• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Level Design Deathmatch mutator

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#4
Brilliant..... now we have ppl chasing ppl away... what a unique concept.

Did it ever dawn upon anyone that Deathmatches here in RO are a fun thing and that not having the Objectives would allow for online competition and of course.... online practice.

Besides, there's a thread already for this info....


http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17697
 
Upvote 0
#5
I haven't seen a mutator and Nomad is right we shouldn't have a go at people for their different views on play but I understand the concern that the game would be reduced down to the style of COD or DOD if enough of there players came to haunt RO, that is why the objections.

We just always have to hope the developers stick to their guns and are not drawn by the unwashed masses in their deevolutionary steps for game creation <smile>

Still deathmatch in my opinion should of been phased out after quake. Just my opinion.
 
Upvote 0
#6
I suppose someone could spend time coding a mutator which in effect renders the stock maps as Deathmathes.

But far easier to do would be to open up the stock maps yourself in the Editor and hand delete all objective actors and their tagged volumes. You could also manually adjust the map time and spawn rates too. Just save and rename the "new" maps as: RO-AradDM (or something of the kind). Issue 'em on the Final Release board and see if some daring server admin might take you up on the offer. On average, each modification would take you about 20-30 minutes depending on the complexity of the level.

There you go...:rolleyes:

Caveat: I'm not suggesting this is a good idea
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#7
My goodness.....

My goodness.....

Wow, did that question spark some responses or should I say comments. And they seem to be rather negative. Since I have to explain my question, guess I have little choice in this forum, I will. My thinking was actually geared to tank formation wars, which haven't really been explored too much yet. If a clan, clans or just a group of hardcore tank enthusiasts got together on a tank death match map, they could concentrate on different tank formations. They could try different tank rotations against the other team's formations. In the example of RO-AradDM, players wouldn't be running all over the map trying to cap this objective or trying to defend this one. They could concentrate on grouping tanks, watching and communicating with each other on their formations, and the tank commander would pick where the tanks are going and where to fight the other formation.

ViViD said:
We just always have to hope the developers stick to their guns and are not drawn by the unwashed masses in their deevolutionary steps for game creation <smile>
Click to expand...


You may call this "deevoluntionary." I call it revolutionary. Taking the tank game to a new level. I have seen 2 tanks. rarely 3, running together and acting as a unit. Most of the time, its each tank doing its own thing. Can you imagine all of the tanks running in a specific formation against another unit? Wow. Both teams maneuvering for the encounter point would be interesting in its self. Of course this wouldn't be for the beginning players but for a select group of tankers, like myself, who could follow the commanders orders and want an even more historical battle. For the strategy enthusiasts, this would be great.

This is the reasoning for the question. I didn't think that a reason HAD to be given for a simple question. And after reading some of the previous posts I have to ask, why the negativity? I guess its much easier to discourage a question than to ask a simple one "why?" I don't like CoD and quite frankly am insulted by some of the remarks made by these narrow-minded members. I consider you guys to be a true disgrace to this community. If you want to prejudge a question and submit negative comments instead of asking "what for," maybe you should take your small minds and unimportant opinions over to the CoD forum yourself.

Reservoir Dog
 
Upvote 0
#8
Brilliant..... now we have ppl chasing ppl away... what a unique concept
Click to expand...
lol 'now'...?

And after reading some of the previous posts I have to ask, why the negativity?
Click to expand...
perhaps a combination of snobbery and even fear at the very thought of your suggestion or 'influence' moving the game moving in an undesired direction?
Whilst i don't understand the 1st- I can sympathise with the 2nd a bit (my nightmare is seeing RO_dust, RO_Deck 16 and RO_ killbox all over the server browser 'cos they turned out to be the most popular maps!)
But I agree- ppl should probably best figure exactly where your coming from before rejecting your opinion outright.

You're right in observing you have to get your justification in early on these forums with regards possible changes to game content.
But I think to be fair your counterattack was a bit strong - the reaction you encountered was only natural and sorry to be patronising but you will have to get used to it here.
If you love a game (RO a great example) so much - especially to the point of posting in forums, part of that for some is being utterly convinced that it is superior to other available games of a similar type.
Guilt by association means anything contained within these lesser games is at best viewed with suspicion and, more often than not, downright wrong.
So if suggestions are made that trigger thoughts of such games, expect standard bearers to jump forth, proving their loyalty and attempting to keep the wolf from the door.

Anyway enough sh1t-strirring.

I think it was Wicked Penguin who made a small inf. map that was based on a the idea of a crashed train of Russian POWs - IIRC there were no caps- just a time limit for Germans to hunt them down. It had low reinforcment count so everyone got an average of 2 lives- effectivly a last-team-standing type of TDM.

I personally welcome efforts like these- whist I would prefer the bread-and-butter workings of the game to be standard and governed by tripwire, such maps create variety and hint at potential new directions for the title.
As long as the game continues to play to it's strengths, changing the enviroment and therefore the gameplay itself with innovative map making is the way forward.
 
Upvote 0
#10
Well While not really trying to chase ppl away but more pointing out that I dont think that this was the way that RO was intended to be played, and I like objectives. But to each their own.
Here are some ideas for you if you want Team Deathmath just make two Objectives and place them in impossible locations for players to reach Like put blocking volumes around them. Should work never tried it though.
 
Upvote 0
#11
Tank death matches

Tank death matches

RO is a great game that I believe was created for its historical, strategic, and gameplay qualities. I truly respect this game and feel it is so superior to other games in this genre. For these qualities I feel that tank formation maps/servers would really compliment this game. Maybe I am thinking on too grand of a scale to be applied to existing maps with a mutator. A possible future endeavor for me is to introduce this idea into a smaller map. It would look like a scaled down version of Black Day (open fields with hills) with no objectives or 1 in the middle that takes a very long time to capture. Tanks running by themselves wouldn't last long and force teams to form tank formations to fight. I think it would be a whole new experience and encourage alot of communication between teams.

My previous post may have been "strong" but so were the comments made that did not add anything to this thread.

RD
 
Upvote 0
#12
Yep had this been your first post it would have went entirely different. When you say deathmatch everyone envisions grenade spamming stupdiness. I support your idea to encourage formations and teamwork. Why should it be a smaller map though with the success of Orel why not another large map with multiple approaches to the same 1 or 2 objectives. I envision pincer movements and others being possible for coordinated attacks or using terrain to cover movements.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Hmm changing the goal posts down the thread doesn't sit well as a justification.Especially when you are talking about deathmatch in it common sense is based on solo premise that it is individual based not Team Based. Perhaps you should of been more specific before slamming others. Perhaps you should of used the term Team Deathmatch but even so this is still in my opinion deevolutionary.

Either way, I still stand by my statement that deathmatch (in general) is deevolutionary. This is not an attack but based on fact.

For instance, when we had no brains and were single cell organisms we would worry only about ourselves. This is considered deathmatch.

As we have evolved we have created communities and tribes where protection and attacking is done on a basis of like minded people. Team Based. This is evolution.

The next step is to add goal post for the reasons why tribes attack, (creating objective) this was evolution.

Next evolution is to add the next layer which is some kind of united tribe mentality, such like countries are created. This would be evoultion in gaming concepts. Not deevolve back to Deathmatch, regardless if it is tanks, robots or men, or the fact that achieveing goals actually mean something in the long term aspect of the games existance.

This does not mean devolution is bad for some people it is good for me its not.

QED.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#14
I guess the word "Deathmatch" is taboo....

I guess the word "Deathmatch" is taboo....

Thanks for your response hammer. I am wondering if there is a way to flash on the screen different tank formations so each team in the game could see them and try to follow one of the specific formations. By accident, while I was working on a map, I textured an anti-portal with a material sequence preview for the level. The ap started flashing my preview screenshots in the editor. Of course in game I couldn't see it but I'm wondering if that might be a way. Maybe a big "drive-in" movie screen in front of the teams showing tank formations? If not can someone suggest another?

By the way, I am not changing the goal posts in this thread. My first post clearly pointed out I want to turn off objectives and change the time, player and tank spawns for maps. My explanation clearly draws on these requirements. Another thread just a few days apart had asked how to do this in a map as opposed to a mutator. Vivid, you responded very eloquently without any mention of your "de-evolutionary speech." The word itself "deathmatch" means a match to the death, as opposed to winning an objective (other than killing off the other team.) If you are trying to concentrate on tank rotations and formations, your team can't be running all over capping this obj and protecting this one. Your "de-evolutionary speech" was quite entertaining but also irrelevant. I have never played a game of Red Orchestra which I wasn't on a team. By definition you are either Axis or Allies. The term "team deathmatch" is implied if you're not a few fries short of a happy meal. I think some folks have played too many other fps and have blurred the basic meaning of this word. That's my opinion anyway.

Reservoir Dog
 
Upvote 0
#15
Perhaps your right, but to me the term deathmatch is assosicated with style of play of games of the past. And I would think that is what 85% of other gamers out there think deathmatch is.

Either way I was not telling you it could not be done or shouldn't be done. I was only stating my opinion about what I thought about deathmatch style of play. Which make me neither right or wrong just my opinion which I clearly stated.

Also that other post said nothing about the word 'deathmatch' even though it could be construded it could be used that way. It the style of play the work deathmatch that I have my opinion

And yes I played many fps games, I started with Wolfeinstein original and played 90% of them since. Deathmatch game individual play style is the same in all of them . Unless its team based then they use the term Team Deathmatch, hey I didn't make gaming terminology but you have a look at all the games they are refered to in that terminology.

You won't budge on my opinion just accept it as I accept yours.

http://www.webopedia.com/term/deathmatch.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathmatch_(gaming)

I am not trying to hammer you bud, I just stating an opinion on the term deathmatch so chill.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#17
Come on people...



We ere discussing the possibility of a Mutator that would give the option of turning on/off "objectives" in a given map.

That, in essence, would allow a map to offer a "TEAM DEATHMATCH" game type.

I know why this was asked for. However, I'd like to add another reason...

How many times have we seen in the larger maps.. a player join as some type of infantry and then zip around the map capturing all the objectives... then BAMM! The map is over. The other players in the map were enjoying the map and the battles but the goof that was selfishly more interested in "his stats" ruined everyone's fun.

So yes, there is a definite need for a Mutator that turns on/off objectives. ;)
 
Upvote 0
#18
I think you could acheive the same thing more or less with a custom(ized) map where you would have one super large cap zone with a significanlty hindered cap time, something that would take minutes to cap with a full team in the zone. Make it large enough to allow the enemy manuever room on the flanks etc. You still focus the battle on an 'objective' but being very very slow to cap you keep it in question. This may actually force more teamwork because once your 'formation' caps you go over to defense.

Also, you could use the objective but set the required to win at '2' and not '1'. Or experiment with having it be more 'king of the hill'. Whichever team is in possession of that one objective wins at the end of the timer.

Just a couple random thoughts. I hate the idea of DM/TDM because of the general breakdown in teamwork that we see all over the place now. Maintaining at least some 'objective' and having that influence the outcome or focus the battle should still work. Either way, it will take time to experiment and find a method that achieves what you want.

AND, I don't think the base code will allow you to load a map without an objective, so a mutator would be required for sure. No idea how you make that work though. Finally, sounds like you would be talking about maps at least as big as BGJ if not larger to have the freedomo of movement with armor.
 
Upvote 0
#19
You just have the objective off the side with no possible way of reaching it in a map. Or you set the NumObjectiveswin in the ROLevelinfo to 0

This will achieve your Team Deathmacth if you have a timer and only a certain amount of tanks or troops that can respawn you in theory achieving a team deathmatch scenario.

So I guess the mutator would be for ROLevelinfo1 NumObjectives=0

I am sure its simple to do a mutator like that but not done mutators so not sure how to add it, perhaps put it in the Mutator section for someone to create.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu