Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Given that, I feel there's limited else to be done with it, as Pont mentioned, there's very limited layout designs that "work" with the gameplay, and its hard to bring anything new to the idea that doesn't dilute the experience or distance it from vanilla TF2.
I've seen that there's been some attempts to replicate its success but, without communicating with us, they've had to rediscover most of our design exploration/conclusions on their own, leaving limited time or options to adapt or iterate on their ideas to make them truly work.
(2/2)
The core of VIP is escorting a mobile objective into the enemy base to win, but it sucks to play as the one guy the entire enemy team is focusing. (I find ADCTF generally has this problem, as has almost every implementation of a VIP mode that I've seen)
So either you make the VIP a fun power trip to play as (IMO this needs to be balanced by being up against another, equally-powerful guy), or you swap the VIP for a constrained gameplay object (doesn't need to be fun to play as the objective if nobody is playing as it).
Obviously Crasher is the former, and Payload is the latter.
(1/2)
as for VIP, well, there's a reason we've got payload instead.