Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Part 7 - Invasion Control gametype | |
| Posted By: RC Master | Date: 3/26/12 5:28 a.m. |
In Response To: Re: Part 7 - Invasion Control gametype (pete_the_duck) : I can't think of any existing gametype in any Halo game where a team is : by-design hindered from fighting back . Have you ever had a game of : Slayer where your team was down by a huge margin, but then fought back and : won 49-50? Or a game of CTF where you were down 2-0, but then fight back : and won 3-2? I love those moments and I don't like the idea that if a team : captures a territory before you do, they have an advantage that by-design : will significantly hurt your ability to fight back for the rest of the : game (because they can then spawn at that territory, much closer to the : remaining territories than you can). Only very, very rarely, if ever. How is this much different from capturing power weapons or positions on the map before the other team? The other team is hindered from fighting back by poorer positioning and fewer and less powerful weapons. In other gametypes, your teammates and enemies positions influence your spawning, so you can end up already in a good position as soon as you spawn. But in Invasion the spawning is completely different. If you DON'T get to spawn mid-field you're always spawning back at your home base and having to trek (or drive) all the way. Have you played Battlefield? Conquest works exactly like this (less the weapons, vehicles only, since all weapons are available from spawn). I explained my reasoning to adding weapons to territory locations - that if you don't, teams just sit on majorities because capturing all three becomes too difficult to hold. : To close this point, in your own words:
"Could you have a situation where Elites capture all three territories and Spartans can't come back at all? Absolutely." : I don't like that. Why? 3-Plot is no different in that sense. That situation would happen because the dominant team is either too good, or the weapon drops at territories are too high, or the weapons at the bases aren't enough. The gametype gives a losing team 3 different targets to attack and reestablish a stronghold on the map. : Let me shift gears and instead of shooting down your idea entirely, let me
It's SvE because I like Invasion, and thats a key element of the gametype. Because it allows you to be extravagant, asymmetrical and interesting with the map design because it's asymmetrical anyway and the rounds is what balances that. Part 6 discusses a 3-Plot (SvS) variant that ties re-spawn zones to territory control: you don't get to choose exactly where to spawn, you just get more of the map to spawn on by the system. Plus you don't get weapons with territory control - they're standard on-map weapons. Is that more to your taste? Using rounds more liberally is a core part of this piece - because of it's immediate advantage in balancing any asymmetric map. Side-swapping rounds are widely used in the world of real sport, even if the playing fields are basically symmetrical anyway. They give teams a short break and a chance to regroup. : If I WAS going to adopt your idea, I would want to do it in a very large map.
What's your definition of 'very large'? Not really, the minimum time to engage is only as far as the distance between any two territories: you can choose to spawn at the one you control most advanced into the field/closest to the nearest enemy-controlled one. : I would also toy
But this over-rewards rushes with easy and complete wins, surely? And it over-rewards late rushes if teams have been fairly even most of the game. Plus you still have the objective-holding problem: a dominant team refuses to capture all three and drag the game out to full time. Now, granted, if you don't like the 'get points every second' thing, there are a number of different ways to stagger the point payout which can compensate for travelling time/frequency of engagements.
Conquest does the same thing: tickets don't drain 1 every second, but it's 1 every x seconds (don't know exactly). You could certainly do a similar thing in Invasion Control, and it might even be better for it.
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |