We need more objective types.

[Guziol]

I’d like to see some tug-of-war style maps.

[Meerkats]

@Eox said:
— HACKING —

— OBJECTIVE DESTRUCTION, BUT WITH POWER ARMOR —
Eh… personally, I’m fine with the current objective type variety. I’ve said somewhere in the past that I’m here for the game itself; everything else is just dressing.

You’ve gotta understand, there really are only so many different objective types, and typically, regardless of how you change the dressings, the resulting gameplay won’t change much. Your new objective types, like you stated, are very similar to existing objectives. Hacking is still static defense, and functionally, the same as C4. Power armour is a variant on EV, so not much changes there either. Though your objective types do change the formula in a way I don’t know if you yourself realized, overall, static defense is still static defense and escort is still escort.

It’s fun to brainstorm though, and at first, I was thinking dual hold type objectives where attackers would have to control two separate locations simultaneously, but the problem with this is of course that it divides the teams. This is bad for gameplay as it reduces emphasis on teamplay and reduces likelihood of big team fights, which a lot of players enjoy.

Sooooo… how about a dual escort converging on a single location? CDA ( attackers ) will need to escort two objectives to a Jackal ( defender ) structure. Why not mix things up, right? To move the objective, a friendly player must be adjacent to the objective like the EV, however, unlike the EV, this objective can’t be destroyed. In exchange, both objectives must be escorted simultaneously to move. Or maybe the objectives can be destroyed, but repair much more quickly in comparison to how quickly they are destroyed ( so for the EV, one tick might repair 40 HP to a total of 400 HP; for this objective, one tick might repair 60 HP to a total of 240 HP ). Whatever. Details. In the beginning, the objectives start in fairly defensible positions, meaning it is very difficult for defenders to slow progress. However, as the objectives get closer to their destination, the defensible options for attackers get increasingly worse while at the same time improving for defenders, making it easier and easier for defenders to kill attackers and slow progress.

So in terms of dynamics, the pacing should go like this: The beginning of the match will center less around brawls and more around skirmishes. Brief, isolated engagements. Teamplay and composition will have lower emphasis as the players are divided into smaller teams. However, as the objectives start to converge, the match naturally transitions to bigger engagements where teamplay aspects will be re-emphasized.

This should provide a different experience requiring new tactics, while promoting greater diversity in merc picks and rotations. As an example, as attackers start from naturally defensible positions, but with smaller numbers, more team-oriented mercs like Sparks have less value while mercs like Fragger, with more solo, hard push potential, have more value. However, as the objectives start to converge, mercs like Sparks becoming increasingly strong. Defensive mercs like Turtle and Guardian might also become very strong around this time as only finishing the last portion of the escort matters.

This is also thematically inline with Dirty Bomb’s existing objective types, as opposed to king of the hill, deathmatch and tug of war variants, which make no sense in context with the rest of the game.

To make this work, during the early escort portion, engagement ranges must be kept shorter as attacking snipers will be at a huge disadvantage compared to defending snipers. Furthermore, attackers will need ways to quickly get to the objective to maintain a good pace, as this design naturally creates long distances from attacker spawn to objectives. Finally, the defenders can simply full stack against one objective in the early phase and always outnumber attackers, which makes progress very difficult, so something has to be done to prevent this situation. A completely new objective type like this will require a completely different map with completely different solutions.

Like I said, I’m fine with the objective variety as is, but it’s always fun to brainstorm.

[GatoCommodore]

Bring back execution after launch

[Nail]

@Eox said:

IMPORTANT NOTE : I am talking about new objectives for OBJ/SW gamemodes. This thread has nothing to do with new gamemodes !

[Shenaynays]

that idea about hacking with an adjusted overall hacking time would be great as a replacement for the gen on bridge

[Szakalot]

@STARRYSOCK said:
I had an idea for something a while ago. Basically an objective that has to be destroyed, but can only be damaged from bullet fire.

Attackers would continually try to shoot this object (which would have a huge amount of health and be resistant to certain damages, so a rhino couldn’t kill it in 30 seconds between spawn waves), while defenders would complete secondary objectives to raise shields that would block it from certain angles (but not all).
Perhaps defenders could slowly repair it, or it could even regen health on its own very slowly. Another idea I had was as it became more and more damaged, certain aspects of the map would change, like routes and spawns

Basically the idea behind this, is that everyone would be more directly involved in the objective, with less of a focus on team deathmatch. Engineers would still be required on both sides to raise/lower shields to block or open certain vantage points.

Lorewise, I guess this could be a map set in Pirin’s reactor area. They have the ability to stop projectiles as shown by Guardian, so if the reactor was protected by one of those shields and suspended out of reach of the players to prevent C4, it could work well.

I had this idea as well.
Secondary objectives could also repair some of the damage for defenders, or an attacker secondary where an NPC cannon lays down fire at the primary objective.

[K1X455]

500 Game Mode XP to build the MG nest and 500XP to destroy it. 750 Game Mode XP if a C4 was used.

[TheStrangerous]

@K1X455 said:
500 Game Mode XP to build the MG nest and 500XP to destroy it. 750 Game Mode XP if a C4 was used.

+1

Like in OG Battlefront games!

[FalseLumpy]

Had an idea for a secondary obj sorta like an mg nest, but instead it was an EV with limited movement. It’d start in a neutral repair state, whichever team repaired it first would hijack it making it only available to that team. Repairing would work by having one bar, if Jackal had it somewhat repaired previously and CDA tries repairing it, that progress from Jackal would have to go down before being repaired by CDA again.

Whichever team hijacks it completely gets their respective EV skin placed on it and could move it on a set rail/axis. The other team can destroy it, like a regular ev, to set it back to its neutral state.

[ImSploosh]

Would love some more objective types. The current ones have gotten very boring after so long of playing. Of course new gamemodes is probably everyone’s first option, but this would definitely help spice up the variety for the time being.

[NeroKirbus]

Hacking objectives existed in the alpha where it was just like Quake Wars. Covert OPs were required to be able to finish the objective and the timer would slowly run down if it wasn’t kept up. That mechanic right there is my assumption of why it was removed, it was no fun nearly finishing the objective and if you were denied it for a minute or so the completion was completely removed.

It could always be brought back with some tweaks but I think it’s unnecessary.