CTF is not the best match for this game.

Capture the flag is great in some games, not so much in this one.

I think at this point you have to look at your players and the way they play, and figure out exactly why this game became popular. From what I have observed there are 3 kinds of players:

-Full combat: they never play builder, just archer and knight. They have fun killing people and destroying castles.

-Helpful builders: they build little forts, outposts and catapults where you need them. They dont spend too much time improving their little constructions, instead they push along with the combat players. They also use other classes but mainly for defense.

-Fantasy builders: they mostly stay near the base building all sorts of super high towers, bridges, useless walls, etc... They never play another class.

I'd say the proportion of these 3 kinds of players is about 40% 15% 45%

To win in CTF you need to push early, build an outpost or two and keep the pressure on with suicide attacks until you get the flag, that's it. The less builders the better, you only need a couple. But most people like playing builders so they end up being a dead weight on their team.

We need a game mode where building is more important.



Here's a game mode that I think would work better with this game: Assault. (like in unreal tournament)
-1) Both teams are given several minutes to build the best fort they can.
-2) team A attacks, team B defends. Action takes place in team B side of the map.
-3) team B attacks, team A defends. Action takes place in team A side of the map.

The team that destroys the opposite team's fort in less time wins.

This game mode would make for much more epic battles, especially with the siege weapons that are in development.

 

What about a Domination System (like tw in soldat) ? The team with the higher Domination percentage when the time is up win (or when a team get 90 % control of the map).

 

I like the idea Vania but how would it be decided on who's base is most destroyed? I don't think the game would think "Oh this fort is much more destroyed than this one because blah blah blah...".

It WOULD be nice if there was a game mode that placed larger emphasis on builders.

 

btw with assault
each player should only have 1 life
so they dont keep respawning

 

I would like to see a territory control based game mode.

Just to throw some idea, there would be some objects in the map (let's call them totems just for the sake of it) that each team would control, maybe by making and protecting buildings around them and they would give points for every X minutes that they remain in that team control. The match would be time limited and the team with more points in the end wins.

 

I think D'Nightingale has the best so far. KAG is basically about linear map control and push pull. I think the best game modes would reflect this nature.

 

Although I do like Vania's idea, I have to agree with this. When I've played long matches, gameplay similar to point capture is what I observed. Both teams get to the middle, set up fortification, fight eachother there and then start pushing. I've seen matches where blue team pushes and pushes and finally almost get to red base, then slowly they get pushed back and lose their outposts, etc. And having the outposts makes the game similar to point cap already.

You could already do like D'Nightingale said, but use tents and outposts as cap points or something. Have a game mode where there are certain places marked on the map - perhaps 4 blocks of bedrock highlighted somehow. Sometimes you have to dig to them, or climb up to them. Outposts can only be built on these bits of highlighted bedrock. So first both teams would rush out, build their second outpost in their territory, then fight for a 5th one smack in the middle of the map (since both teams have 2 cap points already, tent and one outpost). Then the game play would be interesting. When taking over a cap point, it would be best not to destroy the outpost that's already there, or you have to fight off enemies while a builder builds a new one. It would also be beneficial not to destroy much of the enemies fortification as you could use it for your own. After a long push pull map, you might see large intricate forts that were built by builders of both teams. Just that traps, doors, sniper nests and catapults would keep changing direction.

 

A gamemode with static, undestroyable outpost uniformly distributed across the map would be cool. Of course teams wouldn't be able to build outpost on their own.

 

There already was a similar idea (to Vania's one) on the forums, but it included flags - B has to steal (or maybe just touch) the flag from A faster than A steals it from B in next round. And I like this variation of the idea.

 

There could be a destructible spawn, a king you have to kill, I dont know... a concrete objective.

 

+1 on king killing cause I suggested that before.

 

I think that's good for the more hardcore players, who are more focused on winning.

The problem is a lot of players want to build massive castles, that's the reason they play KAG, and in a "push-pull" game mode there is no need for big castles.
Also, when people build a tower they want to see it tested, they want to get to defend it.
The other problem is many times there is a much stronger team, so you have one team just defending and another attacking.

A good mode in my opinion should bring together all types of players so that they can all be useful, should be highly focused on building ( because that's the main attractive of the game ), and should allow people to experience both attack and defense.


I'm sure CTF would be cool with just hardcore players but in a public game it doesnt work. What always happens is the team with less minecrafters wins...

 

I'd say don't worry that the noobs will be useless in a certain gametype, chances are they'll be useless in every gametype you can think of. In fact in a gamemode where success hinges on what kind of castle you'll build, they'll likely be detrimental, ruining carefully made defenses with their architectural retardation. I've had beautiful, functional castles ruined by noobs who just add random tumors of nonsense everywhere. I'd say that if they're going to pollute public games with their masturbatory construction plans, let is be where no one will have to deal with it (unless a team gets pushed all the way back as mentioned).

 

What I suggested would do this.

 

I doubt that.
I'm sure there's people who will suck at everything... but a lot of these minecrafters could be put to good use.

Plus I dont blame the minecrafters for being useless, they're doing what they like. Without the building this game is nothing, it is the main mechanic and it's the most fun. Take out that part and no one would play.

Imagine the devs took away victory conditions in KAG and made the game completely pointless.
What do you think would happen? I'm pretty sure nothing would happen because most people dont care about the gold or the flag, they just want to play around with the toy.

Once you have a fun toy like KAG, it is your job as a game designer to turn it into a game by making the fun parts useful, so that in order to win you need to do a lot of fun stuff.
If you fail two things can happen depending on the player's personality:
1) people will not experience the full potential of your toy (such a waste), they'll play to win even if that means doing boring stuff.
2) people will just ignore the goals and rules and keep playing with the toy.

Example of 1: making a gigantic tunnel to get under the enemy base is not fun, it's actually quite boring, yet people do it because they want to win.
Example of 2: minecrafters.

It should be clear by now that CTF is a failure.

 

I really think you're taking it to the extreme. You probably pulled those percentages out of your ass to try and sound more convincing. I don't need percentages to tell you that there are plenty of people who genuinely enjoy pushing to get to the flag, flag capture, combat and not just building. The way to sort out minecrafters is to either leave everything as it is (minecrafters should be playing minecraft if they expect the game to change simply because they exist) or to allow servers to only have certain classes, which would be builders. This is actually possible via rcon I believe.

 

I don't "blame" noobs. I don't blame them for not contributing to the team. They are simply dead weight and a are a part of the game environment to consider the same way you consider places of cover or what colour your flag is. They are a simple constant you accept as a part of the game.

There are players like this in every game, ones that are not simply bad, which is entirely forgivable, but who engage in pointless, self centered exercises that do nothing to help your team. In TF2 you have engineers who sit in the back of your spawn and build turrets and teleporters with the exit a few feet away from the entrance. In CoD you have snipers who just spend the entire game jumping off stuff and spinning hoping their no scope will hit someone. In every FPS you have bad snipers who sit in the back killing nobody, hoping to pad their KD.

Don't strawman me and say they should take building out of the game. I said nothing of the sort. I love building. But nothing good will come out of minecrafters. You can try to change the player, but changing the game to accommodate these minecrafters will not make them useful, and will only harm the smart players. As I said, even if you made a gamemode that focused on staying at your spawn and building, they would only ruin it by building useless and even harmful structures. I know of many players who insist on simply building a million foot high walls that would take just two bombs at the base to collapse. They also scream "griefer" when you attempt to build doors or team ladders and they immediately rush to undo your work. The elite minecrafters will often follow this up by building a catapult on top of this tower so that they can rain rocks on their allies' buildings. No, it's better if we have gamemodes where we can keep these people at the back of our base where they can damage us the least.

 

...Or you could have a point cap game mode for the last freaking time.

 

Eh, I never said that?
I was making a point about building being the main mechanic of the game and why devs should focus on it.

Yes, but not as many. I've never seen a game where such a large part of the players decide to ignore the objectives and do their own thing. This is a bad symptom.

You cant ignore them. If you're fighting 5v10 because half your team is building the hanging gardens of babylon you're screwed.

This is a great idea, it's very easy to do and you should do it right now.
I feel this is a good temporary measure, while you figure out how to bring the player base together.
Or.. maybe Contrary is right and you cant bring together the whole community in a single game mode, but you have to at least try.

You may be aiming a bit too high with all that RTS stuff, it sounds like it would involve very complex cooperation. If you're going to pull that off you guys are gonna have to innovate, to really break ground. I imagine hierarchies would be needed, with architects, planners, etc... It would be epic if you succeed.