DUST Search - New Game Mode: Patrol

ImpWolf wrote:

What we have in Dust are simulations of assaults. As the tech and player-base grows, I assume the scale of these assaults and maps will grow as well. However, they are only one part of the story in any given conflict.

I'm not going to try to give an actual number, but patrols are an integral to operations. Not only can they constitute land movement from one place to another at squad level, but patrols are also used for recon and even with the intention of initiating combat. This combat can be preliminary to a larger strike, and can either be used to gauge the strength of an enemy, or be used as a distraction. The point is patrols go on, and I have a feeling they constitute at least a plurality of engagements in conflict.

This idea was also made in response to all the vehicle hoopla in 1.7; so keep that in mind.

Essentially both sides have very small numbers. 6-10 would be appropriate. Neither side is in a defensive or offensive position, for the purpose of the conflict. There would be no defensive gun emplacements, or objectives to capture. What they have on their infantry fits is what they have to work with.

Oh, and no re-spawning. The patrol is too far away from a clone center to make it logistically feasible. Simply 6 v 6; small level attrition. Generally, there are no vehicles. Maybe there is a 'mounted patrol' variant, where they get two militia LAVs.

Okay, so now the berries are asking "this is ambush..minus tanks". Yup. Faster ambush, no vehicles. AR to your hearts content. Which does bring up a second point, in ambush...is one side actually ambushing the other? I guess it is easier to call it Ambush than Attrition mode or something.

I don't know how PC works yet, but I imagine that a patrol mode could be useful. Maybe patrol matches could be fought before the major skirmish (like 2 hours before). Patrols could count against clones for both sides, or maybe offer a slight on-map advantage for winning the most patrols.

Opinions?

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ImpWolf KnightLords 3	Posted - 2013.12.18 03:34:00 - [1] - Quote What we have in Dust are simulations of assaults. As the tech and player-base grows, I assume the scale of these assaults and maps will grow as well. However, they are only one part of the story in any given conflict. I'm not going to try to give an actual number, but patrols are an integral to operations. Not only can they constitute land movement from one place to another at squad level, but patrols are also used for recon and even with the intention of initiating combat. This combat can be preliminary to a larger strike, and can either be used to gauge the strength of an enemy, or be used as a distraction. The point is patrols go on, and I have a feeling they constitute at least a plurality of engagements in conflict. This idea was also made in response to all the vehicle hoopla in 1.7; so keep that in mind. Essentially both sides have very small numbers. 6-10 would be appropriate. Neither side is in a defensive or offensive position, for the purpose of the conflict. There would be no defensive gun emplacements, or objectives to capture. What they have on their infantry fits is what they have to work with. Oh, and no re-spawning. The patrol is too far away from a clone center to make it logistically feasible. Simply 6 v 6; small level attrition. Generally, there are no vehicles. Maybe there is a 'mounted patrol' variant, where they get two militia LAVs. Okay, so now the berries are asking "this is ambush..minus tanks". Yup. Faster ambush, no vehicles. AR to your hearts content. Which does bring up a second point, in ambush...is one side actually ambushing the other? I guess it is easier to call it Ambush than Attrition mode or something. I don't know how PC works yet, but I imagine that a patrol mode could be useful. Maybe patrol matches could be fought before the major skirmish (like 2 hours before). Patrols could count against clones for both sides, or maybe offer a slight on-map advantage for winning the most patrols. Opinions?
Ulysses Knapse Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 783	Posted - 2013.12.18 03:39:00 - [2] - Quote This would result in massive rage with how short TTK is. Die in a second, and you can't respawn? Also, no, I don't see much reason for CCP to spend resources on a game mode like this. It would be a waste. Better yet, why not just add total sandbox gameplay? That would allow something like this to occur without having to program it directly. What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage looks nicer.
ImpWolf KnightLords 3	Posted - 2013.12.18 03:41:00 - [3] - Quote I'd imagine making sandbox maps of entire worlds or theaters, while awesome, would require far more resources than this calls for. Though, it would be pretty awesome.
Ulysses Knapse Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 783	Posted - 2013.12.18 04:14:00 - [4] - Quote ImpWolf wrote: I'd imagine making sandbox maps of entire worlds or theaters, while awesome, would require far more resources than this calls for. While it's true that it would be more intensive, it would also be more worth the effort. What's the difference between an immobile Minmatar ship and a pile of garbage? The pile of garbage looks nicer.
ImpWolf KnightLords 4	Posted - 2013.12.18 04:57:00 - [5] - Quote I would agree 100%. In a sandbox battlefield (a good bit larger with larger spread between major objects), combat patrols and such would happen organically. They are a huge part of operations, whether via traditional methods or via asymmetric warfare.
PARKOUR PRACTIONER Redline Defense Force Seekers of the Unseen 83	Posted - 2013.12.18 05:07:00 - [6] - Quote ImpWolf wrote: What we have in Dust are simulations of assaults. As the tech and player-base grows, I assume the scale of these assaults and maps will grow as well. However, they are only one part of the story in any given conflict. I'm not going to try to give an actual number, but patrols are an integral to operations. Not only can they constitute land movement from one place to another at squad level, but patrols are also used for recon and even with the intention of initiating combat. This combat can be preliminary to a larger strike, and can either be used to gauge the strength of an enemy, or be used as a distraction. The point is patrols go on, and I have a feeling they constitute at least a plurality of engagements in conflict. This idea was also made in response to all the vehicle hoopla in 1.7; so keep that in mind. Essentially both sides have very small numbers. 6-10 would be appropriate. Neither side is in a defensive or offensive position, for the purpose of the conflict. There would be no defensive gun emplacements, or objectives to capture. What they have on their infantry fits is what they have to work with. Oh, and no re-spawning. The patrol is too far away from a clone center to make it logistically feasible. Simply 6 v 6; small level attrition. Generally, there are no vehicles. Maybe there is a 'mounted patrol' variant, where they get two militia LAVs. Okay, so now the berries are asking "this is ambush..minus tanks". Yup. Faster ambush, no vehicles. AR to your hearts content. Which does bring up a second point, in ambush...is one side actually ambushing the other? I guess it is easier to call it Ambush than Attrition mode or something. I don't know how PC works yet, but I imagine that a patrol mode could be useful. Maybe patrol matches could be fought before the major skirmish (like 2 hours before). Patrols could count against clones for both sides, or maybe offer a slight on-map advantage for winning the most patrols. Opinions? I agree. Since its recon Scouts/scout snipers I believe would be perfect for the role. No scanners. The point is to do recon WITHOUT the enemy KNOWING your doing recon. 'Don't talk to strangers, shoot them.' Snow LOCKOUT You'd just LOVE to think it was the wind. Dropship Extremist
ImpWolf KnightLords 6	Posted - 2013.12.18 05:14:00 - [7] - Quote I think the suits should still have scanners. But I'm willing to bet that without secondary assets on the field, it would achieve near the same affect as you desire.
PARKOUR PRACTIONER Redline Defense Force Seekers of the Unseen 83	Posted - 2013.12.18 05:15:00 - [8] - Quote I mean the actual active scanner you equip and 'scan' for enemies. 'Don't talk to strangers, shoot them.' Snow LOCKOUT You'd just LOVE to think it was the wind. Dropship Extremist
ImpWolf KnightLords 6	Posted - 2013.12.18 05:18:00 - [9] - Quote Aye. Maybe so. It would make the matches terribly short.
Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 435	Posted - 2013.12.18 05:32:00 - [10] - Quote i wouldnt like this much would take longer to load into the match then to die and be booted out.

Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 570	Posted - 2013.12.18 05:51:00 - [11] - Quote I like it minus the "no vehicles" thing. If you just want "assault without vehicles", then propose that as its own thing
ImpWolf KnightLords 6	Posted - 2013.12.18 05:52:00 - [12] - Quote Aye. It might seem that way, but if the map size was a bit larger (roughly the size of a current domination map), it might last a bit longer. Allow room for maneuver.
ImpWolf KnightLords 6	Posted - 2013.12.18 05:57:00 - [13] - Quote Well there could be a 'mounted patrol' variant. But Again, I stress one of the needs for this small patrol based map is that players want an infantry only map. The idea, in terms of game canon, is that the patrol is so far from the MCC, that the vehicle delivery wouldn't really be there in time, or that it might get shot down over such a long-air flight. The 'mounted patrol' variant assumes you have 2 militia LAVs, but after those bite the dust, that is it. I would say adding vehics to this format would probably make it a smaller version of the current ambush.
Stephen Seneca State Patriots EVE Alliance 20131217 21	Posted - 2013.12.18 06:05:00 - [14] - Quote Open world sandbox ftw. Getting from district to district, you would have these patrol type fights and you could respawn again just back in the district you came from. Maybe open up a couple planets in fw for this, certainly pc. Keep the instant battles. I just wish they were going the open world route. Would open up many more things to do and styles of battles. PvE, recon missions, building structures.. so many possibilities. Imo they need to make this game bigger and better than the current little fps that it is to get members. All these things would probably need to be done on a computer but.. I have no idea. For the State! Keep your stick on the ice and get the pucks in deep, eh. Rail Rifles. All. The. Way!


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page