next »

[Please Support Us!]

Please Support Us!

Please help keep (=WDG=) alive

• Server rules
• Forum rules
• Join us
  
• Clan members
• About the clan
• Server stats
• WDG YouTube Channel
• WDG Downloads
• IRC Webchat

Steam groups:

• WDG community
• WDG clan group
• WDG Battlelog Platoon

Our allies:

• [NuB] TF2 clan
• Velocity Gamers Hub
• Destination Gamer

GoG Links:

• Wix Discord
• Wix IRC channel

TF2 Links:

• Official TF2 Blog
• TF2 Steam Forum
• The Fort 2

December 2025

Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

[Teatime]

I spouted yesterday during a disastrous CTF_Well game that I would write a guide on CTF.
So I sat down and did. I originally intended to write it just for posting here, but then I got selfish and decided to put it on the Fort.
So you can read it here.

Truth to be told the end result has been far less impressive than I thought I would be able to make it
Still hope it offers a few ideas and perhaps helps to understand why I think many TF2 players don't approach CTF as it should be.

General remarks can of course be posted on the Fort, but if somebody feels tempted to discuss the matter this thread here might be better suited for this.

[CruelCow]

IMHO TF2 simply isn't a good game for CTF. I see two big problems:
A well placed sentry in 2fort, turbine and sawmill protected by a decent solly stops EVERYTHING the enemy throws at them, except an über. However getting an über into the intel room is nigh impossible, since you have to get past the spawn in most maps. Which leaves attack (attack as in get the intel not as push forward the enemy base) to scout and spies, which are easy to counter.

The other problem is that it's next to impossible to return the intel once it's gone. TF2 is the only game I know where you can't reset the intel immediately back and that is even assuming you catch the scout who has it.

Long story short: Putting up an impenetrable defence up is relatively easy and at the same time very needed.


I also disagree with the strong separation of O and D: Most maps make it next to impossible to ignore the enemy O. What are you expecting if I'm running on top of the bridge in 2fort and see an enemy on it? Letting him get past and hope he doesn't shoot me in the back?

[TheBeau]

IMHO TF2 simply isn't a good game for CTF.

+1 Agree with what you've posted as well.

For it to work, maps need to accommodate a lot more room to maneuver (ie. point 2 to point 4 of cp_well would be good i think) and you absolutely need to be able to return the flag OR have the timer set far far lower. It's ridiculous trying to defend your flag as a scout if it's dropped right outside their spawn, as well as spawn camping being thought of as cheap.

Additionally the penalty for death in tf2 is a respawn time. CTF is a mode which does not like that at all, the penalty for death in UT3 ctf is that you failed to stop the flag carrier, which tbh is bad enough but having to wait for their carrier to skip to their base is a joke. On top of that, you can still cap without having your flag at base. Ok it doesn't really fit the whole 'intel' theme but that's (imo) the best and most exciting situation in ctf, when your entire team goes forward, sometimes including the flag carrier, to try and get your flag back.

In short, caps aren't frequent enough, it's too easy to defend. You can say all you want about Offense and Defense but your offense will fail against competent defenders almost every time. Additionally, no class limits on pubs makes the intel room hell and it's ridiculous to need an uber to push through each layer of defense.

Besides, team fortress demands the entirety of the team and that's what gives one side strength over the other. Splitting up your team into O and D in team fortress is, imo, a bad idea (where do the support classes fit in? Who should the medic go with? Should there be two medics? Wouldn't that end in uber, counter uber, uber, counter uber?). It's rigid, it's unforgiving and it doesn't unlock any of the classes potential.

Feel free to correct me on anything I've said, but I think Cruel has it right. Team Fortress 2 isn't suited to CTF, or at least the current ctf format and maps.

EDIT: Also, Uber means there is absolutely no reason on earth you would want to attack if you're not at 100% and what's a good way of staying safe and building uber? Why, defending of course.

[discordance]

Most of what you've suggested would improve it but I can quite happily play CTF as is. Tho while its annoying to have to wait whilst your flag gets capped instant respawn on maps like 2fort guarantees a horrible grinding death match of pointlessness, to implement it would need new maps.

There are some experimental maps out there having said that, theres probably some where you have to have your own intel to cap. There are definately some weird mixed mode ones where you have to cap a middle point.

[Teatime]

I apologize for sounding like an old record because I have made these comparisons far too often:
TFC was primarily CTF for a long time. Many of the basics were the same or at least similar. Flag timer was the same, respawn time was the same. CTF worked in TFC.

Have you noticed that you both (Cruel, Beau) argued the imposibility of getting the intel and then proceeded complaining that - once out - it's almost impossible to defend it any further. Don't you think it's possible that those two factors are related? That a tough attack is not made worse by an easier recovery?
Because I don't think it would work the other way around (Easier to get for O and easier to recover for D) unless you create very open and accessible maps.

And don't always immediately think of 2Fort when thinking defense. Well, for example, is much harder to defend (unless the whole team is on D)

CTF in TF2 has some disadvantages compared to TFC, true: The role of the TFC medic, which was one of the primary attack classes, has no pendant in TF2. The lack of grenades makes sentries a bigger obstacle when those are protected by other classes.
A über is more powerful, but doesn't quite make up for that.

Still, once more I see the mindset of CP-maps showing when you disregard the concept of separate O and D.
Almost every time we play CTF on the WDG server we basically play it as a CP map, which is more often than not resulting in rather crude gameplay. It lacks the potential finesse and sophistication a CTF game could have. (Granted: Always a problem on a pub, though, as pretty much any game)

I also disagree with the strong separation of O and D: Most maps make it next to impossible to ignore the enemy O. What are you expecting if I'm running on top of the bridge in 2fort and see an enemy on it? Letting him get past and hope he doesn't shoot me in the back?

Why not? He shoots you, you shoot back, he kills you, enters your base damaged and is killed immediately when a defender even breathes on him. Rinse, repeat and once more you have a game getting nowhere.
But of course it's a problem made worse by 2Forts shitty design. On Well (not a very good map itself) your chances would be a bit better to evade enemy O, especially when the enemy O sticks as much to their plan as you stick to yours.

It's a similar problem than Payload Race. As long as both teams only concentrate on defending their cart no team will win. Everybody running around with his own little plan in mind leads to the rather chaotic gameplay we usually see.
I'm sure if competitive teams would play PLR (and I'm pretty sure they will not) they would indeed set up separate O and D, though much more fluid and dynamic than it should be used on CTF because those are still different gamemodes.
And before you shoot me down here as well try for a second to image a better PLR map than Pipeline, one which doesn't promote spam and respawn camping. I'm sure such a map is possible.

[Teatime]

One suggestion:
How about a CTF match? 8 or 9 players max. Give me one team of people willing to play it organized in the way I've suggested.
Let's try to avoid deathmatching in the midfield. Let's not turtle.
Then let's see how it works.

[TheBeau]

But... but... Uber. It's so important to have it that you've got to defend your flag and your uber (medic), I strongly believe that Uber is such a vital part of the game it makes most conventional game types difficult for tf2.

If it was easier then there would be more caps and defenses which means it would be more fun and less likely to end in a stalemate. I'm confused by that part of your argument.

I think that's a good idea, hopefully the skill balance will be equal, and would love to play on either team ie. yours please (I love any type of strategy or tactics that makes a game seem more intellectual.)

[claws]

I think CTF often benefits from dedicated O and D, and with tf2 being out for a year, people have mostly solidified the roles they play - you don't often get the balanced teams needed to make it work. Apart from those who primary as engie, few are willing to sit back in defence for little tangible gain. And so you end up with scout deathmatch, and occasionally someone gets fed up with that and it drifts to turtling.

[CruelCow]

Have you noticed that you both (Cruel, Beau) argued the imposibility of getting the intel and then proceeded complaining that - once out - it's almost impossible to defend it any further. Don't you think it's possible that those two factors are related? That a tough attack is not made worse by an easier recovery?
Because I don't think it would work the other way around (Easier to get for O and easier to recover for D) unless you create very open and accessible maps.

I don't quite understand what you're saying (will try again when it's not 1am), but yes, I think making it harder to recover forces you to defend harder (your point?).
And once again I've not played TFC but at least in the video linked where you discussed whether "medic made scout obsolete" the map was EXTREMELY open, even in the buildings there was more room than in TF2.


And just a random thought I'm throwing in here: In TF2 you don't get any real disadvantages when carrying the flag: A little arrow points in your general direction that's it. In UT you lose the ability to use the translocator or vehicles, slowing him down immensely.

I also disagree with the strong separation of O and D: Most maps make it next to impossible to ignore the enemy O. What are you expecting if I'm running on top of the bridge in 2fort and see an enemy on it? Letting him get past and hope he doesn't shoot me in the back?

Why not? He shoots you, you shoot back, he kills you, enters your base damaged and is killed immediately when a defender even breathes on him. Rinse, repeat and once more you have a game getting nowhere.
But of course it's a problem made worse by 2Forts shitty design. On Well (not a very good map itself) your chances would be a bit better to evade enemy O, especially when the enemy O sticks as much to their plan as you stick to yours.

Easier but not easy. I'm sorry but I really don't see myself walking past the enemy medic with über ready and not trying to kill him. Plus every single player has to keep the truce, one doesn't and hell breaks loose. I can only see that work with a map designed especially that way: Exit the spawn at the left and you can only reach the enemy intel, not yours, exit it on the right and you can only reach yours but not the enemies, physically separating boths Os.

Which reminds me of something I wanted to tell you since your TF2 is not deathmatch post:
What is so bad about deathmatch?
Really, we are playing this game in order to shoot people in the face (or back ). CP, Arena, PLR, TC and whatever the gametype is called, it really just has one big objective: gimme a reason and a place to shoot bad guys. in the face.
What more is a 5-cp map than a deathmatch where the spawn moves once one team gets too strong in order to allow the other team to regroup?

[Teatime]

What is so bad about deathmatch?
Really, we are playing this game in order to shoot people in the face (or back ). CP, Arena, PLR, TC and whatever the gametype is called, it really just has one big objective: gimme a reason and a place to shoot bad guys. in the face.
What more is a 5-cp map than a deathmatch where the spawn moves once one team gets too strong in order to allow the other team to regroup?

I suggest you ask yourself that question the next time you ninja a cap because you bypassed the enemies, perhaps even without giving a single shot or stab a single person.

[Power]

EDIT: Actually I wrote that huge post below, but then I realized that there is a much bigger problem:
People put their personal scores higher than the fulfilling the actual objective of the map. You can get a great score by just exploding people much easier than by actually working towards the objective. Valve catered to this way of thinking by making exploding people an actual objective with the CP or A/D maps (well yeah, you have to explode them in a specific area, but still), but CTF is very different in this regard. I wish the scoring was different. Everyone who touches the flag gets some points. Everyone who kills someone who was attacking the flag carrier gets some extra points as well. Same for attacking the flag carrier. Capturing the flag gives you a HUGE bonus (like 10-15 points). That might help moving the game towards completing the objective more, instead of just making it a deathmatch with optional flags.

EDIT2: Ah what the hell, not my best post by any measure. I guess what I wanted to say is, Valve changed the game (no concjumps, different medic role, uber, different score distribution compared to TFC), but didn't change the rules of the actual CTF game. This is probably the actual problem with CTF being just an afterthough, while the game is clearly more geared towards CP and A/D (PL just being a more dynamic style of A/D) style of the game.


Initial post:
I also played TFC and I see where you are coming from Teatime, but CTF in TF2 is different for two main reasons:

1. No conc grenades making the offense so much less effective by themselves.
2. Ubers

First greatly reduces the number of available routes (not only actual routes, but also routes that are actually open, i.e. with concs it was often possible to use a route even though there was a sentry/enemy guarding it). The bridge roof on 2fort is a poor excuse of a solution of that problem. This make the splitting of a team in dedicated offense and defense much harder already as you'll need a specific class to use some of the routes (were scouts and medics before, can't be now if a route is locked down. Medic plays a completely different role than in TFC anyway. I am glowing with joy if I manage to take a Lvl3 Sentry with my needlegun - it was run of the mill business back then) - more classes needed for offence, less people left for defense.

Then we come to uber. If there is an uber you can't have enough defence. If the uber actually makes it past your spawn or a chokepoing is irrelevant. If you don't throw enough defence on it, they will just walk around all over your base. If you do, you will just stop them right there or shortly after.

So either there is a lot of defence with nothing happening or there is too little defense and the round is over in 2 minutes. Basically the problem I see - with TF2 you can't have both, effective offence and effective defence. At least not in the terms of TFC. One of those will lack, for the other to be efficient.

Map design plays a huge role in this, obv. Having to pass the enemy spawn to get to the intel is a stupid idea, yet it is the case with almost every single map. Turbine is the most balanced map in my eyes (except for the middle area being a huge deathmatch arena most of the time) as you can really choose your route depending on what happens. In all other maps you have to go to the very same chokepoint to get to the intel room and more often than not that chokepoint is also the exit area of the enemy spawn rooms.

Then there is this unwritten rule of TFC where offense didn't attack the enemies offense, letting the defense deal with them. It was considered bad taste if you started shooting another scout before he entered your base, for the very reason that you both die as soon as you are in the enemy base in the end, so it was pointless. There is no such behaviour in TF2 though, so to attack you have to deal with the enemy offense first, THEN with the defense at the spawn, THEN with the defense in the intel room, THEN with the defense at the spawn again as you go back.

Basically something is still wrong, no matter which way you play it. The game has changed, but the rules have not - I guess that's the problem. I enjoy a game of CTF though and it's not impossible to get to the intel if the team works together, but it isn't happening by the old rules. It's basically turtling by 3 enginers with a possible heavy in support and rest of the team on a major push with the ubers. In CTF it was 2-3 scouts and medics on offence and rest on defence (where was the rest of the team, really?) At least in clan matches I played (didn't care much for clans back then, was more of a CS person anyway). Public wasn't much different back then either. Scouts and medic on offence, engies and heavies on defence. Rest on free roam with middle being a huge clusterfuck of explosions and gibs.

I had a pleasure to play some matches together StS back then, one of the oldest and best TFC clans in germany, only a few times mind you, so I might be wrong about the specifics of clan play back then, but the different class roles and abilities break most of what was doable back then by any account.

[Teatime]

Some excellent points there, Power.
I'll have to think a bit more about it to see if this makes my initial suggestions irrelevant.

You are probably right about the statement that the game changed, but the rules have not been adjusted. This, however, is only one part of the problem, especially concerning the motivation of players.

But I still think there is a problem of mental flexibility. I still think the idea of O and D is still true. Perhaps not as strict as I've suggested, but IMHO you can't play CTF like a 5-CP-map with pretty much the whole team moving forward and backwards, and this is what so many people do.
Besides all class-related or game-mechanism-based issues there is a lack of flexibility. (No offense to anybody)
And interestingly I find this on a few other points as well (*cough*competitive*cough).

I just can't help of thinking: Why do we even play CTF_Well when we play it the same way we would play CP_Well?

The irony (and I mentioned it in my article): Back in TFC when CP was introduced many seasoned TFC players had exactly the same problem. They tried to play CP like a CTF map, with taking a point, setting up defense, then pushing forward, instead of the more fluid style which CP demands.

BTW: Of course you are right about the map design. I have said numerous times that there is no good CTF map in TF2. It may not be a big loss seeing how little interest there appears to be for this old-fashioned mode .

However, a few weeks now I have been thinking about an existing map which - with few alterations - could be a decent CTF map. That would be Badlands. The base design is very good in that regard. I would block the main route to the "flagroom" with a gate or a wall. There would still be multiple ways inside the base and to the flagroom. The main problem is that the middle section is a bit too large (since it basically has no function) and the spire could use some redesigning. (Though I even would have an idea to make that work ... but that would be a bit more complicated).

Never mind, it's probably really a lost cause.

[Teatime]

Also, Cruel:
Your wish is my command 

[discordance]

use your google tea

CTF_Badlands - http://www.fpsbanana.com/maps/55968

i'm convinced there's better maps out there if anyone wants to look

[Teatime]

use your google tea

CTF_Badlands - http://www.fpsbanana.com/maps/55968

i'm convinced there's better maps out there if anyone wants to look

AmS already showed me that map. Didn't download it, just saw the pictures. Judging from that it's a pathetic attempt by somebody not willing to put more than some rudimentary effort into it.
I think this could be done much better, and still not have to make major changes.

There's also a conversion of the old TFC-version of Badlands, but IMO that would no longer work (even larger middle section and tons of chokepoints).