Splash DamageBlogCommunity Question: Your Favourite Objective Types

Splash Damage Blog

Community Question: Your Favourite Objective Types


This week's Community Question is all about multiplayer objectives. We've had many different kinds over the years, from escorting the massive vehicles to stealing documents or blowing stuff up with dynamite. Each of them brings with it different tactics and class dynamics, and we'd like to know the following from you:

Which objective types do you enjoy the most and what map has the most fun version of your favourite objectives?

Cast your vote in our latest multiple choice poll and do let us know which maps feature the most fun version of your favourites. Vote away!

59 Comments

Definitly destroy who doesn't like explosions :D and sometimes you get free kills (or tk) with the charge ^^
Posted on 3 November, 2011 - 19:21
Carrying intels or databrain, teams really need to play coordinatly to deliver their objective and protect the carrier.
Posted on 3 November, 2011 - 20:29
My favorites for primary objects are destroy (with defuse option), and carry, so voted for those. They both encourages massive team work from both sides to complete or defend. Repair,construct and hack is pretty much the same mechanic IMHO, and more fitted for secondary objectives. It's more lemming type of work, but of course - in some maps they work good for primary too. Escort can be ok in some cases - if it fits the map layout. One major problem with many escort missions (which I think is very visible in Brink), is the single route problem - it often favors the attacker on the start, and defenders in the end. The MCP worked a bit better, as it could defend itself a bit, and take slightly alternative routes. The forward spawns and transport vehicles also helped to balance it out when the object moved along the route. One thing I do like about escort mission though, is how they dynamically moves the conflict zone through the map. Implemented properly with a good map layout, it can be great. Maybe this worked best with the tanks and trucks (and boats) in W:ET, when I think of it. Venice map from W:ET is a good example (and goldrush ofc) :flamethrower:
Posted on 3 November, 2011 - 20:51
Definitely Destroy and Carry, a perfect combination (Radar, here's looking at you kid). I loath hacking/construction objectives, especially with decay in place... those are just lemming objectives, suicide running in to get that touch so your progress doesn't decay and get lost. Do it often enough and you complete the objective after 30 deaths (Slipgate, I'm scowling at you -_-)
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 10:42
BLOW THE **** SKY HIGH I love all of them, though.
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 10:43
Mainly destroy because it is the only one of the 3 location objectives that don't work with lemmings, and carry because it gives so much freedom in your approach and lends itself well for team coordination. Constructs and hacks are better when they have stages, where a completed stage doesn't decay.
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 12:32
Destroy and Carry for main ojbectives, as mentioned the hacking/constructing aren't that great but when you have a map with more than two stages, re-using the destroy and carry objective types isn't that great, In my ET:QW maps I normally place construct/hack objectives first to get players warmed up almost for the main stages thereafter. As secondary objectives I think they are OK though if they have a short completion rate and are reversible/decay-able. For example, hacking a team door that only remains only for short time (decay-able) or constructing a footbridge that can be easily destroyed (reversible). Escort-able missions can piss right off though.
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 14:04
Oh yes, I forgot to mention that escort objectives are poo. The result is ALWAYS spam. Never ever have I seen an escort objective that wasn't spammy and slow and annoying.
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 14:43
Never ever have I seen an escort objective that wasn't spammy and slow and annoying.
You visited the wrong servers ;)
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 15:02
Destroy! Ofc in Fueldump...Dynamite Planted...Dynamite Defused
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 15:09
Definitely the "destroy" and "carry" objectives. Those require team work, which seems to be the point of the games SD creates. The others just promote "lemming" behaviour, imho. I assumed that the "carry" objectives also include the "transmission" objectives you see in ET:QW. Dr. Funkenstein
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 15:40
Destroy! Ofc in Fueldump...Dynamite Planted...Dynamite Defused
Hehe yea :D 31s left :) yeaaahhh axis loses again :D ... ow damn :D hihi so funny I love most obj's from ET, but the map has to offer teamplay! btw, what is the lemming thingie? i only know the game :D
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 15:46
Rebel;383944']btw, what is the lemming thingie? i only know the game :D
Running to an objective with blind hope you will complete it or at least partially increase the progress, however more often than not you will die doing so.
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 15:52
I also forgot to mention that special objectives like Volcano's flyer drone objective are great fun, although in the case of volcano slightly hard to balance. Be inventive, that sort of stuff is really cool! I also like destroy objectives that actually take weapon damage to destroy instead of a plant. Duskmod for instance has maps where you need to destroy the enemy cyclops. Not only does it fire back, it also freely moves across the map so that makes for a nice challenge both for attackers and defenders. You can combine this sort of thing with a hack objective that slows the cyclops down, or a construct objective to lock up the cyclops in a certain part of the map. /client_Brainstorm_mode 0
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 16:19
Good: Destroy - For me this is the most exciting, but what's more exciting was the way it was handled in ETQW. I like how you can plant anywhere on the surface, and that dictates how you defend it. The flat surface, "plant here" mechanics in Brink pretty much destroyed :pun intended: that objective type. Also liked being able to see the progress of the defuse, no matter which team im on. Found that added a great deal of excitement to the game. Doc Run - The map design and overall gameplay play a big part in how good/bad this is. I could say more, but I think you can read b/w the lines here. Bad: Escort - If theres an objective I always completely avoid its escort. I find it slows the game too much.
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 18:18
+1 Humate, ETQW destroy objectives were more interesting than Brink destroy objectives.
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 18:33
More Axis attack maps !!!!! :cool::cool::cool::D:D:D
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 21:44
Carry'n'destroy for the same reasons as most have said vs hack/construct (lemming) + escort (spam).
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 21:45
[LIST] [*]Destroy - trade off of offense/defense that works even in the most disorganized games. (salvage) [*]Carry - this is how escort is done best. no mcp/tank or bot. better when it's oriented toward carrying the objective into the defense than stealing it out imho. good with at least a bit of organization. (island) [*]CTF - dynamic changes of offense, defense and VIP escort. Way more fun done oldschool where the flag needs to be on the stand to cap. Works best with reasonably balanced teams. [/LIST]
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 22:26
As far as Other ideas: I think it'd be cool to repair something that changes an environmental condition, creates a trap, or some destructive measure against the opposing team. Also, building stuff such as fortifications and stuff like advanced machinery that imposses some form of disruption to the enemy, would be neat. Escort is one of my favorites. It'd be cool to have duel objectives by both attacking and defending teams to swing the favor or advantage one way or the other.
Posted on 4 November, 2011 - 23:46
Escort is by far the best, the slow procession of the objective through the map constantly keeps changing the meaning of the map geometry. I love the delivery objectives, but they also tend to be hit and miss. Sometimes they make for really tense moments but often both teams lose the narrative of the match and the whole thing gets decided by a few players. Construction and hacking objectives need to change. They're absolutely boring. They need moving objects tied to them. And I agree with Chris, all secondary objectives need to be reversible. All of them. That way there's no real advantage in doing them before the primary objectives. Unreversible secondary objectives are a chore. Constructing or hacking bridge controls should mean they slowly start to open/close and will slowly reverse when the objective is destroyed or when the hack is being undone again. This means that lemming rushing these objectives is no longer effective any more you need to hold your surroundings WHILE these surroundings move/rotate/open/close whatever around the place until they lock into place. The best example are the tunnel drains in Siwa Oasis. Much, more and much more meaningful objectives like that please. Geometrically dynamic objectives are the next step in objective-based shooters.
It'd be cool to have duel objectives by both attacking and defending teams to swing the favor or advantage one way or the other.
It would definitely not be cool to have teams dispersed over different primary points in the map. I know the simpleton goes 'hur dur, what would be better than one objective, derp, let me think hur, wait derpederp, I know! TWO OBJECTIVES! HUR!!' just try to restrain such mindfarts in the future.
Posted on 5 November, 2011 - 12:58
My first thought is a destroy objective, I think this is because your planting then defending the plant - rather than repair where a lemmings style attack works. I love escort missions too, because it makes you feel like the team is progressing as they slowly move the object along - rather than getting nowhere with a hack objective or the like.
Posted on 5 November, 2011 - 16:38
Carry - because it's a simplified one-sided version of CTF. And the point is to stay alive, and utilize your teammates effectively.
Posted on 7 November, 2011 - 09:48
It would definitely not be cool to have teams dispersed over different primary points in the map. I know the simpleton goes 'hur dur, what would be better than one objective, derp, let me think hur, wait derpederp, I know! TWO OBJECTIVES! HUR!!' just try to restrain such mindfarts in the future.
Not sure if you're referring to having two objectives at the same time (Radar, Oasis) or having an objective for each team at the same time but on both accounts a well thought out map layout can make them work rather well. The trick is not to disperse them too far apart, allowing a sweeping defense or attack to take place that can react to the ongoings at the other objective.
Posted on 7 November, 2011 - 09:58
Two objectives at the same time is fine (although it would require some clever geometry), having them divided between both teams is not.
Posted on 7 November, 2011 - 11:14
/other if they implement one explosive (until it detonates no other charge can be planted on the same objective) with a 100 - 200m radius. After the charge is set, the other team have the option to snatch the bomb ( and take it to a safe distance (101 -201m). Every one caught in the blast radius, will be death => respawn. They can trow some construct (barricades), repair (walls, bridges), hack (door open/close) to block the way of those who are caring the charge away from the objective and keep the bomb close to the objective (100-200m). / or give the option to plant the charge in a radius of the objective (100-200m, the bomb will be sown on the map after is planted). The other team will have the option to defuse the bomb/or construct barricades/ hack doors (to close) to prevent the blast to reach the objective. :D Objective type: Splash Damage :D
Posted on 7 November, 2011 - 13:40
Construct, destroy and repair.
Posted on 8 November, 2011 - 10:24
Other : Defense
Posted on 9 November, 2011 - 03:07
a good map will have them all, if you could have more then 16 little players, different team splits could be doing different things at the same time
Posted on 10 November, 2011 - 12:32
A good map would not have them all, not many people want to play a single map for an hour.
Posted on 10 November, 2011 - 12:53
if you have a console, a good map would have them all, escort the mcp, raid the base and hack the radar, blow up the bridge defend the bridge, and so on hour is a casual game on deathmatch with snipers and tanks and proper city blocks and jungles
Posted on 10 November, 2011 - 15:33
Name a good map that has them all.
Posted on 11 November, 2011 - 11:59
none, quakewars outskirts is the closest, escort mcp, blow up baricade, steal the databrain, transmit the databrain, maps are too small and too basic for them all still no maps that you have todo 2 objectives at once to complete the 1 gets to a set marker or time, teams are too small
Posted on 11 November, 2011 - 12:02
Do you even play ET or ET:QW? Seems like you play something else entirely, perhaps the Korean version?
Posted on 11 November, 2011 - 12:09
He just said all maps ever made for any game are bad, so his judgement of a good map might be slightly complicated.
Posted on 11 November, 2011 - 12:28
never said they were bad, quakewars maps dont and have`nt aged well, quakewars should be like quake 3 with aload of mappers and custom maps, except there are only 20-30 custom maps download some doom maps, and after a year or 2 people just add stuff for the sake of adding stuff
Posted on 11 November, 2011 - 15:12
download some doom maps, and after a year or 2 people just add stuff for the sake of adding stuff
Like every objective they can for no reason...
Posted on 11 November, 2011 - 17:49
Like every objective they can for no reason...
just add 100 ares and routes to clear and just make maze maps with no actual point in them but to survive and end the map,. custom mappers for quakewars should use some imagination, instead of just having the basic few objectives on every map, you cannot add new objectives without a full total conversion mod with all new high command VO, and just doing the same gameplay on every map is boring, better off adding team deathmatch to the game can make map more interesting with the same few objectives, by having a world full of trees and vegetation, buildings and rocks to run by or use, custom maps are just stuck with how quakewars was released, wolf custom maps, you get full cities
Posted on 11 November, 2011 - 18:18
Take it you never played Tourian, Brinstar or battlestrogg galatica. Also take it you know nothing about map design.
Posted on 11 November, 2011 - 19:24
there are nerds who think they know about map design, then there are those who just make maps and make the ones that have the most playability. gamers like games that are like real life in todays world. and those games are the have the biggest player base, a empty map that is suppose to be a city is just pathetics along with a jungle with 10 trees and a few hills have many trees and random statues and temples, and canel and streams and walls and tunnels and so on you can draw out a basic design of a map, but you cannot plan on the atmosphere or playability getting from 1 area to the next, you need stuff to run past
Posted on 11 November, 2011 - 20:15
there are nerds who think they know about map design, then there are those who just make maps and make the ones that have the most playability. gamers like games that are like real life in todays world. and those games are the have the biggest player base, a empty map that is suppose to be a city is just pathetics along with a jungle with 10 trees and a few hills have many trees and random statues and temples, and canel and streams and walls and tunnels and so on you can draw out a basic design of a map, but you cannot plan on the atmosphere or playability getting from 1 area to the next, you need stuff to run past
Wrong on so many levels.
Posted on 12 November, 2011 - 13:59
Also take it you know nothing about map design.
Guess not.
Posted on 12 November, 2011 - 15:57
Should add - prefer GDF hack objectives over Strogg's hack objectives if im doing the objective myself. If I'm supporting, I prefer Strogg's hack objective. GDFs are designed so that you can move around and avoid being hit, at the cost of more stuff being able to kill you outdoors. Its GDF's version of the mining laser but for hacking. Strogg's hack objective plays out exactly like GDF's static repair objective, with the added benefit of tacshields and being indoors.
Posted on 12 November, 2011 - 19:40
Should add - prefer GDF hack objectives over Strogg's hack objectives if im doing the objective myself. If I'm supporting, I prefer Strogg's hack objective. GDFs are designed so that you can move around and avoid being hit, at the cost of more stuff being able to kill you outdoors. Its GDF's version of the mining laser but for hacking. Strogg's hack objective plays out exactly like GDF's static repair objective, with the added benefit of tacshields and being indoors.
That's map dependant not team dependant though. Sewer last stage objective is pretty much same as Volcano first objective.
Posted on 12 November, 2011 - 20:50
Wrong on so many levels.
nowhere near wrong, game detail level are based on engine and hardware, every quakewars map is a desert and just purely a terrain and megatexture with a few props, the engine is capable of runnings maps like rage, no mappers that map for quakewars would make a good complete map and use todays hardware, quakewars "modders" and mappers just dont get it and stick to the game as it was released
Posted on 12 November, 2011 - 21:34
Firstly, not everyone has today's hardware, some people still need to use low graphics configs to run ET never mind ET:QW. Secondly it very easy to get low fps on any size of map if you get carried away with detail, there's a reason why there aren't 100's of different tree models and prop models on outdoor areas in stock and custom maps, if you think etqw can handle the level of detail in rage than be my guest and try to do so, it wont work. How many maps have you made for ET:QW? If it's above 13 I'll maybe take you more seriously. Thirdly, how do you propose to build an objective based game on such a large map, you cant just build a huge map and expect it to work, you need "nerds" who have a clue about map design not idiots who think more is better and don't think their ideas through.
Posted on 12 November, 2011 - 22:11
That's map dependant not team dependant though. Sewer last stage objective is pretty much same as Volcano first objective.
Yes its map dependant - Sewer being the only one where GDF are hacking indoors. But I feel that was a conscious decision to make those aspects different via the maps they included and designed. :wink: Basically I'm saying theres a preference towards support play when the objective is indoors, and a preference towards freedom of movement *cough* when completing the actual objective. :)
Posted on 12 November, 2011 - 23:02
Firstly, not everyone has today's hardware, some people still need to use low graphics configs to run ET never mind ET:QW. Secondly it very easy to get low fps on any size of map if you get carried away with detail, there's a reason why there aren't 100's of different tree models and prop models on outdoor areas in stock and custom maps, if you think etqw can handle the level of detail in rage than be my guest and try to do so, it wont work. How many maps have you made for ET:QW? If it's above 13 I'll maybe take you more seriously. Thirdly, how do you propose to build an objective based game on such a large map, you cant just build a huge map and expect it to work, you need "nerds" who have a clue about map design not idiots who think more is better and don't think their ideas through.
i dont make maps, its way to boring more me, when i do mess around, they are like battlefield maps with full size building etc, quakewars can handle the amount of polys rage has with ease, maybe not on a xbox, but easy on a PC, you can use http://dryad.stanford.edu/ to make and kind and size of trees and export/convert them to lwo and all leafs become square polys for a alpha texture to be put on, quake 4 cant handle large number of polys, its as rubbish as the doom 3 engine and has renderer floating point whatever bugs and give you 10fps when you have a large skybox i turn quakewars into battlefield Vs brink after 2 weeks, where all other mods on moddb and around failed http://www.splashdamage.com/forums/showthread.php/31266-MOD-skilth-1.3?p=384795&viewfull=1#post384795
Posted on 13 November, 2011 - 11:00
i dont make maps, its way to boring more me
Then stop telling people who do what they should be making and stop acting like you know about ET:QW mapping.
i turn quakewars into battlefield Vs brink after 2 weeks, where all other mods on moddb and around failed http://www.splashdamage.com/forums/showthread.php/31266-MOD-skilth-1.3?p=384795&viewfull=1#post384795
No you haven't, you've removed strogg from etqw, congratulations, you can't compare your two week mod to the likes of wheels of war and tribal wars. They may not have people playing them anymore but I don't see anyone playing your mod either, it's just as fail.
Posted on 13 November, 2011 - 12:42
Then stop telling people who do what they should be making and stop acting like you know about ET:QW mapping. No you haven't, you've removed strogg from etqw, congratulations, you can't compare your two week mod to the likes of wheels of war and tribal wars. They may not have people playing them anymore but I don't see anyone playing your mod either, it's just as fail.
i can compare what i like. to add new player classes and remove the strogg takes alot of code in scripts, dll, huds, and alot of code you have to work out that passes bool and string all around of them in map event calls
Posted on 13 November, 2011 - 14:13
Yeah I'm sure that's as hard as making new vehicles and a racing mode then editing existing maps to place a race track into them or as hard as making new player models and animations and a totally new movement system and gamemode complete with totally new maps and **** tonne of custom assets.
Posted on 13 November, 2011 - 14:27
just have to move some dots around, skinning is the hard part
Posted on 13 November, 2011 - 14:31
Coding is just typing, my secretary can do that...
Posted on 13 November, 2011 - 14:32
can type a letter in word, debug multiple classes and functions along the way with code flawless code and not need to debug the application is another world, or doing good code that works and is fast
Posted on 13 November, 2011 - 14:34
Oh sorry, didn't realise you were only one allowed to trivialise skills...
Posted on 13 November, 2011 - 14:39
im to lazy todo proper code, its to boring and takes to long, modding code is easy
Posted on 13 November, 2011 - 14:47
Back on topic please, guys. :)
Posted on 14 November, 2011 - 10:03
Escorts are my favorite. I like the idea of having to steamroll into enemy territory. The real fun though, I think, is having mixed objectives.
Posted on 17 November, 2011 - 01:24
I enjoy all objective types but I think some should only be used as side objectives. So Destroy, Carry, Hack, Repair (then Escort) should be used to progress the story line while Construct, Hack, Destroy(again) should be used as side objectives. So for me an idea map would be like Radar where you have to Blow the Main Gate to secure a foot hold but the posibility of the Allies to blow the side route as a secondary object but also let the Axis repair it. I guess this really compares more to Braundorf if anyone had the pleasure to play it. Although I do tend to lean towards new ways of doing things like; - (ET) Reactor where you had to blow the controls to empty the tanks. - Brinks escort the hostage. - Chris's (ET) Castle map where you had to take the dynamite parcels to the guns to blow them (reverse Radar if you like) - Loved the mechanic of (ET) Railgun, wasn't just another tank escort! - Also like the idea of splitting up the defending team like (ET) Battery, with scripts, (ET) Oasis, (ET) Radar or to an extent the double hack map in Brink. Just a shame (Brink) Refuel is so linear!
Posted on 5 December, 2011 - 21:02