Delivery objectives should slow down the carrier

(warbie) #21

Agreed.

That’s just crazy talk!

We just need to look at RTCW’s Beach and Ice for perfect objective delivery maps. What’s with these multiple objectives and tiny runs anyways?

(tokamak) #22

Simply astonishing.

Distance doesn’t really matter a lot. The map density allows you to get away safely from any pursuers. They’ll never catch up again.

(Nail) #23

I’m assuming you mean the carrier should be slowed down by weight, I’d buy into that but then you have to allow more than one carrier per datacore to regain the speed

(INF3RN0) #24

In Smooth we trust.

(acutepuppy) #25

The objectives need tweaking

The maps need overhauling

(amazinglarry) #26

Okay… so change the map density or the direction of which players need to deliver the objective via the pickup point. Do NOT slow players down who are actually choosing to participate in winning an Objective map instead of who’s the best TDM player. Right?

Examples:

Goldrush was probably the closest “pickup, dropoff” map that I can remember, but the defending team had multiple exits / cutoffs to stop the player from dropping off. They could cut them off at the truck, or even run behind the bank and stop them.

Radar Axis was spawn between the radar parts, but still had pretty clear vision between the two exits to stop somebody from escaping… and if they had the forward spawn, they could make it to the truck to defend “all” sides.

(tokamak) #27

Are you saying that completing the objective is not rewarding enough to make it more difficult?

(acQu) #28

Tokamak, i think it’s really bad, so bad actually, that i have to doubt the mindset again. When you design a certain game, you have a certain mindset you want to apply. If you are not someone who likes others to have fun, but instead want to impose fun by setting your own rules, then this is bad. It is like going into the kindergarden and constantly telling the kids how they should play. Of course there is a major framework and certain rules and concepts are always in place, but imo it is best, if you never feel a demiurge behind the game. If you feel that there is a mind behind something and it doesn’t feel natural or unfun or not accessible and understandable at first, then the design is critical. It is what they say about a good OS actually: a good OS is one where you do not realize it’s there. This of course is only partly true and can not be generalized, it is only true in special cases.

Look at that video to understand what i mean:

It is about conceptualized and intuitve freedom. Yesterday i watched a very interesting video about Arma 3.

I thought so reminded of DB when he started to talk about freedom (2:55). Of course now, this is not exactly the same, but it is the basic principle which can be applied. I think many will not understand what i am trying to say, it is about the same as gravity and finding out it’s there.

(warbie) #29

It’s just not fun being lumbered by an objective. Both RTCW and ET have examples of how escaping with an objective can be exciting, challenging and fast. I particularly liked Ice, in which it wasn’t uncommon for the defending team to be able to get ahead of the objective carrier and defend the drop off point. At the risk of sounding like a broken record - we should robbing these games blind and taking everything they did well :slight_smile:

(Kendle) #30

Completely agree.

Ice and Beach are great examples of objective run maps, as is Frostbite (which is an RTCW and ET map) and of course Radar in ET. All these maps feature long objective runs where the defending team can intercept the carrier due to the route the carrier has to take and where the defending team spawn.

I don’t consider any of the maps in DB at the moment to be true objective run maps, they’re “smash and grab” maps where taking a data core or whatever is actually incidental to the real objective, escorting the EV from one end to the other. The smash and grab element could be improved, but slowing down the carrier is not the way to do it.

For LB I’d put the 2 data cores in 2 separate rooms (so defenders can’t camp them so easily) and leave defenders to spawn in the same place they do for the previous stage, meaning attackers can camp defenders in spawn to aid retrieving the cores (at the moment it’s a long drawn out lemming run most of the time) but also give the defenders the opportunity to cut off access to the EV giving them a chance to recover the cores.

For WC I’d put the EV ammo somewhere else, like another part of the chapel or some area behind it so the run is longer, and also allow defenders to get past the EV so they can come in the front door of the chapel thereby cutting off the attackers from the EV if they can.

(.Chris.) #31

Even Camden isn’t that great despite having a longer run, from matches I’ve seen the defence just hang around the drop off point, which they spawn near by to with not much going on mid field, it’s too risky to push out in small groups because the lack of spawn waves mean once you start dying the defence become way too fragmented as they spawn at different times resulting in gaps which the doc runners who are spawning as a group can easily get through.

On LB I’ve rarely seen the document stage last long unless the teams were stacked, from what I noticed any attempt at chasing the doc runners is usually met by confronting the majority of the enemy as they spawn in groups not too far from the EV whilst I maybe have 1 other person backing me up as we have the pleasure of spawning individually yay! if you somehow managed to kill the runner you are unable to return it yet they can just pick it up and travel the rest of the journey which is roughly 0.65m away from where you killed the first guy.

Splitting the two cores would be a start and moving them further into the building but being able to return the objectives would help a hell of a lot I reckon, perhaps an ET:QW style transmitting is another option, either on it’s own or combined with the being able to return. I remember in wolf09 on the bank map that had a short doc run with the ammo to the tank, you had to transmit/load the ammo into the tank which worked rather well, I rather like some of the maps in that game.

WC is just chaos.

(acutepuppy) #32

I actually really liked Wolf 09 maps. That game was so broken at the engine level though.

(Ruben0s) #33

As london bridge is a remake of goldrush, I wonder what would happen if they make the spawnpoints almost the same.

Let the defending team spawn somewhere in the garage for example. That way the defending team can cut off the attacking team if they want to secure the objective. Only thing left to do is to put the EV somewhere further away from the lab.

(tokamak) #34

Splitting the cores only makes the whole thing harder to defend. It makes it easier for the attackers to leverage their entire wave on top of one while the defenders need to spread. In turn it changes absolutely nothing in the delivery part.

Tokamak, i think it’s really bad, so bad actually, that i have to doubt the mindset again. When you design a certain game, you have a certain mindset you want to apply. If you are not someone who likes others to have fun, but instead want to impose fun by setting your own rules, then this is bad

This is just an argument from popularity. Large numbers of people are frequently wrong because large numbers of people cling to the status quo with all their might. Case in point, I know of this one thread where everyone is completely assured that slowing down a carrier will not work without being able to recall a single instance from a game in which they actually tried such a scenario.

(warbie) #35

There’s nothing wrong with the idea - did you play Lead and Gold? I liked the slow objective carrying in that - just would rather things stayed nippy in DB. A mad dash rather than a slog.

//youtu.be/oUJUjKeMbkw

(tokamak) #36

I stand corrected then. If you’re familiar with a slowing package then you’re more informed than me. I never played that map.

Still, it seems like such a great alternative to the escort objective in Brink. Rather than having an NPC, something which players have no control over, you simply gimp the carrier so that the rest of his team becomes responsible for him. You could eliminate his primary weapon, make him walk slower, but you could also give him a health boost to compensate.

Here’s another thing, the carrier could also not drop the package upon death (he’s handcuffed to it). Instead of dropping it, he just stays there, he can’t respawn or gibbed, he remains lying there being invulnerable until his team comes and save him.

Stuff like this creates a whole new dynamic and really turns it into a truly unique objective. Right now it’s merely just another point you need to capture and after that you’re basically done. There’s nothing wrong with being more playful about it and introduce rules that pushes both teams to their best tactical awareness.

(.Chris.) #37

No it doesn’t, only when you have a slack team who doesn’t know how to move.

(Apoc) #38

no.

/chars

(tokamak) #39

Refinery and Radar show how difficult it is to cover two points at the same time. It makes the first objective a give away.

(.Chris.) #40

In both examples you can defend both, it’s easier in Radar as it’s out in the open and you can see where the enemy is all the time, refinery is harder as it’s indoors but not impossible, the map allows the defence to react and recover still.