks for explaining
Look
I'm not saying that Overwatch copied TF2
but these points also apply to payload and attack/defend maps in TF2 xd
Pretty much the last three games that blizzard has made has just been profiting already popular game genres, hearthstone, heroes of the storm, and overwatch. Heck, they probably wouldn't have made heroes of the storm if they weren't battling for copyright of Dota 2 with valve.
6:15 IT"S HIGH NOON
7:54 Sombra confirmed
I always figured the self-correcting feature in breaking "unbalanced points" were the Ults. Even when an attacking team wipes, progress is made either by building ult charge or forcing the defenders to spend their Ults. While both sides have access to ults at the final point, attackers benefit more because they can withdraw or try again if a defensive ult/ ult combo foils an attack. On the other hand, the attackers only need to get lucky once or twice with their ults to break the defense.
Long story short, as long as the skill difference isn't ludicrous (something Bliz's matchmaker handles reasonably well), all attacking teams will eventually break a final defense given enough time. So: all Bliz really needs to do to keep the asymmetry balanced is tweak the time limit based on how many wipes it generally takes before attackers are finally able to "ult through" a defensive last stand. Bliz's big data analytics approach to game balance really comes into its own here.
TF2 doesn't have team death match without mods. '-' ever.
Or arena mode but nobody plays that
because players are forced to kill sandvich hoovi3s 😢😢😢😢😢😢
It's a tragedy we all live with: the knowledge that innocent hoovies, spycrabs, pyrosharks, gibus engies, and muselk are killed daily without remorse.
Naonna Pryderi 😢😢😢😢
I need a hug
😢😢😢😢
spy crab gone too soon
*is an ex-spy-main, so might end up stabbing instead* .... best not to.
That Sombra graphic at the end of the video though!
Good stuff, I didn't even think of Overwatch as an Asymmetric game, but after it was explained it made complete sense.
I like how this basically applies to tf2, but nope
Overwatch is the thing now these days and made "Superior" Maps to the ones that have been working well for tf2 for the past *10 years*
And really? Team Death Match? TF2 has more modes than Overwatch, both Symmetic and Asymmetric designs
Have to give pretty huge props to the artist for the overwatch characters in this episode.
was the deathmatch with a tf2 picture a joke?
or are you guys for real?
Through the whole episode I was mentally scrolling through maps in World of Tanks, since that's the competitive multiplayer game I play the most. There's quite a bit of asymmetry on some maps like Steppes and Fjords, but one map stuck out a lot in my mind because it's used both symmetrically AND asymmetrically: Siegfried Line.
The basic layout of the map is this: Dominating most of the eastern side of the map is town that gives a lot of cover and a high-ground advantage. To the north and south of it are two fields that, while not that similar in appearance or method both provide a good amount of cover from the town. The west half of the map, separated from the east by dragons' teeth with occasional gaps you can drive through, is basically one big open field dotted with a few bunkers and bisected by a raised road leading into the town.
Now how the map can be both asymmetric and symmetric is all in the spawn points. In a standard deathmatch-like battle the spawn points are just east of the dragons' teeth in the north and south. But in the attacker/defender battles one team spawns split up in the western field, while the other spawns on either side of the town with the capture point in the square at the town's east end. And this basically makes a whole series of encounter points leading up to and through the town that have to be defended.
Of course one difference World of Tanks has from a game like Overwatch is that you don't respawn, so spawn positioning only matters for the first minute or so of the game, but I thought this was a neat example none-the-less.
The amount of people getting salty about the team deathmatch thing w/r/t tf2 are kind of why I always found the community surrounding tf2 to be really, really uninviting.
See, you're asking the wrong person? Because as I might have mentioned, the community surrounding TF2 turned me off of ever looking at the game, so I don't know.
I just found it really funny that TF2 was showed for Team Deathmatch when the most iconic map is CTF, and showed Halo for CTF when the most common is TDM
See, then maybe it was a joke? Like, idk, again, I don't play tf2 and to be TOTALLY honest, competitive fps ain't my jam. So... maybe a joke? That just... didn't land well? idk.
I'm sitting here trying to process all of the posters freaking out over it, myself. I mean I know it's been at least three or four years since I last opened and played TF2, but I pretty clearly remember TF:C and TF2 having a team elimination mode. Did they remove it, do people not run those servers, or what? I really don't have a clue, because outside of some very rare titles I dropped out of the online gaming circuit when the amount of received death threats per match exceeded my "1 per minute" threshold.
BrotherLazarus well theres arena but thats not Team Deathmatch. That's an elimination mode. And its also not really used anymore either. But yeah it sounded kinda like a joke, i thought it was funny but..it didnt seem like it was being presented as one. I'm sure most of the Tf2 players are just in panic mode because the game has been severly mistreated by Valve recently and the comparison between Overwatch and TF2 doesn't help. Even though both games are VASTLY different from each other. They just want people to know what their game. It would be kinda like calling something a strategy game when it's really about something else.
i love the animated heroes you did its amazing
TF2 does not have a team death match. stop claiming that it does!
Who cares?
So you've never played arena?
Bastion their not the same.
Two teams in a fight to the death.
Sounds like a team deathmatch to me.
Bastion all because they function similarly doesn't automatically mean there the same.
There are some games - not many - which use fixed spawn points as part of how they control who has the advantage in different parts of the map. Always spawn at your home base = less travel time to the conflict zones closer to your base. Also means longer delays getting reinforcements when your team's already taking the initiative, meaning you have to be more careful, or actually perform better to maintain the pressure. And once you're right on the enemy's doorstep, it becomes more extreme, since they'll be spawning almost directly into the fight, while your team spawns a long distance back and need some time to get back into battle.
I feel these kinds of episodes are your weakest, because it's clear you wanted to talk about Overwatch and Overwatch alone, then found a topic to haphazardly hammer into Overwatch, instead of picking a topic (Asymmetrical Map Design) and then ACTUALLY RESEARCHING games that use this design choice.
And the result is...well...this episode. Misinformation about TF2. And it's not that TF2 is some special sheep that must be protected, but because it's possibly the MOST PROMINENT EXAMPLE OF ASYMMETRICAL MAP DESIGN IN FPS GAMING FOR THE PAST DECADE. You could have picked, literally, any other game, any other example, and it would have been reasonable. But as for the episode itself: eight minutes of Overwatch wank, but ultimately little real substance on the topic (I mean, really, no specific examples? I could explain for over an hour the intricacies of Dustbowl ALONE).
This is just...a really weak style of episode making. Don't take this as hate, I just believe, no, I KNOW, you guys can do better.
-"MOST PROMINENT EXAMPLE OF ASYMMETRICAL MAP DESIGN IN FPS GAMING FOR THE PAST DECADE. "_
Are you certain? Because a lot of FPS use quite a bit of asymmetry. I mean Battlefield does, CSGO does, etc. What is so special about TF2 here?
I've been a sub from then you only had 100k, i just gotta say that your videos are still awesome!
TF2 IS NOT TEAM DEATHMATCH FFS
PLAY THE OBJECTIVE ALREADY
Used to have a team deathmatch mode called arena, but it's only accessible via community servers, other than that TF2 indeed does not have a team deathmatch mode
Playing the objective doesn't really get you that sweet, succulent, juicy XP though...
Yes it does
love the Character Art Dan! Looking forward to next week's ep!
(i saw that Sombra skull you sneaky dogs)
Overwatch map design is not really good example for anything
Overwatch map design wouldn't even be a good example of Overwatch map design, then?
The Extra Credit-ized versions of the Overwatch characters in this video are amazing!
So why does this guy edit the pitch of his voice? Does no one else find this annoying?
I love the your art style with the Overwatch characters!
Actually, in overwatch, most maps have an easy to defend chokepoint near the first objective (Temple of Anubis, Volkskaia Industries, Route 66...) while the final objective gives the attackers a lot of flanking options. This is probably to balance the distance to objective for defenders first and then the time pressure for attackers last.
If there's another game that I played that had good examples of points of action and Asymmetry, it was Elder Scrolls Online.
Sure, the game has hosts of flaws, but Cyrodiil was designed as an incredibly vast and diverse battlefield. During the closed beta, I recall fighting large scale battles at a number of points - not just at the forts, but also at bridges that hung over Slaughterfish infested water; bridge fights did not happen often since there's only a few in all of Cyrodiil, but it was an excellent place to hold off a large push, even though there was technically no 'objective' on the bridge.
Then there were the fort fights. A fort had added defenses when its three surrounding resources - a farm, lumber mill and mine - were intact. It was difficult to defend all three of these points due to the fact attackers could attack any one of them from any angle, but they would become slightly easier to defend when there was only one left, since you'd know where the attack would happen. Forts themselves would be difficult to bust, requiring siege to break; Defenders could line their own siege weapons against the wall and, thanks to a slight defender's advantage, had more range but less space. Once the attackers broke through the outer wall, the inner keep would be under assault, and the offense could actually use the fort's walls to set up siege weapons and begin firing on the defense, the same terrain being used for different purposes.
The mode had problems, like balance between the different siege weapons (why would you ever use a Frost Ballista that can slow players when the Fire Ballista could nearly kill someone?), but from a terrain standpoint, it created exactly the sorts of asymmetrical balance that this video points out, with the offense starting with an advantage until the defenders were pushed back to the very inside of the inner keep for the last stand.
i love your Overwatch character art, its really good
This video is quite interesting to think about in terms of Upward on TF2 for those who haven't played Overwatch.