Objectives per map

(.Chris.) #21

There should be a nice mix of maps I think, we have some maps already that have lots of objectives, be good to have some smaller scale maps, Battersea is looking promising in this regard. Personally I prefer 3 or less.

(iwound) #22

3+ plus side objectives.
il echo what chris said a mixed bag. small to big. but 3+ is my fav.

(Tankey) #23

The current maps are not good for a objective run or anything compared to it. You can easily get away from your enemies and there is not really skill needed for it. In ET you can go faster if you master the movements which makes it more intense. Here, once you lost ur chaser, it’s pretty much gg already for that phase of the objective in total.

(DarkangelUK) #24

2 or less for me, I’m just a fan of the smaller intense maps than drawn out multi-objective maps. Once again I’m leaning towards RtCW for the maps on this one. Most were single main objectives with a couple of side objectives to weigh the pros and cons of as a team as they could severely alter the flow of the map and cause the defence to have to adjust on the fly. If there’s more than 2, I’d like there to be a way that some uber team work could by-pass one and complete the last 2.

Example Oasis: the illusion was 3 objectives, blow the wall and blow the 2 guns. In reality all that was required was to blow the guns… the wall could be hopped or the pump repaired and the wall by-passed. Fueldump was a great example of this as well, a ton of side objectives but only 2 were really needed, blow the sewer grate, cov ops grab a uniform and escort an engineer and let him in the fueldump door… a skilled tricking engineer could do it without the tank or cov ops buddy at all :wink:

Once I get to the 3rd, or 4th, or 5th objective I just lose interest.

(en2ie) #25

3 or less for me. Possibly just 2 objectives if its an EV map.

(rapid_shot) #26

I would like to see 3 or more with the inclusion of side objectives. More things to do to help the team win primary objectives seems like a win to me. But this is all subject to variations based on the map. Sometimes a map calls for less or more objectives.

(twincannon) #27

Voted 3 or less but I think 3 is the magic number, of course this depends on the objective, some seem short and some seem really long.

Also I really like the side objectives like decontamination pump, would love to see WAY MORE of these in the maps!

(rookie1) #28

[QUOTE=Kendle;463569]Hmm, OK, but it’s splitting hairs I think. The command post on Radar (ET) for example is what I call a side objective, neither team has to go anywhere near it if they don’t want to. On LB defense get plenty of time to build 1 and 2, the chances of the them not doing so are slim and they gain no tactical advantage from not doing so.

But either way, LB has “too many things to do” and “takes too long”, IMHO. :)[/QUOTE]
True That these “side objectives” in LB can have a great impact on the game length and the final, win or lose the game though.
mb we can call them Strong SO or weak SO or something similar

(Ashog) #29

3 or more for me. The more action and different stuff to do, the better for me. I am not against 20 min maps. The more objectives the more interesting will be stopwatch but not with the current objective counting system in case of fullholds. As Rex mentioned in chan, I also think that traditional system of counting total time for a half of stopwatch map is better because it still gives a chance to a team to recover even if they lost one of the first objectives too fast. The more objectives with the old system the more chances for a team to hold up and recover after having been overrun by a mistake in tactics.

(Raviolay) #30

As a side objective I would like to see a forward post you capture that impedes the opposing side’s spawn timer/wave by so many seconds when under your teams control.

(INF3RN0) #31

I’ll take as many side objs as I can get btw, but they really ought to be contestable *cough not waterloo tunnel joke.

(Protekt1) #32

They need to bring back satchel charges imo.

(Hundopercent) #33

Forced 20 min+ would potentially make matches last 2+ hours long. That’s too much. 15 mins, 2 Primary objectives tops is more than adequate and side objectives can add more flavor. mp_assault was one of the premiere maps @ tournaments and it was a single primary objective map. base was 2, ice was 1 etc etc. You don’t need 3, 4, or 5 objectives to make a map have more action or make a map more interesting.

(iwound) #34

i find it strange that a majority of people want half (1-2) the amount of objectives that are in waterloo. which has 4 main (and 3 side.)
which means that those people would think that the new blockout map 6 is a complete level. a scary thought.

@anti

why didnt you use numbers that are relevant to current maps so people can give feedback on levels theyve played rather than not (maps with -3 objs).

a better range would be. main objs only
3
5
7

waterloo = 3
LB = 7 ish (very debatable, but its a lot)
WC = 7 ish

WC is a good example as its a high number in a small map. with the bulk all in one area. so lots to discuss on
whether thats OT
i dont think either 1-2 objs can be workable. levels from old games that had this were not that good imo.

(Kl3ppy) #35

[QUOTE=iwound;463634]i find it strange that a majority of people want half the amount of objectives that are in waterloo. which has 4 main (and 3 side.)
which means that those people would think that the new blockout map 6 is a complete level. a scary thought.[/QUOTE]

I voted for 3 or less main objectives, I dont have a prob with a total of 7 objectives on the map, but I prefer 3 main objectives +4 side objectives

(iwound) #36

that would suggest that your a 3+ man. or would you enjoy a map with 1 main and say 2 side?

(Finko) #37

3 or less, and side objects, but this side objects must be realy useful.

(Kl3ppy) #38

No, probablly not, there should be at least 2 main objectives (max. 3 objectives). About side objectives I have no preference how many there should be. I prefer forward spawns and objectives which infuence both sides, e.g. build a wall -> attackers can blow up the wall -> defenders can rebuild it etc. But the side objectives should not be necessary to win the map. This could change the main fight areas a bit and opens new ways for attackers (sneaking around etc)

Imo, Salvage did this best in ETQW, you have 3 main objectives + 2 forwards spawns + 2 blow up entrances. The spawns are crucial to win but you dont need to destroy the entrances -> trick jump did allow you to get the spawns.

So, if the poll asked about the total of objectives in a map (main + side objectives + forward spawns) then I’m up for 7 (3 main, 2 side objective, 2 forward spawns). If the poll is for the number of main objectives, I’m all for 2 or 3 :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #39

How many objectives does Goldrush have?

(INF3RN0) #40

Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssss