Neutral Maps?

(Shadowcat) #21

I dont mind the asymmetrical map designs, but i see no reason to have every single map asymmetrical. Adapting one-flag CTF or two-flag CTF to the storyline wouldn’t be hard, and could offer some extra variety.

(Glyph) #22

[QUOTE=Zekariah;315403]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.[/QUOTE]

It’s not that dual objectives are bad, but with 8v8 the primary objective should be the focus with secondary ones providing the ‘dual’ aspect. If the game could hold 24 players then dual objectives would be needed to split up the players. As Brink exists currently 5v5 seems about right for the primary objective with the remaining players handling the secondary ones.

(Glyph) #23

No symmetry, or lack thereof, would be needed though as there would only be a single objective active at a given time. Think about how Grand Theft Aero is currently setup. The spawns are for the most part centrally located with access to multiple areas. The objectives take players across the central area more than once yet the map is not symmetrical.

What would happen is that the defensive team would have to defend a location closer to their spawn than to the enemy’s. This objective might start in one corner and work diagonally acorss the map. The next objective might go straight across the map while another might have both teams fighting over an area near the middle or in a corner far from both teams.

What’s funny is that only the objectives need to be symmetrical in terms of how far they are from the spawn. The maps can be almost any shape you want though, symmetrical or asymmetrical or even a mix of both.

(Zekariah) #24

True, true.

Big team play really is required for Dual Objectives.

Damn that lag…

(SphereCow) #25

Yeah. Only the ill informed would say that Brink stole anything from any of those games. I’m not really a gamer, either. No idea what you’re insinuating Brink stole from Team Fortress and CoD, but if you’re saying it stole the trick jumping from Mirrors Edge, then you’re wrong again.

Urban Terror had wall jumping, ledge grabbing, and sliding with realistic weapons almost a decade ago.

And the parkour isn’t necessary there for the sake of being cool, but rather because strafe jumping acceleration is an outmoded style of gameplay, and couldn’t survive in 2011. Smart allows people that aren’t necessarily that skilled at crouch jumping over obstacles, or circle jumping to reach long distances (a la dm6 bridge-rail) to achieve feats of movement.

pats you on the head Do you know what strafe jumping is, little boy? :3

(Oschino1907) #26

How many other ways can it be put for you to understand?! Dual objectives does NOT mean one side has two objectives to attack or to defend at any given time.
The way i see it and many others is that both sides either have a common objective or uncommon but has effects on other sides progress toward getting their objective or even both tryin to use common single object to use for the final objective.
Basically that way there is no clear offense or defense as you are trying to complete a task while protecting another. You wouldnt need to change any of the maps or anyhting, just make each with offensive and defensive objectives that can only be completed after smaller things are done and you can push other side back.

Pretty much Glyph i just see you trying to find reasons why everything else cant work and only reasons why your idea could. Not saying your idea wouldnt work but i dont feel it fits into the game as well and would require either changing or making new maps. Or even being forced to do nothing but generic non indepth objectives all game since you say 10+ objectives (which could be stretching it without adding all new stuff and levels) but i also feel the same quick short generic objectives will end up turning into endless stalemates or not enough time to complete half of them with short timers being put in to force game along.

If not that it could also be possibly too easy as well where people just run through them dominating another team so by half time with another side having over half the objectives what motivtion does the onther team have to even finish out with no chance of winning. Imagine joining those kinds of matches where there is still 10-15min left and no point of playing in it…

(Senyin) #27

I’d like dynamic maps/objectives, were the next objective depends on attackers
completing the first objective or not.
If you succeed proceed with Objective A, If you fail, proceed with Obj (plan) B.
The dynamics could switch from remaining attacker (succeed) to becoming
the defenders (fail) right there too.

(Glyph) #28

[QUOTE=Oschino1907;315761]How many other ways can it be put for you to understand?! Dual objectives does NOT mean one side has two objectives to attack or to defend at any given time.
The way i see it and many others is that both sides either have a common objective or uncommon but has effects on other sides progress toward getting their objective or even both tryin to use common single object to use for the final objective.
Basically that way there is no clear offense or defense as you are trying to complete a task while protecting another. You wouldnt need to change any of the maps or anyhting, just make each with offensive and defensive objectives that can only be completed after smaller things are done and you can push other side back.

Pretty much Glyph i just see you trying to find reasons why everything else cant work and only reasons why your idea could. Not saying your idea wouldnt work but i dont feel it fits into the game as well and would require either changing or making new maps. Or even being forced to do nothing but generic non indepth objectives all game since you say 10+ objectives (which could be stretching it without adding all new stuff and levels) but i also feel the same quick short generic objectives will end up turning into endless stalemates or not enough time to complete half of them with short timers being put in to force game along.

If not that it could also be possibly too easy as well where people just run through them dominating another team so by half time with another side having over half the objectives what motivtion does the onther team have to even finish out with no chance of winning. Imagine joining those kinds of matches where there is still 10-15min left and no point of playing in it…[/QUOTE]

Of course this concept would require new maps as every existing map in Brink is offense or defense oriented for a faction. I’m merely suggesting to get rid of those roles and have both teams play a map with no idea of what/where the next objective will be. As I have stated previously there would technically be a limited number of objectives on every map but the order in which they are provided and roles assigned to each team would be randomized.

I also covered what would happen if one team is dominating the match so yes, it would not have to go the full time similar to how a defender can end the match after the offense fails their first objective. The difference is that one team could not expect to be on defense for that entire amount of time as the objectives would force them into different roles. If they really were that dominant than I see no problem with them ending the match early.

Regarding ‘dual’ objectives I thought those, in the context of your definition, would be filled by secondary objectives that are available. This would include Command Posts, building or destroying shortcuts and even creating turrets just like how they exist in Brink currently. My concept is trying to take the foundation that SD has built with Brink so that every player understands how the rules work and then to throw in random primary objectives to keep the players guessing as to what comes next.

Possibly the only changes to the map would occur when an entire section of the map is blocked until a condition is met. This could be fulfilled by blowing open a door with an HE charge, escorting an NPC or bot, or hacking a terminal. Once the new section is open both team would gain access to it and all secondary objectives included in that area. If the map included a couple blocked areas initially it would make certain routes inaccessible when the map starts with no guarantee that they would become available before the map ended.

Take the example of a derelict ocean liner. Imagine if you needed to hack a terminal in the bridge to be able to unlock a specific section of the ship, or if escorting a survivor allowed them to enter a code that opens an otherwise secured section. Once the new area is open the team completing the task is rewarded with a shortcut to the new area. The other team would still need to complete a secondary objective in order to open their own path. Technically they could even block the shortcut for the other team if it was left undefended just like how it works in Brink currently. If the defending team was successful then the new area remains closed until another objective is activated to try again. If a mission is failed it will not be repeated so every time you played a map the experience would be quite different.

Anyway, I’m just trying to design the concept of a map that is different every time you play it but follows a defined set of established rules for Brink. Even is there were only 3 of these maps they would provide hundreds of hours of ‘new’ gameplay that the existing maps cannot.

(SphereCow) #29

[QUOTE=Senyin;315790]I’d like dynamic maps/objectives, were the next objective depends on attackers
completing the first objective or not.
If you succeed proceed with Objective A, If you fail, proceed with Obj (plan) B.
The dynamics could switch from remaining attacker (succeed) to becoming
the defenders (fail) right there too.[/QUOTE]

Ever heard of V2 rocket? Bad-ass ET map that was exactly that.

Axis was launching a missle, and allies had 15 minutes to disable it before going on defense for the remainder. Only way to disable it before the train carrying it began moving was to destroy 2 dynamite objectives, and 1 satchel obj. If one of them was downed the process was stopped. If all 3 were down at the same time, allies won.

That’s the type of gameplay I love.

On the other hand, Frostbite and Baserace were still pretty amazing.

(StillBatusBrad) #30

Several game modes lend themselves to neutral maps - CTF, Take and Hold (control points, as it’s otherwise known) are two that spring to mind. Also, neutral maps can be symetrical and thus easier to produce - we need maps and modes…soon.