Same Objectives Just Non-Linear

(DarkangelUK) #1

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on keeping the same amount of objectives (on the maps where it would work), but only have a primary finishing objective RtCW/ET style? It came about as I was messing with Phantom on Waterloo, I got over the wall myself without blowing it and realised that this made it even more like Oasis than before. I remember matches being won by Engineers doing the Oasis wall jump and getting the plants down when the enemy was off guard. The fact the guns could be planted at any time meant the defense had to keep an eye on their asses as well and just seemed to spice the game up IMO, do you think this would work for Xt?

(stealth6) #2

Competitive matches - yes.
Pub matches - no.

In comp match people will fallback to defend the last objective if this happens. In a pub it almost never does which just makes the maps really short and annoying.

(Mustang) #3

Doesn’t work unless you have selectable spawn points.

(stealth6) #4

Good point. They’re probably reviewing DAUK’s ECHO data as we speak and fixing this gamebreaking bug :smiley:

(DarkangelUK) #5

Hah I know, losers! On a serious note though, sometimes when I find fun stuff I’m loathe to tell anyone because I know it’ll get removed. The Phantom lunge and double jump made movement fun again, but alas I caved and told them how it was done :frowning:

(prophett) #6

I really like the idea and I hope it gets implemented, but it wouldn’t work well without selectable spawns which this game should have.

(BomBaKlaK) #7

for selected spawn point you need bigger maps, that’s just can’t work with the actual map layout

(montheponies) #8

My view is that this should be the core of the map design. The breadcrumb objective approach is one reason why maps feel so linear and uninspired.

A single primary objective with meaningful side objectives and capturable spawns are at the heart of making the approach to completing a map diverse.

(DarkangelUK) #9

[QUOTE=montheponies;489177]My view is that this should be the core of the map design. The breadcrumb objective approach is one reason why maps feel so linear and uninspired.

A single primary objective with meaningful side objectives and capturable spawns are at the heart of making the approach to completing a map diverse.[/QUOTE]

More or less my thoughts exactly.

(tokamak) #10

Yes please. ETQW kind of broke with this concept. Back then it made sense because of all the wide open space that needed to be controlled.

Then Brink only went further into this, segmenting all maps into mini-maps. Again, still sensible for keeping oversight in a console game.

But Xt is now the same type of game W:ET used to be so the above reasons no longer count any more.

(INF3RN0) #11

I want to see more “in-between” spaces. Most maps at the moment practically force you to camp the objective the entire time. There’s always that one “choke point” right between objectives, but once you lose it you never go back. Forward spawns help make that dynamic control happen. There’s also very little separation of zones. Everything sort of feels like a narrow path to a big wide open chaotic battlefield. I enjoyed having small engagements sanctioned off from the actual obj room. There’s very few places that allow that to happen in xT maps for said reasons.

(Rex) #12

Exactly. But glad you found this out DA as this needs to be banned for future cups in Xt (as long as we don’t have selectable spawn points). That’s why we should have a spawn choice.

(rookie1) #13

I dont think Xt need Big Maps (in term of Space wide) as max players count is low and its a rural (city street)type (London).
mb in other versions outside London they could widen their maps and max players.
The way to go imo is going more vertical ( 2-3 floors up or down ground ) at some spots wich is good for snipers but allowing much covers for players at ground level is a must.
Thats make the maps feel Bigger and less linear you can go 3rd floor and come back at ground go second floor . Waterloo wall and wagon obj has these and i think is good and is one of the best builded map (map wise).
WC not much ,Trainyard not much also .Builded around a wide open space with nice objectives .I dont think a Huge map would make a big difference (satisfaction side)., it would be too large for max players .bf4 huge map but 64 players .
Open space is important with A good Radius ( vertical included) to go around freely

(Humate) #14

I think there should be a greater emphasis on transitioning b/w obj 1 and 2 by both teams, with additional spawn-points.
Not segmented off where it feels as though the space in b/w each objective feels redundant.
Decent objective structure also helps with this. A trickjump that allows for a ninja plant, or ninja hack is definitely welcomed, but I would also like to see the capacity to ninja without the trickjump.

/broken record

(prophett) #15

Not a great movie, but it had some great moments. Note that the majority of these plays revolved around a proper doc run objective/map.

(BomBaKlaK) #16

remind me how simple mechanics like instant capture and return are great !
I hate the actual carrying mechanic, to complex and useless.
Just keep the long transmition time like on the new LB, and make instant capture and return.

(Mustang) #17

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;494815]remind me how simple mechanics like instant capture and return are great !
I hate the actual carrying mechanic, to complex and useless.
Just keep the long transmition time like on the new LB, and make instant capture and return.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think “instant” is great, there should at least be an interaction required (i.e. press F rather than just run over it).

But I don’t see a problem with reducing the pickup/return times, even to zero if that’s what works best.