The Evolution of MP FPS Game Objectives

Col_Swelego · 07-12-2005, 11:59 AM

The evolution of multiply playing first person shooter (MP FPS) games is evolving towards the better.
We have reached user goals of good graphics, interface, realistic weaponry, multi-leveled buildings, detailed vehicles, etc.
The goal is giving a good gaming experience to the individual.
Now games try to incorporate teamplay experience with squad interface, voice comm, commander mode, etc.
Future games must work on objectives that enhance the combat experience of the team.

What is next? Objective Evolution

Here MP FPS games have not evolved so much. Before it was taking over a flag, base or death match.
These objectives are getting boring.
Others have tried to conquer bases in a certain order. Also boring. (Ppl dont follow the order anyway.)
Also, individual scores are not related to map outcomes, cause ppl are attacking one base and moving on to the next and so on. Later going back and reoccuppying the same territory again.
This means that playing defense has no rewards. Thus, ppl don't defend as often.
This is not a combat experience.
MP FPS Games must make playing defense as well as offense a team combat experience with stratigical advantages for the team and not just for the individual.

How to evolve objectives?
Objectives should simulate what really is the goal for taking a base in conquest and that is to provide for a economical, political or social environment to sustain or win a war as a team.
What does this mean? Objectives on the map are places that need to be conquered so that the war can continue or come to an end.
This is the main reason for taking over a base.
How to incorporate this in BF2? By using a time period to simulate making of new infrastructures, resource usage, goods production and goods consumption.
These things take time.

My Suggestion to Future MP FPS games
The flag neutralization and occupation scheme can continue as it is now.
To simulate the development of the terrain for political, economical and social reasons a new time factor is involved.
This is the base-lock status eg. the amount of resistance against enemy reoccupation of the same base.
The longer the team occupies the base the longer is it takes for enemy to remove the locked status for the base.

For ex. after a team occupies a base (say for over 5 min period) the base becomes locked from reoccupation. The enemy can remove the locked status by occupying the same base longer than 5 mins. Also, 5 mins and 1 sec removes the locked status and returns the base to its original unlocked status.
In the base unlocked status the battling forces can regain control of the base as before, but requires one side to occupy the base for a time of 5 mins to create another locked status.

Locked Status Advantages
Force teams to maintain a supply line from HQ/starting position to the stronghold position where important military assets are respawned.
Still allows behind enemy line missions, but defenders have easier to counter.
Individual scores are related to the map outcome of bases conquered.
Units are not forced to stay longer than 5 min at a base, but this has stratigical advantages for the team. (a defense reward)
Since there is a manpower shortage our team can deploy to an adjacent base and still have time to counter enemy actions at our occuppied base. Our forces will not lose the occupied base if we get back in time to defend it again.

Locked Status Disadvantages
Since defense is not favored in the current objective system, the new system forces teams to secure a base before moving on to the next.
And this means, that certain bases with military asset respawned will have a higher stratigical value than others.

I can see enemy rushing to our closest base and trying to locked it down, but instead of us rushing to their closest base we can defend our bases from being locked up. I'm sure they will do the same.

This can sound hard, but can be a very exciting combat experience which requires advance commanders and squad leaders.
This doesn't sound boring. This can give conquest a new meaning in MP FPS games.

Over

07-12-2005, 11:59 AM	#1 (permalink)
Col_Swelego Private Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 93	The Evolution of MP FPS Game Objectives The evolution of multiply playing first person shooter (MP FPS) games is evolving towards the better. We have reached user goals of good graphics, interface, realistic weaponry, multi-leveled buildings, detailed vehicles, etc. The goal is giving a good gaming experience to the individual. Now games try to incorporate teamplay experience with squad interface, voice comm, commander mode, etc. Future games must work on objectives that enhance the combat experience of the team. What is next? Objective Evolution Here MP FPS games have not evolved so much. Before it was taking over a flag, base or death match. These objectives are getting boring. Others have tried to conquer bases in a certain order. Also boring. (Ppl dont follow the order anyway.) Also, individual scores are not related to map outcomes, cause ppl are attacking one base and moving on to the next and so on. Later going back and reoccuppying the same territory again. This means that playing defense has no rewards. Thus, ppl don't defend as often. This is not a combat experience. MP FPS Games must make playing defense as well as offense a team combat experience with stratigical advantages for the team and not just for the individual. How to evolve objectives? Objectives should simulate what really is the goal for taking a base in conquest and that is to provide for a economical, political or social environment to sustain or win a war as a team. What does this mean? Objectives on the map are places that need to be conquered so that the war can continue or come to an end. This is the main reason for taking over a base. How to incorporate this in BF2? By using a time period to simulate making of new infrastructures, resource usage, goods production and goods consumption. These things take time. My Suggestion to Future MP FPS games The flag neutralization and occupation scheme can continue as it is now. To simulate the development of the terrain for political, economical and social reasons a new time factor is involved. This is the base-lock status eg. the amount of resistance against enemy reoccupation of the same base. The longer the team occupies the base the longer is it takes for enemy to remove the locked status for the base. For ex. after a team occupies a base (say for over 5 min period) the base becomes locked from reoccupation. The enemy can remove the locked status by occupying the same base longer than 5 mins. Also, 5 mins and 1 sec removes the locked status and returns the base to its original unlocked status. In the base unlocked status the battling forces can regain control of the base as before, but requires one side to occupy the base for a time of 5 mins to create another locked status. Locked Status Advantages Force teams to maintain a supply line from HQ/starting position to the stronghold position where important military assets are respawned. Still allows behind enemy line missions, but defenders have easier to counter. Individual scores are related to the map outcome of bases conquered. Units are not forced to stay longer than 5 min at a base, but this has stratigical advantages for the team. (a defense reward) Since there is a manpower shortage our team can deploy to an adjacent base and still have time to counter enemy actions at our occuppied base. Our forces will not lose the occupied base if we get back in time to defend it again. Locked Status Disadvantages Since defense is not favored in the current objective system, the new system forces teams to secure a base before moving on to the next. And this means, that certain bases with military asset respawned will have a higher stratigical value than others. I can see enemy rushing to our closest base and trying to locked it down, but instead of us rushing to their closest base we can defend our bases from being locked up. I'm sure they will do the same. This can sound hard, but can be a very exciting combat experience which requires advance commanders and squad leaders. This doesn't sound boring. This can give conquest a new meaning in MP FPS games. Over __________________ The game outcome of egotistical players is finite ... The game outcome of team players is infinite ... Waiting for the chipmunk revolution.