Bridge - Secondary Barricade Objective...

(PixelTwitch) #1

Going to try and keep this quick and simple…

I believe the secondary objective on bridge (the barricade) should be classed as a primary objective and defaulted to activated. I understand there is the issue then of not technically being able to cycle the objective (reactivate it multiple times) however I feel in Stopwatch this could be more of a pro then a con. However, personally I feel when the EV breaks the half way point is when the objective should be considered complete and not when the barricade is blown. I would default the barricade to activated and still allow it to by cycled.

The reasons for this are simple.

In stopwatch mode it means if a team manages to do what is possibly the hardest section of the map and the other team does not the team that did will get the win.

It would default to activated that limits the ability to instantly rotate and block the construction. Even if the attacking team get to plant immediately it still gives the defending team the additional 50 seconds to fight back.

In objective mode you get to share the time out better between the objectives meaning no more 12 min stuck on that one objective.

(Mustang) #2

Don’t like either of these suggestions, the to-and-fro that comes from being able to re-construct the barricade doesn’t happen often enough to be considered a problem that needs fixing, but when it is pulled off because the attack messed up their EV repair timing, or defense went for a push at the right time then it’s both amazing to experience and to spectate, I also see no reason to have the barricade pre-constructed, it’s only a well co-ordinated attack that can prevent the initial construction, which again is amazing to pull off and spectate, it seems like these would just dull down the enjoyment factor just for a more consistent play, that is not where the magic is.

(PixelTwitch) #3

I believe it should start constructed because this (what is classed as a side objective) has far to much influence on the outcome of a round. The truth is, its not a side objective at all… A side objective would mean it was still possible to complete the main objective without bothering with the side objective. I did also say in my original post I would prefer if they kept the ability to re-activate it and have the actual objective be classed as complete once the EV has moved pasted that point.

My main argument is that if TEAM A does manage to get passed the barricade and TEAM B does not, TEAM A should win.
However in the game currently it would default to who ever got the EV going quickest at the start. While I would love to be able to pull out an example from a different map where it was done a certain way, we cannot because this objective/side objective is completely out of whack with the normal way it works (not saying that is a bad thing). Its kinda like saying that the second objective on train yard (the 2 jugs) should be classed as a side objective.

I suppose what I am saying is that if any action can PREVENT the completion of a primary objective (outside of standard operations such as walking with and repairing) should be considered a primary objective. This means that getting past the objective records the progress…

I think in order to maintain consistency. The objective should start built.

(tokamak) #4

Well we did ask for more bottlenecks, serves us right I guess :stuck_out_tongue:
I think Echo is going to show quite an interesting pattern around that objective…

I don’t mind the objective being reconstructable. However, the defenders clearly have a much easier time defending this one. Meaning that attackers need to meet several conditions (lowered barrier, repaired AND mobile EV) before they can pass. If one of these conditions isn’t met then it’s only shortly before the defenders take over again and roll back the whole thing.

A big problem is that the attackers have to hold the floor above the generator if they want to have a decent chance at destroying the objective. That floor only has one realistic access point for them. I’d love to see a side objecttive granting the attackers more access to that floor. That way they can either do a risky lemming rush or they can build their advance steadily towards the generator.

Another solution would be to place the generator to the building on the other side (left for the attackers). That building is much more central you’d have to hold more corners to adequately defend it. You can’t group up in one space to hold it.

(montheponies) #5

An access from the other side, say a maintenance tunnel at high level, would give a possible third, restricted, access to the space. But to be honest, not being a map designer, my main point is that I prefer the current setup for the following reasons - as offence, I always have the decision as to whether to escort the EV quickly, or make a push to secure the barricade room. As defense, I know that I need to be at the barricade room with support early doors. It’s just more dynamic, than an immediately constructed obj.

(tokamak) #6

True, and that’s what made Goldrush so compelling. I think SD tries to get that gambit back but it’s way out of balance right now.

The Goldrush barricade was an open spot that was approachable from all sides. There also is the insanely fun dynamic of the tank providing cover through the corridor but as it approached the barricades it actually became a nuisance for the defenders as it really narrowed the path into a very harsh bottleneck.

That’s what made that stage so fun. DB’s similar stage is completely different in that regard.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to have two sets of C4 charges. Light C4 and Heavy C4.

  • Light C4 can blow side objectives but can’t damage main objectives. It has a shorter timer, faster to set up and faster to disarm.
  • Heavy C4 can blow both side objectives and main objectives. It has a longer timer, takes longer to set up and is slower to disarm.

This allows for much better bickering over the side-objectives without influencing the way main objectives play out.

(PixelTwitch) #7

I completely agree with what you are saying Montheponies…

My only issue with that is how huge the overall effect of the barricade being constructed has on overall completion times vs a run where the offence managed to stop the barricade being constructed. In stopwatch mode and even in competitive play I would have to say that the barricade was the deciding factor at least 50% of the time. That feels like an awful big responsibility for a secondary objective in my eyes and has the potential of making casted matches on that map the least exciting of all the maps.

Again, I agree with you completely when it comes to play/public.
I just think overall as balanced/fun maps to watch it does not make complete sense.

(spookify) #8

Bridge.jpg972×368 43.8 KB

Just narrow the objective area and make the doc run longer like in alt bridge.