Gents,
Having played the odd game or two on as_tundra recently it got me thinking about map boundaries when, like a bolt of lightning, it suddenly occured to me that VIP maps can be played in PCS style without any boundaries.
How cool is that?
You see, unlike de_ or cs_ maps, as_ maps don't have a static target (bombsite/hostages) to guard. So the generic rule of thumb is:
CTs work as a team to secure the VIP's escape.
Ts work as a team to kill the VIP.
The differential between attackers/defenders is blurred as both teams have to do both. It would be easy to say that the VIP escape points should be treated as bombsites and guarded at all costs but this would ruin the gameplay IMHO.
What I'm trying to say is that this type of map could be just as rewarding to play without having to stipulate rules of engagement/boundaries.
Any thoughts?
In general I agree, I would like to see some VIP maps (or even some of the hybrid maps) in rotation for the variety. I've actually been messing around with a few maps at home in preparation foe the Q1 map rotation review :D
One thing I have noticed on Tundra is that there rarely seems to be a coherent plan from the CTs. Yes a few of them stick around the VIP, but others fly off other ways. I think this is because of the mobile nature of the map objective - the VIP. As the round develops the posisitons and tactical plans need to evolve with them - and most people can't make those plans on the fly - and even of they can they tend not to be able to describe what they want to happen as the VIP maps tend to have lots of similar looking corridors/rocks/passageways etc.
I think it would be a good idea to bring a VIP (or similar) map into the rotation on a trial (we have the Q1 review just around the corner) but I suspect that in the early days, we would need to really keep a tight control on the CT tactics. Ts are less of a problem to control as they tend to sit down at choke points and wait to be engaged.
Worth trying out - maybe we should pull together a short list of maps here to add to the review?
TL. 8)