Neutral Maps?

(Glyph) #1

I’m fine with objective gameplay but what about having a few neutral maps where both teams have to manage attacking and defending? Command Posts are already key areas of conflict but imagine having to fight over neutral supplies with shortcuts being constructed/hacked/repaired/destroyed during the battle.

The objectives for each team could be dynamic and they would earn points for completing or denying the active objective. Some objectives would be linear in nature so before you can get to the next one you need to complete the first while others would be the same for both teams, similar to tug of war. Some objectives would place one team on offense and the other on defense but there would be an active timer in which the objective must be completed or else the defensive team gains the objective points. In this manner the team that wins the neutral objective is then placed in an offensive role for the next and must complete it or risk providing the other team with points. After the completion/failure of that objective another neutral task is assigned and the process continues until the timer expires.

At the end of the match the team with the most objective points earned is declared the victor. These objective points would be separate from individual experience points of course. Partial credit is awarded for completing neutral objectives even if the opposing team completes it.

Imagine fighting on a derelict ocean liner trying to scavenge supplies for your faction. Each map would cover a portion of the vessel so you are trying to gather more resources than the opposing team including all types of consumables and technology. I think this concept would allow Brink to keep its objective gameplay but still become more competitive in nature than simply having to play in Stopwatch mode. If possible the neutral objectives would be provided in a random order so that no team could prepare with 100% certainty for the following objective unless they first completed the neutral one.

Thoughts?

(Oschino1907) #2

THIS IS FROM ANOTHER THREAD

Now having said that i could see a CTF type of a game but only if it had some changes to match this game, anything to break up the story only way of playing the large maps. Maybe a game mode or two for big maps and some bigger arena maps for the challenges game modes with something similar.

Here are some ideas off the top of my head for a CTF type of match for existing and future big story maps.

  • Keep the maps broken up into sections as is

  • Have two stories for each and in the end there is a victory or total victory based on if all obejctives have been done or if just a majority.

  • Have two main objectives per section (1 per faction) of which they have direct effect on one another and push the maps forward and backward through sections
    example: 1 team must use crane to raise bridge to move on to destroy weapons cache with single carriable bomb from previous area,
    2nd team must use crane to raise bot over gap to move on toward bomb location and destroy/disarm it themselves with bot that came from their weapons cache in other location.
    (Edit: to keep it more CTF oriented maybe have the Bomb and Bot using the same power source which each faction much fight for in order to start pushing the match one way or another)

  • Have plenty of side missions to keep both sides busy blocking off and opening up passes, knocking out and turning on dyanamic level objectives.

Basically the concept i want to see is following whats already there but making both sides on each map having an offensive goal so the tides between offense and defense will switch back and forth through out the match and keep the replayability up for each map and taking the main story out and keeping it to the basics. In a way how in BFBC2 each map has a small intro and outtro with a basic short story to explain what the premise of the battle is but has no tie to the overall story directly.

(Dopaminergic) #3

They should just do contested capture points like Team Fortress. It’s too bad they weren’t able to pull of a good job of copying from other games ;_;

(Shadowcat) #4

Having both teams on offense for a mission can work (neutral flag CTF for example), but shifting attack and defense within a game wouldn’t really.

The team on defense first wouldn’t have much incentive to care about the first objective unless there was a large chance to win it outright.

If the time for the second half was based on the time for the first half, then the best strategy might be to just let them finish that objective.

If the time for the second half is static, then there is no reason to care what happens in the first half.

If they gave the defense a large advantage for both halves to make up for this, then the team who is defense would tend to win more. And if they didnt win, a lot of people might leave the game because of the hopeless second half.

(SphereCow) #5

What other games? Their prequels ET and ET:QW?

(Oschino1907) #6

[QUOTE=Shadowcat;315137]Having both teams on offense for a mission can work (neutral flag CTF for example), but shifting attack and defense within a game wouldn’t really.

The team on defense first wouldn’t have much incentive to care about the first objective unless there was a large chance to win it outright.

If the time for the second half was based on the time for the first half, then the best strategy might be to just let them finish that objective.

If the time for the second half is static, then there is no reason to care what happens in the first half.

If they gave the defense a large advantage for both halves to make up for this, then the team who is defense would tend to win more. And if they didnt win, a lot of people might leave the game because of the hopeless second half.[/QUOTE]

You are busy trying to find ways it couldnt work rather then finding ways for it to work.

To put out another example of something else i have played, in Socom 4 they have a mode about 20min long i think where each side must dominate capture points and afterwards they have a short period in which to rush the enemies base and set a charge for the final objective. Once the short timer for the final push is up and a charge isnt set the reg game timer goes back on.

Dont see why Brink and the maps and general idea of what I put out couldnt be done. Just needs more time and thought then i am willing to put in right now as i am not the one getting paid to make games.

(Shadowcat) #7

[QUOTE=Oschino1907;315150]You are busy trying to find ways it couldnt work rather then finding ways for it to work.

To put out another example of something else i have played, in Socom 4 they have a mode about 20min long i think where each side must dominate capture points and afterwards they have a short period in which to rush the enemies base and set a charge for the final objective. Once the short timer for the final push is up and a charge isnt set the reg game timer goes back on.

Dont see why Brink and the maps and general idea of what I put out couldnt be done. Just needs more time and thought then i am willing to put in right now as i am not the one getting paid to make games.[/QUOTE]

Only way i can think of making it work is to make the second half’s time be based on how long you manage to last in the first half. But that could potentially make the second half impossible to win if the defense screws up in the first half. I don’t think that a ninja plant should win a game all on its own.

And as long as you are telling me to make solutions, shouldn’t you come up with some examples?

(Glyph) #8

[QUOTE=Shadowcat;315137]Having both teams on offense for a mission can work (neutral flag CTF for example), but shifting attack and defense within a game wouldn’t really.

The team on defense first wouldn’t have much incentive to care about the first objective unless there was a large chance to win it outright.

If the time for the second half was based on the time for the first half, then the best strategy might be to just let them finish that objective.

If the time for the second half is static, then there is no reason to care what happens in the first half.

If they gave the defense a large advantage for both halves to make up for this, then the team who is defense would tend to win more. And if they didnt win, a lot of people might leave the game because of the hopeless second half.[/QUOTE]

Let me provide an example. Both teams start by having to hack a terminal. Both teams earn points depending on how much progress is made. Upon one team compelting their hack a delivery mission is started where the successful team is placed on offense and the other takes the role of defense.

When the delivery mission is begun a mission timer starts. If the defenders can prevent the delivery they earn the points for this mission. If not the offensive teams gets the bonus. Once the mission is completed or expires a new mission is enabled, possible reversing the roles with an escort mission or with another neutral mission. In this manner the scoring forces both teams to be aggressive as they cannot afford to let the opposing team complete a series of objectives without getting points for themselves. Even if the defending team is successful they will have to possibly complete a mission on offense as well before the next neutral one is started.

This process continues until all objectives are completed or the main timer expires. If a mission timer is currently active the game will continue until it expires. Ideally there would be more missions available per map than the main timer allows. They would also be provided in a random order always starting with a neutral event to keep both teams unable to plan ahead, this is what I mean by dynamic.

At the end of the main timer, or the current mission timer, the team with the most points is declared the victor. A point maximum could also be used to end games early when once team is dominating the match. Think of it like the first team to 500 wins or the higher score winning when the timer expires.

As it stands now Brink’s objectives are far too linear and a neutral map would help to shake things up while keeping the rules very similar.

(Bakercompany) #9

The good news is with this story that they already have in place, theres a good wealth of ideas for new maps both campaign related and what-if.

(Oschino1907) #10

Yes good ideas people, so many ways to do it and make it work.

And as Bakercompany said there is no shortage of places or ideas with whats already been presented. I for one have been praying for more maps of all kinds of different locations, want to really see everything on the Ark!

(Glyph) #11

My only real problem with Brink is that it is trying to tell a story so there is a defined offense/defense role for every map. They side-stepped the issue by using Stopwatch mode but that does not do justice to the concepts included in Brink. If the maps were different every time you played them, then imagine how many 8 maps would feel like. Instead the maps are exactly the same, which is fine when trying to tell a story but not for competitive multiplayer.

Anyway, the existing maps are fantastic but they lack real depth in that they are very static. Yes you can push from different routes and the interaction with secondary objectives is fantastic but the primary ones are 100% linear. Imagine playing a map where the secondary objectives are static but the primary ones are dynamic. Instead of telling a story the focus would be on the conflict of the objective. Better yet, every time you played the same map your experience would be quite different. You could literally play the same map a hundred times and never have the same sequence of events.

I love the concept of Brink but you can tell that the game became limited by its own storyline.

(Bullveyr) #12

I never really liked the dual objective maps in RtCW so I have no need for them in Brink. :slight_smile:

(Glyph) #13

Only one objective would be active at a time. Who said anything about dual objectives?

(Dopaminergic) #14

No, TF2, CoD, Mirror’s Edge. Should be obvious if you’re a gamer.

(Glyph) #15

If you’re a gamer you would know about SD’s previous games and not compare them to titles that were not even around when ET:QW was released.

(Bullveyr) #16

Oops, I didn’t really read your first post. :smiley:

Still, I’m not a fan of that idea, I’m a SW man.

(matsy) #17

I think a great custom map or a new official map in Brink will have a story line but I don’t think its needed.

I loved Base race from ET (for those who don’t know you steal objectives from the opposing teams base to build your base) but I did get an idea for a new game mode or type of one anyway that would fit more a long the lines of TDM / CTF but still have the original game type feel.

Its just dual objective maps but just simple / time limit or score limit ones, so like someone said just a central room where the two teams fight over the central objective, the team at the end who has the most hack points wins or dual escorts, the team that escorts to the end first. So its kind of like the challenges but on a bigger scale!

(Zekariah) #18

I would say something about dual objectives…

They are not a bad idea as i reckon both offensive and defensive roles makes for a more strategic game. And players have to really work together to decide who takes what role.

What’s more, Brink is custom made for this type of play as even when the game is filled with mostly bots (which, let’s face it, is 99% of the time) they notify you of their nominated role over comm.

Bring on the Dual Objectives i say.

(Glyph) #19

[QUOTE=matsy;315376]I think a great custom map or a new official map in Brink will have a story line but I don’t think its needed.

I loved Base race from ET (for those who don’t know you steal objectives from the opposing teams base to build your base) but I did get an idea for a new game mode or type of one anyway that would fit more a long the lines of TDM / CTF but still have the original game type feel.

Its just dual objective maps but just simple / time limit or score limit ones, so like someone said just a central room where the two teams fight over the central objective, the team at the end who has the most hack points wins or dual escorts, the team that escorts to the end first. So its kind of like the challenges but on a bigger scale![/QUOTE]

Yeah, I guess my idea would be the next evolution of these concepts. So let’s say a map has 10 total objectives to complete. They could be divided into neutral objectives and offense/defense ones. Balance would come in forcing teams to switch roles after a completed/failed objective or having them fight over the next one. The scoring would be gradual so a single objective would never determine a winner but with enough completed objectives you could eventually win.

Neutral objectives could swap conditions where in one game the successful team is asked to deliver a package but in another game they are tasked with stopping it. In this manner a team could not purposely lose an objective to play defense. Anyway, even a single map could play like 20 different ones since the objectives would constantly be varied. Yes, the learning curve would be immense but with Brink’s objective wheel it would be easy enough to direct players where to go as the new objective could override the previous one.

In a 20 or 30 minute match both teams could probably complete around half of the objectives so it would be rare to see a match end from one team reaching the points cap. Maps could be designed where the first team to complete 4 objectives is the winner or the team with the most points at the end of regulation. I just see having random objectives something that would make Brink incredibly fun (and chaotic).

(.Chris.) #20

I maybe bringing baserace to Brink if the tools are released, assuming I can come up with a better way than I did for ET:QW. ET:QW’s version was a huge compromise.