I was not saying, that pressing the button should be exciting. But taking care of the only one, who can press that button deffinitely was exciting.
And ibelieve, that any possible mechanic be that pressing more buttons, or minigames -nothing will bring adrenaline. Only the risk, that is felt by the whole team can bring it.
It is clear as a day. If there is risk (obvious for everyone in the team), then the is excitement. If there is little to none risk - there never will be any real excitement.
Still a minimal impact on excitement imo. After all Doc runs are agnostic objs, but their unique mechanic replaces the need to limit them to a single ‘archetype’. I’d like to see more unique obj types that fit the fast pace of the game and react differently depending on the merc interacting with them- never wanted to see mini-games, etc.
I really like to see new unique objective types. But don´t you think, that for those that we currently have, and that will probably remain to some extent anyways, a class specialization would be much more exciting, not so much for pub play but for every kind of organized match? I feel it definetly would, since attacking would require better coordination while allowing much more risky plays as well, while defenders could either try to simply outgun the enemies or just try to work around the enemies superior aim and try to focus out the specialized class(es).
Of course you can still do all of this without any further specialization, but it´s massively favoring any kind of “let´s just kill them all and the last one just does the objective”. Of course there still will be some strategy behind it as well, but it will be limited to some extent. For me that´s just an unthinkable decission for a game that is after all supposed to be objective based.
Doc run or parcel run (?)
Done By One specific class or all class (?)
First I think (atm) this is the only objective that anyone could do even in a class system.
For Variety I see many types of Docs run
Eg .
-Big Parcel you can’t shoot while transporting them like SD done once (we had it in our hand)
-Small Doc like piece of paper or very small parcel in back pack/on your back or in one hand ( you CAN shoot)
-Big Parcel ( you CAN’T shoot) deposited ona chariotand we pull/push it with one hand (you CAN shoot)
To add some dynamic to these Doc run
Stronger Mercs could be better at Big Parcel
Weaker Mercs could drop Big parcel randomly and run slower with it.
Small parcel and piece of paper Best Merc could ne the smallest one that run fast
These^^ could Make you Take some important decision depending of the situations
Any mercs that make a long jump with a big parcel could Drop it …think twice 
Could have one merc that can have an shoulder Gun/lazer (Predator like) allowing him to shoot while transporting a big parcel (Merc with def drone also) so there is many combo to deal with Doc/parcel run 
[QUOTE=onYn;506134]I really like to see new unique objective types. But don´t you think, that for those that we currently have, and that will probably remain to some extent anyways, a class specialization would be much more exciting, not so much for pub play but for every kind of organized match? I feel it definetly would, since attacking would require better coordination while allowing much more risky plays as well, while defenders could either try to simply outgun the enemies or just try to work around the enemies superior aim and try to focus out the specialized class(es).
Of course you can still do all of this without any further specialization, but it´s massively favoring any kind of “let´s just kill them all and the last one just does the objective”. Of course there still will be some strategy behind it as well, but it will be limited to some extent. For me that´s just an unthinkable decission for a game that is after all supposed to be objective based.[/QUOTE]
What I want to differentiate here is the difference between class specific objs and limiting the obj to specific players. I dislike class specific objs because I think it’s not appropriate to force it in every situation, but I do like the strategy involved with limiting players who can do the obj.
This is why I suggested the idea of having the main obj tool be something completely separate from the player. You spawn with a single tool that anyone can pickup and pass around, but resets back at the spawn once the carrier is gibbed. Then to further it you make the engineer archetypes support role be to spawn an extra obj tool for the team. In this scenario the obj can be completed regardless of your archetype, but it returns the strategical element of protecting the player/players with the obj tool.
I don’t really think objective has be entirely simplified to current state, where’s it “done” or simply “not done”. Objectives that gives immediate impact + change to gameplay while working on objective can also make things lot of more exciting and helps to attacking feel more appealing.
Not a fan of this idea, koz looks like brink
I like the idea of having an alternative objective tool, that works as a mini-docrun with only the engie having access to a standard objective tool at all times.
+1
As for personally why the objectives feel a bit wonky, seeing the objective status reset after engaging in a fight is a bit annoying. The ability to look around in the midst of doing the actual objective is nice, but that ability becomes redundant as soon as a player disengages from the objective and shoots. Also would like to see the objective tool on a bank, instead of the F key. Or have the option for both.
[QUOTE=Humate;506156]
As for personally why the objectives feel a bit wonky, seeing the objective status reset after engaging in a fight is a bit annoying. The ability to look around in the midst of doing the actual objective is nice, but that ability becomes redundant as soon as a player disengages from the objective and shoots. Also would like to see the objective tool on a bank, instead of the F key. Or have the option for both.[/QUOTE]
Agree on this. Very bad desision to reset obj status after action. Like switch to a weapon, or just moving your ass to a safer zone, and leaving occasionally the obj zone
I loved the 99% armed charge at ETQW, was an easy objective when the soldier who started planting got killed 
Yes! And you had 30 secs to tap it to fullcharge. Was very fun and exciting thing to do/stop from doing.
Or: we have to keep them away for 10 more secs to get a hack-/build-reset
I miss this completely in DB.
[QUOTE=Kl3ppy;506160]Or: we have to keep them away for 10 more secs to get a hack-/build-reset
I miss this completely in DB.[/QUOTE]
I miss these things too. Very strange seeing obvious winning stuff gone. And boring stuff coming in more and more.
The other thing I’d like to see is a lot of merc archetype specific side-objs, which I do think need to be highly merc specific. The game depth is in the shallow end and it get’s very repetitive in the long term in about every aspect. I want to see a stronger relationship between mercs, maps, and objs. They should all feel cohesive and offer the most dynamic experience possible. Side objs are meant to steer map control and momentum, in the same way that a merc is meant to bring something to the team. Implement more meaningful side objs that react to specific mercs and you further define both the mercs support role and the available strategical options. To be clear, I think that there should be multiple side-objs available, but the team composition would dictate which of these would actually be applicable; though there ought to be one available to each archetype per obj at all times.
I as well would like to see merc specific side objects, so that ppl going on a certain map would choose mercs not only by its strength in fights, but also according to how the want to play the map. And realy influence the map flow.
maybe buying a better blowtorch or better running shoes would work fine for public. Sure the player with that special ability should have something that the other people notice to protect him.
Sorry to say but the main problem is the map design. You can change anything you want to ‘try’ to make it more exciting, but if the maps continue to play like they do, it won’t genuinely change anything.
With ET, all of the basic maps were exciting in some way. Everyone had favourites of course, but if you take Radar as an example; initially there were two routes to defend and a flag cap sent the defence back a fair way. It required skill, timing, a bit of luck, all sorts of things to cap first spawn and then hold it. Once you’d done that, you’ve still got two attack points to open up, forcing the defence to respond to what the attackers did. Do you sacrifice front to keep the cp? Do you fall back and sacrifice to defend the parts? etc etc.
I could go on, but basically you could think of any of the other maps in the same way. It didn’t matter if it was a doc run, a wall plant, or whatever. Throughout the game there was a constant back and forth that forced you to make decisions, to respond to what the opposing team did, to play out a strategy and adapt that strategy in real time to whatever happened.
With this game, or these maps, that doesn’t happen. What you have are badly congested maps that channel players through pretty much one point, all the time.
Trainyard for example is pretty much a 2 or 3 minute walk over, or it’s a slaughter-fest. The first cap takes so long that unless your whole team break through, or a fair percentage, one guy who slips through the net will be finished off as soon as he tries to cap, and then it’s back to the spawn camp slaughter.
Whitechapel the same. Spawn rape en masse, because there’s no reason for the defenders to actually hold back a bit. One route and that’s ya lot with lots of places for defenders to backrape anyone thinking of of flanking. Although there’s not much point in flanking because there’s nothing to do once you have. Except maybe shoot a couple of people and the die gloriously.
Another map, can’t think of the name of it at the moment but the one where you plant the wall and then go for the two objectives inside…
That has a bit more potential as there is an option to flank, albeit small, but even if you manage it and get your plant in, as an engineer what do you do? Drop a couple of landmines down that are about as dangerous as a wet fart i:e more danger to yourself, and then try to hold off half the opposing team while you wait for eternity for the plant to blow.
Ok, you could argue that teamwork can overcome some of these problems (decent cover for the plant for example- ignoring the waste of space landmines) but the fundamental problem of the map design still means you’re in for a very rough ride. Doc runs, hacks, plants, they’re all very important parts of a good game, but until the ‘exciting’ environment is created for them to function properly, it’s a a sticking plaster with holes.
[QUOTE=Sun_Sheng;506175]Sorry to say but the main problem is the map design. You can change anything you want to ‘try’ to make it more exciting, but if the maps continue to play like they do, it won’t genuinely change anything.
With ET, all of the basic maps were exciting in some way. Everyone had favourites of course, but if you take Radar as an example; initially there were two routes to defend and a flag cap sent the defence back a fair way. It required skill, timing, a bit of luck, all sorts of things to cap first spawn and then hold it. Once you’d done that, you’ve still got two attack points to open up, forcing the defence to respond to what the attackers did. Do you sacrifice front to keep the cp? Do you fall back and sacrifice to defend the parts? etc etc.
I could go on, but basically you could think of any of the other maps in the same way. It didn’t matter if it was a doc run, a wall plant, or whatever. Throughout the game there was a constant back and forth that forced you to make decisions, to respond to what the opposing team did, to play out a strategy and adapt that strategy in real time to whatever happened.
With this game, or these maps, that doesn’t happen. What you have are badly congested maps that channel players through pretty much one point, all the time.
Trainyard for example is pretty much a 2 or 3 minute walk over, or it’s a slaughter-fest. The first cap takes so long that unless your whole team break through, or a fair percentage, one guy who slips through the net will be finished off as soon as he tries to cap, and then it’s back to the spawn camp slaughter.
Whitechapel the same. Spawn rape en masse, because there’s no reason for the defenders to actually hold back a bit. One route and that’s ya lot with lots of places for defenders to backrape anyone thinking of of flanking. Although there’s not much point in flanking because there’s nothing to do once you have. Except maybe shoot a couple of people and the die gloriously.
Another map, can’t think of the name of it at the moment but the one where you plant the wall and then go for the two objectives inside…
That has a bit more potential as there is an option to flank, albeit small, but even if you manage it and get your plant in, as an engineer what do you do? Drop a couple of landmines down that are about as dangerous as a wet fart i:e more danger to yourself, and then try to hold off half the opposing team while you wait for eternity for the plant to blow.
Ok, you could argue that teamwork can overcome some of these problems (decent cover for the plant for example- ignoring the waste of space landmines) but the fundamental problem of the map design still means you’re in for a very rough ride. Doc runs, hacks, plants, they’re all very important parts of a good game, but until the ‘exciting’ environment is created for them to function properly, it’s a a sticking plaster with holes.[/QUOTE]
I agree. But if you look at the competition side of the game maps like waterloo and trainyard work out just fine. Sure they are not perfect but they work 100 times better then playing them public.
Another big Problem is u cannot add that many routes because its just not possible to defend. In ET or RTCW it was possible to defend a Route on your own and kill maybe 2-3 opponents but this is just not possible because of the different weapons and HP.
I really don’t know how SD will manage to make this game more enjoying, both for competition and public
This could be really potential option to make mercs giving also different experience from same map, and pulling more exciting options to build maps and play them. And since it’s limited to side-objectives, those can become more numerous with still being able to maintain classless main-objectives.
[QUOTE=trickykungfu;506189] In ET or RTCW it was possible to defend a Route on your own and kill maybe 2-3 opponents but this is just not possible because of the different weapons and HP.
I really don’t know how SD will manage to make this game more enjoying, both for competition and public[/QUOTE]
Well, the more I think of it and its development, the only solution I can see is an ETPro Mk2. Many of the major problems I see could be alleviated by teamwork that you just don’t get on a pub but you do in a match, or to some extent a pub game with clanned players trying to set a time.
As you say, in ET one guy could hold down a route, at the least until backup arrived, and by the same rule one guy could win a game with a well-timed run or airstrike etc. Ok, there’s a fair argument to be made that the game is about teamwork and so it’s good to take out the lone man random element, but that’s just making pub play unbalanced since a lot of good players tend to always be on the same side, or leave when things don’t quite go according to plan.
At the moment though, I just feel like changing things like the first capture or the plant on Canary Wharf to a doc run is, if anything, going to have a negative effect. The only reason games last as long as they do is because it takes so long to capture or win the stage. The maps themselves are too small and/or channelled that every game would turn into 2 minutes a round, or a full hold server-emptying slaughter.
EDIT: Thinking about it, for me, the excitement comes from constantly making decisions, changing things, adapting (although I have a bad lemming tendency ) and responding to the game. I want a game to force me to do that, and to a degree, irrespective of the way it does it i:e doc run, cap, plant, etc.
