Overload- game modes

What is the chances that the Overload map can have a take and hold as the game mode.
is a big map so three obj would work good.

Comments

  • .dcG-Colts^.dcG-Colts^ Posts: 1,973Player
    if you can come up with 3 locations without altering the map that are balanced for both sides Id be game I just don't see how you can atm thinking fast about it.
    Pie charts + Graphs= Very Bad.



  • -Hades-Hades Posts: 28Player
    Overload - best map since Pipeline!
  • .shhfiftyfive-.shhfiftyfive- Posts: 495Player
    yeah. i'd be more interested in a pipeline type win condition rather than a take and hold scenario on this map.

    even though i do love me some mout and sandstorm... the take and hold thus far in aapg has been pathetic. and i can tell you exactly why... it is not due to long round timers and far too few lanes. actually it is like this: a mode like that requires a fog system like bridge, mout, sandstorm, etc imo to work well. no way around it. no denying it. if mout and sandstorm had no limited visibility those maps would have been pure junk too.


  • .dcG-Colts^.dcG-Colts^ Posts: 1,973Player
    edited October 2015
    yeah. i'd be more interested in a pipeline type win condition rather than a take and hold scenario on this map.

    even though i do love me some mout and sandstorm... the take and hold thus far in aapg has been pathetic. and i can tell you exactly why... it is not due to long round timers and far too few lanes. actually it is like this: a mode like that requires a fog system like bridge, mout, sandstorm, etc imo to work well. no way around it. no denying it. if mout and sandstorm had no limited visibility those maps would have been pure junk too.

    Just to add to your post in Mout and Sandstorm the objective would reset to untaken status as soon as a player touched it. This is a big problem with take and hold at the moment on harbour assault you could be in a 1v1 situation and both taking the last objective but who ever started first wins the round it should not be like that.

    It should either be as soon as the other team starts taking the objective it goes to back to neutral status like no one has taken it yet until said player finishes taking the objective it than becomes taken for his team.

    Another option is at halfway through taking the objective it switches to neutral status and then back to taken for that team when they finish taking the objective.

    This is something that has really left a bad taste in my mouth since AAPG introduced take and hold, I hope it changes. Especially since take and hold harbour assault or potentially a new take and hold map would always be the overtime map for a Competitive Match.

    You also compare this game mode to other games and even other games of this series and none of them do it like AAPG because it is not truly fair. Domination on call of duty for example the team takes B then the other team starts taking B if the team taking B gets more than half way but doesn't finish it becomes neutral untaken. If the team taken B gets killed before they are half way through the B obj it stays as it was previous either untaken or taken by opposing team.

    There a tons more of examples in games that do a sort of take and hold this way and the other way. My favorite would be as soon as I start taking the objective it goes back to neutral. But either way is way way more fair than what we have currently in take and hold.
    Pie charts + Graphs= Very Bad.



  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,161Player
    edited October 2015
    I can't remember, but I don't believe sandstorm was like MOUT where it would flip back to neutral. Also, MOUT had extremely quick objectives anyway. I believe it was 3 or 4 seconds max. I do remember walking up to the objective and quickly tapping it back to neutral and clearing the area before taking it, but a mapper can make the objective take as quickly as they want, so it's not awful if you have a 3 second objective and you can't untag it.
    yeah. i'd be more interested in a pipeline type win condition rather than a take and hold scenario on this map.

    even though i do love me some mout and sandstorm... the take and hold thus far in aapg has been pathetic. and i can tell you exactly why... it is not due to long round timers and far too few lanes. actually it is like this: a mode like that requires a fog system like bridge, mout, sandstorm, etc imo to work well. no way around it. no denying it. if mout and sandstorm had no limited visibility those maps would have been pure junk too.
    I don't know that it's fog. The issue with fog is that it can somewhat easily be exploited. IDK how UE3 is, but we all remember in AA2 the turning to see less fog on the side of the screen, people messing with their resolution and settings to get less fog, things of that nature. If you can make a map that doesn't need fog, it's better, IMO.

    With MOUT and Sandstorm, the maps would have been terrible without fog because of the extremely long sight lines. If you put something in the way to block the long sight lines then fog isn't as needed. With MOUT it would be much easier to accomplish that. Sandstorm would have been completely impossible to do.

    Personally, I'd like to see maps like Cold Front or Slums with some fog. That'd be interesting to see how it'd play.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Sign In or Register to comment.