This game is in dire need of more game modes.
-
I love this game to bits, it's so great and addictive, but I got pretty bored with playing the 2 same games modes over and over again. I just completely quit after a moment. Some people I know really enjoyed the game, but they were also bored from the 2 same game modes. I really hope thta we'll get more modes in the future.
-
We need more old school game modes like capture the flag and maybe a moba style mode with items if they want to go crazy
-
No, it's in dire need of players so we can get more modes. People ditching the game just because of no ranked or lack of content is really detrimental. When you consider the devs are passionate and have been adding loads of stuff to the game and the massive potential for this game, it's clear that "lack of content" is not gonna be a problem as time goes on. What is a problem is that matchmaking can't function properly without more players. In my opinion it seems so spoilt and petty that some people refuse to play this game because of what's not there (yet) rather than play it because of what is.
I can understand that the 2 modes can feel repetitive but personally it's never gotten boring for me because I'm always trying to figure out how to win more efficiently which always changes because of different set ups or fighters and teammates. You can keep things interesting by embracing the challenge that's there.
For real though, new modes are a guarantee. Just gotta keep playing and keep the playerbase growing and health so the game can survive long enough to reach it's potential.
-
@mikemunch5216 Aw dude I loved the Gigantic skill upgrade trees! Not sure it has a place in BE since we have mods. We could use more mods that alter abilities in a similar way though
-
Can't get new players to stay if they buy a half baked game only to take negative feedback to their friends thusly losing other possible new players. You can love the game all day but it "needs" everything people are saying. Not everyone will love the game and all it's issues because they're a fan.
Most don't.
-
@b4nj4x7581 said in This game is in dire need of more game modes.:
No, it's in dire need of players so we can get more modes. People ditching the game just because of no ranked or lack of content is really detrimental. When you consider the devs are passionate and have been adding loads of stuff to the game and the massive potential for this game, it's clear that "lack of content" is not gonna be a problem as time goes on. What is a problem is that matchmaking can't function properly without more players. In my opinion it seems so spoilt and petty that some people refuse to play this game because of what's not there (yet) rather than play it because of what is.
I can understand that the 2 modes can feel repetitive but personally it's never gotten boring for me because I'm always trying to figure out how to win more efficiently which always changes because of different set ups or fighters and teammates. You can keep things interesting by embracing the challenge that's there.
For real though, new modes are a guarantee. Just gotta keep playing and keep the playerbase growing and health so the game can survive long enough to reach it's potential.
Just citing here: r6,lol,valorant,cs go,even OW, doens't have much modes(in fact,just one mode is played by the most of own comunity in each game)
it's so strange most of people levy modes for this game,but doesn't do the same with the others.
This game really need more content like big or tiny events and some features.
For me l already accept just this modes,but they need be a little more improved. -
I will try my best not to come across as a "know-it-all" or sound pretentious. Please bare with me because I think there is a clear reason why gametypes haven't expanded past the map modifiers and the two core gametypes.
NT is trying to be as efficient as possible by reusing assets. What are these assets? Maps. Every map has a similar layout with 3 objective points that players either capture or deposit power cells in. These objectives commonly go width wise across the map. There are power ups evenly distributed and the layout is nearly a mirror of either teams side. Maps have some sort of environmental threat that can damage and kill players.
This makes it easy for NT to come up with maps since all they have to do is repeat this formula with slight variations to give each map a unique feel. I think we can all agree they have accomplished this. Sky Garden is a bastard but thats a topic for another time.
The point I'm getting to is this. NT would have to develop gametypes that can utilize the three objective points and work within the layout of the rest of the map.
Let's say there was a payload gametype. The payload would spawn at one objective point and travel to another taking some sort of complicated route. Every map now needs to have a layout that can accommodate a slow moving entity traveling about the environment. Not impossible but depending on the routes that can work on each map. Some maps might be trouble with a gametype like this. What I mean is that on Sky Garden if the payload were to travel along the edge close to either teams spawn, the team with the close spawn gets a MASSIVE advantage. If the route is randomized but ends up giving one team the advantage repeatedly then the opposing team would be frustrated. Payload sounds cool but it might be more trouble than its worth.
How about capture the flag (CTF)? Easy enough to create. One point is the pick up, another is the drop off. A faster paced payload. Problem now is hero design. Unless the flag debuffs the holder, heroes like Cass, Daemon, Buttercup, and Makutu are going to dominate this gametype for the same reasons the dominate power cells. Speed, stealth, more speed, and invulnerability.
Maybe instead of CTF it could be a bomb gametype. This would force the carrier to channel to arm the bomb (similar to delivering power cells) and the enemy team would have to channel to disarm. This would still play into the previously mentioned for their strengths but it would at least slow them down with channeling.
New gametypes are possible and I expect there to be something new in the future but remember to account for the fact that EVERY gametype must work on EVERY map.
-
@thetruepilliger - I don't think that's pretentious at all. It's an important observation for anyone thinking about possible game-modes and got me thinking outside the box a little about what aspects of payload are actually important and how to replicate them on BE. I agree payload escort would be pretty difficult to replicate on BE, even though I love that particular mode in other games. I do think it might be possible, however, to replicate what I view as the core elements of payload - those core element being the first-past-the-post victory and the checkpoints that segment play into distinct phases, ensuring you don't waste time on a losing game.
This element of not wasting time on losing games, in my view, is the best thing about payload. For all the talk about issues with the matchmaking in BE (perfectly legitimate, so not meaning to undermine that here) I think a core aspect of the problem is just the wasted time. If you get paired with a bad team and you know early on that you're being crushed, you're forced to either take the leaver penalty or just waste time on a game that you know is already lost. (Yes, yes, comebacks happen, but that's not the point here.) On payload escort games, in contrast, because of the multiple checkpoints, if you lose it's over quickly. If the opposing team made two checkpoints, you instantly lose after you don't make the first one and you don't have to keep fighting it out. If you made half a checkpoint, the opposing team instantly wins as soon as they make it past your distance marker and you again don't have to play through a drawn-out loss. You take the loss, and you get to reshuffle right away into the next game, try again against a different opponent, and there's no angsty questioning about whether to quit.
Here's a completely unpolished (emphasis on that, completely unpolished) idea for how to replicate that time aspect with the maps that already exist in BE as a variant of objective control:
- Only one objective is active at a time, starting w the once closest to Team A's base and ending w the one closest to Team B's base (if proximity is applicable on the map, like in aqueducts, otherwise they're all equidistant so doesn't matter).
- Team A's goal is to capture each objective, and Team B's goal is to prevent Team A from capturing.
- Slow down the objective capture drastically. Instead of standing on the objective and taking control as long as someone else isn't on it, and then starting up the point-counter, make it take 2 minutes (or whatever) to control an objective. If you're standing on it, you start to gain control. If the enemy is on it, they wind back any control gains you made.
- You have X amount of time to capture each objective. If you succeed, you move on to the next one. If you fail, you switch sides and become the defense.
- After Team A gives it there best go, switch sides and Team B does the same. Whoever captures the most objectives wins. If equal numbers, comparisons go to partial capture percentages (equivalent to distance measure on payload). If still equal, go to overtime and reduce the timer, etc.
You get the idea. Again, I'm completely making this up so haven't put thought into how it would interact with character dynamics on BE and there may be some flaws. Maybe instead of a slow point capture it's that you have to destroy three successive boxes w a certain number of hit-points, one box on each objective, and Team B has to defend them, w win comparisons coming down to who did the most damage in time allotted if the objects aren't fully destroyed. The overall point is that what's great about payload is the first-past-the-post aspect and the segmentation, which makes it feel like fighting hard is always worth it.
I'm definitely a fan of some of the new map modifiers BE added in with the latest patch, which makes it clear they're thinking about this kind of stuff. So hopefully that bodes well for more options down the road.
-
@Matolius Looking at this idea and thinking it over i have realized that there are more aspects each gametype has already that NT might want to keep consistent in future game modes. Time. Most of my games are 10 mins long, close games go longer by a few minutes, and stomps can be as short as 5. There is also little time wasted inbetween objectives.
Going off of those, payload might have to be structured around a fast paced concept (assuming NT is trying to keep match length consistent between the modes). In that regard I imagine there would not be a "switching sides" aspect, at least not in quick play. If ranked ever becomes a thing it could come up there but that is an entirely different design.
The different "phases" could have teams switching between being offense and defense without having to go through a new "spawn selection" period. If you have acknowledged this then I missed it, apologies. There is also the possibility of a neutral payload that teams are trying to push in different directions simultaneously. In either case the match would end once a score is reached. That score being determined by how long it takes to push a payload.
Point being. NT has set themselves up with foundations for game modes/maps that might be nice to have but could make future designs difficult. It's possible they completely rewrite the play book in order to make different game modes viable. In which case or speculation and theorizing will be wasted, lol.
It is fun, though.
-
So I know this is super old now, but I just had a total light-bulb moment. Ninja Theory DOES have maps already that could be used for a short, intense game of payload escort: the small linear maps in the tutorials!!
