Jump to content

New Gamemode Idea: Rush


Recommended Posts

After playing a lot of War Thunder ground forces, I had an idea for a new gamemode for Star Conflict. The gamemode in WT tanks called "Break" could be applied to Star Conflict (with tweaks of course).

 

The principle is this. Each team has 1 starting capture point active (close to center of map, far from spawn). If the enemy team caps that point, your team's second point activates (close to spawn) and you lose tickets, and if that second point is taken, you lose all of your tickets, and the match.

There are also additional objectives that occur at random points in the game. One is that a 3rd capture point appears, which, if taken, takes tickets away from the enemy team. The other one is that a "commander" with escorts will appear. Whichever team kills the opposing "commander" first, gets the bonus (enemy team loses tickets).

 

My thoughts on this being translated into Star Conflict would be use the same mechanics as CTB. 1 life per ship, and beacons don't re-cap if captured. The additional objectives could be planting a bomb at a station that appears. The second additional objective could be the same as WT, have a "commander" AI spawn with escorts.

 

The scoring for the game could be a point system like CTB, only modified. Capping the first point could give you "X" amount of points to your score. Completing a secondary objective could give you "Y" amount of points to your score. Capping both beacons results in automatic victory, regardless of scores. If neither team caps both beacons, whichever team has the most kills would win. Or if a team runs out of ships, they lose.

 

Gamemode would be available for T3+

 

Any thoughts/suggestions?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot going on in this game mode. It's a neat idea, but I'm had to reread it twice.

 

Something that might need to wait until the game has more population to support it. This is definitely a 12v12 game mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong with the small summary here. So in the proposed game mode there will be 3 beacons to a team with only two being active to begin with aswell as each team having a commander who instead of cauing an almost guaranteed win or loss when killed will only cause an advantage over the other team in points. Now I just want to point out that this game mode would be VERY competitive and would mainly be playable in a wing or organised squad since you'll need to communicate well with each other since if you lose the 2nd beacon you lose the match and since randoms don't tend to communicate much, this game mode would be like another sector conquest or tournament which relies on communication. 2nd point to highlight would be the max timelimit for a match (since I think the current for capture the beacons is 20 minutes), since with only the 2nd beacon being needed for a win, a small cluster f*** of recons could win the game in under 30 seconds, so beacon cap times would need to be increased (maybe to the repair rate of beacons in CTB) a small change which could be made to the idea is to have a variation of beacon locations to stop recons from jumping straight to the beacon or better yet, only make the beacons visible in sensor range alongside changing spawns.

 

Other than those two points, I kinda hope this gets forwaded. Sounds like an interesting game mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never played so far as you, so I don't know the game mode in WT

 

However, I know the gamemode "Rush" in BattleField, where you basicly do the same, just by planting Explosives at the teams defenses, and fighting on, while the map gets unlocked each time. One team is attacker, the other defender; the attacker team has a certain amount of tickets it has to use to get the next objective. If they run out of tickets, they lose; if they capture a point, they advance, and their tickets are replenished, the defender team has to pull back; if you are as defender in the attackers "zone" of the last objective you held, you are "out of map" and are forced to return to your spawn. You always spawn behind your own objective.

 

This of course needs maps which are built in a longer way and the defense possibilities usually are: first beacon is 50-50 defendable, the next one is in favor of attackers, and gets steadily in favor of defenders, until the last one is basicly very nicely defendable, but also easily reachable from the attackers' forces.

 

Similar gamemodes also are in Insurgency.

 

It is funny, since it sounds like this, and your idea could actually take parts of this up as well, to make it more complete.

 

As I read yours, it seems like a "Mini-Rush" with SC objective play (plant bombs, capture beacons) + a war thunder objective type (kill an npc), which SC only operates in PvE, and usually is hard to balance since in SC usually npcs are hard to balance, without making them far too strong or far too easy, depending on a situation. It also all sounds a bit confusing to read; Don't forget how hard for the population atm. sometimes is just to remember the beacons on the maps;)

Also, WT is much more solo yolo, even in a team, because of the distances between the fights are a bit bigger than usual SC maps.

 

I would love your rush idea, with simpler mechanics, like battlefield shows.

 

My own take on "Rush" for SC

Attackers have low respawn time, but a group ticket per stage; Defenders could be forced to play Realistic Mode (one ship each) per stage.

Defenders have to hold the first beacon, until attackers tickets run out.

 - If all defenders are eliminated, all defender respawns are reset;

 - However, If the attackers manage to wipe out the defenders, they get a small ticket boost.

 - if a beacon is captured by attackers, the beacon stays down, defenders spawns move one slot back, all tickets are reset, as are the defenders respawns, waiting defenders get a fast respawn time; a defender still alive will not lose his ship upon death. This is not stackable through stages.

 - It could be also two beacons for all stages except the last, like in BF, to force the defenders to split up or keep the middle, like in a one-sided pvp capture the beacons - actually for the first stage all standard (CtB) maps could be used as "start", with the middle beacon missing for the defenders, and the attackers having no beacons.

 - The first death of an attacker if he did not kill or capture an objective costs 5 pts, each subsequent (or previous) death costs however only 1 pt for that player, after a certain amount of deaths, your respawn timer is starting to act like any other match: it gets penalties. The Tickets are for the entire team and are roughly 150% of the defenders fleet strength measured, enough to allow mistakes but still make it an effort. This also makes it an incentive to try to push as defender, and force the attackers to fight a defensive match, with the risk of the attackers sneaking by and taking objectives, and the risk of losing ships needed to contain the fast reinforcement the attackers have.

 

 - If the timer runs out on a stage (8-10 mins), the attackers lose.

 

 - If the attackers lose all tickets, they lose the game.

 

If they make 3 stages, it ends in a final fight, where defenders have some turrets as defense, while the attackers spawn in a very good position to strike. (Only 1 beacon; Maybe this time you have to carry a bomb there and you get 2 bombs by the dread bomb launcher, which works as dread beacons do with "bombs do 50% damage on beacon")

A Dreadnaught could be brought in as a prop, where the attackers launch from, and act as a spawn defense of the attackers. The dread moves forward once a stage is taken.

 

Attacking Players can either spawn at the dread (at last captured location for attackers), or at the usual spawnpoint closer to the objective, mirroring the defenders spawn. At start, there is only one spawn point, because the dread has not yet moved in.

Defenders by default spawn in the standard spawn at the current objective, but can choose to spawn at the back-spawn point, which is the objective of the next stage, except in the end, there is only one spawn point.

 

This and yours of course needs new maps, or at least a way to unlock an area behind the currently playable area. But I think all these ideas might lead to something, and this can be easily done with the engine as we can see in invasion, there is enough space for this :)

Rush is quite addictive, albeit for loot, it should offer both parties loot, if the game had more than one stage of duration (scaled by how many stages your team "won", meaning a clean defense at the first 50-50 stage gives defenders all the loot, making it an incentive, not to lose a stage on purpose, and prolongue a clean lost match; this sounds often harsh to newbies, but usually, this is part of learning rush gamemodes: the first stage usually wins your game as attackers, if you keep focused until the last stage where the defenders have a slight advantage, but the stage is much shorter, if your team has made its mind up)

 

At each stage change, there can be a short intermezzo, like "Dread arrives", "Dread moves to next beacon and shoots the defenses and rocks away with magic disapperator shots to make room for map props and keep the fps sane"; The Defenders final base' defenses are locked down with forcefields. You can never move over the area of +1/-1 stages, or you get the "leaving the battlefield" warning, meaning if you stay at a place for 2 stages, you will be forced to fall back or get magicly remote detonated.

The Attackers dread is simply a random dread, as it is only used as a prop, which makes spawn camping the attackers in their back spawn "too hard".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breakthrough in WTGF is 2 points, cap first enemy point, you get a second spawn forwards of your first spawn, enemy looses about half of their tickets. Also, every vehicle lost (plane or otherwise) costs said team tickets. (Teamkills are a great way to drain your own team's tickets).

 

The AI Commander task I think would put some stress on the server, as it can handle up to 16v16, but the "capture the extra beacon" objective or "destroy the pirate beacon" objective would be a fun way to mix it up, and make the game change between playthroughs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I am now realizing this gamemode wouldn't work with the current player base, as it would probably be a 12v12-16v16 (minimum of 10v10) map.

 

Maybe it could be used for a tournament sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is my favorite mode in fps shooters but I think in SC it would just turn into a guard ball sitting on the first beacon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats why you need two "first beacons", like in battlefield (at least in the p4f version, which was the last i played rush on)

 

 

Yeah, I am now realizing this gamemode wouldn't work with the current player base, as it would probably be a 12v12-16v16 (minimum of 10v10) map.

 

Maybe it could be used for a tournament sometime.

unfortunately. but hey, ideas are important, they influence new ideas; that's actually what art is all about.

 

 

The AI Commander task I think would put some stress on the server, as it can handle up to 16v16, but the "capture the extra beacon" objective or "destroy the pirate beacon" objective would be a fun way to mix it up, and make the game change between playthroughs.

 

that's not how it works :) servers will not be overloaded by such a feature; and we have seen biomorphs in pvp coming up. albeit everybody just hated it.

if you want more geekdetails why...

an ai is inexpensive, since it is controlled by the server (does not send data over network to the server), so its not the same as a player. at the same time, the limit of how many objects you can have in an FPS, like this, is actually limited by "every client", because all the clients have to also "calculate the movements" especially if your framerate is higher than the gamerate. the maximal number of players could always be a bit higher, usually, it has technical reasons, why you choose 8, 16, 32, etc. as max player number, which has to do with bytes, and the necessity of network protocols to be as compact as possible for an fps with 60 packets a second, so therefore often player id's or flags are coded in a number of bytes, usually you take the highest 2^x number below your actual "measured maximum" your engine could support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I liked the Rush game mode in some other game modes as well. Suggestion has been forwarded to the Devs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good day! Thank you for a very deatailed idea. We have discussed it and came to a conclusion that in our current stage we won't implement it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good day! Thank you for a very deatailed idea. We have discussed it and came to a conclusion that in our current stage we won't implement it.

Thank you for the information. It really helps the community, even a small one as ours, to have several people providing first hand information about what devs think or do about the suggestions.

 

It is a pity because the suggestion was great. But limited resources are always a pain. The guys that are making Star Citizen should learn from you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...