Two teams, one (main-)objective

(tokamak) #21

That’s called a dynamic objective and that’s what sets W:ET apart from an ordinary assault match. It’s more than taking points in order to move on to the next one. You can actually revert and push back. DB utterly, utterly fails at getting that right (I think it’s because of pandering to the SW crowd here, that’s the downside of predominantly letting comp players test your game).

And this only works if it’s part of a overarcing one-way objective. Screw amounts of times, screw virtual third parties, the match ends when the final objective is done.

(Protekt1) #22

One mode I kinda enjoyed in a game called crimecraft (really poor game in a lot of ways but it had its charm in some areas) was a sort of tug of war of capturing control points. Basically it was 5 or so (maybe 7, prob was 7) control points that had to be captured in order from your spawn point to win or the team with the most points at the end of the match when time ran out. Both teams would start on opposite ends and would start by capping the spawn closest to them, all the way to the center point and the main part of the battle would then begin. There was a lot of strategy to it. The game had a lot of cheese mechanics (that myself and my team avoided cause we’re not chumps :slight_smile: ) which ultimately made the game utter *****, but the mode itself was good.

When I talk about cheese, I seriously mean STINKY CHEESE tactics and weapons like having a homing rocket launcher that can 1 shot. The TTK in general much higher than most fps nowadays which was a big positive but a 1 shot homing rocket launcher… idiots made that game I think. We were good enough to overcome these cheese tactics but still… made the game terrible overall.

(BomBaKlaK) #23

look like baserace to me ? nope ?

(.FROST.) #24

Just wanted to get one thing straight, I really like escort missions*(wich are prolly the most biased missions one can possibly play), but to balance those kinda missions I’d also like to have some of the modes/gameplay styles I described above. Let it be 50% “traditional” objective missions and 50% not so traditional ones; with varying attack and defense positions, or with both teams attacking and defending at the same time; though with a clear emphasis on attacking. With other words, something that’s a bit more symmetrical and less biased in nature.

*but when you are not a very strong team, escorting the EV and picking up stuff can be a very painful experience, that goes way beyond being just a little bit annoyed. All that may change, when DB goes pub, but for now there were many occassions were I just felt, like I was re-spawning only to add to someones kill-count and fun became a very limited factor.

PS: When I say “traditional”, I mean missions I’m familiar with from Brink and now DB. I’m not saying the modes I described above were, in any shape, or form, very unique, or new. I just haven’t seen them in the SD games I’ve played so far, wich aren’t a hell of a lot.

(DB Genome editor) #25

Comparing apples and oranges a bit here, but TF2 has both attack / defend maps (payload and A/D capture points like gravelpit) and simultaneous attack maps (payload race and classic capture points) integrated seamlessly in the same game, different map types can be mixed freely in a server’s rotation without any hiccups. I can’t imagine HUD coding being so restrictive in DB that indicators specific to a given game mode cannot be made to disappear in a different one :rolleyes:

(.FROST.) #26

[QUOTE=Djiesse;457918]Comparing apples and oranges a bit here, but TF2 has both attack / defend maps (payload and A/D capture points like gravelpit) and simultaneous attack maps (payload race and classic capture points) integrated seamlessly in the same game, different map types can be mixed freely in a server’s rotation without any hiccups. I can’t imagine HUD coding being so restrictive in DB that indicators specific to a given game mode cannot be made to disappear in a different one :rolleyes:

Edit: For the poll, I don’t see an option for “all of the above”, which is what I would have picked. The setting for DB is suitable for all of these, let’s have some variety![/QUOTE]

Why not quote iwound then?

PS: It’s a multiple choice poll, you can vote for all three, wich I did:wink:

(DB Genome editor) #27

Too lazy to edit his wall of text :o

But also wanted to pick up that specific thread where it had left off.

I realized that after my initial post, which is why I edited it out, but you managed to quote me before I did :mad:

(rookie1) #28

I sugested something similar in the VIP forum a while a go …it was about at the beginning of a map Both teams would have to battle for a switch

Attakers & defenders Battleting for 1st objective

I was thinking that would add a nice variety if:
attackers and defenders would on 1 map figthing to activate a 1st objective.

if defenders win this thing ,the result to attackers will be opening a new path harder or longer for them to go to final objective

would be a priority one for attackers to win this first objective

(Mustang) #29

I think this is not really like Base Race in there there would not be two different datacores (in each enemy base) and two different delivery point (in each teams own base). Bombing Run is getting closer with one datacore, but it still has two delivery points. For this to work with objectives other than datacore I think there would need to be only one datacore and one delivery point.

But as I’m a big fan of both Base Race, Bombing Run and dynamic objectives I’d love to see, or something similar, or one of these, or something a bit different from standard objective/stopwatch mode. Although in should definitely be a gametype of it’s own.

What would be really cool is if we had say 5 or 6 different gametypes along these lines then servers could be setup as a “Mixed” gametype which allows multiple gametypes to be played within the same mapcycle, settable by server admin.

(iwound) #30

[QUOTE=rookie1;457924]I was thinking that would add a nice variety if:
attackers and defenders would on 1 map figthing to activate a 1st objective.

if defenders win this thing ,the result to attackers will be opening a new path harder or longer for them to go to final objective[/QUOTE]

camden gate does this. infact both gates.

(rookie1) #31

True ! :slight_smile:
in a smaller scale and as side objectives

(ImageOmega) #32

Sounds like CTF (both teams attack/defend), Objective, and Domination (control, attack, and defend at different points)… Is that what you want?

I’d rather SD focus on getting Stopwatch/Objective modes up to snuff.

(.FROST.) #33

[QUOTE=ImageOmega;457966]Sounds like CTF (both teams attack/defend), Objective, and Domination (control, attack, and defend at different points)… Is that what you want?

I’d rather SD focus on getting Stopwatch/Objective modes up to snuff.[/QUOTE]

Well yeah, to a certain degree, but opposite to CTF you wouldn’t have to run in the enemy base. I imagine it kinda like this;

First of all; opposite to the Camden situation, where you, as a defender could also win by just waiting till the time is over, in my imagination both teams would loose in such a situation; big difference to Camden and it’s seemingly dual (side-)objectives.

-two teams are getting briefed to extract something from somewhere

-they start approximately in an 45° angle(just as an example) to each other, relative to the target, wich is situated somewhere, 2/3rds to the other side of the map.

-both teams have their own EV(and route), yet not very far apart from each other; you should be
able to see the enemy convy, from your own team’s route

-the target building would’ve two entrances; one in the front and one in the back, yet both are equally accessable

-that will result in an insane amount of fighting, capturing and delivering at the target building, especially if both EVs make it there at the same time

-once the goodies are loaded they can still be stolen from the opponents EV, as long as it’s destroyed, or not moving,(extracting should work just like loading;standing near the EV and pressing “F”)

-now the two convoys have to roll to two different exits, situated on the other side of the last third of the map. Just like the two routes got together at the target building, they are now splitting up, in some kind of V-shape, to their exit points, making it increasingly difficult to steal the goods from the enemy.

-at the exit every team has to wait 1-2 minutes, until they can “give” their bait to their (virtual)clients.

I can think of two different winning conditions:

1.the team with the most extracted things will win and gets an extra bonus for every piece

2.either team can only win if it delivers all of the pieces, otherwise neither team wins and get’s only the points for the individual pieces.

(tokamak) #34

Way too symmetrical. It only waters down the intensity of the fights.

(.FROST.) #35

At the begining, maybe, but near the target building and after that, rather no. Of course it would work differently, but we already have maps like you like them, why not bring a variety of gameplay styles in, instead of basically “re-skinning” the same game mode with different maps?

(Protekt1) #36

I’ve always wanted to see a dota style map added in a fps. I think it could be done. Maybe not in this game but just a suggestion.

(tokamak) #37

Because objective allows for all styles to be included into one. Multiple game modes will only segment the community. People will have favourites and will be miffed if they can’t play the one they like.

However, once these elements are distilled into main or side objectives of one single assault map you get everyone on the same page. People will fight over a contested objective which can turn from attacking to defending in a heartbeat, I’m thinking Railgun’s trains. or the many forward spawns across the ET maps.

The essence of dynamic objectives like these is that there’s a larger goal at stake. It’s not just winning or losing the objective. The objectives themselves buy you time for the final objective. That’s what makes them exciting. That’s what allowed the W:ET maps to last 30 minutes or even longer without ever getting boring.

I’m all for more dynamic maps and objectives. I’m pleading a lot for it. It’s what made previous SD games great. But don’t ruin it by isolating particular objective modes into a single gameplay, it completely ruins the point of the mode.

You need dumb, easily controllable AI entities. It’s hard to find something like that in ruined London unless they build a drone factory somewhere.

(Protekt1) #38

^Easy, just hire a ton of mercs for the job.

(DarkangelUK) #39

As someone that played dual obj maps extensively, it was anything but boring… in fact quite often it was far more tense than standard single sided objective maps.

(tokamak) #40

Keyword: standard single sided objective maps.