Attackers and Defenders

(Kinjal) #1

I have a question, The Ark is divided into 2 parts, one part is controlled by security, other part controlled by resistance, so basically – Resistance always attacks on Security maps, like Airport and Reactor? And same ways for Security on maps like Container city and Shipyard?

And there is a Resistance HQ btw?

(tokamak) #2

Yes, the roles are always the same on each map.

(Apples) #3

Can already see a mirrored map pack, with the security having to push their way on destructed maps (which were once clean) in order to gain them back…

(.Chris.) #4

Yeah and it will cost you £20.

(DarkangelUK) #5

I was always a great fan of dual objective maps in RtCW where both parties had to attack and defend… Wizerness and Bridge being good examples of personal faves.

(.Chris.) #6

Baserace!

I may try port my ET:QW test version when the time comes and actually make it into a real map. :slight_smile:

(light_sh4v0r) #7

that’d be fun :slight_smile:

(DoHo) #8

[QUOTE=Apples;258079]Can already see a mirrored map pack, with the security having to push their way on destructed maps (which were once clean) in order to gain them back…[/QUOTE]If it added to the story and we saw the same environments not just re-skinned, but with some variation in layout for destroyed infastructure that’d be almost okay. At least, it’d be a starting point for an expansion pack, imo.

Then again I guess it depends how the story ends, which makes me wonder if both campaigns end at the same point. I think I heard they are chronologically not synced. Also that makes me wonder, since there’s two campaigns does that mean there’s actually two stories? (as in two endings and two events for how every map ends?)

(LyndonL) #9

They have to be synched from both sides because all maps are played multiplayer… AFAIK neither side owns a Delorian and I dunno if there’s room on the Ark to hit 88…

(tokamak) #10

In a dystopian future where SD is under the rule of Activision again.

The beauty about the ark is that it’s an archipelago where new modules can be added to. If they need more sustainable development/geo politics drama I’ll volunteer.

(Apples) #11

I dont know why you guys see an irony or a bad thing in my post, maybe its because its me heh? I would like a mirrored pack with modified map to cover for the destruction, resistance barricades pulled up etc, and new objectives for security which have to regain their lost territories, but indeed it depends of the campaign, damn I hate streamlined campaign, they are above everything and its much harder to do stuff without gettin to far off the original story.

Peace

(DoHo) #12

[QUOTE=LyndonL;258107]They have to be synched from both sides because all maps are played multiplayer… AFAIK neither side owns a Delorian and I dunno if there’s room on the Ark to hit 88…[/QUOTE]I distinctly remember hearing though that some missions take place “later” in the campaign for the other side. I really wish I had a source for this.

(tokamak) #13

[QUOTE=Apples;258146]I dont know why you guys see an irony or a bad thing in my post, maybe its because its me heh? I would like a mirrored pack with modified map to cover for the destruction, resistance barricades pulled up etc, and new objectives for security which have to regain their lost territories, but indeed it depends of the campaign, damn I hate streamlined campaign, they are above everything and its much harder to do stuff without gettin to far off the original story.

Peace[/QUOTE]
It would be complete bullcrap. Get the disarm-bot back to the boat again? What the hell?

(DarkangelUK) #14

I think he means past tense versions of the map, the fight for control over the dock yards and container area when everything was neat and tidy and not container city as we know it now (i think). I mentioned this already on IRC, basically nice and shiny versions of the maps at the very beginning of the revolution before it all got messed up.

(Apples) #15

Either you blind, drunk or trolling today…

A map based on the reactor with the same general layout + destructed areas and barricades and new objectives is a new map to me… OFC you can construct a bazzilion of islands from the ark cause ya know, they (ark’s inhabitants) are full of monies, construction materials and times, that makes more sense indeed :rolleyes:

Well I’ll still assume that you were drinking vodka as breakfast for this time…

Past or future can work, with the maps becoming unclean and destructed as more poverty is reaching them. But for a future experience it all depends on how Brink’s campaign end if you want to stick to the story.

Peace

(Crytiqal) #16

Apples, did you just quote yourself and argued with it?

(Apples) #17

Was quoting and bolding me for tok! may the new version be moar clear for you nublet :smiley:

(.Chris.) #18

Nice imagination, although I don’t agree with the idea either it can be made to work, you just don’t reverse the objectives/roles, you apply new objectives and alter the map to contain elements of the occupation since the map was last played.

(Crytiqal) #19

Aah, it makes sense now :stuck_out_tongue:

For a second there I thought you went mad :penguin:

(tokamak) #20

It would remain bullcrap. Why the hell would resitance forces require to fight their way OUT Of a reactor? Same for the landing site in Container city. There’s nothing to defend on the spot where the Security entered the map, it was jut a convenient place to stage an attack in.

Maps aren’t just three objectives that have to be completed in order, the climax is always at the end. Just look at all the ETQW maps, they’re always starting in a meaningless location before proceeding to a place of increasing importance.