• 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/

Questions about territory vs countdown...

Fedorov

Grizzled Veteran
Dec 8, 2005
5,720
2,770
Zetsu's post in "RO2 maps" thread made me think about this, and as I understood, all maps will have all game types available... so, my questions are...

Will the maps in territory mode be able to have several active objectives at the same time? Or will the layout be limited to be like the countdown mode (1 objective at a time) but with respawns?

For example, in "Danzig"... will you have both the east and west bridge available to capture at the same time?

If so, in countdown mode... Which one one them will be first objective to be fought for?

Won't it look weird to have a total team respawns in the same places for objectives that are so close together?
 
Really depends on what map size you are running. The smaller map sizes have less objectives/different objectives open, while on larger map sizes, more objectives are available and are open at once.

Good to know... but how will the layout of those maps change in countdown mode? or is it possible to have 2 objectives active in countdown too?
 
Upvote 0
Good to know... but how will the layout of those maps change in countdown mode? or is it possible to have 2 objectives active in countdown too?
I'm sure that it's possible, but I'm skeptical that we'll see it. Two objectives in a single life is pretty tough. From what John was saying in the videos, they wanted to create a fast and intense firefight with pressure on both sides. If you split that into two objectives though, what generally happens (very common in CS, CoD, TF2, etc) is that the defending team has to gamble on which point to defend as the attackers will almost always push a single point for maximum impact. That leads to one point almost always being a pushover, with the other being where the heavy fighting occurs. Having an objective that doesn't involve the intense combat that Countdown is trying to promote would seem to defeat the purpose and serve only to artificially pad out the length of each round (and the snooze factor for those killed early on).

More than likely is that it will be one objective in one round, then respawn for the other, as if they were sequential.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miro! and Hausfeld
Upvote 0
I'm sure that it's possible, but I'm skeptical that we'll see it. Two objectives in a single life is pretty tough. From what John was saying in the videos, they wanted to create a fast and intense firefight with pressure on both sides. If you split that into two objectives though, what generally happens (very common in CS, CoD, TF2, etc) is that the defending team has to gamble on which point to defend as the attackers will almost always push a single point for maximum impact. That leads to one point almost always being a pushover, with the other being where the heavy fighting occurs. Having an objective that doesn't involve the intense combat that Countdown is trying to promote would seem to defeat the purpose and serve only to artificially pad out the length of each round (and the snooze factor for those killed early on).

More than likely is that it will be one objective in one round, then respawn for the other, as if they were sequential.
Not only does it require the defending team to make a choice of what to defend, it also splits up the attacking team, which will always take more casualties than the defenders. If you had two objectives I could see the attacking team getting wiped out a good percentage of the time right from the get go.
 
Upvote 0
I'm sure that it's possible, but I'm skeptical that we'll see it. Two objectives in a single life is pretty tough. From what John was saying in the videos, they wanted to create a fast and intense firefight with pressure on both sides. If you split that into two objectives though, what generally happens (very common in CS, CoD, TF2, etc) is that the defending team has to gamble on which point to defend as the attackers will almost always push a single point for maximum impact. That leads to one point almost always being a pushover, with the other being where the heavy fighting occurs. Having an objective that doesn't involve the intense combat that Countdown is trying to promote would seem to defeat the purpose and serve only to artificially pad out the length of each round (and the snooze factor for those killed early on).

More than likely is that it will be one objective in one round, then respawn for the other, as if they were sequential.

yes, but the question is: how will that play out in Danzig? would you have to attack the east bridge, then respawn and attack the west bridge?, I think it would look weird
 
Upvote 0
yes, but the question is: how will that play out in Danzig? would you have to attack the east bridge, then respawn and attack the west bridge?, I think it would look weird
I would think that instead the east and west bridges would be one big objective, in this particular situation.

Honestly I don't see how Danzig would make a good countdown map. It just seems waaay too small to me, unless they're making a much bigger fleshed out version for RO2 that has areas in it that didn't exist in RO1.
 
Upvote 0
I would think that instead the east and west bridges would be one big objective, in this particular situation.

Honestly I don't see how Danzig would make a good countdown map. It just seems waaay too small to me, unless they're making a much bigger fleshed out version for RO2 that has areas in it that didn't exist in RO1.

Danzig is gonna be there (the remake) and all maps are gonna be possible to play as countdown. And what you said is exactly my question... I mean, will the game mode, change the layout of the map objectives?
 
Upvote 0
Danzig is gonna be there (the remake) and all maps are gonna be possible to play as countdown. And what you said is exactly my question... I mean, will the game mode, change the layout of the map objectives?

I'm don't see why Countdown mode has to always be Attack-Defend. For anyone that plays Darkest Hour, recently the 29th server has been hosting something called "realism weekend", which is very similar to what we know about countdown mode for RO2 (except living players don't respawn after capturing an objective), where the objectives are as varied as the maps.

A countdown version of Danzig could work simply as a "one stage" attack/defend map, where the Soviets attack, and when they capture the city, the Germans must attack from the opposite end of the map. If the attacking team fails to capture the city within the time limit, perhaps they could be given successive attempts, each giving them an additional advantage. So if the Soviets can't capture the city on the first try, maybe the second try they will have an extended time limit. If they still can't capture the city, maybe on the third attempt they will be given a tank. Etc.
 
Upvote 0
but they do

This is really the biggest problem I have with what i know about how Countdown works.

I really, really dislike the idea of suddenly "warping" from your current position to a new spawn. What if you were able to get into a good firing position to support the attack on the next objective? When your team captures the current objective, you'll get warped back to the spawn. Why should your ability to plan ahead be punished? I'm also skeptical of the "force respawn" ability of the squad leader. Both of these features just seem incredibly gamey to me.

I'm worried it will really break up the feeling of continuity of the battle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miro!
Upvote 0
Perhaps TW considers it an equitable way to "clear out" straggling survivors, and set both teams back on an even basis.

If you've played Evil Hobo's Kreigstadt in RO you'll recall after taking the first set of apartments, straggling axis can hide in the apts and wreak havoc upon the new allied spawn. And conversely, later in the map, once the allies take an objective any straggling axis are killed after a few seconds. Always irks the axis.

There probably has to be some "standard" for the gametype in stock maps. Or perhaps the method used after capturing an objective will change once beta starts. Of course, I presume custom mappers can work things anyway they'd like to do.
 
Upvote 0
Perhaps TW considers it an equitable way to "clear out" straggling survivors, and set both teams back on an even basis.

If you've played Evil Hobo's Kreigstadt in RO you'll recall after taking the first set of apartments, straggling axis can hide in the apts and wreak havoc upon the new allied spawn...

Kriegstadt is an excellent example in both directions. The Axis have a very limited number of reinforcements, so after a certain point it sometimes makes sense for them to fall back and abandon objectives altogether to buy time and set up a strong defense at a certain point. If everyone respawned after every objective was taken, this would be impossible. Likewise, as I said, if an attacker is able to infiltrate and get ahead of the current objective, to set up in a good position overlooking the next objective, why have them dissapear and sent back to spawn?

If your concern is spawn protection and killing off stragglers who get far behind the attacker's spawn point, then there are much better solutions for that problem.

Respawn-on-capture in Countdown really only should be for DEAD players, living players should stay where they are.
 
Upvote 0