Changing DTAS flag for something else

[Kitty.cat]

But why I reply myself, nobody seems to be interested.

I listen to you. I like reading your realism rants. They make my rants seem more trivial.


Also. I don't like EAS because I think a lot of the maps are annoyingly repetitive. Capture the damn CD again. What's this? A new CD. The Reactor Map blew me away because it was actually GOOD EAS! And WenthamWorkout! Crazy! I think we just need to start building BETTER EAS maps than we have. Pull away from the same old crap over and over again. You've seen Warcraft 3 mappers pull some amazing ****, lets see INF mappers do the same.

 

[Psychomorph]

Not sure why you want a new mutator for something we already have. It is one of the game types released by SS called...

...wait for it...

EAS. Yes the game type you want is already there.

Absolutly not. I suggest nothing more than what DTAS is now. The mesh is still spawned randomly. The time you stay around the flag in current DTAS would be the time you need to plant the bomb.
Only the fact that you can stay behind a wall near the flag and take the score, is not given, but they can be surely done something for balance.

EAS is a whole lot different.

Overrun/Dominating makes sence when you have larger battlefield areas, but in DTAS they are just few cubicmeters in nowhere. For few cubicmeters in nowhere a small military gadged as objective would be more realistic (kind of).

 

[hara]

As I suggested, the attackers don't know the point and spread out in teams. Once one team have contact they report to mates and all teams take an assaulting formation with all what they got.

I had that in my mind some months ago, mentioned it to Harper but somehow it got lost. And would like to support the idea. This might stress teamwork and realism, just as mapknowledge. I'm not sure though if it is possible to show the flagposition to all attackers once it is in line of sight. This is espacially weird when the flag is spawned INSIDE close to a wall and is seen OUTSIDE the building. Is the flag visible to attackers or not? Therefore another object than a flag might be a nice thing (but I do not care abut this that much).
To avoid trouble in big and closed spaces and in CQB, once the attackers are in range this information is given to them, no matter if they see the object or not.
But: the defending team must in a sense cooperate with the gamemode then. Seek&destroy-missions from defenders side would change the gamemode too much to TDM.
So the task might be: communications, mapknowledge on both sides. Building up good defensive lines on defenders, coordinated attacks on attackers side. Sounds pretty good to me.

edit: Showing the distance to the objective but not the direction might be a funny thing...

 

[Vega-don]

i like the idea of not showing where the flag is in the compass.
people would act as squad and then coordinate the recon, then set up the attack.
someone code this now.

 

[Midwinter]

In the early days of DTAS, the flag location was not supported yet by the compass mutators and the attackers had to roam around the map looking for the flag.

 

[zeep]

Iirc Harper added a serverside option to not show the flag in the hud.

 

[Crowze]

Imagine what defenders would do if they knew the enemy team was spread out. They'd all attack and pick the attackers off. The compass marker is a good balance offset for the defenders being aware that they are under attack in the first place.

 

[Nukeproof]

From readme:

DTAS ini settings
=================

integer values:
PlaceFlagTime: time the flag-placer has to choose a location for spawning the flag (counting from round start in seconds)
CapTime: time the attackers have to stay within capture range to win the round
MaxCapTime: maximal time a capture may take
AttackerTimeDecrease: number of seconds each attacker more than AttackersNeeded will decrease CapTime
DefenderTimeIncrease: number of seconds each defender more than DefendersNeeded will increase CapTime
MinPlayersPerTeam: minimum number of players on each side before DTAS kicks in
AttackersNeeded: minimum number of attackers needed for a successful capture
DefendersNeeded: minimum number of defenders within the CapRadius to prevent a capture

boolean values:
bShowFlare: toggles the creation of a red flare near the flag
[b]bShowFlag: toggles the display of the actual flag[/b]
bDebugMode: enables extensive logging
bShowFlagIcons: displays flag icons next to players in scoreboard
bShowInRange: displays "In Range" in HUD if a player is close to the objective
bShowCapture: displays "Capturing" in HUD if player is REALLY capturing
bStrongDefense: enables the hardcore DTAS defense (as long as DefendersNeeded requirement is met no one can capture)
bShowKills: displays kills in scoreboard
[b]bListFlag: toggles UT Compass range display for the flag (note: this will only work with UT compass)[/b]
bUseDTASScoreboard: use the new improved DTAS scoreboard
bUseDTASHud: use the new improved DTAS HUD
bUseMapTimes: use the custom map time instead of InfilWeapons.RoundTime
bFoxMode: replaces the TDM part of DTAS with a Foxhunt gamemode
bLastChance: gives the last attacker the possibility to win if he and his former teammate were in range of the objective
bRoundSwitch: toggles whether to switch immediatly between gamemodes or only at end of rounds

float values:
FoxTimeFactor: multiplicator used to reduce round time during fox games
CapRadius: planar radius of the capture cylinder
CapHeight: height of the capture cylinder

Not sure I understand everything correctly but it sounds like it's not exactly what is requested here - also several ini setting are only adjustable offline and hardcoded for online usage.

 

[(SDS)benmcl]

Absolutly not. I suggest nothing more than what DTAS is now. The mesh is still spawned randomly. The time you stay around the flag in current DTAS would be the time you need to plant the bomb.

Which all can be done under EAS. It is a very flexable system just not used to full potentional.

 

[Psychomorph]

Imagine what defenders would do if they knew the enemy team was spread out. They'd all attack and pick the attackers off.

Or miss them and lost the objective.
I know balance must be, but I would like to have it more natural.

Hey, what about when the attackers spawn, a big message on the screen says 'Target Objective At South'.
Everybody is heading toward the South, but have naturally and visually to search for the location. They won't be able to rush to hard, since they could run into the defenders line.
The attackers would be able to form two teams and flank the objective.
When one team have visual contact, they report to the team and the team knows the position, because you can see the name and direction of the reporting mate in the radar.

Or at the start as an attacker you have the mark on the HUD, but it disappears after few seconds letting you just know the direction.

Which all can be done under EAS. It is a very flexable system just not used to full potentional.

Why nobody does?

 

[Harper [Jgkdo]]

Not sure I understand everything correctly but it sounds like it's not exactly what is requested here

True, the first option turns the 3d visibility of the flag on/off, and the second options toggles whether an exact metrical value about the flag distance will be shown when using UT compass (which is more accurat than the standard lower left distance display).
And about hardcoded settings, those that are fixed for online play are MinPlayersPerTeam(>=3), AttackersNeeded(2-MPpT), DefendersNeeded(1-MPpT), CapTime(5-15), PlaceFlagTime(<=15), bRoundSwitch(false, if MPpT=3), bStrongDefense(true), CapRadius(650), CapHeight(960)

I was once thinking of combining aspects of 'Spec' and 'DTAS'. The Spec could be the only one to secure the area or he'd need to escape and the rest of the team would be his escort.

-------------------------------------

A kind of search & rescue mission could work like this:

You have 4 different independent random "spawns":

1) Spec (alone)
2) Spec-escort (seperated rest of the team)
3) Spec-hunters (=entire opposing team)
4) Escape spot (displayed by a flag)

You have no idea how utterly familiar this sounds to me, I even started coding it about half a year ago, though I stopped shortly after.
I didn't continue for two reasons:
1) IMO Inf don't lack gamemodes but players to play them, so I think we should keep the ratio of players:gamemodes at least 2:1
2) I feared that the gameplay with this gametype had too much of an head-on encounter since both teams could win their primary objective (the one not involving mowing down the opposing team) by playing offensive.

it would be cool if the objective mesh changed from time to time to more 'realistic' elements.

Beside the technical problem mentioned by ant of finding a suitable object based on the surrounding the idea is not bad (I once even thought about an XMAS DTAS version with a small christmas tree instead of the flag )
If you want to pursue this idea keep in mind the following points:
1) DTAS is about capturing an area, so for example no pseudo pickup goal like a CD or laptop
2) the mesh must have a small cylinder so it can't be seen through walls (worst case scenario: seeing half a jeep stuck into a kittchen)
3) the meshes should be part of the standard Infiltration release or the DS Mappack. Custom meshes included in DTAS might easily give it the size of a weapon pack.

As I suggested, the attackers don't know the point and spread out in teams. Once one team have contact they report to mates and all teams take an assaulting formation with all what they got.

I vaguely remember Harakiri saying something about this, I think my argument was that it's not very realistic for the attackers to not know the location of the *stationary* target they are attacking.
Anyway, it might by good or bad for gameplay. Either the attacker start forming small teams and scour the map for the objective or they all run off blindly and are picked off one by one by the defenders.

 

[(SDS)benmcl]

Why nobody does?

Ask the mappers. I suspect it is because it is a hell of a pile of work.

There is one point though I should have brought up earlier that actually concedes to what you want. It is the reuse of old maps something that can't be done with what I suggested. Well actually yes but the work load would be unbelievable.

I guess my point is that I would like more dynamic maps built on EAS, something I can't really demand from the community since I myself can't map worth a ****. (I have tried and they all suck.) I just wanted to point out that pretty well everything suggested here can be done except for the conversion of older maps.

 

[Psychomorph]

@Harper:
Of course the attackers know what they have to attack and where it is. Since you have no land-map to check they have to be another solution.
But I would like to have it more natural, not like you have a landwarrior system and the exact position of the objective is displayed in your HUD centimeter precise.

You should know where it is, but not pin point accurate, but more like you know the area where it is, but still have to search it visually (not knowing where the objective is and searching for it could be another game mode).

Another idea of this would be, that the closer you get to the objective, the more transparent the mark in the HUD gets, untill it disappears.
Having a mark while at distance represents the direction (which is good), but beeing near the objective and knowing the direction pinpoint is not so good.

But I would prefer it that when you start a message in the HUD says you 'Objective at South, 160' like in EAS and F3 would let you always check it again, so you know where it is, but not pinpoint and you have to orintate yourself with the compass.
That's just more realistic to me.


@ benmcl:
Ok, understand, hope someone wil make it .

----

Generally I find the flag is an ok solution, but what about really a military gadged? I mean just repalace it by a small tent (reversed V shape, only 1,5 meters wide), inside this tent is an important communication system (just a receiver and a dish).
It would be still the dominating game mode like the current DTAS, you have to stand near it to capture (capturing is like you get the frequenzes of the receiver and report it immediatly to the HQ).
Capturing this tent will give you a message 'Enemy communication frequencies captured', or something like this.


And IF you make it a bomb sabotaging thing, because of balance issues you don't have to plant the bomb exactly at the tent(objective), but like in current DTAS be inside the objective area, even behind a wall and still could set the bomb, the blast would destroy the wall and still destroy the objective, so it would be much harder for the defenders to defend.
The attacker would know when they are near the objective and could instantly palnt the bomb.
And no, they would be no bomb disarm.



Capturing a communication hardware (which means getting the enemy intelligence channel frequences or what ever) sounds more beliveable to me than just capturing a pointless area with a flag.

And beeing able to plant a bomb near the area to sabotage and blowing it through a wall is something most games not have and would be balance toward the attackers (imagine the faces of the defenders that have the objective covered in-sight and it goes off in a huge blast just a second later ).

 

[Kitty.cat]

I really like psycho's disappearing HUD mark thing. That's actually a really cool idea.

Regarding sabatoge, I was thinking... what about signal jamming? What if the attackers had a time limit to position themselves at a radio to jam a signal, say a remotely operated STS missile or something.
The only things I'd change about DTAS to make it work would be: only need one person to jam. Get rid of the "occupation" countdown, and make it all timer based. Like, 5 minutes until launch, make sure one of your men is at that station jamming it when the 5 minutes has been reached. Naturally, if all Defenders were eliminated the round would end. It'd also force the D to keep it in tight, because if the defenders who stayed behind got taken out, the ones that went out to attack would have to run back and make sure noone was there at that 5 minute mark. Regarding occupation, I'd just tighten in the area you needed to be within since you really only need one man. Everyone else can just kind of spread out and give him all area fire support.

The idea just kind of came to me reading you guys. What do you think?

 

[Nukeproof]

You have no idea how utterly familiar this sounds to me, I even started coding it about half a year ago, though I stopped shortly after.
I didn't continue for two reasons:
1) IMO Inf don't lack gamemodes but players to play them, so I think we should keep the ratio of players:gamemodes at least 2:1
2) I feared that the gameplay with this gametype had too much of an head-on encounter since both teams could win their primary objective (the one not involving mowing down the opposing team) by playing offensive.

didn't know you where about to code it

But you are sadly right - another gamemode is not what's gonna really help INF. And you can never know how it plays alone from imagination - could be nice tactical movement as well as sole rushing...

 

[Psychomorph]

...another gamemode is not what's gonna really help INF.

But it could help the current players, like me... you... some others few.



Thx Kitty for support .

I just want to say that even if you keep DTAS as it is, I would rather prefer having reasonable objects to dominate, capture, destroy than capturing few pointless cubicmeters with a pointless flag.

A realism game lives from visual realism and realistic concept, the pointless flag, as something that 'just works', breaks this concept.
Keep DTAS as it is if you want, but make it visually more beliveable, even if it wont change the whole thing. The more imrovement the better.

 

[zeep]

Our quests to change gamemodes really only is old Inf not growing up with us. Sentry better do something to hl2 fast. Or better for the moment someone do a modern warfare sim like inf / ofp on ut2k4. But even then i doubt many people will play it.

I'm gonna see how insurgencymod is doing now that i think of it.