New Game mode idea

[AnimalMother.]

Right did a search and nothing seemed to match this idea so to speak.



The idea for this gamemode is looking at a more open game between two conventional teams on a relativily large scale.


The idea is that each team will have an objective(s) to defend that will spawn in a random location (like caches, but bigger). This objectice needs to be defended, the easiest way would be a FB with all the fortification like stuff. So each team must seek out the enemy objective and crush it whilst defending there own.

The location of the enemies objective will be hidden from the map, i have two ideas as to how its found (other then stumbling across it), either a)some form of intel like current insurgency b)a simple timer, so when the objective is spawned it is hidden for like 10mins allowing defenses to be built and organised.

The mechanics of what happens once and objective is destroyed i've thought of but am not sure how it'd play out, some ideas

1. Once the objective is destroyed each team get completely new objectives to defend.

2. The team that lost the objective get a new one, but the victors retain there old one

3. the team that lost get a new one, whilst the victors also get a new one on top the current one, with the current one expiring sometime after due to a successful defend (a 'hardcore' mode if you like, so that if one team is getting steamrolled the other team has to split its defenses up.

so thats the basic idea, now looking how tickets could be implemented. looking at a combined arms map (kashan 64) it has 600 tickets. So for this game mode a 4x4km map with all the toys should have possibly around maybe 700-800 tickets possibly more. OMFG that will take forever i hear you cry. ticket penalties for: destroyed objective -75 (you dont want to lose these), destroyed FOB and all stuff attached to it -25

therefore if you fail to defend an objective you get screwed, though the exact ticket values are open to change/ tweaking (i dont know what fancy stuff could be done with code).


how i reckon it'd play. get to objective set up a nearby FB with defense. organise some squads to defend and others to patrol until intel is gathered and an organised attack can be made. a small recon unit with the right amount of patience, skill and co-ordination could also come in handy as an alternative to brute force.

sorry this might seem a bit rushed is because in short it is, i had it in my head and had to get it typed up/written down somewhere before it went.

hopefully though i managed to get the basic idea out there for people to think about, if the above is a load of tosh to you just think of a game mode between two armies that mixes insurgency caches with CnC style open play.


let me hear your thoughts! as long as its not one line of "thats *&*#" at least offer some possible improvements or something you know.



For a similar idea that you might prefer, heres a link to CnC revamp Link. (posted by Snoggums)

[Welshboy]

Thats actually a good idea

[Gore]

Sounds a bit like Command and Control game mode?

[AnimalMother.]

Sounds a bit like Command and Control game mode?

just to quote myself

hopefully though i managed to get the basic idea out there for people to think about, if the above is a load of tosh to you just think of a game mode between two armies that mixes insurgency caches with CnC style open play.

call it CnC v2 if you like

[snooggums]

Sounds similar (but with differences) to my C&C suggestion linked in my sig. Basically have assigned objectives to defend that involve more than just a flag but not as unstructured as C&C is currently.

[Rudd]

that sounds like fun!!

not a particularly realistic gamemode, but it would be teamwork orientated, and sounds like a pretty good training exercise actually.

Problem is if they spawn randomly...they might spawn on the enemy positions.

[AnimalMother.]

Problem is if they spawn randomly...they might spawn on the enemy positions.

thats where i was hoping with coding magic it would have a set minimum distance dependant on map size, like i said i kinda rushed it and forgot some little details



@snoggums: great minds and all that jazz. both are similar but with little differences here and there, at least this might spark some interest in your thread, would it be ok for me to link to your's at the bottom of my post?

[snooggums]

@snoggums: great minds and all that jazz. both are similar but with little differences here and there, at least this might spark some interest in your thread, would it be ok for me to link to your's at the bottom of my post?

Of course! I would be estatic to see an improvement of the C&C Firebase defense concept since I think it would play better than standard AAS but it's just too free form right now. On AAS maps the bases are mainly used to have a MG camp an enemy rally or cache instead of base defense, and Firebase extras are usually left behind once the next flag changes or the cache is destroyed.

One comment on your suggestion, the higher you make the objective points the lower the relative value a single soldier is and it approaches the insurgents value of 0 if the points difference is enough. One side effect is that it makes spawn rushing the flag instead of getting revives a stronger part of the game. If one army knocks out a couple of the opponents locations they will have a huge lead and the enemy will end up throwing themselves to their deaths to catch up or giving up completely.

[goguapsy]

I really like this idea. I could really see me playing this one a lot.

one thing I would suggest, though, is not have combined arms very much (no air support--- attack choppers and plains would just go around the map once and blow the thing up.)

Also, no air trans for easy spotting.

And I can only imagine this being played in a 2x2km map (that map russian map called fool's road I think is a good example. even if its 4x4).

Yes, DO have HEAVY ground vehicles. APCs, tanks, all thats stff. NO air support. And make these objectives hard to be destroyed by tank shells (maybe some aleady deployed tank traps? rusted from WW2?)

Also, i really can imagine this being played Russians vs Chechen (or wtv) and China vs USMC. Russians = denser jungles and USMC/China = something like Op. Barracuda, with a fortification in the middle maybe?


Anyways, this idea is plain awesome.

DEVs??

[Hitman.2.5]

I LIKE!

Thats a very nice idea Animal!

[CodeRedFox]

Ahh kinda interesting, almost a mix of C&C and defence. Keep up the brainstorming.

[Zulnex]

I really like it as well.

[Peeta]

I demand this! This sounds 1337. Maybe if it doesn't get implemented as a game mode, we could hold COM events for it?

[badmojo420]

Instead of destroying something being the objective, maybe building something could be. That way, an indestructable foundation could be what you defend. And only the enemy can shovel it. When it's fully built, they score a win. This would prevent a tank just rolling up and blasting the objective. The heavy hitters would be there for support. But if the objective was left undefended for long enough, 1 person could shovel it up.

Maybe even have it so the unbuilt model actually looks built, and when it's shoveled it looks destroyed, then just times out and disappears. Not sure if any of this would be possible, but it would solve the problem of air/armor/arty being overpowering towards the objective.

Or if your a stickler for realism, and you don't want to see arty hitting an object and nothing happening, have the story be that your taking control of a communications station, preventing the enemy from calling for support. So they shouldn't be firing at their own equipment, and anything that looks like it hit, was just a near miss Or, maybe even code it some funky way that you cannot damage the objective, but the enemy can. So if they are careless enough to bomb the hell out of their own equipment, they give you the win instantly. I dunno im just spitballin here

I like the idea, sounds like it would be a lot of fun.

[superhunty123]

Love it!
CnC was a little bit boring but this sounds really good! Would be difficult on kashan as defense is much harder than attack there but on Quinling or something like Jabal it would be quality!

[Stiller_001]

This would be an epic game mode to have in PR!

[hiberNative]

i don't know. just sounds like a lot of new rules while the gameplay would stay the same. i want modes that change style of gameplay drastically.

[myles]

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[Tarantula]

i really want it

[Tarantula]

Think about this, Qinling suffers at the mo because of its open nature on such a large scale. Kahsan thrives because it has ealiy definable infantry fighting areas, Qinling doesnt so its like having a cap point in the middle of open desert on Kashan, slaughter and no fun. This game mode on Qinling would be the sex.
I can see it Now:

A British sniper team locate the enemy objective, crawling with hostiles building a FB in C3 and radio commander, he puts up the order, the rest of the team load up into the merlin and lynx's. Sniper team calls in Strikes to prep the LZ's. infantry land and assault the position que massive battle, armour rolls up BAM! Awesomeness ensues...

Got a little bit carried away there,, but anyway teamwork promotion, if you made the "objectives" things like radio and relay towers then it would have an element of realism.

Actually thinking about what i just wrote, air attack vehicles like Apaches and Jets would have to be taken out otherwise it would be laze, hit, dead, no fun

Another possible problem already see's light in *** , squads charging off with a severe lack of defence.