Short and Sweet.
The addition of gates that only your team can pass through would add to this game a lot of fun tactics I think.

I can't remember the last time I entered an enemy building through it's proper doorway- I always dig through the wall to surprise them. I can't see how team gates would change this.

</thread>

I really don't see the need for doors. They'd just encourage even more spawncamping. A fluid marksmanship-style combat (advance, cover, snipe, advance, cover, snipe, and so on) is a lot more fun.

Wouldnt work without indestructible blocks, which is universally believed to be a stupid notion.

Windows!

Dude, windows are craftable. First you must have a pick and a wall. Decide where you want a window. Click on that space three times with your pick. Window!

No but glass window ;_;

why would you want glass windows

you cant shoot out of them

jesus h

GLASS WINDOWS ARE AWESOME YOU RACIST D:

Example 1 (offensive):
Consider several short, 1 block wide bridges over water linked together that can only be used by one team because they have invested time into it.

Example 2 (defensive):
Consider an intel defense that uses several layers of walls so escaping enemy cappers are slowed down. But defenders can move quickly to catch up with them through a prepared system of gates and ladders/oneway hatches.

Reminds me of TF2.

Example 1 would make the enemy even more likely to blow up the bridge, plus it denies the bridge team a choke point to ambush incoming raiders, because if enemies know the bridge is one way, they'll avoid it, taking or making other routes and disadvantaging the bridge team in the long run- who otherwise could have lay in wait near the bridge and massacred the raiders as they strolled across.

Example 2 works just as well already, with doorways. Intel grabbers rarely dare to go through an open doorway so it's pretty much identical.

We do need ladders though, definitely.

Hmm, Im really surprised at you Beret because normally I agree with all your posts.
Have you played King Arthurs Gold?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kroakAVTL2E
It has oneway doors and I think it adds a lot of fun to the game. Its free if you havent tried it btw.

Ok so about example 1, you say that enemies would take a different route, I say firstly cool. Thats the idea of having controlled territory, maximising your movement area and restricting theirs. And secondly, what if the map was mostly water with one central lane consisiting of small islands (extreme but you get the idea?). The enemies would have to expose themselves, and they move slower than you.
I suggested example 1 to be useful for reinforcing offensive manoeuvres such as intel capping and providing an escape route for a capper. If you were wanting to ambush enemy raiders that would be a different role, and you would be looking to ambush the enemy somewhere else because this is an area you already control. Do you agree?

The whole idea of controlling territory is somewhat missing from this game.
One way movement routes is just a single way to help improve that aspect of the game. Furthermore, it would fitting to the game. It would be really fun. And it would open up many tactical possibilities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to tear it down, I just figured you put it on the forums for constructive criticism and analysis. I'm trying to see the merits of a one way gate but it seems to have more cons than pros.

Consider for example if someone digs under the intel and captures it. A defender -and a proper defender who was doing their job properly in preventing overground attacks- leaps into the hole burdened with the duty of stopping the intel runner. The tunnel has a few corners, and just before the last one is a one way gate, placed there earlier by the intel runner. quick pursuit is now rendered impossible. The defender has to dig around it.

You might say that something that allows a intel runner to get a head start is a good thing. Trouble is a crafty runner can already do that just fine with the current game, with false walls, diverted tunnels, double backing, hiding holes and the like.

Also what if on the bridgewars map, the whole blue or green team decided to set up an entire fence of one way gates near their end of the bridge? The entire game has now been pretty much nerfed. The intel could be surrounded by them. You could sneak into the enemy base and ring their own CP with gates they can't pass through!

I just can't see it working. In most cases the gate is rendered useless by digging, and in others it can bring the whole game to an unresolvable stalemate.

I agree that having more focus on controlled territories is great, but I'm not convinced this is the way to go about it.

Oh absolutely, I dont mind you finding counterarguments at all. Its good for everyone. Thanks for the replies.
Link to the voting system.
http://www.google.com/moderator/#8/e=6f3a1&q=6f3a1.451f3c&v=4