Classless objectives : Role system

(Erkin31) #1

Because I really don’t like the actual system and think that splashDamage can do this in a better way, I publish again my idea here, to push it and create a debate about it :

I think it’s possible to conserve the advantages of class based objectives with class-less objectives.
To do that, the game should propose to the players to choose one role during a game, this role is independent of the class/merc.

For example, if the attack team needs to plant a bomb, then hacks an objective, then escorts a vehicle, we can imagine that the attack team have 2 role slots for carry a bomb, 2 role slots for carry a hack utility, and 2 role slots to carry a tools to repair the ECV.
During the game, anyone of the attack team can take on of this slot, like with the class system selection. Like in Red Orchestra 2 (http://www.tacticalsites.com/~mindkill/images/2011-10-13_00003.jpg) , when you join a squad, you can take a place in the squad (squad leader, rifleman, etc.)
Finally, defense and secondary objectives may request others role slots.

With a such system, what it’s important is to indicate to others players (allies and ennemies) when a player, for example, carries a bomb.
And of course, a possibility to force a player to release a slot through a vote.

The advantage of a such system is that we conserve the principle that only some players can realize an objective, which is a core feature for the teamplay.
And SplashDamage can also work in total freedom on mercs to attract players to buy new mercs, with no restrictions/limits on the objectives system.
But the drawback of this system is that if all slots of a role are occupied, an another player can’t choose to play this role/objective (But, hey ! We are here for the teamplay !).

I hope that my post describe well my idea, my english is not the best.

(Erkin31) #2

Nobody have an opinion about this ? I’m convinced that is the best solution for the players and SplashDamage.

(1-800-NOTHING) #3

i think this would be horrible for pub, tbh.
i have absolutely zero faith in vote systems.

(annihlist) #4

My idea is more simple. After playing ET and RTCW for about 4 years. Freedom is necessary. Let the player go whichever class they like.

Create two game modes:

Game Mode One (For beginners/or people that like simplicity)

  1. Classless system where any class can carry out objective

Game Mode Two (For intermediate/advanced people or people that require more diversity in game play)

  1. Class specific mode requiring a lot more team based play. Some objectives can only be carried out by some classes.
  2. This will create more of a co-op game play environment rather than everyone just rushing the objective without thinking it through. I remember how important it was to cover your engineer with a medic while he was planting or disarming in ET/RTCW.

I like the idea of tracking where the objective is in game but that is enough. Maybe we need something to indicate which class is required to plant the dynamite and that will be it.

(Demanufacturer) #5

I think its an interesting idea but personally I wouldnt go for it. But i’m an older codger who likes things to be fairly clean cut like back in RTCW/ET.

What I’d put forward to you is, what about the tactical decisions players have to make “on the fly” - defensively and offensively. EG: You’re on defense and the offensive team secures an area with an objective to blow up. But you chose to take out and gib their assault… so the offensive team cant do anything until they can get a certain player class in there.

Defensively, how would you know who is the “high priority target” ? which one to focus on gibbing?

Flip the situation over, you’re on offense and you have to kill the enemy teams engineers, but you wouldnt know which one had the “defuse” objective.

Why about the defense having to defuse a bomb, so the whole team respawns as engineer and 3 people defuse it together (otherwise not possible given time limit)

All of those layers of tactical decisions would be lost… all of those exciting clutch plays, lost.

You’d also lose a lot of the balance / strategy and risk massive complaints about OP classes. Imagine assaults with medic skills for instance… walking tanks. Slow walking tanks =p

But yeah, new ideas are good, but the reality is it wouldnt really fit here imo.

(Erkin31) #6

[QUOTE=1-800-NOTHING;461898]i think this would be horrible for pub, tbh.
i have absolutely zero faith in vote systems.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think this will change a lot of thing. With the classic objectives system with classes, players generally play the objectives because :

  • They earn XP.
  • It’s the only way to win a game.

So this elements will not be changed with a role system as I described.

annihlist:
I don’t like this because when a game offer this kind of freedoms, I generally don’t find the servers that I want.
By example, Swat 4 had really good gamemodes (vip, bomb, etc), but all servers was on TDM.
Red orchestra 2 has a classic mode, but it’s really hard to find some classic servers.

Demanufacturer:
As i said, this should be indicated to others players (with an icon on the players which can achieve the objective ?).
We have already lost this tactical dimension with the class-less objective, my idea is exactly to retrieve back all this tactical things.

You’d also lose a lot of the balance / strategy and risk massive complaints about OP classes. Imagine assaults with medic skills for instance… walking tanks. Slow walking tanks =p

The medic skills are abilities, my idea concerns only the objectives (bomb, defuse, hack, construct).

(1-800-NOTHING) #7

Erkin31:
i meant the max slots part of it. i think it would inevitably end up with new players (or just plain old morons) blocking vital objective slots.
and, again, i have absolutely zero faith in any majority voting system fixing that.

(Erkin31) #8

This is the price of the teamplay, to be dependent of others players. (otherwise, we play in deathmatch mode)
For the vote system, it’s not like a kickvote, it’s more “easy” and it’s not a punishment. I imagine it can be proposed in the role interface.

Example :
Bomb role slot 1: 1-800-NOTHING [Button to vote]
Bom role slot 2 : Free [Button to take the role]

This is similar to the command system of Natural Selection 2, Savage 2 and Nuclear Dawn. In this game, this system works well, and if a commander don’t do its job, players will vote to release its role.

(1-800-NOTHING) #9

hm, team votes (opposed to global votes) is a solid point in terms of voting success.
still, it’s a longish term solution to a possibly short term problem (“need disarm now”).

just because it’s teamplay doesn’t mean there’s not individual initiative.
for instance, instead of implementing all manner of elaborate voting and timeout and distance-to-obj systems for the milk jug runs - FF ON. problem solved.

similarily being able to assume whatever role (by changing class) quickly and without restrictions is potentially much faster than a successful vote.

haven’t played any of the titles you mentioned, so can’t comment on that.

(Demanufacturer) #10

Do I want to play against a majority medic team self healing and planting objectives willy nilly? no thx!!

(Erkin31) #11

1-800-NOTHING: Is true that the vote for a such thing need to be fast.

I am not as pessimistic as you on the capacity of players to do “their job”. I think that generally, if a player take the role to drop a bomb, he will try to do it. New players are not a problem, the role slots can be blocked for new players, based on their level. This will permit to new players to understand the game without ruining some matchs.
For griefiers, I guess (I hope) that they are rare and the team-vote system can do the job (and they can’t block an objective, just one slot, but the game need to purpose multiples slots for an objective)

Demanufacturer: I don’t understand you, the game already permit to do that.

(Kl3ppy) #12

I like the idea of classless objectives. The only thing I dont like with this type of objectives in DB right now is, that all mercs have nearly the same objective speed. I prefer a system, where certain mercs have certain objectives speed. Engies are the fast builder/repair/disarm guys, Assault fast plant and Covie fast hacker. All other classes can do the same objectives, but with much lower speed than the main class for certain objectives.

(Erkin31) #13

Example of how I image the role selection:

(tokamak) #14

[QUOTE=1-800-NOTHING;461898]i think this would be horrible for pub, tbh.
i have absolutely zero faith in vote systems.[/QUOTE]

A complete nightmare. And for competitive games I can’t really see the value in it either.

(Erkin31) #15

And to see which player carry a role ingame :


I like the idea to doesn’t know which objective the enemy player can achieve.

(Erkin31) #16

And for competitive games I can’t really see the value in it either.

Give the same deepness of the class-system objectives.

And for the pub, again this kind of system works on games like Red Orchestra 2.
I don’t like to have a gamemode poor because we consider that pub players are too stupid to play with it.
It’s normal in a FPS which promote the teamplay to have to rely on others players. (And all MOBA games, which are cited in a lot of threads, works in this way).

The important thing is to encourage players to play their roles. If they don’t earn a lot of xp with doing these objectives, they will prefer to frag.

(tokamak) #17

But why? Why do you want this? In what way does dividing objective roles like this contribute to the gameplay? You just said so yourself that the enemy can’t know who the objective class is so it might as well be random to them.

Not to mention the severe restrictions you’re imposing.

Right now in DB you can have a team with one engineer or all engineers or anything in between. The beauty here is that because the engineer lacks in any other offensive capabilities you’re making a trade off between the quantity of objective classes (increases the odds of at least one lemming making the rush) OR the quality of offensive force (increasing the odds that your only engineer gets to the objective).

In biology we call this R and K species and somehow you can recognise this concept back in lots of games of any kind:

(Erkin31) #18

Why ?
To have only some players which can do an objective, like in ET/ETQW. So we retrieve the tacticals and teamplay decisions, like

  • Cover the player which can achieve the objective.
  • Sacrifice himself to kill and gib the enemy that can achieve the objective.

The actual system removed all the charm and deepness of the objectives mode.

ou just said so yourself that the enemy can’t know who the objective class is so it might as well be random to them.

That was an idea, but with can also imagine that the logo on the hud indicate the kind of objectives that the player can do.
I just found that this idea can be interesting. Players can try to bluff the enemies with some players which are used as baits.

(tokamak) #19

In ET and ETQW everyone can do the objective, it’s that same trade off between lots of lower probabilities vs fewer higher probabilities.

(Erkin31) #20

In ET and ETQW everyone can do the objective

When I say “players”, it’s also to talk about “classes”.
One class was able to do one objective. During a game in ET/ETQW, in a team, not everyone plays engineer, only some players play this class and can do the objectives.

Unrelated with my answer: One other idea about this system is that you could implement the proficiency system imagined by SplashDamage.