Decom said:
So, To The Death! has 1000% Damage Resistance. Even when you don't parry, that makes it so you can't kill in one sword swing. Terrible, terrible gametype. The rest are fun, though.
The way it was described, I thought it just had no health regeneration. That way sword parries would deal some damage, but you could survive for a bit and maybe get some sword sprees/multikills. That's not really possible with 1,000% damage resistance. It sounds like another one of those game types that's one setting away from being fun (basically, Swords).
I'll just lament this one last time: it stings hard that Jeremiah spent time on game types like that but not any tweaking up some fun game types in Firefight, which I can do in literally five minutes. (I know, implementing them in matchmaking is more complex; I'm talking just getting them set up.)
Lake Minnetonka said:
I like 2 flag. A lot. This is not an either/or thing.
Each team must be proactive at all times, balancing both defense and offense. The base acts as a good fortified position to defend the flag from but a defending team can totally avoid their base as long as they intercept the flag on its way to the enemy base. There's a stronger ebb and flow in that strong pushes are often required to grab flags and failed pushes give up map control allowing the other team to go on the offensive. Turtling is least effective in this gametype, the teams fight for map control but must keep quick counter-caps in mind. It's literally impossible to score without players traveling from their base, to the enemies, then all the way back; quintessential map coverage gametype.
The bolded is not actually true. In Neutral Assualt, you have the same array of attack and defense tactics at hand, but there are some key twists. A good team will balance base defense and map control even during their attack runs, but there are huge pro/con decisions to be made, rapidly and on the fly. A strong team push that gets thrwarted can result in a team doing a vehicle-based end run around the entire team (which happens often), while teams that don't set up a proper spread on defense can have it penetrated by a strong push (so hot).
In CTF, there's a static dynamic, as teams have to both defend and attack at all times. The balance shifts rapidly depending on one team's defense or attack strategy.
In Neutral Assault, the entire dynamic of the game changes rapidly, from one side on attack, flipping to entirely on defense. They way attack and defense formations are put together need to depend on a huge swath of variables - largely the same as in CTF, but with the added wrinkle that the lone objective brings.
I find Neutral Assault games to be much more free-flowing than CTF, with larger clashes and wilder end runs around opposing teams. The mix of strategies is at least as rich as CTF.
That said, I love both dearly and want a very heavy flag prescense in BTB. But Neutral Assault has always been my favorite.
To your list:
Neutral assault 2 flag often boils down to one team having the
bomb lead and
going on [defense] offense while the other team turtles until the
bomb is in their possession end of the game. Of course map control helps but to a lesser extent as defenders have to have guys at the cap point.
To the other two points: What you described is what I like about 2-bomb. There's a higher risk/reward to pushes than CTF. Again, not better or worse, but different.
I don't like one-bomb because of the reason you described.
