Two teams, one (main-)objective

(.FROST.) #1

I hope that some of DB’s future maps have only one attack objective for both parties. I mean DB is not about security guys wanting something and resistance guys keeping them from getting it; our protagonists are mercs who can, by nature, have the same objective like the other team. And except for escort missions I don’t see any major gameplay problems there.

We’d still have our beloved choke points, BUT now the time works against both teams and doesn’t favor one over the other, wich can be extremely annoying.

(Rex) #2

Erm, do you mean no side objectives or what? Not sure what your intention is with this thread. :confused:

(MrFunkyFunk) #3

Do you mean a sort of UT Onslaught (or TF payload race) mode?
That’s what I understand from your post, and to reply: why not, some already suggested it since t worked in some games, it can be fun if well executed.
Let’s see what modes SD has planned at first, it could be a candidate for the future ones.

(DarkangelUK) #4

RtCW had some great dual-objective maps where both teams are on attack and defence, Wizernes and Bridge were my faves. I’ve been a long time lobbyer of dual ob maps, never ever happens though.

(Shelly) #5

Yeah he means, one objective mission for both teams just running against time, instead of one team offending and the other defending an objective.
I cant comment it yet coz I havent tried my alpha key yet–shame on me–but thats how I understood his post.

(iwound) #6

that would be a specific game type. no attackers v defenders, no stop watch.
its called “its a knockout” :slight_smile: or a race. ie baserace, tank race etc
or both blow up something or steal the most jugs.
imo it wouldnt work as part of the main game but as a separate game mode it’d be tons o’ fun.

(DarkangelUK) #7

It’s still objective, just wouldn’t work for stopwatch is all. Doesn’t need an entire mode fabricated just to justify their existence.

(iwound) #8

well you could shoe horn it into the objective type.
but if your starting from scratch why not define its own ruleset and create a separate type.
otherwise you would just have a couple of odd ball maps sitting amongst the others.

as you said DA " it never happens though" and there’s a reason for that which is creating a standard game thats clear and understandable.
if sd didnt create such a mode and custom maps are possible then they will just be run along side the other levels.
i just dont think sd would include those level types within the obj mode but may if it were separate. im just trying to create an avenue for these type of levels to be made and asking to have them run along the current levels has a low % of happening.

i wouldnt put all eggs in the user created basket just yet. spread your bets.

(DB Genome editor) #9

You could still have side objectives to open or close alternate routes, secure forward spawns, etc…

(.FROST.) #10

Sry Rex and forum. I meant both teams attack/have the same objective. And defending would be a more secondary task for both teams.

(.FROST.) #11

[QUOTE=iwound;457847]that would be a specific game type. no attackers v defenders, no stop watch.
its called “its a knockout” :slight_smile: or a race. ie baserace, tank race etc
or both blow up something or steal the most jugs.
imo it wouldnt work as part of the main game but as a separate game mode it’d be tons o’ fun.[/QUOTE]

Why wouldn’t it fit in the main game? Maybe the CDA wants the same thing as the other guy who pays the other merc team. That’s DB for me.

(.FROST.) #12

I wasn’t really thinking by naming this thread. Of course would I still like to have a couple side objectives, wich are different to each team, only the main objective would be the same for both.

(Protekt1) #13

Like UT2k4 bombing run?

I also like domination/control point if its done well (I dislike bf conquest mode tho).

(.FROST.) #14

There are two kinds of losing; losing, because one side has finished all their objectives, and losing, and getting utterly destroyed and backra**d the whole effing time*. Having a map(or just a game mode on already existing maps), that’d put both teams in the same position, and both would’ve the same time-pressure, then those teams would most likely concentrate themselfs more on the objective/-s, than on racking kills and taunting the enemy.

You could even have a more radical mode, where actually both teams could lose(having a draw), if none of them entirely finishes the objective in a certain timeframe. Maybe such a draw could result in a couple minutes overtime, even if nobody is carrying the objective at the time when the match would normaly end. If, after that, the match would still be undecided, the match would end, and everybody would just get the XP for the stuff they’ve actually done; no bonus XP for winning. Maybe in such a situation(a draw) both teams would even get some kind of penalty, that would reduce each of their total XP for a couple percent.

*that happens a lot in objective driven games like Dirty Bomb and Brink. But that hasn’t necessarily to do with the objectives themselfs(except maybe for escort missions), or that they are there in the first place. The problem lies in the fact, that those objectives have to be approached very differently from both teams and also the time favors the one team, whilst it works against the other one.

(iwound) #15

i explained above. for the same reason you would separate tdm or dom or snd.

also U.I.
if two teams are trying to complete an objective you would need two progress bars.
divided by the number of objectives and probably alternate colours ie black, white , black.
or an analogue counter but a progress bar would keep it the same as the main game.

if you just dump that type in the main game the progress bar will become completely redundant and useless.
afaik ui settings get loaded in after the browser but before maps and not reloaded.
and even if you reloaded new settings you end up with different ui’s depending on the level.
there may also be other hud elements that need to change how they work.

mappers in the past got around these issues by depicting the scores with bsp brushes that dynamically changed.
chris made a baserace map in QW and iirc there was no current score only a winner if someone did their last objective first before the time ran out.

so if you want this type in the current obj server it would either
have a big useless progress bar confusing everyone.
or complete reloads at map change and/or completely changed ui elements.
also confusing.

separate is a better package all round.
anyway thats my opinion. :stroggbanana:

which has nothing to do with whether it makes any sense or what cda want. its to do with how you present the game to a player.

and anyway if a separate mode were created then the there would be more levels of this type.
even a nonsensical level were both teams try to blow up the same thing could be fun.

***** just a thought!

why not move this thread to the ideas section.
put your designs in. keep them simples.
and when i get time il block them out.
and maybe if sd, if their feeling generous, will help us get them in game to test.

(ailmanki) #16

Could work nicely in stopwatch… The team who completes the objective first sets the time. Other team has to beat the time. If the map is perfect symmetric that might be very borring though.
Should give depending on map design, very interesting matches… Since a part of the team would have to defend, while another has to attack? - Or maybe go on a all out attack.
Lastly, if its a tournament; making a draw could be interesting also - e.g. concentrate on defense only.

(.FROST.) #17

[QUOTE=iwound;457887]i explained above. for the same reason you would separate tdm or dom or snd.

also U.I.
if two teams are trying to complete an objective you would need two progress bars.
divided by the number of objectives and probably alternate colours ie black, white , black.
or an analogue counter but a progress bar would keep it the same as the main game.

if you just dump that type in the main game the progress bar will become completely redundant and useless.
afaik ui settings get loaded in after the browser but before maps and not reloaded.
and even if you reloaded new settings you end up with different ui’s depending on the level.
there may also be other hud elements that need to change how they work.

mappers in the past got around these issues by depicting the scores with bsp brushes that dynamically changed.
chris made a baserace map in QW and iirc there was no current score only a winner if someone did their last objective first before the time ran out.

so if you want this type in the current obj server it would either
have a big useless progress bar confusing everyone.
or complete reloads at map change and/or completely changed ui elements.
also confusing.

separate is a better package all round.
anyway thats my opinion. :stroggbanana:

which has nothing to do with whether it makes any sense or what cda want. its to do with how you present the game to a player.

and anyway if a separate mode were created then the there would be more levels of this type.
even a nonsensical level were both teams try to blow up the same thing could be fun.[/QUOTE]

To be honest, I have absolute no idea, how games actually work. I know, for some part, how they are done, but not how they work in your computer, therefore I have to believe you are right. But only from a logical standpoint, I just can’t imagine, that it’d be too hard to load a second progress bar. And there could also be another solution to this; the one bar, that allready exists, could now be filled from the left with the progress of the blue guys, and from the right with the progress of the orange guys, or vice versa. And the middle of this bar would be the 100% accomplishment mark for either team.

(.FROST.) #18

I know, that virtual sports don’t work like real-life sports, but I have the strong opinion, that, to be successful in the virtual world, you have to orient yourself as much on reality as possible. And just look at real life sports; how many utterly biased sports are there and how popular are they? And if they are actually biased(like Baseball), than, most of the time, they work kinda like stopwatch(once you are on attack and in the next round you are on defense). But in contrary to real life, not everybody on your team likes to play two matches in a row, all the time. So having a match as even as possible from the start would be the best solution. It’d still be kinda biased, since DB’s maps couldn’t/shouldn’t be mirrored, like in Shootmania, but that’s something not even I’d have a problem with. Diversity is fun, but not if the gameplay for each party is completely different -almost upside down- all the time. It can destroy the short-time, and long-time motivation to play a game.

PS: I think with “Echo” and all, DB may actually be quite balanced(even now) from a technical POV, especially if you have two comp teams going up against each other. But the subjective impression for pub and casual players will most likely be quite different in that regard; especially because they lack the virtues of a coordinated team.

(tokamak) #19

Boring! Forcing the teams in dividing their resources in both attacking and defending leads to watered down action. The old skool shooters went with it because it’s the simplest game mode beyond deathmatch.

Actual objectives, one team attacking and one defending is an entirely different deal and when the old quake team fortress kicked it off it was a great success that is still the most popular non-dm mode to this day across the entire shooter genre. And for a reason.

Even Gears of War, leader among the symmetrical game modes. Highly innovative and creative stuff (Cliff Blezinski really knows his stuff) that is actually really fun, even those modes are less popular than assault objectives. The reason why the GoW symmetrical modes work so well is because the objectives revolve around the players and aren’t geometrically tied. That means you still force both teams to converge on one point, it’s just that the point on the map matters less.

(.FROST.) #20

What about attacking and defending in one match, though not at the same time? Like securing something(attack) and getting it to a certain location on the map, where you’d have to defend it for a certain amount of time, until a third party(not actually seen in the game) arrives and takes it.