What happened to dual objective maps......discuss

(DrD3ath) #1

I loved Jolt marketgarden server and Happy Penguin depot server. Why have multiplayer games not got dual objective maps anymore. This question adresses playability. What makes a game repeatedly playable even if each game is the same layout each and every time. Football, Tennis, Golf, geeze even snooker. Same setup every time (except for golf). Golf, whilst it has different courses , the gameplay is basically the same objective. Nuances are fine, but I hope you get the idea. They are all hugely popular. Do you think RTCW, ETQW, W:ET, Quake had a bit of this magic.

I would love to see a map, exactly symmetrical, where each team knows the attack and defense. Like football. As someone who loves to play games, I am always accused by those who don’t play, of playing something repetitive and “always the same”. My reply is, so is football (same pitch), tennis (same court), and just about any other popular game you can think of. Even the so called thinking games like chess fit here.

Please SD, give us a Brink dual objective map. Make it really simple and symmetrical. Each side has to do exactly the same thing, like get the ball in the net. (mirror image maybe) Discuss.

:smiley:

(voodooboy) #2

Hmmm interesting,

I for one absolutely loved Market Garden.

I suppose one of the reasons was because of the feeling of vastness to it and brink doesn’t have that.

Saying that etqw had a small dual objective map and my nirvana days remember it as fun. Rooftops and briefcases!

(Je T´aime) #3

I hope we get some dual objective maps too, so I decide if i want to attack or just defend, and probably those type of maps wont have any balance issue that the current ones have.

(DrD3ath) #4

I guess, looking at a game like football, the map (pitch) is always the same, the objective is always the same but there is an infinite variety of gameplay. Aside from the physical aspect , we sit on our asses to play , they run around all the time, what makes it so popular and engaging. Those of us who have spent lots of time (thousands of hours) playing games often do so on the same maps repetitively. For a good game , i don’t think new maps are a real issue. I couldn’t care less about DLC tbh.However it seems to be the fashion for games. I just want a dual objective map ! :smiley:

(morguen87) #5

Maps are too damn tiny. It’s like they added their gameplay and maps around their gimmick (smart) instead of building solid, balanced gameplay and maps then added a gimmick.

Molding a game around dress up (which only hurts a class-based objective game because it’s essential to be able to immediately identify the other team’s classes) and a smart system (which made every map feel claustrophobic and repetitive) is the opposite way to go about it.

Design a solid base game first, then add the frills.

(DrD3ath) #6

[QUOTE=morguen87;358357]Maps are too damn tiny. It’s like they added their gameplay and maps around their gimmick (smart) instead of building solid, balanced gameplay and maps then added a gimmick.

Molding a game around dress up (which only hurts a class-based objective game because it’s essential to be able to immediately identify the other team’s classes) and a smart system (which made every map feel claustrophobic and repetitive) is the opposite way to go about it.

Design a solid base game first, then add the frills.[/QUOTE]

Kind of off topic. This is not specifically about Brink although would love a dual objective brink map.

(DarkangelUK) #7

It’s not that the maps are tiny, the aren’t ‘tiny’ at all, it’s the linear objective setup that keeps you in one place that gives the illusion of being small. Objectives are set in a way that they absolutely must be done in order, so there is absolutely no reason to go anywhere other than where the current objective is.

RtCW and W:ET handled things differently. Those maps had a main objectives with a few side objectives throw in… the main difference was that those side objectives weren’t absolutely necessary.

Example 1: RtCW map Assault. Objective was to blow up the radio dish tower as axis. You could blow the hatch to get a concealed route towards the dish, you could also blow the door to get access to the garage and stairs… but you didn’t have to. So things were spread out, some concentrated on getting those quick access routes, defence had to cover those, tactics were in place cos you had to strategically attack and defend. Sure you could just sit back at the main objective, but then the attacks had an easier time then getting there, so it was worth your while denying them this advantage, so you had to cover the side objectives as well

Example 2: Fuel Dump, objective: allies blow up the fuel dump. The map called for the allies escorting a tank to the bridge to blow up the sewer gate, build the bridge, escort tank to main door, blow the door, escort tank to main gate on fuel dump, blow the that, escort to back wall and blow that. At most the sewer grate was required and that was it, disguised cov ops could get your engineers into the fuel dump without the need to blow anything up. A skilled jumper could trickjump into the fuel dump and blow it (i did this many times as engineer). So focus was on several places of the map, rather than a single point at any one time

It’s this A, B, C, D linear flow of Brink that makes it monotonous and keeps everyone stuck in one place. On Container City, let me go fix the crane while the bot is being escorted, or even before the gate has been been blown. Let me play mind games with the enemy. Send a decoy to the crane so the enemy divert resources there, giving the attackers the advantage of an under-manned defence. Or cut overall objective time by getting the harder objective done 1st while the defence are too concerned about the current one. Ok I’m waffling now.

With regards to maps being small for dual objective maps, 2 of my fave dual objective maps in RtCW were Wizerness and Bridge… those maps were smaller than any in Brink, and they were absolutely awesome!

(Verticae) #8

TJING FUEL = KICKBAN WTF

OASIS WAL TJ = KICKBAN WTF

Ahh, those were the days. <3 etpub

(DrD3ath) #9

On Topic: Thoughts about dual objective maps :stuck_out_tongue:

(Verticae) #10

To be quite frank, if I wanted perfect symmetrical maps, I’d go play QL CTF.

(DrD3ath) #11

Yeah, and if I wanted to play RTCW MG or depot I’d go and do that, but they are not about anymore. I guess I just wanted to develop the idea/concept without the topic turning into yet another brink basher. I am not saying you are brink bashing but i do think that dual objective maps are a different animal. Some Marketgarden maps used to go on for hours and hours before a game was won, with different shifts of players. Now everything seems to be focused on the game forcing the issue in a set time frame and not allowing players to debvelop the gameplay. Dunno , I am waffling a bit but they surely had something that isn’t in the new style of games. Football is a set timeframe but remember the old tennis matches where you had to win the set by two games and not a tiebreaker. Bah, must be getting old :smiley:

(Glyph) #12

Which would be fine if the defenders could then plant a bomb on the crane to disable it before the repair bot completed its route. I agree with what you are saying though, the biggest problem with Brink is that is is very one-dimensional in terms of its gameplay.

(thesuzukimethod) #13

i like the braided gameplay suggestions here - and to a certain extent, some of this is already implemented (obviously you cant repair the crane till the bot gets there, but you can put satchel charges in the cab long before the repair starts, you can send an engy to mine up a spot before the objective is even on queue, etc…not quite the same thing, but this sort of thing does encourage a bit of strategy and braided play.

I think the balance is not creating a situation where either the game would go on forever, as small groups do/redo/undo the same set of objectives, or would end so quickly it would be crazy (if a team was just that well organized). i find the latter to be much less problematic than the former.

Someone above made the football reference, and i def see pub play as a sort of pickup football match - the basic structure is consistent (limited field of play, there’s a time limit, there’s the potential for added time if need be to finish off the match) - so the manner of play is somewhat limited by the structure of the game (map in this case) but completely open within these confines. you might win 9-0 with a crazy offiensive explosion, or 1-0 with some solid defense (you can obviously map these scenarios onto Brink matches as you see fit)…but it’s this variation within replication that brings me back over and again.

(btw - there was an interesting thread about possible parallel objectives (buried in a CTF post/thread, i think) - but sec tower is a great example where Sec could start in one place, and have a series of 2-3 objectives that were paralleled by 2-3 objectives from Res…i.e. both teams have to blow an access panel, hack a safe, and deliver the ____, but how it plays out is open. and it wouldnt have to be strictly parallel…as the sec tower map is linear enough with variations to pack those 2-3 objectives (4-6 total) in, and how each team wanted to progress (and limit the progress of the opponents) would be very flexible (within the bounds of the structure…(wow, it sounds like i should cite Bourdieu in here…lol)

(DrD3ath) #14

Pierre Bourdieu , well well, you learn something new everyday. Man I used to hate sociology but I think with the internet and its data mining its a science that is about to come of age. Anyone ever read Asimov’s foundation trilogy ?

(sorry, off topic) :smiley:

(thesuzukimethod) #15

[QUOTE=DrDeath<rfa;359051]Pierre Bourdieu , well well, you learn something new everyday. Man I used to hate sociology but I think with the internet and its data mining its a science that is about to come of age. Anyone ever read Asimov’s foundation trilogy ?

(sorry, off topic) :D[/QUOTE]

I did! (read it…ages ago, of course). the Bourdieu ref was meant to consider his idea of improvisation within structure, which is what a really good teamwork/objective game should give you - so it’s relevant! (and thanks for not having me feel like a total jerk for ref’ing it…indeed, sociology and social anthropology are coming of age in the digital era…or at least i think so, but i may be biased)

(i think the degree to which Brink succeeded is under debate, too much funneling/structure, no room for improvisation…too little structure, and there’s no foundation for the improv and it becomes too unstructured to be fun. not an easy balance point to hit)

(Zanchile) #16

bumping to get spammers thread off front page

(DrD3ath) #17

As an antidote, coz I am sick of the ZOMG what nabs, where is the … (and a shameless bump) I want dual-objective loving care ie. DLC

DLC forever ! :smiley:

(.FROST.) #18

[QUOTE=DrDeath<rfa;358268]I loved Jolt marketgarden server and Happy Penguin depot server. Why have multiplayer games not got dual objective maps anymore. This question adresses playability. What makes a game repeatedly playable even if each game is the same layout each and every time. Football, Tennis, Golf, geeze even snooker. Same setup every time (except for golf). Golf, whilst it has different courses , the gameplay is basically the same objective. Nuances are fine, but I hope you get the idea. They are all hugely popular. Do you think RTCW, ETQW, W:ET, Quake had a bit of this magic.

I would love to see a map, exactly symmetrical, where each team knows the attack and defense. Like football. As someone who loves to play games, I am always accused by those who don’t play, of playing something repetitive and “always the same”. My reply is, so is football (same pitch), tennis (same court), and just about any other popular game you can think of. Even the so called thinking games like chess fit here.

Please SD, give us a Brink dual objective map. Make it really simple and symmetrical. Each side has to do exactly the same thing, like get the ball in the net. (mirror image maybe) Discuss.

:D[/QUOTE]

Very true^. If you are ofense its mostly run, run, run, get to the objective, try to do the objective, stress, nervous breakdown, getting killed, respawn, run, run, run, try to do the objective. getting worried about objective returns and hack-box removes. Get your self an stomach ulcer.

If you are defense its plant as much engie stuff as possible, open up 'nade carnage and start sniper inferno. Enjoy your well fortified stronghold. Repair a turret here and place further mines there. Go on with nading and sniping. Heart-rate hardly rising. Getting killed from time to time, due to lazyness caused by boredom. Respawn, repair turret. Place mine. Throw grenade…

Dual objectives are the best solution for this problems(ofense;frustrating, stressing, defense; many times too easy).

Never thought about that(dual obj.). Also never played such a gamemode(except from CTF in various games). It would definitely put objective pressure and choke point fortification pleasure, on both teams. This mode would give Brink the much needed gameplay boost.

(DrFunkenstein) #19

Played Market Garden and Depot countless times and I never got bored of it. I liked the idea of dual objectives and I hope someday some developer will pick up the idea again.

There’s a lot of truth in your analysis about the symmetrical aspects of most popular sports.

Dr. Funkenstein

(neg0ne) #20

Agree.
I dont need maps where you are def and of same time, but i alway loved maps where you had / could do usefull obj in any order… and i don´t mean just taking commpost.

end obj at oasis : nice.
fueldump: epic
…

theres lots of potential in Brink. even if the maps semm to be “small”.
Have more alternative routes to be opened / closed.
Blow/hack/repair different things at different places at any order
more sneakyways for lights
doors/ways to be opened by disguised agents

maybe we will see all this when maybe sometimes the SDK arrives.