Objective running - a thought

(Zhou Yu) #1

I was watching one of the interviews recently and they mentioned the classic objective running idea from ET/ET:QW, where you take objective X from point A to point B.

My thought was that this task is usually (always?) given to the attacking side on a given map, i.e. GDF on Island or Outskirts.

But what if you gave that task to the defending side?

Say you had security trying to track down a dirty bomb the resistance were hiding, so security attack for the first two objectives, getting ever closer to the bomb hiding place by blowing up doors and maybe guiding a defusal robot or whatnot. However, when it gets to objective 3 the resistance team essentially goes “Oh shit, we need to get this thing out of here before the security take it from us”. So the resistance team gets an objective to run the bomb from its original location, to a new “safe” one, while the security try to intercept it. If it does get intercepted then the bomb is returned to its previous location and the defusal bot gets on with defusing it, preferably rather slowly with a big progress bar somewhere :p. If the resistance get it out though, they can win the map. For stopwatch this gets a little complicated of course, but I imagine that a runner win for resistance could add xx time, or even go onto another objective which security must attack, thus delaying the win for security.

The main idea behind it would be to shift that traditional paradigm of “One side attacks, one side defends” and mix it up mid-game, so the defending side is now fleeing with the bomb and covering their own arses while the attacking side has to try and intercept them as best they can with ambushes and last-stand defences.

It provides what would be a substantially different mission to the rest just because you have to make this sudden shift from stationary defence to running the objective as hard as you can as resistance, while the attackers need to move from a slow push forwards to tracking down a running carrier.
Obviously the level will need to be designed around it; security will need to have respawn points that can intercept the runner and it obviously needs to be balanced both ways.

It may run the risk of getting over-complicated, but I still think its an interesting idea for an objective/level.

(tokamak) #2

Wouldn’t this lead to defenders allowing the attackers to complete the first two objectives fast so they have more time to move the bomb, or attackers being really slow at the first two objectives so they defenders have less time to move that thing?

My point is, it doesn’t really matter if the objective is a ‘fed ex mission’. What you’re doing here is reversing the roles of the attackers and defenders in-game which leads to perverse consequences.

It would be great as a side-mission but certainly not a main objective.

(Zhou Yu) #3

Hmmm, well if you follow the “add an objective” route for resistance successfully carrying the bomb, then its still within resistance’s interest to delay the other team at the first two objectives for as long as possible.

Don’t forget that if the bomb is returned, then the defusal robot gets to work on it with a gradual progress bar until the bot finishes its work (security would be defending it) and security wins.

Think of it more like a counter-attack almost - security are close to winning, but if resistance can make a successful run with the bomb it will delay the security more and give resistance a better chance on their round. I think its still workable within the classic stopwatch layout, it just changes the classic paradigm somewhat and allows for a more complex mission than just “one side attacks, one side defends”.

(tokamak) #4

Okay so it’s a means of interrupting the process.

The problem with this is that it doesn’t matter where the resistance takes the bomb. They can take it, hide somewhere and sit out the map. Right?

I know it’s easier to criticise new ideas than to think up themselves, but I’m still not sure how this would work.

(Zhou Yu) #5

Hmmm, its a fair point.

There are a couple of ways you can design around it of course;
-you can have the bomb auto-return after xx time, which is lame but effective
-the bomb can slowly leech life away from the carrier until he caps it, but thats by no means a perfect solution
-perhaps the better solution would be to have the carrier be visible to the entire enemy team, so its easier to track him down and kill him and he can’t just squirrel himself away and run the clock down.

(RosOne) #6

-the bomb can slowly leech life away from the carrier until he caps it

Radioactive bomb that deals 1 dmg/s to the carrier and deals X damage/s to everyone around him… that’d be nice. You could kill an enemy player when he’s low on health by throwing the objective at him…

“[SD]digibob was turned in radioactive waste by RosOne” \o/

(DarkangelUK) #7

I’m quite a fan of dual objective maps were defence and offence are tasked to both teams, my fondest memories are from RtCW maps suck as Wizerness and Bridge where you can blow up each others controls or steal each others documents and transmit them. It takes away from the usual defence sit and camp and offence spam and hope for the kill (not quite as simple as that i know but you get my point… i hope).

(tokamak) #8

There’s actually nothing stopping mappers from littering the map with dual objective missions.

  • East of the map there’s a Security control point (forward spawn, whatever they intend to do with it), and West of the map there’s a Resistance control point. Both these control points need a power cell for it to be active. This power cell can be found somewhere in the middle. If a player takes it his own point, the point will remain active until the enemy steals it and takes it back to his own point.

-A small arena with a referee bot, kill an opponent player in this arena and the control point above the arena will remain active for 1 minute.

-A control point that belongs to the Security if it’s intact (repaired) and to the Resistance if it’s destroyed.

(bahdom) #9

I’m all for maps where both teams are on offense =]

(tokamak) #10

I’m not, maps where both teams are on the offense also means both teams defending, you’re having to divide your resources and the tactics and action will be much more watered down than when you’ve got one team trying everything to stop the other team who is trying everything to reach a goal.

(deadlights) #11

Both on O would be cool, but I don’t think this would work well for an objective game liike BRINK, as Tokamak said.

(bahdom) #12

why wouldnt it?

imagine, for example, railgun from Enemy Territory, only that the train starts in the middle and each team has to lead it to the other end. Now picture island, from ETQW, hidden documents are found in a base in the middle, both teams want it, police dudes want to store the docs in a vault [or whatever] the slum guys want it to find a weak spot in the whole structure [queues star wars episode 4].

You can pretty much do that with any delivery/transport map.

To me it doesn’t seem farfetched to think both sides of a war would focus on one same target [and that this would translate well into the game].

Personally, I don’t feel having double offense will “water action down”, you just have to be smarter about how you deal with the current situation. In a delivery map defense IS offense, for example.

(tokamak) #13

That will just give a bombing run kind of game. It really is watering down the high tactical value mission-based gameplay has.

(Loffy) #14

Dual objective maps are King. Period.
:stroggtapir:

(tokamak) #15

Well I’m sure Unreal Tournament and Quake will cater to your needs then.

(RosOne) #16

Don’t know about UT, but I’m rather sure Quake doesn’t have any objectives.

PS I enjoyed dual objective custom maps in W:ET.

(tokamak) #17

Well capture the flag is essentially a dual objective, eventually these franchises found tons of variations on the subject. Funny thing that only their assault (essentially stopwatch) mode was the most popular besides deathmatch.

(DarkangelUK) #18

RTCW DO maps were very popular

(tokamak) #19

Yeah but the mission-based maps were more popular.

(RosOne) #20

But but but…