Integrating the Doc Run into all Objs

(INF3RN0) #1

I had an idea for integrating the dynamism of the traditional doc run obj type into all current obj types, which also involves some refinements on a few ideas I had mentioned in the past. This would involve a pickup and delivery system for each obj type, and perhaps allow for some more depth to develop within the merc proficiencies. I also think that this style of objective can help deter from all these linear map layouts and add to a greater sense of non-repetitive progression. I just see it meshing really well with a hopeful future of more successfully implemented side objectives/forward spawns and modular layouts. I also see a means of adding some of the ‘obj class’ strategy into the agnostic obj system. Here’s the jist of it…

Objective ‘items’ (these are not arming tools) spawn in some mid point quadrant of the map with parallel separation from the delivery point. For example, one or more c4 charges can be retrieved from point A and then one is planted on the wall at point B. The EV could require consistent fuel deliveries, etc, etc. These objective items would be restricted to the carrier however (in most cases) and involve various penalties and advantage based on proficiencies; and of course need to be re-obtained post gib. I originally was thinking that only having a single objective item available would be good, but then the potential for trolling or ignorant carriers would be an obvious issue. Using more clever proficiency benefits and penalties to instigate suitable roles among mercs during the pickup/delivery process would be a fairly effective means of bringing a strategical team element to the entire process and still give anyone the opportunity to be the ‘obj player’ regardless of their merc choice- albiet each coming with a set of pros/cons and the engineer still being the most preferable pick for the fully focused obj players.

For the sake of further example here’s a few things I can think of;
[I]
-Engineers have the fastest delivery/arming rates without any penalties.

-Assaults are able to inventory and then deliver/arm up to two items on the objective in succession, however they have a speed penalty when carrying and medium delivery/arm rates.

-Recons gain a mobility bonus as the carrier, however they lose the objective item when incapacitated and have slow deliver/arm rates.

-FOPS can shoot while delivering/arming, however they are restricted to a side arm when carrying and have medium delivery/arm rates.

-Medics can pass their item to other players and within a few seconds post death any item in their possession will drop and is able to be picked up, however medics are interrupted by incoming damage during the delivery action and have slow deliver/arm rates.[/I]

(tokamak) #2

I first had a kneejerk “UGH NO” response but I’m starting to like this more and more.

What makes this especially great (apart from probably working really well) is that it could become DB’s ‘formula’. It could be the way people explain what DB is. “It’s escort driven gameplay”.

It also builds a foundation for merc abilities further interacting with the object carrier. And indeed, it allows for side-objectives to be more subtle. Like giving slightly more cover, or a slightly easier pass. All of which would matter much more in escort than in any other objective.

(INF3RN0) #3

[QUOTE=tokamak;512225]I first had a kneejerk “UGH NO” response but I’m starting to like this more and more.

What makes this especially great (apart from probably working really well) is that it could become DB’s ‘formula’. It could be the way people explain what DB is. “It’s escort driven gameplay”.

It also builds a foundation for merc abilities further interacting with the object carrier. And indeed, it allows for side-objectives to be more subtle. Like giving slightly more cover, or a slightly easier pass. All of which would matter much more in escort than in any other objective.[/QUOTE]

I think it’s a start for a pretty decent compromise on integrating the good parts of class objectives and the most dynamic aspects of obj mechanics into the agnostic system as well as complimenting every other part of the game. I’m sure there’s more ways to expand on the idea, so hoping it’s not too far over people’s heads.

(BMXer) #4

Sounds fun.

(prophett) #5

Definitely worth trying and would be a welcome change of pace to the current setup.

EDIT: To clarify, I was referring to this portion of Inferno’s post;

[QUOTE=INF3RN0;512207]
Objective ‘items’ (these are not arming tools) spawn in some mid point quadrant of the map with parallel separation from the delivery point. For example, one or more c4 charges can be retrieved from point A and then one is planted on the wall at point B. The EV could require consistent fuel deliveries, etc, etc. [/QUOTE]

Would love to see this sort of objective design make it into a future map for testing.

I also really like a new objective idea from another game, but i’ll start another thread so it doesn’t derail this one.

(rookie1) #6

The Best system imo for this kind of game at the moment is the Class (classic) system.
The statement .choice and play the merc you want …
Brought this unrealistic/broken agnostic system that had to look like been fix one way with merc proficiencies.
Game of this type should follow an Logic an mechanic of quality .

I can’t focus on Your suggestions (wich can be good to brainstorm) …could be anyway another waste of time trying to find ways

(INF3RN0) #7

To make this a bit more clear for Kendle and anyone else confused by this; Engineers are the most suitable at doing objectives (it’s their trademark), however anyone can choose to do them. If they do choose to do the obj within this system however, then they have to commit to retrieving the objective item first off and then undergo specific penalties. The penalties involved with non-engineers discourages the non-dedicated player, so that only a few members of the team will be the ones grabbing the obj item (better for the team that way too). The non-engineers also have some unique perks too, but only so as to make the obj experience more unique and not completely force the obj player into one single archetype. What essentially happens under this system is that doing the obj requires real dedication rather than ‘hey we all can do it at any time’, which is exactly how you can regain the same core strategy of the obj class without limiting it to a single archetype. It becomes a player choice rather than a forced limitation, involving varying difficulty/efficiency based on the merc. If this doesn’t sound like a great compromise, then I’d appreciate a detailed response.

(rookie1) #8

I will like to ask you questions/clarifications on ^^…But first is SD willing to change the present system ?? If not we wasting our time .
But at first look you only surcharge the complexity of the present system by adding item to be pick up

(INF3RN0) #9

[QUOTE=rookie1;512283]I will like to ask you questions/clarifications on ^^…But first is SD willing to change the present system ?? If not we wasting our time .
But at first look you only surcharge the complexity of the present system by adding item to be pick up[/QUOTE]

That’s a great question and I’d like to at least see Anti/Exedore verbally dismiss the concept if anything. I don’t see this being too drastic of a change, considering all it would involve is picking a place to pick up the items (dome would be a great one to test on by putting it in place of one of the first obis). Deepening the proficiencies beyond just rates would add the most to the system and possibly make it an equal strategical substitute to the class obj, but overall it would be an improvement on what we currently have without a doubt.

As far as ‘complexity’ goes, yes it’s simple, but it’s also more complex than both the current and class obj system. It does what SD wants by making the decision of doing the objective an accessible role rather than a restrictive one, but adds real value back into the equation by making it a weighted strategical choice for both the player and team.

(Glottis-3D) #10

[QUOTE=INF3RN0;512284]That’s a great question and I’d like to at least see Anti/Exedore verbally dismiss the concept if anything. I don’t see this being too drastic of a change, considering all it would involve is picking a place to pick up the items (dome would be a great one to test on by putting it in place of one of the first obis). Deepening the proficiencies beyond just rates would add the most to the system and possibly make it an equal strategical substitute to the class obj, but overall it would be an improvement on what we currently have without a doubt.

As far as ‘complexity’ goes, yes it’s simple, but it’s also more complex than both the current and class obj system. It does what SD wants by making the decision of doing the objective an accessible role rather than a restrictive one, but adds real value back into the equation by making it a weighted strategical choice for both the player and team.[/QUOTE]

thats the problem with communication between testers and SD.

there was a lot of ideas (some of them being very tasty) that havent got any response from devs.
i as well am not willing to brainstorm ideas even good ones because of this.

(Anti) #11

[QUOTE=INF3RN0;512207]I had an idea for integrating the dynamism of the traditional doc run obj type into all current obj types, which also involves some refinements on a few ideas I had mentioned in the past. This would involve a pickup and delivery system for each obj type, and perhaps allow for some more depth to develop within the merc proficiencies. I also think that this style of objective can help deter from all these linear map layouts and add to a greater sense of non-repetitive progression. I just see it meshing really well with a hopeful future of more successfully implemented side objectives/forward spawns and modular layouts. I also see a means of adding some of the ‘obj class’ strategy into the agnostic obj system. Here’s the jist of it…

Objective ‘items’ (these are not arming tools) spawn in some mid point quadrant of the map with parallel separation from the delivery point. For example, one or more c4 charges can be retrieved from point A and then one is planted on the wall at point B. The EV could require consistent fuel deliveries, etc, etc. These objective items would be restricted to the carrier however (in most cases) and involve various penalties and advantage based on proficiencies; and of course need to be re-obtained post gib. I originally was thinking that only having a single objective item available would be good, but then the potential for trolling or ignorant carriers would be an obvious issue. Using more clever proficiency benefits and penalties to instigate suitable roles among mercs during the pickup/delivery process would be a fairly effective means of bringing a strategical team element to the entire process and still give anyone the opportunity to be the ‘obj player’ regardless of their merc choice- albiet each coming with a set of pros/cons and the engineer still being the most preferable pick for the fully focused obj players.

For the sake of further example here’s a few things I can think of;
[I]
-Engineers have the fastest delivery/arming rates without any penalties.

-Assaults are able to inventory and then deliver/arm up to two items on the objective in succession, however they have a speed penalty when carrying and medium delivery/arm rates.

-Recons gain a mobility bonus as the carrier, however they lose the objective item when incapacitated and have slow deliver/arm rates.

-FOPS can shoot while delivering/arming, however they are restricted to a side arm when carrying and have medium delivery/arm rates.

-Medics can pass their item to other players and within a few seconds post death any item in their possession will drop and is able to be picked up, however medics are interrupted by incoming damage during the delivery action and have slow deliver/arm rates.[/I][/QUOTE]

It sounds a bit like Team Hunters from Tribes 2, integrated with every objective (well, EV and C4). I’d worry about a number of things with this idea:

[ul]
[li]Depending on how the pick-ups are placed and done it could spread players out a bit too much (loss of front line) and reduce the chance for team work[/li]
[li]It could required quite a lot of UI to explain, it’s not the simplest of systems. I need to get A to B but I need to pick up stuff from C and D and take them to A to do that[/li]
[li]It might be better suited as the base for a whole new mode, rather than an adjustment to Objective or Stopwatch. We’re always open to the idea that there might be other modes we could do to really make the most of the Merc system as opposed to classes[/li][/ul]

(Kendle) #12

I didn’t want to reply to this thread initially, because I don’t want to contribute to continuing to try and fix a problem that wouldn’t exist if a certain bad decision had not been made. i.e. we’re treating the symptoms here rather than addressing the illness.

However, it’s not so much that I’m confused by the suggestion, I just don’t agree with the conclusion.

As long as each class can do the objective, they will. Imposing penalties on the non-preferred class simply imposes penalties, which makes the objective harder to complete and hinders the progress of the team. And this isn’t going to be a) obvious or b) communicatable in the heat of battle, leading to even more people attempting things they’re bad at, or not attempting things they should because they know everyone else can.

It may seem as if ideas like this add depth and “strategy”, but they don’t, especially not on pubs, because players don’t typically hold strategy meetings before the game begins or stop to discuss who’s best at what as the game progresses. You ensure the “best” class for the job does the job by physically preventing every other class from being able to do it.

If RTCW / ET etc. had not already had a class specific objective system, and DB out of the box had been class-less objectives, we’d be suggesting class specific as the solution to the problem. The only reason we’re not is because anyone who suggest using mechanics from previous games is smeared as “oldskool” and not willing to accept new ideas.

(Glottis-3D) #13

what new ideas? deleting something is not an idea.

(tokamak) #14

If your only issue the class penalties then great, just balance the different ways each class (or merc even) interacts with the objective so it’s all roughly equal and done.

(Glottis-3D) #15

what i dont like with theorising is that this is only theorising. Unlike experimental fact.
Like for example ‘class-objects worked great for excitement in several games before’ thats a fact.
And ‘DB currently lacks any kind of object-excitement’. that is also a fact.
And ‘wether or not will some changes to a not-working concept make thing better’ is just a theory.

i would spend i real lot of time with pleasure trying to develop and expand the class system with more different kinds of objects. make it even deeper. like 2-class objects. because i think it is much more profitable to spend time brainstorming on a working idea, instead of think about how to fix a broken thing. especially with this long feedback timings.

(tokamak) #16

Brainstorming on a forum is free though.

(Anti) #17

[QUOTE=Glottis-3D;512319]what i dont like with theorising is that this is only theorising. Unlike experimental fact.
Like for example ‘class-objects worked great for excitement in several games before’ thats a fact.
And ‘DB currently lacks any kind of object-excitement’. that is also a fact.
And ‘wether or not will some changes to a not-working concept make thing better’ is just a theory.

i would spend i real lot of time with pleasure trying to develop and expand the class system with more different kinds of objects. make it even deeper. like 2-class objects. because i think it is much more profitable to spend time brainstorming on a working idea, instead of think about how to fix a broken thing. especially with this long feedback timings.[/QUOTE]

It was a widely held fact that the world was flat, then it turned out it wasn’t. I’d be careful with comparing subjective feelings about X with being proven beyond all doubt facts.

(Glottis-3D) #18

one doesnt sell theories in gaming industry. (except for Starcitizen, ofc)
You will sell working concepts, hopefully awesomely working concepts. But we do not have them so far. What will bring fun and adrenaline to the objects?

(tokamak) #19

100% practice would mean testing random stuff while 100% theory would mean nothing would ever get appleid. There’s always a balance.

If all objectives are handled this way then it might be easier to pick up (I mean learn, stupid pun) than the current objectives. There’s a much lower bar for stumbling across a deliverable objective (they usually start in a fairly safe place) than planting a C4 at a heavily contested site.

A beginner might just pick that thing up, suddenly see him holding the whole thing in front of his face while the game is yelling at him to get it delivered. Much like it works now. Actually getting to the end point is a much harder thing to do, but at least this player gets the idea.

(rookie1) #20

i would spend i real lot of time with pleasure trying to develop and expand the class system with more different kinds of objects. make it even deeper. like 2-class objects. because i think it is much more profitable to spend time brainstorming on a working idea, instead of think about how to fix a broken thing. especially with this long feedback timings.

Same here…

[video=youtube_share;C2YZnTL596Q]http://youtu.be/C2YZnTL596Q[/video]