Why Objective mode is broken by design...

(PixelTwitch) #1

Let’s try and make this quick and simple… (yeah right!)

My biggest concern with Objective mode is simply the maps…
However, this time I am not talking about the design or layout, its all down to the core concept. As the maps have been created with Stopwatch in mind, they are simply not balanced for Objective and I really don’t know what you can do to correct this. Whilst balance is a concern, so is fun. In general all the maps have been designed in the following way…

SPAWN -> TRAVEL -> CHOKE -> OBJECTIVE -> REPEAT

The elephant in the room here is the choke sections… Increasing the player numbers increases the effective choke and turns that section of the map into brute force and spam. In objective mode when both teams are full it normally comes down to the team with the most medics are the most likely too win.

Also on the topic of fun we need to look at the respawn timer…
More players = More randomness = Less tactics
Even if you are a player that pays attention to the respawn timer, in Objective mode the likelihood of playing against or with players that don’t pay attention to the respawn timer is rather high. Not only that but the constant fluctuating respawn timer makes it virtually impossible to predict unless there is already people on the enemy team dead and you can TAB to see their respawn time on the scoreboard. Effectively, this makes the time you spend waiting to respawn is more down to luck than skill. This combined with the fact the respawn timer has been increased greatly ends up with high levels of frustration. Especially when you get a 28 second respawn on Defence, seconds after a C4 has been planted or the enemy has started capping a capture point.

The next issue crosses the lines between fun and balance…
The 3 Merc limit is pretty dumb in public by default. When you mix that with 8 team mates to take into consideration and 8 enemies to think about, choosing your Merc squad becomes very difficult. Even knowing what your team is taking does not mean you know what they will use. I have gone into games before now with no engineer as every single person on my team had one in their squad. Only to find that not a single person on my team elected to use it. That leaves people that play to win (like me) forced to take Mercs I do not necessarily want or need to try and cover most bases (Engie, Medic, FO). I am pretty decent at putting people down yet I have no slot for a sniper or fragger/thunder. Even within the roles I need to take the selection is pretty limited due to needing the best all rounder rather then a specialised Merc. If this was not bad enough, its compounded greatly by the limitations on what Mercs you can used due to the progression system.

When it comes to map balance the major flaw is simple…
These maps where designed for the Attackers to finish them the majority of the time!
The very idea of trying to make a balanced mode out of maps that are by design, not balanced. Seems borderline crazy to me. I would understand if something had changed or there was new systems and win states but there is not. Even the idea of adding time for complete objectives is a false measure. As already shown as a timer comes towards the end both Attacker and Defenders play style changes meaning the attackers are more likely to complete. This happens for each objective in Objective mode so overall increases the win chance. This is not forgetting that if a team does not do the first objective in 6-7min the likely hood of them completing the map was already very low. Sure you help remove some of the frustration of 15min first objective full holds but you do nothing to tackle the balance.

Personally… I would start throwing crap at the walls and seeing what sticks here…
Heck, try making it so 2 seconds are deducted from the timer for each attacker killed/gibbed. Play around with the idea of tickets like in RUSH from battlefield. Try lowering the player count to 7 per team. Modify the maps and have them as separate maps for Objective mode with more routes and stuff. Play around with the respawn timers…

Something needs to happen!
Sure you can have fun on objective mode…
Having fun on a mode does not make the mode fun though…

(tokamak) #2

Have you tried one of the Enemy Territory games? I mainly ask because you’re naming reasons that are mostly down to DB is yet lacking a good number of important things these games have sorted out. These aren’t really reasons why objective mode would be inherently broken.

Asymmetrical gameplay is tricky but ultimately having two teams focus on diametrically opposed different goals gives the hardest clashes you can have in multiplayer.

(Rokkamaisteri) #3

I personally believe Objective mode is struggling with two issues:

Player doesn’t feel encouraged enough to go for objective, made effort can easily made to become worthless and essentially massive waste of time. This can be fixed by making imho interactive objectives where even little progress is saved for while. But it also encourages to finish something, what someone else couldn’t do it. Also it would mean player who’s interacting with objective should get better freedom to stop the interaction with objective to get back into fight.
I personally feel like attacker never get’s true advantage from wiping out defenders, defenders seems to come out with better positions ready already to cripple attacker team’s attempts to take over the match. This means objectives areas should be easy to defend, but harder to take back in control for either side, but one who has the control from area should feel overwhelmed from options the opposing team can come out with to take area back to control.

(tokamak) #4

Exactly my sentiments as well.

And the problem is circular in that sense. Attackers lack means to solidify their progress in a satisfying way, and because of that, they rely on big pushes towards the front in order to be able to get anywhere near the objective. In order to make the game still playable SD compensats by putting the defenders in really favourable positions.

In other words, if the attackers could focus on progressing by winning more space and opportunities, the defenders wouldn’t need to be placed this close to the objectives.

(montheponies) #5

It’s been said many many times, Objective mode should have either different maps or significantly modified versions (generally enlarged) of the SW maps.

This is the opposite to the problem from previous SD titles (W:ET and ETQW) in that the stock maps were wholly designed with Objective mode in mind, including the rather dubious pleasure of playing through a campaign of linked maps. The only stock map that suited SW from W:ET was Radar.

My own thoughts are that SD are caught between making serial objective style maps that suit Objective, whilst making them small enough to suit Stopwatch (who the hell wants to play 30min A & B). What we end up with are maps that suit neither, which is why the custom map thread was raised.

(Glottis-3D) #6

[QUOTE=montheponies;510499]It’s been said many many times, Objective mode should have either different maps or significantly modified versions (generally enlarged) of the SW maps.

This is the opposite to the problem from previous SD titles (W:ET and ETQW) in that the stock maps were wholly designed with Objective mode in mind, including the rather dubious pleasure of playing through a campaign of linked maps. The only stock map that suited SW from W:ET was Radar.

My own thoughts are that SD are caught between making serial objective style maps that suit Objective, whilst making them small enough to suit Stopwatch (who the hell wants to play 30min A & B). What we end up with are maps that suit neither, which is why the custom map thread was raised.[/QUOTE]

yeah, exactly.

map needs too be not only longer and bigger.
but with obvious constant progress in it.
i.e. irreversable side-objs. and good frontlines.

abd yes, forward spawns.

(tokamak) #7

Yeah Montheponies, that’s spot on.

(ailmanki) #8

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;510489]SPAWN -> TRAVEL -> CHOKE -> OBJECTIVE -> REPEAT

The elephant in the room here is the choke sections… Increasing the player numbers increases the effective choke and turns that section of the map into brute force and spam. In objective mode when both teams are full it normally comes down to the team with the most medics are the most likely too win. [/QUOTE]
Only 2 lines for the elephant in the room?
Give it some more space, let it trample a bit.

All good maps in ET have at least 2 paths to each place. Last time I played DB this was not the case. Second every spot is always accessible by both teams, also not the case in DB. Lastly ET has functional forward spawns. One more thing, I have played these maps in ET from SD with 1vs1 up to 30vs30.
The game differs a lot when player count differs that much, but it was the more fun the more people played. Lower player numbers, made it much more difficult (as long as teams are even).

Btw, some of the issues you raise will be solved by matchmaking

(warbie) #9

You mentioned you haven’t played previous SD games much, and I’m guessing that means you haven’t played RTCW in multiplayer too. If so, it basically means you haven’t played this type of asymmetric fps done right. Not a dig - just saying how it is as no other fps has managed this since. Part of what is frustrating is that the core of what is not working in DB at the moment worked in RTCW. Choke point focussed, objective based maps are what made these games and a large part of what allowed them work was the spawn times - with defenders spawning slower than the attackers. Games played like waves hitting a sand wall that someone was frantically trying to fix, usually with the first attacking wave being slaughtered as they try and push through the bottleneck and things getting more chaotic and desperate for both teams from then on. The trick was to probe at the defenders, try and get them spawning and quickly push when and where they were weaker. For the defenders it was all about holding the line, covering the angles, and the frantic rush to get back into position when everything went wrong. It was exhilarating, to and fro stuff and worked in both pubic and competitive play. And it worked because the spawn times offset the defending team’s tactical advantage. The good thing about this is it allows for and lends itself to all kinds of interesting gameplay that is very empowering to the player. The attackers are breaking through choke points where they are at a significant tactical disadvantage, while the defenders are holding the line against increasingly superior no.s as time progresses and the **** hits the fan. And everything in between. I can’t emphasise how important this to and fro element is to games of this type. It’s what other games either don’t have - CS just has the to part - or barely scratch the surface and potential of - Battlefield. Without offsetting this advantage we either have choke points the attacking team has little chance of pushing through (no good to anyone) or objectives that aren’t designed with the intention of a possible full hold (and the excitement of hard worn battles that comes with that). aka the time sink objective. This is what it feels like DB has at the moment - chains of time sink objectives. They have their place - in previous titles they were the forward spawns, or building/blowing something up to let the map progress to the final showdown - but it’s not where the meat of the game should happen. Real dug in battles of attrition, ground not given away cheaply, with advantage swinging back and forth between teams - this is what it’s about and DB doesn’t do this yet.

TLDR. The defending team should have a longer spawn time than the attacking team. We could then have (or at least experiment with) objectives that are less chaotic, Benny Hill and throw away, and more significant, focussed on choke points and clear front lines (with all the good, teams clashing head on, to and fro gameplay that comes with it).

(tokamak) #10

[QUOTE=ailmanki;510502]Only 2 lines for the elephant in the room?
Give it some more space, let it trample a bit.

All good maps in ET have at least 2 paths to each place. Last time I played DB this was not the case.[/QUOTE]

Well play it again because that’s not true. Multiple options everywhere. The point is that two routes is not enough and more than two routes that don’t have to be unlocked through objectives first is too many.

(Glottis-3D) #11

agree. pathes need to lead to “frontlines” - the layout, with defensive strong points and some weak points - the opportunities for attackers.
these defensive weak points can be taken via help of side objectives, but not nessesarily.

when there is no front line, with flank reinforcements - there is no good flow in the fight.
and line means line - not a point!

for example, there is no frontline in Dome 2nd obj, which is a disadvantage of this map.
in trainyard there is a frontline (1st object) the thing is, that this is OBJ-line. and it is not good.

layouts should be much more thoughtfull.

(tokamak) #12

Yes. You always want a frontline, something which can’t happen on an entirely open map. But a closed map will cause the frontline to be a back and forth tug of war corridor. Many old TF2 maps have that problem.

You want a map that has many different potential clashes, but not all at the same time. The only way to achieve that is to allow players to manipulate the map, either through merc abilities or through side objectives and preferably through merc abilities shaping the side objectives.

What then happens is that a combination of completed/uncompleted side objectives causes specific scenarios to occur. These scenarios may favour one side or the other. That’s alright because due to the clear oversight both teams have on the status of these objectives, they know what step to take next.

That’s how you get both teams to both have an interesting shoot-outs while at the same time having a deeply tactical chess play over the map’s geometry without these two sides of the game infringing on each other.

(RasteRayzeR) #13

[QUOTE=montheponies;510499]It’s been said many many times, Objective mode should have either different maps or significantly modified versions (generally enlarged) of the SW maps.

This is the opposite to the problem from previous SD titles (W:ET and ETQW) in that the stock maps were wholly designed with Objective mode in mind, including the rather dubious pleasure of playing through a campaign of linked maps. The only stock map that suited SW from W:ET was Radar.

My own thoughts are that SD are caught between making serial objective style maps that suit Objective, whilst making them small enough to suit Stopwatch (who the hell wants to play 30min A & B). What we end up with are maps that suit neither, which is why the custom map thread was raised.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree here. I really believe the OBJ maps could be closer to the small maps of W:ET, feature larger and more diverse combat zones where you can really take advantage of the mercs. Currently you have power but restrained by the narrowness of the maps.

Also SW should be oriented pro and competition, to allow making the obj significantly harder and more complex to achieve. The OBJ should remain pub-oriented and feature a good deal of action over big maps.

(Mustang) #14

Oh god no, this is almost as bad as that ridiculous ticket system!!!

Urr… no comment…

(RasteRayzeR) #15

I’d like to know why SD enjoys so much putting only a single exit to the defense spawns, further more an exit that is visible from at long range for the offense ???

It ruins maps, just sayin’

(tokamak) #16

I can only think of Terminal’s first defense spawn as an example of that. Maybe Trainyard if you’re taking your issue broadly. But beyond that it’s hard to find real problems.

(RasteRayzeR) #17

Add these ones:

Terminal: if pump is disabled on first obj / wall gate is a complete bottleneck
Underground: if gates are closed only pipe access / spawn raping on last obj

And the fundamental issue is that you have to go through THE bottleneck to re-enable these secondary routes. So once you lost them, there is almost no change to get them back.

(ailmanki) #18

[QUOTE=RasteRayzeR;510533]Add these ones:

Terminal: if pump is disabled on first obj / wall gate is a complete bottleneck
Underground: if gates are closed only pipe access / spawn raping on last obj

And the fundamental issue is that you have to go through THE bottleneck to re-enable these secondary routes. So once you lost them, there is almost no change to get them back.[/QUOTE]

And I already though these one way bottlenecks might be fixed now :rolleyes:

(tokamak) #19

[QUOTE=RasteRayzeR;510533]Terminal: if pump is disabled on first obj / wall gate is a complete bottleneck
Underground: if gates are closed only pipe access / spawn raping on last obj
[/QUOTE]

The first one is what I mentioned and the second one still has multiple exits.

So there may be one or two instances where this is true but it’s not a fundamental issue in the game. It’s just something that can be solved according to what Echo will show.

(RasteRayzeR) #20

[QUOTE=tokamak;510542]the second one still has multiple exits.
[/QUOTE]

Please show me, because in the games I play usually there are people camping the very narrow and grenade-prone corridor on the right…