Reply
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 01/04/2013
Offline
141 posts
 

Re: "Turf War" - A Competitive Objective Mode Idea

Jan 7, 2013


vedy goooood

Message 11 of 23 (268 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 12/15/2012
Offline
15 posts
 

Re: "Turf War" - A Competitive Objective Mode Idea

Jan 7, 2013

 Love your idea! But there should be more than 1 objective the single explosive can be placed on. Your team would have to choose what part of the enemys infastructure to weaken. Such As: Destroying an ammo cache reduces the enemy teams overall ammo. Destroying a medical cache weakens the strength of medkits used by the enemy team. Or destroying the enemy transceiver limits enemy comms to close range. 

Message 12 of 23 (267 Views)
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 04/18/2012
Offline
258 posts
 

Re: "Turf War" - A Competitive Objective Mode Idea

Jan 7, 2013

I love it! (No sarcasm) Make it, print it, sell it!

Last Of Us GOTY
Message 13 of 23 (259 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Naughty Paw
Registered: 05/31/2009
Offline
2018 posts
 

Re: "Turf War" - A Competitive Objective Mode Idea

[ Edited ]
Jan 9, 2013

 

Objective 1: Intel

Each team must find the 'intel' (This could just be a piece of paper) on the opposing team's side of the map. An indicator shows your team where to find it, but you can't see the indicator to your own intel, so you can't be sure where to guard it (the position of the intel would be randomised each game). Once found, this unlocks the next objective.

 

Man, I'm having a hard time remembering what game did this but the whole "not knowing what to defend" idea was a trainwreck. It essentially just became a "boosting" game mode, because no one played the OBJ, because they had no idea **bleep** they were doing. I want to say it was a mode on Red Faction: Guerrilla but I feel like it wasn't. Anyways, a recent game tried that. Was a failure. 

 

Objective 2: Supplies

Now that you have the intel, a new indicator pops up showing you where the other team keeps their supplies. Unlike the previous mode, you can see where your own supplies are kept, so that you may defend them. This objective works just like Capture The Flag in that you need to get the other teams supplies back to your base whilst preventing them from taking yours. Once you've got their supplies, every member of the team is rewarded with an extra clip of ammo and a bandage, and the next objective opens up.

 

If this mode was a lot like "Extraction" on Shadowrun, then it would be awesome. Shadowrun did a great job of "redefining" how CTF was played, rather than just pick up, run with the flag, cap, repeat. Really played off the tactical positioning of each class and player. Granted I doubt this game will have a traditional "class" system, if one at all. As much as I would like them to put in the CTF idea from Far Cry 2 multi, I think it would be hard in a TPS game, being that you had to literally carry the objective. 

 

Objective 3: Communication

Also provided in the supplies was a home-made explosive. There is only one, and any team member can pick it up or put it down, to pass to another team member. This explosive can only be used on one thing - the opposition's communications technology (a transceiver). An indicator pops up to show where it's hidden, and (as with the previous round) you can see where your own one is, too, so that you may defend it. The objective is to place the explosive on the transceiver and wait 30 seconds for it to explode. During this time, the defending team may defuse it, so you'll need to keep watch to make sure it goes off. If defused, you'll have to grab another explosive from your base (one respawns there at this point) and try again. Once successful, the opposing team can no longer communicate via headset unless they're within a certain proximity of each other, and then the final objective can be undertaken.

 

Sounds like a weird mix of Killzone 3 and Battlefield "rush" concepts. I think this could work extremely well if they fleshed it out correctly and didn't make it to were it was just one stalemate after another. That was an issue from Bad Company 1, as it massively favored Defense teams on most maps. That changed a lot on BC2, but again defenders always get the upper hand. Dynamic events would be a great way to tip the scales if the assaulting team could work together and make **bleep** happen. 

 

Objective 4: Capture The Leader

The current highest-scoring member of the opposition is now marked by an indicator. The objective is to take the leader alive (via a melee attack, which knocks them out). Killing the leader (i.e using a weapon against them) results in the opposition being rewarded an extra clip of ammo, so you have to be sure not to go all-guns-blazing. When the leader is captured, the game is over, and the capturing team wins.

 

I'm going to disagree with you here. Lets take a few games where CTL or a VIP is used:

 

- Gears of War

- Counterstrike

 

Alternate Versions:

 

Rainbow Six: Team Leader Mode

 

Anyways, all of those guys do a good job of utilizing the objective as an AI or a player but they were heavily underplayed after launch. Not saying it wouldn't be "fun" but it got a bit ridiculous with how people played that mode. People just assume "no respawn" modes = camping. Go back and play Team Leader on Rainbow Six Vegas 1 or 2. Ask how many people ACTUALLY liked that game mode. 

 

Now the one positive out of this would be mixing Gears version and Rainbow Six's Team Leader. Keep the "no respawn" effect so that if the VIP went down, you could still clutch the game but work it in with the RS version to where if you escorted the player to a zone, it either gave you the win or a massive points boost so that if your VIP did "expire", you could still win the game by attrition. 

 

Afterthoughts

The beauty of this mode is that rather than timed 'rounds', the objectives have to be completed in order, and a team cannot advance to the next objective without completing the current one. That means that Team A might be on Objective 3 whilst Team B is still on Objective 1.

 

That's my idea. Hope you like it. Any improvements?

 

I think these modes would be great separated as a lot of "Naughty Dog" gamers do not have the attention span of say Battlefield, Planetside, Quake, Shadowrun and beyond. A lot of those game modes lasted like 30-50 minutes in some cases. Man, I'd love it to be all in one movement but I don't know if it would work. The reason it works well in Killzone is the map structure and it's a FPS. KZ3 maps weren't great but think about how KZ2 worked. Sure the games were long but there was constant action because of the objective placement and just how the game played. You can't "balls to the wall" in a game were it's predicated on survival, so it would make games very long and tedious. Does that bother me? No but it would a lot of players. 

 

Either way, you're a badass and your ideas are a hell of a lot better than most multiplayer developers. Calcunnon for President. 


 

Twitter: @TryceUp

USN 04-08
Message 14 of 23 (238 Views)
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 11/30/2008
Offline
1160 posts
 

Re: "Turf War" - A Competitive Objective Mode Idea

Jan 9, 2013

Dat font color...it burns! ahaha.


Get your Portable ID!
Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, Tomb Raider, God of War: Ascension, Grand Theft Auto V, and The Last of Us.
By the way, this signature is very outdated.
Message 15 of 23 (232 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 12/07/2011
Online
5378 posts
 

Re: "Turf War" - A Competitive Objective Mode Idea

Jan 9, 2013

sQuiiDx wrote:

Man, I'm having a hard time remembering what game did this but the whole "not knowing what to defend" idea was a trainwreck. It essentially just became a "boosting" game mode, because no one played the OBJ, because they had no idea **bleep** they were doing. I want to say it was a mode on Red Faction: Guerrilla but I feel like it wasn't. Anyways, a recent game tried that. Was a failure.

 


 

My thought behind the first objective was that there would be maybe 8 possible places the Intel would randomly spawn in, that way the teams perhaps wouldn't even bother trying to defend it. I wanted this to happen so that at the initial stages, the teams are both encouraged to come out of their bases and move forward, meaning that camping would be less likely in these early stages. This first objective would hopefully be a quick one, just as a means of getting things started and getting in to the more meaty tasks.

 

It looks like you've had experience with a lot of different games, so I can't really argue with the points you make. Thanks for the feedback! Smiley Happy

Message 16 of 23 (220 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 05/24/2010
Offline
282 posts
 

Re: "Turf War" - A Competitive Objective Mode Idea

[ Edited ]
Jan 9, 2013

concerning camping, have there been any games that attempt at preventing this ?
basketball has a shot clock....

why not a camping clock, if you're in a certain radius for more than 1 minute, you get booted from the game.

 

I say a radius because this prevents the player from just waggling the stick to reset the clock.  it also would force them to move around which would make them more exposed.

Message 17 of 23 (213 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Naughty Paw
Registered: 05/31/2009
Offline
2018 posts
 

Re: "Turf War" - A Competitive Objective Mode Idea

Jan 9, 2013

calcunnon wrote:

sQuiiDx wrote:

Man, I'm having a hard time remembering what game did this but the whole "not knowing what to defend" idea was a trainwreck. It essentially just became a "boosting" game mode, because no one played the OBJ, because they had no idea **bleep** they were doing. I want to say it was a mode on Red Faction: Guerrilla but I feel like it wasn't. Anyways, a recent game tried that. Was a failure.

 


 

My thought behind the first objective was that there would be maybe 8 possible places the Intel would randomly spawn in, that way the teams perhaps wouldn't even bother trying to defend it. I wanted this to happen so that at the initial stages, the teams are both encouraged to come out of their bases and move forward, meaning that camping would be less likely in these early stages. This first objective would hopefully be a quick one, just as a means of getting things started and getting in to the more meaty tasks.

 

It looks like you've had experience with a lot of different games, so I can't really argue with the points you make. Thanks for the feedback! Smiley Happy


Understandable. If that would occur, there would need to be a physical "push" from the AI to move the teams together. A swarm of Infected would be a good way to manipulate that but it would need to be done correctly, otherwise it would just be an unbalanced mess. 

 

I do like the idea but it's one of those things, "lets hit the drawing board, until we can fully flesh it out". 

 

I've been competiting on shooters since 1996, when it comes to that I feel like I know what the hell I'm doing....outside of shooters? I ain't got a clue haha. 

Twitter: @TryceUp

USN 04-08
Message 18 of 23 (203 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 02/13/2013
Offline
520 posts
 

Re: "Turf War" - A Competitive Objective Mode Idea

Mar 11, 2013

SquiiDx has said most of what I had in mind and quite a bit more. His experience with MPs surely excedes mine. But I have very similar thoughts in the examples of Killzone and Battlefield (which are among the best, imo).

 

Basically, I think the ideas in the OP are exciting, but I see viability issues.

 

1- Just drop that first objetive. If a team has practically no chance of (or needs luck to) defending, then there is no point. Go straight to business. Games should depend on luck as little as possible.

 

2- Then you have a CTF mode but it's not clear who is defending and who is attacking. In clanmatch, that might work, but in a public game, that becomes a mess. Have it so one team attacks and one defends (then later it can go the other way around), or have it like Plunder in Uncharted, both teams trying to get the stuff at the same time, but it's the same stuff.

 

3- I don't think you need an explosive or even a sabotage concept. What the bomb planting actually means is keeping a territory. That's the essence. You can have more simple reasons for teams to compete for a territory. Maybe it's a fungus free, area, or maybe there are resources there, or whatever. No need to blow stuff up. Search and Destroy missions are a cute form of Turf War. And the headset thing... welll, many players don't even use it. And if a clan insists, the members can still communicate by PC... so, no point in trying to prevent them from doing it through the game.

 

4- Nothing new to add. I think SquiiDx said everything. I like the thing about it being the top enemy player, though. There is less chance of a noob ruining things Smiley Tongue

 

And the thing about one team being on objetive 4, while the other is on objective 2... it's another exciting idea, but I think it would hardly work. It's not a 1 vs 1 game we're talking about. Even in a clanmatch this thing would be overwhelming. In the way to put it, once a team gets the upper hand at an early point in the match, it would be nearly impossible to turn the tides.

 

The very long respawns would be a huge turn-off imo. I'd expect many players to play to play longer (camping, hello), instead of playing for objetives and teamwork.

 

So, for competitive MP, they pretty much just need a sense of territory and some mechanics to channel players into cooperating and playing for the objectives.

 

A good points system makes a huuuge difference. Look at Battlefield 3 and Killzone 3. They are both very good, but getting a good public game in BF3 is fairly easy, while in Killzone3 it was nearly impossible - all about BF3 having a point system that rewarded teamwork and KZ3 having a dumb points system that rewarded silly killing things.

Message 19 of 23 (108 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 12/07/2011
Online
5378 posts
 

Re: "Turf War" - A Competitive Objective Mode Idea

Mar 14, 2013

You've made some pretty fair points there, I can't argue too much with that. Especially the 'luck' thing. It's definitely best to take as much luck out of the equation as possible. Multiplayers can get frustrating enough without luck screwing you over!

 

Maybe my idea wasn't perfect but I still think there's some great opportunities in TLoU for competitive multiplayer with a light round-by-round narrative such as the one I provided.

Message 20 of 23 (92 Views)
Reply
0 Likes