Objective running - a thought

(tokamak) #21

Still, having to divide your attention on both things just takes the pressure off the entire game.

(bahdom) #22

as a side note, its really not necessary to send someone off to another game just because we don’t share someone else’s concept of the games or just because they propose something that exists in another game. Maybe in the end both suggestions get added and cater to a greater audience.

(DarkangelUK) #23

Having to keep track of both your own objective and the enemies takes pressure OFF the game? You make no sense sir. DO maps mix up the gameplay and make you rethink the ‘camp’ strategy… maybe you like camping, who knows. It’s nice to have something different than the same old same old. Dress it up with as many side objectives all you want, but a single side map is the same in any incarnation.

(tokamak) #24

Yes, i like the idea of having various points across the map, no, better, having every single of the map being a potential tactical point that one team needs to attack and the other needs to defend. Smearing this out over both teams just ruins this. I’ve been playing CTF like modes for years and the assault type modes were just in early stages until W:ET came and made it all make sense.

(bahdom) #25

the fact that both teams are on offense doesn’t mean the whole map has to be active, the point is precisely for both teams to have the same front to push

(DarkangelUK) #26

You mean like dynamic objectives? If Res win theirs, the its onto a push to the Sec side, and if Sec win then it pushes the other way? Combined with my dynamic map rotation idea tokamak would just LOVE that :smiley:

(tokamak) #27

Though a ‘push the cart’ scenario would be fun if pushed in both ways, it would still not be as fun as an attacker having to push the cart in one way. This allows both teams to focus either on defense or on offense.

(bahdom) #28

I think thats not necessarily the case, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree =p

(DarkangelUK) #29

Toka likes to state opinion as fact, you get used to it :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #30

Yeah, I assume that it’s obvious that any post by any forum user states that person’s opinion.

(DarkangelUK) #31

You would think… wouldn’t you…

(kamikazee) #32

I think we should add mandatory disclaimers in everyone’s sig - just to be clear.

(bahdom) #33

well, the thing is you can post a FACT in a post and its still fact, so not everything one posts is an opinion.

(Sssaap) #34

Well, just to let you know:
Railgun wasn’t a popular map in ET, most of the players hated it, just because there wasn’t anything happening - OR you had everyone going for a massive shootout while 1 lonely person gets to drive around for hours :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Tbh: this one would just be like lets say: constructing a command post somewhere, maybe you’re not going to get a regeneration boost but maybe a door closes down which the opponent team would have to hack/build/etc. something so this pathway is open to them as an alternative attack route - but not mandatory.

Apart from the xp you’d maybe get out of it you probably wouldn’t have anyone doing it on public games, but for competitive games it would be worth a thought imo.

(jazevec) #35

Assymetric objectives is precisely why I liked W:ET so much. I played CTF style games for years and they get boring after a while. CTF games are like those car races where they only ever turn left. But there’s more than that.

In a typical symmetric objective game you have:

red offense, red defense
blue offense, blue defense

Now no matter what happens offense always participates in action. They either fight enemy defenders or meet enemy offense somewhere in the middle of map. The same is not true for defense.

  • if red offense and blue offense cancel each other out, defense on both sides sees no action.
  • if red offense puts heavy pressure on blue off and blue def, RED defense sees no action.
  • if blue offense puts heavy pressure on red off and red def, BLUE defense sees no action.

Contrast this with W:ET style gameplay where even on defense you’re seeing action all the time. If some defense players see no action at all, they can simply move a bit forward after they’re done with whatever they’ve been doing (planting mines, turrets, etc). Just don’t do anything stupid like going thru the back door on Battery :slight_smile:

Of all stock W:ET maps Rai Gun was the closest to dual objective games. And often it was the least enjoyable map of all. Not only was the Axis spawn campable, but even if it didn’t happen both teams were usually pushing the train back and forth without any meanginful progress. Rail Gun was the map which ended in via time limit the most often. It was deathmatch all around.

(tokamak) #36

Couldn’t have said it better myself.