Variable Victory Conditions for Skirmishes

Pinned

Comments

10 comments

  • Avatar
    Brother Nemiel

    +1

    Would love to have some random victory conditions not fixed to specific maps. The actual maps have already become boring...only teamplay with friends keeps me jumping into the game atm.

  • Avatar
    Whitefox550

    I support, but not for "every" skirmish map.

  • Avatar
    Shiani

    Yeah, I was giving this more thought and tying it into the Campaign mode in some way seems to be the most logical way to go about it.

  • Avatar
    Orkus Pokus

    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...



  • Avatar
    GeminiFlare

    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.

  • Avatar
    Shiani

    So a not unreasonable number of people seem to agree with this. Any word from a dev if this is something which could be considered somewhere down the line?

  • Avatar
    SniffSteven

    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.

  • Avatar
    SniffSteven

    I wish Nathan or Brent gave us at least a little clue on this one and whether it's gonna be a thing or not...i mean seriously, i imagine secondary objectives like that and i see gameplay value increase tenfold.

  • Avatar
    Mr_Osmozis

    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.

  • Avatar
    4P

    I agree with you. Sometimes, when I play the orks,I wish I could cause more anarchy instead of capturing the points.

Please sign in to leave a comment.