Variable Victory Conditions for Skirmishes
Pinned
I propose that for every Skirmish match, rather than the victory condition being either 'attack and take the points, let bar fill' or 'defend and keep the points, prevent bar from filling', there is instead a variety of different victory conditions which each faction is assigned at the start of the match, and which are hidden from the opponent.
The idea with this would be that rather than knowing exactly what your opponent has to achieve to win, you instead have to interpret the enemy's behaviour and adjust your own accordingly, but without compromising your ability to achieve your own victory condition.
This would create an excellent balancing act between stopping your opponent and achieving your own objective, whilst also creating an interesting meta where well-drilled squads can feint to make the opponent believe they are trying to go for a particular victory condition, but in reality their victory condition is something else.
An additional benefit of this would be to breathe extra life into existing maps. A map where you are trying to take and hold control points will not play the same way as it will if you're just trying to rack up a certain number of kills (for example - I feel bE should be the ones to come up with the specific victory conditions). The control points would always still be important, because they provide better spawn locations, not to mention you can never be sure your opponent's victory condition isn't to hold them, even if yours is not. You might also need extra time to achieve your objective, so this feature could remain.
-
I fully support this,
To add to that, remember how on the tabletop you can have a game mode where objectives are randomly switched.
Say you need to attack A, but then neither you nor the enemy knows what will come next.
A game mode where both would need to make a race to grab objectives (as if both were conquering neutral territory not belonging to any faction).
That kind of stuff.
I find the current battle too "streamlined" into, you must do x then y then z. Rather than feel like the full chaos of war where one would be like: ok, I really wonder what the enemies' next move will be... let's think for a moment... -
Yeah, something like tabletop where skirmishes could have different rule variants and side objectives in play would be nice; especially if they used it to pad out the maps a bit more and have things happening in the large patches of buildings and interesting terrain between and away from points that almost never get used in normal play.
-
Yldastil, this is some real cool shit you're talking about here. I think if more people actually went to feature requests, you'd get wayyy more votes.
As has been said, right now it all comes down to 'do A then B then C or combinations thereof', whereas other modes would solve a whole bunch of things:1) Unused - and friggin beautiful too - parts of maps, like those trenches we all know, etc etc. If we had an objective suddenly pop somewhere around that area, or there was, say, a surprise assasination mission, we could really see the maps used in their entirety.
2) Add some gameplay variety, simple as that. There are a whole bunch of objectives that could be implemented, like Capture tha flag (which has been discussed a lot), Assasination, Hold your ground (attackers get decreased spawn time not far from objective to sort of emulate a horde trying to overcome the dug-in defenders, sort of like Waaagh), Escort (say from one side of the map to the other).The cool thing is, those don't have to be SEPARATE game modes; they could actually be implemented, even by random, during games. Say, the first objective is cap A; once you cap it, you randomly get the objective of "hold your ground", after which you - again randomly - get an escort objetive. Or those could be mixed, say, 2 at a time, so that the opposing team wouldn't just focus fire and create a massive shitstorm.
I can't wait till something like this is implemented. It would really, REALLY make gameplay more fun and drag it out of stagnancy that it is in right now.
-
For cost/development reasons, I can understand that they cannot afford to make a bunch of new maps. I would suggest reusing portions of existing ones for different game modes.
For example, they could use just the ruins portion of an existing map to make a sort of domination style game. If they want to make it feel like a different map, then they could change the weather as well (night/day/warp storm/etc).
Battlefield 2 and 2142 used to do this when scaling 16 vs 16 maps or 32 vs 32 maps. Being restricted to certain portions of the map really changed the dynamics of the fights. If on top of that, if you add different game modes and weather, there are a lot more possibilities to make each game feel unique.
Additionally, I want to see secondary objectives in maps. For fortress maps this could be holding less occupied areas to regenerate the defender's lives. So instead of having one giant lagging fight, you would have 1 big one and 1/2 smaller scale ones.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments