Game Types

LordReaver · 2011-02-12, 02:48 AM

So I was thinking about different ways to capture a base, because there are only two ways to do it in PS. You can hack and hold, or you can capture the flag. I feel there should be more ways to gain control a base.

One type that could be added (I don't remember what it's called at the moment) where the team has to hold the point until it switches to their side, but it doesn't keep changing if there are enemy nearby. Kind of like taking a tower in WoW. So instead of just hacking it back and resetting the timer back to zero, the defender actually has to hold the control point themselves. While it's similar, I think it would mostly be better for when there are smaller fights taking place where hack timers feel even longer. I hope I'm not making that sound confusing.

As for capture the flag, I feel there should be some way to return the LLU at the LLU itself, in addition to the CC. This would also encourage combat during ghost hack attempts. Currently if the ghost attacker hacks, then grabs the LLU and tries to cap it back themselves, the defender defends by going to the CC and rehacking. That's lame, because neither person even fires a shot at the other. It would be better if the defender could just catch up to the attacker, kill them, and then somehow reset the LLU.

A game type I just thought up while typing this is, during a stalemate, the game would randomly generate several names of players and visually tag them (Like LLU or mod carriers), and each side involved in the stalemate has to locate and kill those people. Whichever side does it first gets bonus XP or some other sort of bonus. To be fair to those who get tagged, maybe they get their own bonus for staying alive, or getting kills while tagged, or maybe even an opt out? Hopefully the mode result in a small shake up of how people are playing and breaks the stalemate. If not, it would probably be interesting anyways.

I'm not saying these are the best ideas out there, I just feel there should be incentives to do different things. If you have something better, lets hear it.

DviddLeff · 2011-02-12, 06:07 AM

Good post, adding the LLU was one of the best changes that were made after release as it changed the strategy used on continents and got people out in the world fighting.

The LLU is obviously based around capture the flag game modes in FPS games, so lets think about other FPS match types.

In Battlefield you had just as you suggested, points that were captured if you stood by them for long enough without enemies present. This would work, but perhaps not for the current bases. If we had towns and cities, capturing the different buildings would work with this system allowing you take a whole area within 15 mins or so.

We already have search and destroy and counterstrike style play as we hunt for AMSs.

One of the mission types I suggest in the PUP is for a squad to hunt down and kill enemy commanders, disrupting their chain of command (at least temporarily).

The LLU could perhaps be changed so that the defenders could grab the LLU themselves and take it back to their base.

Robert089 · 2011-02-12, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

In Battlefield you had just as you suggested, points that were captured if you stood by them for long enough without enemies present. This would work, but perhaps not for the current bases. If we had towns and cities, capturing the different buildings would work with this system allowing you take a whole area within 15 mins or so.

I think this could work, perhaps several locations in a facility ( or town / city) that all have to be hacked in order to take the location instead of hacking 1 and waiting 15 minutes. Give them a longer hack time and maybe a mini LLU system within the location.

SKYeXile · 2011-02-12, 08:22 AM

i think they should add a domination type base.

There would be 3 control consoles in the base or rather 3 nodes.

Each would have to be hacked, and then within the next 1 minute the 2 other nodes would need to be hacked, upon doing this, the base would instantly flip control.

DviddLeff · 2011-02-12, 10:15 AM

Good idea, would it be impossible for 1 player to take the base? Not saying thats a bad thing, certainly would add to the dynamics.

Furret · 2011-02-12, 04:10 PM

I like what you've said, and I think the domination would be cool, if you made it so there had to be one person on each node for the capture to finish, meaning you need at least three people to hack a base. The only problem is, three players who know where to run can flip a base instantly, and move on to the next one. The timer for how long it takes to capture a control point would have to be five minutes at least.

Also, with the idea where the base selects a couple of people randomly, what if the players who were tagged decided to leave the base?

There would have to be a limit to how far they can go before the base either tags another person or considers that tag destroyed

How far is the limit? If its too far, then the attackers can have their tags run away from the battle, but still be in the SOI for instance.

Ignoring that for a second and moving on.

tags another person

Could probably work out, because
if they kept juggling people the
defenders would push back

tag destroyed

What if someone has to log out?

If they go through the usual log-out procedure the base tags another player

After arguing with myself, i came to a better conclusion.

What if the people who are tagged don't know they're tagged? Only the enemy empires know who's tagged. This way, you wouldn't know if you were a target or not, and it would make for interesting gameplay. Especially when you see twenty AI MAX's charging past your teams blockade and run straight for you.

This system gets rid of the 'how far can they go?' question because the only way to make sure every potential target was safe is to stop attacking the base.

Aractain · 2011-02-12, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

i think they should add a domination type base.

There would be 3 control consoles in the base or rather 3 nodes.

Each would have to be hacked, and then within the next 1 minute the 2 other nodes would need to be hacked, upon doing this, the base would instantly flip control.

Having some hack timer for those 3 nodes to be defended by the attackers would be nice (or as soon as the lattice opened up it would flip). Just a few minuets though.

otomotopia · 2011-02-12, 04:41 PM

I actually think the Control Point idea is an extremely good idea.

Also, a modification of the Rush gametype from BFBC2 would be really cool. If you have 3 spawn points in the base itself, and 5 points total, this would work fantastically. The spawn points be spaced like this this: one lightly defensible spawn in the CY with a tower-speed spawn (CY spawn), with an equipment terminal 'shed' nearby, and two spawns underground with equipment areas spawning at base-speed.

Note: to make this idea work, the base itself has to be shaped much more linearly. It still should have room for infantry maneuver, so ammo crates and sandbags would be needed to create flanking opportunities. Think checkers with a longer board. Therefore, the back door will lead to a position closer (linearally) to the CY spawn, but still leads underground.

After entering the base itself, the attackers must secure the first spawn. Vehicle terminals in the CY will be inoperable to the attackers. There are two flags that need to be captured within the base facility, located in-between the entrance and the defender spawns. If the attackers do not capture the two points, they cannot capture the spawn points. After capturing these two points , the two defender spawn points will become available for capture. At this point, all non-spawn terminals will become inoperable.

At this point, its a fight for the spawn tubes. If the attackers cap a spawn, they can use it. After all points are captured or re-secured, all terminals are re-activated.

SKYeXile · 2011-02-12, 05:27 PM

maybe you could make it so you have to hold all 3 nodes for 1-5min or something.

Sifer2 · 2011-02-12, 08:59 PM

Well the gametype I would most like to see though I know it probably can't happen would be like the Titan mode from Battlefield 2142. Where there is a large airship floating across the map an you damage it to drop its shields an then board it an destroy security consoles to open up the core. Then attack the core to blow it up an escape before she blows.

Whether such large airships would be doable in Next's game engine I have no idea. Would add an increased importance to air vehicles though.

LordReaver · 2011-02-13, 03:28 AM

I don't think for domination you would need any special rule sets, though three nodes does sound more interesting. The defenders ability to defend should take care of how difficult it is. If they can't defend all their nodes, then they don't really deserve the base the begin with. Only how long it actually takes to capture a node need any fiddling with. Although, those nodes can't disrupt the basics, like spawning or grabbing gear.

Unless it was actually intended that a lone person be unable to cap a base. Which really is an entirely different topic.

It would be cool if taking out an AMS was actually like planting a bomb. In fact, you could have a whole little class for it. If one had explosives on them, they could "hack" it, but instead of swapping it to their side, the AMS (or any other vehicle even) just explodes. Another idea I had was that said class, could blow up sections of a base wall, to open up new entry points. So basically super boomers, that have a large deploy time.

With the whole tagging thing, I wasn't thinking of specifically within a base. Many stalemates are out in the open, especially near bridges. There are conceptual problems with it admittedly. What if the player doesn't want a shit ton of people suddenly swarming in on them? What if the person hides, or finds a way to become unobtainable? Though, leaving the field or going LD should just shift it on to the next person. I suppose it wouldn't have to be a "kill X person", it could randomly turn a select few into basically black ops, or select a certain location for a king of the hill game type. The latter would even be better for shake ups.

otomotopia · 2011-02-13, 04:32 AM

I'd call it the Extremist class!

/badump chi

LordReaver · 2011-02-17, 09:13 AM

Events are another thing to consider. I know players used to run their own races, but it would be cool if there was an official race track cont that could be opened on occasions. Or for other more standard game modes like tag or whatever, that have very clear winning conditions. The battle island events would have been good had they been more fleshed out. I liked what they were getting at with that old west one, it just needed more to it, and a clear objective.