Design Philosophy, Attack=Defend?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Design Philosophy, Attack=Defend?

[yournamehere]
Hey guys, Its been a hell of awhile since I last posted on this site and I really wanted to get back into these kind of discussions. With that said I had an idea that I wanted to bounce off you guys.  

Now I've been watching a lot of team based games lately (mainly addicted to TF2) when I had a bit of an idea. Now this idea pertains to any sort of attack/defense gametype where one team attacks a point while the others defend it. This can be applied to mainly any progressive attack/defense gametype.

When I say progressive attack/defense think of Invasion from Reach or Control Points from TF2 where there are 1 or more points or items to be captured in subsequent order before the round ends. If you play team based multiplayer games you already know exactly what I'm talking to you about.

Now my idea revolves around the design of the level. Now traditionally the idea is that the attacking team has multiple routes and strategies to be very aggressive to constantly push enemies away from the point and to capture it. Defending is obviously the opposite given large formidable positions that can lock down entire areas and are vital to controlling the flow of the battle so the enemy cannot win.

Now my idea is what if the two were reversed? The defending team now has to be very aggressive and constantly fight the attackers at every corner while the attackers need to control the flow of the map to squeeze through. It gives a new mentality to players on either side. Attackers now have to monitor everything and make sure they create a big enough opportunity to actually capture a point while Defenders are rewarded for constantly pushing while keeping that moment of opportunity at bay.

Now I say this only works with progressive Attack/Defense games since a game like 1 flag CTF it would be stupid to have everyone rush out and leave the flag behind. In any case what do you guys think of this idea in general and would you be interested to see this sort of map/game?
GT: Steph7297

"The only difference between me and a madman is that i'm not mad" -Salvador Dali
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Design Philosophy, Attack=Defend?

noklu
Administrator
I believe, back in H3, that the gameplay on High Ground resembled this, even in CTF. The defending team nearly always pushed right down to the beach, and it was up to the attacking to press back and worm their way in. A few games would differ and have the defending team defending the base, but mainly it was of the style you talked about. While it wasn't a progressive game in the sense of actual moving objectives, it was dynamic in terms of mini-objectives: players had to push up to the outer wall first, and then do this or that and progress into the base to take the flag. A large part of this was due to the path construction which lacked widely differing paths and instead relied on terrain and LOS control to delineate the battlefield.

I do feel that the vast majority of maps (while I am not well informed on the current state of forge maps) always tended toward the basic three path model, with variations and capillary connections; this being a mode of design that favours the 'traditional' approach you describe.
The otters are coming with whiskers honed to razor blades.
Know this and fear.

Email me at xnoklu[at]gmail.com should you need to contact me.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Design Philosophy, Attack=Defend?

SwiiTcHBacK
In reply to this post by [yournamehere]
I'd like to ask clarification here.. Are we talking about a game where both sides fight over control points to capture in order or one has to capture points and the other defend them? It sounds like you're talking about the later here and I'm assuming this is the case, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm confused as to how this would work. Things I can think of being:

The point that needs to be captured is itself a stronghold for the offensive team with good cover and defenses over the routes towards it from the defensive side? This would make capturing points too easy in my opinion.

There are strongholds/good positions near the point to be captured that look over the defensive teams routes or the point itself with no cover from the route from the offensive side?

Both of these would make it much easier to capture points once you reach them and reaching them easier than before. I'd probably suggest why not have them on similar footing with the defense having the option to push further to "strongholds" far infront of the point needing to be captured that can be controlled by either team.. You then have both teams trying to control the map and advance step by step. The further one team advances the harder it is and the longer it takes for the other to "fight back" and reach/cap the objective or reach and obtain one of these "strongholds". This gives an insentive for the team on the defense to advance and be "offensive".

Or having a direct route with cover and a stronghold for the defensive team with other winding paths that take longer to traverse but force "fairer" gunfights between players. They then have the choice of which way they wish to play in order to reach the point.

Also how would you limit the routes the offense takes before they get to the point without limiting the defenses routes and still have them fighting at every corner? If the routes are only diverse before they reach the point needing capturing then the majority of the fighting will just take place at the point?