Objectives per map

[iwound]

I’m all for 2 or 3

im trying to find an example of a map with 2- that was good.
all QW maps were 3-4. quarry was 2 but the last was x3. which is a good number imo.

How many objectives does Goldrush have?

3-7 depending on opinion.

[Kl3ppy]

im trying to find an example of a map with 2- that was good.

I think that 2 is the min, I have had several matches in ETQW where bad spawn times destroyed my teams defence and we lost an objective without having a real chance to defend it. Was 6on6 I think, we got killed by vios and then had no chance to get back in time. But it could be a problem with poor spawn management on our side too.

[iwound]

cant think of one so il make one up.

a large house with a surrounding wall.
1 blow the wall. (with defence spawning very close to increase difficulty rather than biased towards attack)
2 steal something and deliver it outside of base.

side objectives
blow access routes into main building and also inside. main door is open.

although only 2 ive stretched it out because of delivery.
if you change that to a destroy/hack thats just too short.

mm i might actually make this, sounds good hehe.

here ya go. i just knocked this up. better idea of 2 objs.

[Ashog]

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 quests 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.

Noone has been talking about time here. There is a separate poll about that and I voted for less than 20 min maps.

The map times depend on the mapping execution. There can be many fast objectives, as in any of the previous SD games and maps. This game is now obviously not RTCW where 5 min maps were quite fun due to a relative simplicity of the gameplay.

[tokamak]

For all I care Seawall Battery has one true objective. Doesn’t stop everyone from fighting over it for 30 minutes or more.

That’s what I want. A map with two ‘hard’ objectives and then lots of ‘soft’ objectives that range from being mildly helpful to almost tantamount to getting the job done. And best would be if they intertwined (like SWB’s back door and the generator).

[Pytox]

3 or less is fine enough !

[Seanza]

Voted 3, but it depends entirely on the objective type.

Destroy -> Construct -> Destroy
Construct -> Doc run

[Volcano]

don’t even need more than 1 sometimes, look at frosty, its solely a doc run, with the side objectives being 2 destroy (side and main) and 1 build (upper cp) but none of them have to be completed in order to finish the map.

[rookie1]

[QUOTE=Seanza;463682]Voted 3, but it depends entirely on the objective type.

Destroy -> Construct -> Destroy
Construct -> Doc run[/QUOTE]
I guest Doc run has to be delivery somewhere +1 objective
unless the objective is run with it until you fall off the map

[Nail]

side objectives to me are like Fuel Dump’s
foot bridge, command posts, constructable MG’s

[prophett]

They need to bring back satchel charges imo.

Satchels for side objectives would be great. Would love to see these in some form as well.

[iwound]

i think the only way SD would allow satchel charges on objectives is if it replaced a covies c4.
but had a slightly different rule-set. ie

[ul]
[li]need 2. so 1st does barrier half damage , 2nd destroys.
[/li][li]or once placed, covie needs to be a certain distance away.
[/li][/ul]

this could be extended to other classes. so instead of just taking longer to c4, they have different tools for the job. could use different rules or just takes longer.

Engineer - makeshift bomb
soldier - c4
covert - satchel
nurse - booby trapped medkit
fops - rigged ammo crate

at least it wouldnt seem as monotonous as all using c4.

of course using them anywhere is another argument which we havent bashed sd over the head enough about yet.

[ailmanki]

Big and long maps can be pretty epic on public, Minas Tirith or MLB Daybreak, having great memories. But I also know that about 70% of the rounds in these maps had been no fun.
Long maps are cool as a story, as a movie; as such they have nothing lost in a MP game. Yet - I can imagine if it would be possible to produce these maps faster; you guys could tell a story in MP … somehow. Could be great.

The most played maps in ET have basically 2 Stages. First capture a spawn to get nearer to the final objective. And then do the final objective.
Usually the first stage can be skipped. But if the enemy noticed that, its mostly easy for them to stop the attackers from doing the final objective. Yet in most cases they loose then the first stage.

In Goldrush, the first stage is getting the tank. The second stage is the getting gold out of the bank. Sure there are a lot of sub-objectives, Once you have the tank you need to escort it past 2 tank barriers. And once the 2 goldbars have been brought to the truck, the truck has to pass 2 truck barriers.
tank, barrier,barrier, gold, gold, truck, barrier, barrier - that would give 8 objectives. But it really feels more like 2 stages - maybe 3, after having the gold, one has still to get the truck first.

Fueldump, first get tank over the bridge (2xrepair by engi), blow the entrance to get spawn. Thats the first stage. Second stage is to escort tank and blow the fueldump. There are again multiple objectives on that way.
tank, bridge, bridge, (tank destroys gate, another gate, and another gate), destroy fueldump. - And there are side objectives, 2 Command posts, and a secondary bridge at the beginning.
7 Objectives, not counting the tank blowing the gates.

Oasis, again just 2 stages basically.

Comparing that with a huge map, MLB Daybreak it has multiple stages,
Get a tank, destroy barrier, (blow gate), destroy barrier, (blow another gate). Tank stops here. Capture a forward spawn by building something.
Capture next spawn by destroying the generator, Capture next spawn by destroying a gate. Capture antoher spawn, by destroying last gate.
Get the keycard, deliver 6 rockets, let the countdown count down for 2 minutes to win.
Feels like 7 stages. And I have not mentioned any side objectives.

Overall its so lovely, because the spawns are fixed. The first stage is getting the enemy spawn in every better map. And then go for the objective.
Which basically means control of the area. If there is a EV/tank it gets more complicated to control that area. Since the route of it and position is easy to know.
/Ramble end

[Hundopercent]

[QUOTE=Ashog;463648]Noone has been talking about time here. There is a separate poll about that and I voted for less than 20 min maps.

The map times depend on the mapping execution. There can be many fast objectives, as in any of the previous SD games and maps. This game is now obviously not RTCW where 5 min maps were quite fun due to a relative simplicity of the gameplay.[/QUOTE]

I understand, but wouldn’t it feel weird to have 3 objectives + who knows how many side objectives all in a 15 min time span? That’s almost exactly how it is now and it has that chunky flow.

I guess if you really think about it, it doesn’t matter how many objectives their are, it’s how they’re executed, though I would like some focus on controlling and fighting areas and not just running around doing quests like this is an MMO.

[warbie]

I prefer fewer objectives fullstop. It’s setting up a defence and trying to hold that gave RTCW and ET such tense to and fro gameplay, and for that you need to spend a decent amount of time at each objective. The alternative is what we currently have and one of the negative things ET introduced - ground being given away cheaply to allow for bigger maps and multiple objectives. Going for the delay rather than the hold. There’s nothing momentous in that, no epic last ditch plants or full holds - it’s all bitty and rushed and random.

[DarkangelUK]

I prefer fewer objectives fullstop. It’s setting up a defence and trying to hold that gave RTCW and ET such tense to and fro gameplay, and for that you need to spend a decent amount of time at each objective. The alternative is what we currently have and one of the negative things ET introduced - ground being given away cheaply to allow for bigger maps and multiple objectives. Going for the delay rather than the hold. There’s nothing momentous in that, no epic last ditch plants or full holds - it’s all bitty and rushed and random.

It does seem quite, don’t know the correct word for it, messy? Comboresome? RtCW matches and strats seem, precisioned, tactics are honed and team work perfected.

[BomBaKlaK]

I prefer fewer objectives fullstop. It’s setting up a defence and trying to hold that gave RTCW and ET such tense to and fro gameplay, and for that you need to spend a decent amount of time at each objective. The alternative is what we currently have and one of the negative things ET introduced - ground being given away cheaply to allow for bigger maps and multiple objectives. Going for the delay rather than the hold. There’s nothing momentous in that, no epic last ditch plants or full holds - it’s all bitty and rushed and random.

Maps are just awful … so little and repetitive …
Little maps + Open obj = Lemming rush Spam fest of the dead

[Raviolay]

I prefer fewer objectives fullstop. It’s setting up a defence and trying to hold that gave RTCW and ET such tense to and fro gameplay, and for that you need to spend a decent amount of time at each objective. The alternative is what we currently have and one of the negative things ET introduced - ground being given away cheaply to allow for bigger maps and multiple objectives. Going for the delay rather than the hold. There’s nothing momentous in that, no epic last ditch plants or full holds - it’s all bitty and rushed and random.

Something exacerbated by everyone being a engineer now.

[warbie]

Something exacerbated by everyone being a engineer now.

I’ve been without broadband due to moving house and haven’t experienced this yet. Reserving judgment for now, but on paper it sounds like a band aid to get around another problem.

Going back to no. of objectives per map, mp_base is a great example of how to squeeze gameplay out of a small area. Radar 2 was never defended, so essentially Radar is a one objective map. Spawn, plant, done. Yet it was epic. Desperate holds, last minute plants, ambushes, attackers mixing up attack routes, defenders adapting to hold the line. When a bottleneck/objective is done right it almost becomes a character in itself. Everyone who plays CS knows where the double doors or long A are in Dust 2. Likewise the tin roof in radar, or the tavern in Village etc. Epic hard fought over areas. Give ground away cheaply like in DB and there’s nothing memorable about it at all - just a chore-like blur of random stuff happening as you move from one end of a vast map to another.

[prophett]

Everyone who plays CS knows where the double doors or long A are in Dust 2. Likewise the tin roof in radar, or the tavern in Village etc. Epic hard fought over areas.

I am trying to make this a key point of my map & it’s objectives - memorable, “epic” battle areas. The CP area on radar (not even a primary objective) and upstairs defence at the end of supply depot are two that come to mind for me.