I agree with what you said also, but I was thinking he meant more along the lines of: "Team A must capture Team B's intel to win. Team B must assassinate Team A's leader to win. Whichever team completes their objective first wins." So then both teams would have to worry about both offense and defense simultaneously, which would be insane in my opinion.

I favor Security somewhat, but I'm not going to let that stop me from playing the Resistance when I've got a buddy on that side, or when the teams are stacked in the Security's favor, etc. etc.

I don't think I would have an example mission what you just described, but I know I didn't like playing as the defense in the ET:QW demo because it was boring; it essentially was camping the objectives and killing the attackers as they approached. Granted I know in Brink there will be a multitude of secondary objectives for both sides to complete, so that won't be as bad.

I also believe some side accesses can be re-sealed, since there is an achievement/trophy granted for such a feat.

I heard that as well. Good to cut off your enemies angle of attack.

Could you please give an example then please? That way I can (hopefully) fully understand what it is you're referring to and (hopefully) respond accordingly, because it's all too easy to misinterpret what others are saying on the internet.

And as you said, I doubt it'll merely end up as everyone camping the objectives because of the side missions.



This actually is true, and I'm pretty sure I saw it on an objective wheel in a video as well.

Understandable enough. I apologize in advance for the wall of text, but this requires a detailed explanation.

The reason I would not have designed a mission like your example is that it forces direct confrontation; that is, all of the one team would be swarming the leader guy and the other team would have to completely devote all their resources into defending him at the expense of their mission. Yes I realize there is one level where one faction (I believe the Resistance) is busting a NPC out of prison and in that case having only the one mutually exclusive objective (Security, stop him; Resistance, keep him moving) is probably a good thing.

But what I am talking about is more along the lines of having two parallel sets of missions for each team per map. Only the final objective should be mutually exclusive that decides which team is victorious. But I don't think it should come down to "defend this location" or "prevent the enemy team from doing ", because then it turns into a boring pseudo-deathmatch.

Here is an example mission that could start outside a building and move inside as the primary combat space.

Security Objectives:
1. Engineers: build scaffolding to allow your team to enter the building through a rooftop entrance.
Result: gain access to main map area, including second primary objective.
2. Medics: revive distant incapacitated NPC Security officer.
Result: Learn of a stranded Founder with valuable intelligence in the middle of the map who requires escort out of the area and debriefed.
3. Any class: Rescue, defend, and escort the Founder to your exit and safety (or have the Founder be with your team when time expires)

Resistance Objectives
1. Soldiers: blow up a door leading into the main map area.
Result: gain access to main map area, including second primary objective.
2. Operatives: Hack a distant security terminal.
Result: Learn of a stranded Founder with valuable intelligence in the middle of the map who could be interrogated for intelligence or held as a hostage.
3. Any class: Capture and escort to Founder to your exit for interrogation (or have the Founder be with your time when time expires)

In this case, both factions have the option to pursue the primary objective, complete the standard secondary objectives (everyone can capture Command Posts, Medics still revive allies, Operatives can hack enemy turrets and comms, etc) or go hunt the enemy to prevent them from gaining theirs. Even the final objective is not "one side is all Engineers and Soldiers mowing your ass down and the other side is all Medics frantically reviving the VIP and each other", but forces strategic assaults and defensives by either side. Also, even if one team manages to complete the second objective long before the other team, that other team still has a chance to salvage a victory if they are fast and prove tactically superior despite the fact that the one team may have gotten him 75% the way to their exit. It insures that there will always be something to actively do (not simply "stopping the enemy team" and "defend this location").

It also insures that, in the campaign, each faction's story will be distinctly different based on the final objective. In what we know of Container City, if the Security wins, they secure "the bioweapon" from "the dangerous terrorists"; if the Resistance holds out, they can celebrate that they held on to "their vaccine" from "the wicked oppressors". Whoop dee doo, let's go make up another reason to fight.

In this fictional mission build, that Founder's intel could turn the strategic tide of the civil war on the Ark, and the actual intel will be different based on who has him in the end. It also makes sure that you can't progress with the campaign unless you actively win, not simply let the clock run out on defense. And it also gives the other team a chance to mount a last minute effort if they don't have the Founder secure; if they manage to pull him away in the last three seconds, they earned the victory. Even if they don't, they kept the one team frantically fighting for the objective up to the last second, knowing that if either team loses that fight, they lose the mission. That kind of pressure will keep everyone intensely involved and working hard, which will be all the more rewarding for the victors in the end and still be a great story to reminisce over as the defeated.

Hoo. Sorry again for the wall. This is the hardest I've thought about something in a while. And yes, I did just make up this mission right here right now. It's what took me so long to finally post, figuring out the balance of things. That people do this for a living? Props for them. :ninja:

I'm actually hoping SD has the tools in place to make it matter. They talk about how they want new players and randoms to get al the feel that clan players get, having a side to play for, a stake in the victory, would make that more interesting.

Sorry for the extremely delayed response, been crazy busy these last few days. But I did make it a priority to check this out since you took the time to give me a lengthy example - which I greatly appreciate. Anyway:



I've got a few issues with that:

1. The first two objectives would probably end up being pointless because there'd be no combat surrounding them - it would probably just end up as a footrace to the final objective. The main reason is because to simultaneously complete your primary objective, stop the enemy from completing their primary objective, AND worrying about secondary objectives is just way too much to ask from an 8-player team. If it was 12v12 or higher I could possibly see it actually working as enough people could be spared to go interfere with the enemy objective to actually hinder its completion.

2. I see two issues with the final objective. The first is that the team who completes the second objective first is probably also the tactically superior team as well, and the gap in time would make an already uphill battle even more difficult for the less skilled team. The other issue is with the exit point:

-If each team's exit point is near their own spawn, then the closer the Founder gets to the exit, the greater advantage the already winning team receives from spawning nearer the objective. This would lead to a higher amount of quitting, as bleak circumstances would only stand to deteriorate even further.

-If each team's exit point is near the opposite team's spawn, or it's simply nearer to the enemy's spawn than their own, then the opposite team would still turtle similarly to how you described with Soldiers and Engineers mowing down frantic Medics. This would mean that only would that last distance be annoying still, but you would actually have the chance to LOSE progress because the other team temporarily controlled the objective. This would lead to ridiculously lengthy games, which in turn would also lead to a higher amount of quitting as well because people would just get bored eventually.



Honestly that doesn't sound much different from your example. In one situation one team keeps their "vaccine" while in the other situation the other team captures it. Sounds like different storyline to me. Even simply defending an outpost would make a difference story-wise, as the Resistance would control that (probably important) territory in their story, while the Security would in their own.

Non-issue imo.



Assuming there's an opposing team to contend with, defenders usually stay pretty active. And if there isn't, then while you may have to walk around a bit more to win, it would still be an effortless one, so I think it's irrelevant.

If you can win in the last three seconds, why even bother with the first and second objectives? They wouldn't even matter if that would be the case.

I think people will be frantically fighting over the objectives anyway, because if either team loses control over it, they'll probably end up losing as well.

I'm still not sold on that last part - with everyone being intensely involved - because of what I mentioned about the exits in relation to spawns earlier.



Kudos for coming up with it. And definite props to the people who do it for a living.

I'm for both sides.
It's just another Team A vs. Team B with a backstory. You might identify yourself more with one side, but who cares about ethics/morality in games nowadays? I don't want to play just one side because I like their looks or because I support their motives.