Jump to content
Stom

Sets of maps linked by a "campaign"

Recommended Posts

Instead of maps being developed as isolated battles why not develop them in campaign sets with each map in a set featuring a different kind of combat (Urban, forest, armour). these maps develop off of each other logically in the frame of an overall campaign.

 

I'm not suggesting a storyline linking these campaign sets, there doesn't need to be and multiple faction combinations should fight in the same campaign set so there's more variety in the game.

 

For example, currently we have Fool's Road, but what if it was the middle section of the Fool's Campaign. The theme of this campaign would be the progression of the Militia faction versus whatever conventional faction(s) they're fighting.

 

The first map in this set would be Fool's Hope. This map is set in an Eastern European city which is the Militia's home ground. Neither faction has heavy armour so instead it is all about dense urban fighting and only light vehicle support. Narratively this is the starting point with the conventional force attacking the relatively weak Militia in their own home.

 

The second map is Fool's Road, which we've got so we know what it's like. In the campaign's narrative however this map would be the Militia branching out and fighting the conventional force outside of their city so they're no longer being purely defensive.

 

The third map in this theoretical campaign is Fool's Gambit. This one is set around a large airfield in Eastern Europe that is occupied by the conventional force that the Militia is attacking. Both forces are employing heavy vehicles with the Militia having the advantage in vehicle quantity but the conventional force having quality.

 

 

Thinking about maps in this way would be beneficial for development for multiple reasons:

 

A ) Maps in a campaign set use the same assets as each other, so there's more bang for OWI's buck.

 

B ) Campaigns suggest a progression that map designers can follow making it easier to create interesting maps using the same assets.

 

C ) It helps player understand factions by putting them in very different contexts, allowing players to learn and master the different aspects that make factions effective. 

 

D ) It lays the groundwork for a campaign mode, if that ever comes around.

 

 

Thanks for reading, this was a thought I had on a walk and it was burning away in my skull for a few days so I thought I better write it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice idea but you can't always choose the map you're playing on. For example last game you played Fool's but that server is now running Logar etc

 

Map rotations are an easy thing to implement for servers, and if the players don't want to follow a campaign set then they can vote to change map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Map rotations are an easy thing to implement for servers, and if the players don't want to follow a campaign set then they can vote to change map.

Point taken, that being said a squad 'backstory' would be pretty sick. Like why the militia is fighting the Russian army when they are almost the same in terms of weaponry, country of origins, and presence of Russian military veterans in the militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken, that being said a squad 'backstory' would be pretty sick. Like why the militia is fighting the Russian army when they are almost the same in terms of weaponry, country of origins, and presence of Russian military veterans in the militia.

 

I'm not really pro-backstory, what I want out of this is a narrative that can be followed by many combinations of actors.

 

Like the Fool's Campaign could be played by USA, Russia or UK (when they eventually make it) or a combination of them like USA acting in the first and last map and UK acting in the middle. The only constant is the Militia in this scenario because the campaign is about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really pro-backstory, what I want out of this is a narrative that can be followed by many combinations of actors.

Like the Fool's Campaign could be played by USA, Russia or UK (when they eventually make it) or a combination of them like USA acting in the first and last map and UK acting in the middle. The only constant is the Militia in this scenario because the campaign is about them.

But then you would need to mention why the militia are fighting these guys in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a nice idea but the problem, in my opinion, is finding the time to fight an entire campaign. So far matches in Squad are relatively short, but if the more this game progresses the more it'll become like PR and the longer matches will take. I don't know about you, but two or three matches is usually my limit when I play Project Reality because matches can take an hour or two if you've got two well coordinated teams fighting tooth and nail. I don't speak for everyone, but I've got quite a bit of free time to play games and even I don't think I would be able to sit down for an entire three part campaign on your average day, and I dislike hopping into missions in the middle of a campaign.  In my personal opinion, one of the things that keeps me going when I'm playing PR is the fact that there's so much variety. I can go from fighting as a Chechen insurgent in the middle of Grozny to a soldier of the Netherlands fighting in the countryside in the middle of the night to a member of the French military searching for weapons caches in a sprawling city in the Middle East. The variety of the game is what keeps me going, and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same.

 

I want to support the idea, but I just can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how this would benefit the game in any way. Since you don't expect the campaigns to have a storyline, you are basically proposing for us to play several maps in a set order for no better reason than "It's a campaign".

 

A ) Maps using the same assets (I suppose meaning similar setting and look?) playing one after the other don't work for me, I like a bit of diversity. If I play for 4 hours I don't want to be stuck in the Eastern Europe the entire time. If players get to vote for the next map, what would be the purpose of campaigns? Also, developing maps that logically continue the progress from previous ones might be actually more difficult because you would constantly have to look at the old map and find a way to connect it to the new one.

 

B ) What progression are we talking about here? Different maps / objective locations depending on how the previous battle ended? Seeing as there probably will be different layouts in different map anyway, it's the same.

 

C ) No. How does a campaign help players understand a faction better? Why do we need to understand factions? The factions are simply representations of different modern armies battling it out - there, factions explained :D Players learn to play as a certain faction simply from experience, I don't see how playing a campaign would help any more than simply joining a server without campaign.

 

D ) See A)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a nice idea but the problem, in my opinion, is finding the time to fight an entire campaign.

 

I want to support the idea, but I just can't.

 

They don't necessarily need to be played sequentially by the server or an individual player, the main reason I suggested this is because it could make development of the game easier. If community servers want to have an event when they play a campaign in order every once and a while that's cool but I don't expect every server to do that every day.

 

 

But then you would need to mention why the militia are fighting these guys in the first place

 

Not really, just need to know that they are fighting. You could have an explanation on the loading screen but it can just be very vague like "The US Army is trying to drive the Militia out of their home City", then for another map "The Militia are going on the offensive against a Russian airbase.".

 

 

I don't see how this would benefit the game in any way. Since you don't expect the campaigns to have a storyline, you are basically proposing for us to play several maps in a set order for no better reason than "It's a campaign".

 

A ) Maps using the same assets (I suppose meaning similar setting and look?) playing one after the other don't work for me, I like a bit of diversity. If I play for 4 hours I don't want to be stuck in the Eastern Europe the entire time. Also, developing maps that logically continue the progress from previous ones might be actually more difficult because you would constantly have to look at the old map and find a way to connect it to the new map.

 

B ) What progression are we talking about here? Different maps / objective locations depending on how the previous battle ended? Seeing as there probably will be different layouts in different map anyway, it's the same.

 

C ) No. How does a campaign help players understand a faction better? Why do we need to understand factions? The factions are simply representations of different modern armies battling it out - there, factions explained :D Players learn to play as a certain faction simply from experience, I don't see how playing a campaign would help any more than simply joining a server without campaign.

 

D ) See A)

 

Again I am not suggesting they all need to be played sequentially in a single session all the time. This is mainly to help development and pave the way for campaign modes, which would only be once in a while events.

 

Also:

 

B ) Is about the actual designing of the maps, not about the players.

 

C ) Because each map in a campaign would be a different style of fighting, like urban combat or fighting in plains with vehicle support, then if a player does go through a campaign set they have played the faction in a variety of styles which helps their understanding of the way the faction is meant to be played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you want, but I think once additional elements are added to the game I think matches will become more "epic".

 

I don't see any value in adding campaigns. What's the reward for a team winning a campaign? How is it any more rewarding than winning a match? 

 

This idea would be fun for a group of friends, but could be done entirely via server settings, no need to have it as a feature, most people play pub.

 

For the idea to ever work you would have to enforce long term team locking, which would just lead to empty servers for lopsided games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a stream a while back where someone asked a similar question, their answear was that their concept for Squad was that you play that one round and you are done. To be honest right now it would make sence, but when the game becomes what its ment to be, and the matches last 2 hours , its just not going to be the same, the amount someone has to be invested in the game would just be too big, and on top of that, people would just get edgy as all fuck when they would see someone wasting ticked, its all about casual tactical fun, not a full on watch every bullet you fire and every step you take kind of game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised nobody mentioned Red Orchestra 2 yet.

They implemented a campaign system that included taking territory with manpower being a sort of resource to gamble. Take a territory and you can vote to attack or defend for the next match and if you're attacking you vote on what map you attack on. It's a neat system but the maps don't feel connected at all since they're all so different.

If this kind of system was adopted as a different game mode you wouldn't have to worry about super long maps because you'd still have people dropping in and out after each match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To reiterate I'm not suggesting a campaign mode, I'm suggesting a map design structure that I think would be beneficial to development and for players.

 

I don't see any negative to designing maps in linked sets because either way multiple maps are going to be created using the same assets and this structure means that when these maps are being designed they can be more easily compared to each other in the context of a campaign progression.

 

Also, I do enjoy campaign modes but like most of you I've never actually sat through an entire one in a single sitting, that's why it's the last point on the list of benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×