Hey forum,

This is my first post here so don't be too harsh.

Anyways on to the subject at hand-the new game type I thought of. The concept is rather simple and will be pretty quick to explain. Basically to win one team must complete more objectives happening in a random sequence as the match progresses. The team that completed the most objectives after the time limit/score limit wins the match.

So for example: the Security and Resistance are assigned to hack a mainframe for the first objective (this is randomly assigned for replay value-as in the first objective could be a escort, etc). Lets say the Security team hacks the objective-they get 1 objective point- then a new objective is assigned for either team to complete, lets say a blow the door objective. The Resistance blow open the door before the Security so now the Score is 1 to 1. These randomly assigned objectives will continue until the time limit/or score limit is reached.

Maps: These would need to be very carefully designed to allow balanced gameplay for each team. I was thinking that base command points change (both teams) according to which objective on the map is active. This is so that not one objective is too close to either team as it switches.

I believe this would be a rather fun gametype as it would allow 1. Teamwork (what this game is all about) 2. Dynamic Objective gameplay (randomly assigned objectives bring fresh feeling from campaigns static objectives and 3. Dynamic Class Use

I really like that idea and if done correctly it could even be fit into the story.

Nice idea!!! The story would fit in with the systems to a certain tower or support malfunctioning, while one team destroys, and the other tries to repair and stabilize! Sweet!

I actually had a very similar idea and posted it on SD's forums: http://www.splashdamage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26918

Anyway, the premise was very similar in that every map would have ~10 basic objectives. Both teams would compete either on a points system or the first to complete 3 or 4 objectives would be declared the winner. Ideally the tasks would be random but the map would always begin with a neutral objective. Certain objectives could randomly assign one team as offense or defense while others would be fixed, depending upon the map's layout. Most importantly each objective would be on a much shorter timer (~5 mins max) forcing the action forward instead of stalling it (10-20 mins to complete a single objective).

Eventually such a system could support Forge-like customization where every map has multiple objectives and the players could sequence them or leave them random (or a combo of both), decide which team was attacking/defending, or even if multiple objectives could be active at the same time.

As this idea would require new maps to work properly or an overhaul of the current ones it would be nice to see certain objectives actually affect the map directly. It would be great to have areas of the map locked or made inaccessible at the start and require a specific objective to open it up. If the objective were random it would change the flow of the map and keep players guessing where to be next. Certain areas could hold new objectives or secondary ones and even provide bonuses to the successful team, like a shortcut that is automatically available whereas the other team's is closed to start.

Such an idea would revolutionize objective gameplay as we know it.

This would suit Brink possibly more than Brink's existing game modes. Randomly defined (but balanced) competitive objectives.

Imagine a map where one team had to open a gate and rescue a hostage, and the other team had to steal some data files and hack a mainframe. Suddenly you've got 4 objectives each team, two defending and two attacking. Might not work so well in practice, but multiple primary objectives could work quite well.

i kinda like the idea.

its like warzone in kz3 where the objectives randomly cycle.

yeah exactly what i was thinking , it would work perfectly into brinks existing maps design as well as in context of the story.

escort / hack / detonate / retrieve return

maybe you could even incorporate some mode types from kz3 as well like , assassination ,bodycount, cap and hold , etc...

stops defenders camping objectives too.

played container city yesterday on some pubs and they managed to camp our spawn in a few seconds. it was impossible to get out of (didnt help i was playing with my op/soldier and our medics were hopeless). if i had my medic/engi we might have been ok.

I suggested a similar idea with both sides having a sequence of objectives.

If you're suggesting that both sides have the EXACT same objective, though - as in both sides trying to blow up the SAME door, I don't see that working, honestly - would just be what we have now with Hacking objectives - taking turns defending and attempting to hack/reverse hack while the other team tries to wear you down so they can do their version of the objective.

Sounds nice. I was thinking about ways to get both teams to be able to chase objectives in the same match myself.
I thought about a variation of domination whereby both Security and Resistance would fight to control parts of a map. Similar to your idea both teams would start chasing after the same objectives, but once obtained, have to defend it from the other in order to obtain an overarching goal. When the map is set up in three parts, the team to control two parts moves quicker to completing their own overarching goal.

Haven't thought about the details, but I think Brink can do this much better than games like Call of Duty or Battlefield because it can be more than simply capturing a flag and trying to shoot anyone that comes close. Using barricades for defensive purposes or stairs while attacking, hacking doors to open or close, the dynamics of the match can be very interesting!

I like the idea. It seems VERY dynamic, something i feel brink is very lacking in.

I like the idea.

What do you guy think about giving half of a point to complete bigger secondary objectives like hacking a side door? (not stuff like taking a command post) That way it could be closer and more intense because even though they're only half of a point, if they losing team was only losing by one but gets enough side missions they could put themselves back in contention.

I like this idea, it could make for some very intense matches. /signed

Both sides could be completing the same objective but I wouldn't make it soemthing like detonating the same door. Instead I would use two simultaneous locations like on Reactor where each team is assigned a terminal to hack. Both terminals are very close to one another so teams would have to manage defending and attacking at the same time. Once completed the hacked terminal would unlock a warehouse door providing access to a new area for both team.

A repair mission could work in a similar fashion as well but these objectives could be much more closely located since repairs cannot be reversed. A dual delivery mission could be a bit tricky but with the proper layout it could work too. You could even do an escort race to a specific location where thy run on a parallel routes that are obstructed from one another.

I agree that going after the exact same objective would be a bit tricky but there are ways around this without having to place one team on defense and the other on offense exclusively. I think that blowing up the same door could work, however, but the map layout would have to force a major chokepoint otherwise it would not work well.

It really depends on the secondary objectives are handled. What I mean is that these objectives are often able to be repeated, right? So if one team builds a stairway, the other now has the option to destroy it and this continues until one side does not complete this objective.

Personally I would avoid providing any points from secondary objectives. The reason I would do this is because secondary objectives often provide their own bonuses in the form of a shortcut, a command post bonus, or an entrenched position. Completing a secondary objective is enough of a reward on its own and if a team is losing because of the primary objectives then perhaps their efforts should be more focused on those instead.

The scoring for this game type will be tricky to manage but in an effort to keep things simple I think a 'first to #' format would be best.

Hey thanks guys for posting ideas and feedback its really great to read them. Anyways for the dual objective things I was also wondering how this can be done with objectives like Repair for example. I eventually came up with one such as one team is trying to repair a maintenance bot. While the other team tries to repair a magnetic crane that is over the maintenance bot. This would work as if the team that needs to repair the maintenance bot succeeds then it would go into an escort objective-which leads the other team to...lets say destroy something to block the maintenance bot. While the flip-side would be if the team that needs to repair the crane succeeds then it picks up the maintenance bot which basically stops the maintenance bot from doing anything. I know this isn't really like my random objective idea that I previously stated, but it provides a sort of tug-of-war.

I can see the problem with dual objectives like blowing up the same door. I realize this would be trouble some so I devised a way that dual explosive objectives could be played out. Example: One team needs to blow up the door while the other team tries to blow up something generally close to it to block the door from being accessed. What do you think?

As for escort missions...I'm pretty stumped on this one.

Capture the intel(or whatever) objectives would easily work as it would be basically Neutral CTF

I like it, it's kinda like the Section 8 DCM idea

nice, i would also like all vs all on container city with no objectives

Great idea, we need more ideas like this hopefully lots of people read this and come up with more interesting things themeselves =D

theres a story to this game?? well if there is it svcks!!!! i will rage about what i dont like about htis game on a mountiain!!!

not only as a first post but as an idea that came from a human beings brain....

sounds freakin great here have a cookie :cookie:

sounds a lot like Section 8, which kicked some ass, I'm game

Sweet a cookie. Anyways again thanks for the feedback keep suggestions/comments/etc coming.

Ummm, if you've unlocked all the audio logs, you can actually explore the story of the ark a little bit more?

Passing on the other people's comments - the loading screen briefing and cutscenes give you just enough storyline to set the scene and remind you that there's a reason why you're doing whatever objective you been given. The audio logs give you more of the plot, and really add depth to the game's setting.

GTA4 had a game mode like this one, and it was decently fun.

in this game tho i probably wouldn't play it