Integrating the Doc Run into all Objs

(INF3RN0) #21

[QUOTE=Anti;512314]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][/QUOTE]

I was thinking it would be for every main obj as a standard system to promote immediate clarity, doc runs themselves would simply work the way they do currently (except being able to use your weapon) but with more intuitive proficiencies. The front line issue would be the same scenario as you might get on dome for example, as the placement would make the most sense in a parallel fashion. I do prefer it when the front line is broken up into two locations, simply because it motivates more diverse strategy rather than now where the only real important thing to hold is the obj itself.

I’d rather not see it as a separate mode because it wouldn’t be different enough, since really all that is changing is needing to pickup your obj item rather than spawning with it in your inventory. I’d say most people are used to the obj item pickup from just about every popular game, where in one is represented by a c4 icon and the other an explosion, just assumed that since doc runs work in a similar way already on the UI side of things it wouldn’t be too problematic. Has there been any exploration into improving this part of the game? I’m open to anything really. What are your thoughts on this?

(INF3RN0) #22

I feel like your too bent out of shape on the agnostic subject that you’ve missed the point of my proposal here. This is a scenario where yes anyone can do the objective, but no one will go out of their way to do it outside of the engineer unless they feel as though they really need to or really want to and simply don’t want to play as an engineer. At that point they become more vulnerable and their entire purpose revolves around completing the objective. Making it more of a challenge and less of a rate reliant system rewards the dedicated obj player in different manners regardless. Doing the objective would be a player role and not a merc role, even if there was one that was able to perform with the least struggle.

In this system you’d do more harm than good if everyone tried to do the objective, so in the end only the people who want to do the objective will choose to do it, and if they don’t want any obstacles on that journey they would play as an engineer. It involves all the same things as if you were to dedicate the role to a single class, except in this case if you wanted to do the obj as a non-engy you’d have to truly commit yourself to the task at that given moment. The issue with agnostic objectives is that they don’t involve any risk/reward, which is the main reason they aren’t working.

(INF3RN0) #23

And on the subject of agnostic objs, the next best thing I’ve been able to think of thus far to all of this, is spawning 1-2 obj items at the team spawns for both A/D. Attackers get two c4, cells, fuel containers, etc. and defenders get two disarm tools. These would respawn back at base upon gib, and so you’d have the obj role limited to whoever chose to take the tool. Then to negate griefing and frustration, you could gave engineers the obj item/tool by default as their special role. Another option I feel would be a suitable improvement for the system. The overall goal with all of this being to give the obj role a sense of real significance, rather than something taken for granted.

(Kendle) #24

Which is an unlikely scenario.

As I said before, if RTCW / ET etc. had never existed, and DB had been class-less from day 1, we’d now be talking about class specific as the solution to the problem. Your suggestion gets us 90% of the way to class specific, but does so in a hugely complex way, that would be both difficult to communicate to new players, and difficult for team-mates to communicate to each other in the heat of battle. Why not just go class specific?

That’s a much much better solution, as you effectively end up with an “objective guy” who can then be the focus for the team effort, and the guy to support if you’re playing a supporting role. But again, it’s employing something very much like RTCW / ET’s class specific as a solution to the problems that agnostic is causing. Again, why not just go class specific? If you’re the guy that wants to plant the bomb, why not just spawn as the guy who can plant the bomb (assuming not everyone can)?

(tokamak) #25

I think the difficulty in explaining this to new players is firstly a weak argument to begin with, secondly blown way out of proportion compared to the current complexity of objectives and thirdly really underestimating how quickly players pick this up, WoW has much more complicated multiplayer objectives in their battlegrounds.

(INF3RN0) #26

For the exact reason it changed. If you want to guarantee that you’d be able to to plant the bomb 24/7, then play engineer. If you still want to contribute to the objective, but aren’t interested in the engineer playstyle, then pick up the obj tool. And if there’s no engineers on your team (which is all too common), then you at least have a chance. It’s quite simple like that, which is why I think obj as a choice role is superior to obj as a restricted role in this scenario.

(Glottis-3D) #27

both ideas implement element of risk, so both are better than we have now. no risk = no care.