[TO mechanic idea] Advanced objective flow



  • Hello everyone.
    I’ve seen some ideas on the forums suggesting how TO can be improved. Someone suggested optional objectives for example. Then I thought that generally the flow of the TO maps could be more sophisticated.

    At the moment each objective on a map basically goes like this:

    • One team (attacker) has to do something. Other team (defender) has to prevent it by basically waiting for the mission time to pass.

    • If attackers succeed then objective changes to next one which has the same flow. Do something in a set time period or you loose.

    That’s a bit boring don’t you think?
    So the idea is to make it possible to create different objective flow. Mix of conditional, optional etc. objectives. It could be possible to win (or loose) the map in different ways.

    Here’s an example ram objective on Stonehill:
    Currently the objective for attackers is to push the ram to the gate and destroy the gate with it.
    For defenders the objective is… killing attackers until they run out of time. They can’t destroy the ram. But what if they could?

    So here’s Stonehill how it could be (it’s just an example to show the general idea):

    • obj 1. Kill the villagers (Stays the same)

    • obj 2. Ram objective

      • Attackers: push the ram to the gate and destroy it.

      • Defenders: keep killing attackers till the time runs out (so the map doesn’t last endlessly) OR destroy the ram. SomehowNow there can be three outcomes:

    • Out of time: Attackers ran out of time. The map ends.

    • Attackers succeeded and objective is changed to obj 3. Kill silly king (no change)

    • Defenders successfully destroyed the ram and objective is changed to alternative one: obj 2B. Scale the walls

      • Attackers: Bring ladders from spawn point to the walls, scale them and open the gates from the inside.

      • Defenders: Stop the attackersTwo outcomes from here:

      • Attackers successfully scaled the walls and opened the gates. Objective switches to obj 3. Kill silly king (no change)

      • Attackers ran out of time

    Such conditional objectives don’t necessarily have to change the entire objective. The outcome of one objective can influence the next only a little. For example change of path for bomb cart. You’d still have to push it to whatever goal but the path would be different.
    Imagine the possibilities.

    That’s general idea of how objectives could look like in the future. Maybe include such possibilities in upcoming modding tools?



  • Yes! I love this idea. I’ve been thinking about this as well. Defending team always just have to wait until the Attacking team runs out of time. Sure, we have to prevent them to push that ram to our gates while we wait for the clock to reach zero, but still. I’ve also always wondered how we can’t destroy the ram and then a Plan B is initiated.

    Maybe the current map objectives shouldn’t be changed drastically like this, but when they make new maps for the future, they should really keep this in mind. How both the defenders and attackers should have alternative objectives. Alt objective for defender is not only stop the ram, but destroy it, and not winning by doing that, but by forcing the attackers to initiate their alternative, and much harder, objective - to scale the walls.



  • +1 8-)



  • This is a great idea, but I guess it is the execution which makes it difficult to be realised. The basic game has minimalised the mechanics in favour of accessibility - You join, you play, you win/lose.

    The objectives have been assembled and designed with these criteria in mind, with the option that you can win the objective by basically just running up to the target area and butcher everyone in sight, then do the objective (or at least hoping to be able to do it).

    Let’s take your example of Stonehill:

    “Destroying the ram” is very easy in matches that I usually play (i’m one of those people, y’know? :3)

    People don’t try to make a protective effort to “stay” at the ram and save the one operating the it. It’s a constant “We die, we respawn, we run up to the ram and do it all over again!”, hoping to manage the objective in time.

    In the time respawning and returning to the ram, it is usually almost unprotected. In that time, Agatha can easily destroy it, leading to the simple outcome that “climbing the walls” will become the mandatory as if “placing the ram” was never part of the whole scenario.

    So in order to design an alternative object with this exact setup is a question of “does it really make sense to put effort into this?” and the answer (at least if I was in the Dev. team) is plain “no”.

    Now as I said the basic idea of conditional objectives is genius. Giving the defender the chance to end a scenario early simply because they were “better” than the attackers gives them a motivation to taking more risks, thus allowing attackers to exploit possible holes in the movement, creating a more dynamic game experience which is barely a bad thing.

    Now, as aforementioned, the question arises “How do we execute this?” There are so many possible ways and all of them seem “for nothing” to me unless the maps’ designs and mechanics are altered (if only slightly), which is still a tremendous amount of effort. Looking at the situation on objectives, I dare say that, was I a dev, I’d ask myself “Why fix something that isn’t broken? People play this game, nonetheless, a majority not even giving a damn about the objective and playing like it’s a deathmatch that doesn’t have a ticketcounter that runs out.”


Log in to reply