Mordhau

Where is the Team Objective mode? Frontline is boring.

Duke 17 40
  • 17 Mar '19
 Doshling

@Prince Oberyn Martell said:
Damn man, just make FL like different versions of Alterac Valley from vanilla WoW. That shit was the coolest. It had objectives that both teams could fight over, but also had progression in different ways for each side.

Alterac Valley was exactly how I imagined my ideal FL. Any inspiration FL took from it would be a step in the right direction.

Knight 697 1611
  • 17 Mar '19
 das

Tim_Fragmagnet more or less captured what I envisioned. Frontline shows me a lot of promise, but Camp really doesn't do anything interesting for it.

I expected a sort of Dota-esque progression, where it's an overall race to killing the ancient, and the teams sort of take natural turns playing offense and defense but with the added nuance of split pushers, trading, ninja pushing, and the extent to how astonishingly or barely you won a teamfight affecting how strong you can punish their towers accordingly. The progression is permanent, i.e. you push the enemy back to their tier 3 lines. They finally flip the momentum and start pushing you guys back, working on your tier 1 and then tier 2 towers. You clutch the defense and now it's "your turn" to attack again. You begin working directly at their tier 3 towers because you've already done that work. The nuance is that sneaky pushers and ninjas can still do backdoor work on your tier 2 towers if their tier 3 defense proves to be too much, and vise versa.

Keep current Frontline 3 capture points as dynamic spawn points, passive ticket control, and the means to reach the ultimate game-ending checkmate objective.

Certain objectives would provide unique map control benefits (a very beneficial spawn point that can be permanently lost, a stable that spawns only armored horses for you and heals any horse you bring in, a place that spawns a map-unique battering ram, a host of trebuchets under your command that shoot at the enemy's side in a TELEGRAPHED manner from your side instead of it being completely random as it is now) and/or simply host huge numbers of tickets in dynamic ways (e.g. Stoneshill peasants and tents to ravage, slaves to free who will ADD to your tickets as they enlist into your company, killing tower scout/signalers who will fail to signal the beacon).

We have a look at player -> press K to mute mechanic. How about a look at player -> invite to squad mechanic to easily foster squad playing with strangers? You can also choose specific players through tab to quickly form groups with friends as usual. VOIP only functioning with squads, so that players don't have to deal with people like me who would blast rap music in Chivalry and then start votekicks on innocent players while typing in pub chat "kick him he's spamming obnoxious music" because it didn't show who was actually talking. Squad HUD diamonds appearing just like friendslist diamonds in Chivalry.

Camp functions even on a 12v12, whereas a really involved map like the one I envision might not function as well until it has 48+ players. I know the devs have tossed around the idea of dynamic end-of-match map votes depending on the number of players remaining. I think that'd be nice for BR too; Grad functions for 16 players decently, but 64 seems a bit much for that.

80 201
  • 17 Mar '19
 Seseau

The more I think about it, the more I suspect the core issue is map design. Chivalry's best map had layouts and phases we all remember. I'd say the reason Stonehills was by far the best-liked map was because it divided the storming of a castle very well: take the village, breach the gate, invade the castle. Similarly, we all remember hustling along that tree bridge, under ballista and archer fire and with enemy on the other side of the river in that other map I can't remember.

The map used in the test feels more like Battlegrounds, which was imo one of the weaker TO maps but still fun.

My favourite moments of Chivalry were during phase 2 of Stonehills, where you had ballistas on the ramparts and you had to either bring down the enemy pushing the cart or, as Mason, endure all that fire and arrows and death to break that gate. It was one of the few moments where I would say a game made me feel like a warrior on a battlefield.

I always sucked at Chiv, but always had fun in those moments. This is what Frontlines is lacking: choke points, locations that matter and objectives which have an actual impact on the game's course.

Though it pains me to say it, I think the current iteration fails completely to improve on Chivalry's TO and may even be a step back. Which is a shame, considering everything else in Mordhau improves upon Chiv, but in my opinion this really was the one thing that had to be nailed just as it was in Chiv.

Conscript 11 56
  • 17 Mar '19
 flashcoms497

I didn't play FL all that much (at most an hour) and I've been playing Mordhau fairly regularly before this Beta Test, and I have to say, having come from Chivalry, and being disappointed with the lack of Teamplay in modes such as DM and TDM (which is to be expected, they were never particularly teamplay-oriented), I couldn't find myself getting into FL, despite essentially waiting the entire time since starting (got about 160 hrs) for a Teamplay-Oriented Mode. Maybe I needed to give it more time, but I'll be honest, it was just CTF up until the end of the flags where you had to burn(?) the camp. There's nothing really to focus the team in a particular area other than a flag, which just sucks the fun out of the game.

It may sound stupid, but making the FL so "gamey"? - Arcadey - making FL so Arcadey in probably the only mode I intended to play for the duration of Mordhau's Lifespan was severely disappointing. I liked the story and setting of Chivs TO, its the only mode I ended up playing for my time on Chiv consistently because of its focus on a themed Objective rather than the flat monotony of DM and TDM. Incidentally it was because of TO that I eventually branched out into trying out TDM and DM and found that I could actually tolerate them as gamemodes. But without TO to fall back on, I would have never played Chivalry more than a few hours before putting it back down and doing something else. If Mordhau can't pull through with themed Objective-Oriented Gameplay like Chiv with TO, idk whether I'll end up playing it all that much. I hope I'm wrong, maybe I just needed more time with the mode, but I'm not optimistic given FLs current setup.

My criticism of the game in the previous paragraph is the most important part of this post, so I'd hope that is read first rather than what I'm about to say. But I think the devs deserve praise in that they are implementing story elements which for me is quite important - but I think you can go much further than just giving names to both teams - again just like TO, add in announcers setting the stage for the battle why you're fighting e.g "This Stalemate the Free Company have been enjoying is at an end, its time to show the rest of the army how Professionals handle themselves - push these whoresons back to the teet of their castle walls - we'll start by burning their defences at the river!". If this and other such flavour was added to the game, along with the introduction of themed objective-oriented gameplay (e.g Push the Bomb Cart to the Stables so the Free Company cannot house Cavalry in their camp anymore) I would be all over Mordhau all day every day.

Duke 89 89
  • 1
  • 17 Mar '19
 Elko

capturing points is fine but the map structure seems too chaotic. Was hoping for crusade like gameplay:

1 2
  • 28 May '19
 jk31

I don't know, but I don't really like Frontline. 64 people who do not care at all about each other rush into each other to kill themselves. Nobody is doing any objectives and nobody needs to do, as doing these objectives most of the time is completely irrelevant to winning or losing the match.
In team objectives you had to work as a team and do the objectives to proceed. Or as the defending team you had to do your very best to stand your ground.

88 187
  • 28 May '19
 Dekkers

Completely agree with the critique being put forward here. I really like this game. It's good looking, it has fairly good combat (better than that of most melee combat games that got released in the past 5 years or so), it has great customization, but while those things were done well, the maps and gamemodes really fell behind.

The lack of a proper objective based gamemode, or just siege, really makes all other gamemodes feel like the same shit in a different toilet.

Hopefully the devs recognise this, because I would really hate to see people quit fairly quickly because the maps and gamemodes aren't able to support what is otherwise a great game.

Duke 553 939
  • 28 May '19
 Goatie

Yeah the maps are mostly meh with serious issues that I'm not sure how were overlooked. The mode needs more work. Right now it just makes me angry because the potential is there for it to be a great mode but it misses the mark in multiple places. Better map design that accounts for all these crazy features like horses, firepots, and movable catapults would do wonders to make it flow better.

111 97
  • 29 May '19
 BOBOLOJOE

there are a lot of maps and mechanics taken from chivalry, please continue this by copying their team objective mode.
TO mode in chivalry is easily one of the best fun modes in any video game.
doesn't need to be 64 players. just a few different objectives that make you do different things that make like a small story as you progress through the map to the final objective

just needs to have that fun feel of oh yeah I like this part of this map!
pushing wagons, using rams, killing peasants, burning villages, opening gates, becoming the king etc are all fun additions to gameplay.

i know frontline has some tents to burn and those NPC gaurds in grad to kill but yeah... add more of that stuff please. just copy/paste some chivalry stuff

or remove the "lock" on the other objectives of the maps, so you can sneak with a small group past one objective and open another.
Funneling all 64 ppl into one area is hectic and crazy but it becomes a real shit fest and is all about running in fully armored swinging your weapon randomly trying to get a sneaky kill and hitting all your team mates in the back.

it's not a bad mode, just needs polish.
at the moment i prefer TDM.
in chivalry it was TO or nothing :D

1326 2012

@BOBOLOJOE said:
Funneling all 64 ppl into one area is hectic and crazy but it becomes a real shit fest and is all about running in fully armored swinging your weapon randomly trying to get a sneaky kill and hitting all your team mates in the back.

This.

It really is about going in fully armored with a two hander. Or trading off armor to get a big pokey stick or for being an archer. No point in forgoing armor and playing what is basically an MAA if you're not spamming firepots/throwing axes in FL.

Finding a way to open up the maps/objectives more, perhaps locking less would give rats something meaningful to do. There really is nothing for 1h rats besides getting kills if they're insanely good and don't bother with the points/objectives. They can't push objectives like they could in Chivalry.

Count 131 220
  • 29 May '19
 Pariah

R e l e a s e t h e S D K

All these ideas are rad, and I feel like if people had access to start putting together their own maps we'd have a bigger sample set of what works and what doesn't work for Mordhau.

64 35

This whole post of what Tim is trying to say expressed my concerns in general about the Mordhau Frontline mode. I'm already getting bored there's no real INCENTIVE to complete the objective. You can win the game alone by killing, which takes weight of the objectives, making it a boring slug fest. The maps in general are not fleshed out and feel unfinished. I have faith that the developers can make an overhaul on this gamemode.

Knight 936 952
  • 29 May '19
 afiNity

Frontline can be fun but in Chivalry the objectives were not only more exciting, I also liked that the levels were more linear and not as open as in Mordhau.
It gave it almost some kind of mission/campaign kind of feel. I would also prefer if one team would always defend and the other one always attack.
In Mordhau the objectives feel more trivial and much less engaging, almost like they were slapped on an already existing mode that was solely based on capturing points. In theory you don't even have to play the objectives (to a certain degree) to win the game.

777 1031
  • 29 May '19
 smellycathawk

@afiNity said:
Frontline can be fun but in Chivalry the objectives were not only more exciting, I also liked that the levels were more linear and not as open as in Mordhau.
It gave it almost some kind of mission/campaign kind of feel. I would also prefer if one team would always defend and the other one always attack.
In Mordhau the objectives feel more trivial and much less engaging, almost like they were slapped on an already existing mode that was solely based on capturing points. In theory you don't even have to play the objectives (to a certain degree) to win the game.

Yeah the map design in Chiv allowed for fewer players to still feel like a massive battle.

Having 64 players adds nothing that 32 players doesn't have aside from poorer average performance, longer spawn times, and longer runs back to the objective.

I guess sometimes 64 players creates an interesting spectacle

Knight 5342 7260
  • 1
  • 29 May '19
 Humble Staff

@MrGhostTheFlyingFlail said:
https://mordhau.com/forum/topic/17102/new-gamemodes-in-the-work-koth-push/#c1

Your team objective coming soon

push_cart.png

push_mountainpeak_cart_path.png

push_mountainpeak_hud.png

This may be just me talking with my nostalgia googles on but i want the final objective for that map to be entering into that castle and letting shit break loose in there.

6 1
  • 29 May '19
 Mikhos

I would appreciate some more objective frontline stuff - holding 3 points and not pushing is the most effective choice for winning, but it ain't fun.

6 1
  • 29 May '19
 Mikhos

Also, a map like the ones in Unreal Tournament where there were nodes that weren't in a straight line or had mutliple paths would be great for a bigger server.

48 16
  • 1
  • 30 May '19
 xperimentxp

In Frontline, sometimes your teamate is your worse ennemy. And it's not because of him. It's because of leveldesign which open space for misunderstanding.
I've got a good exemple with the catapult at the "Camp". Some Blue wants to destroy the catapult, other blue wants to keep it.
First one thinking of the huge advantage reds can gain with using the catapult, second one thinking the immediate advantage only. Both are right, but the first is strategic, whereas the second one is tactic. Those two mindsets aren't the same.
At this time frontline maps aren't good for teamplay. It's not rare to see fights between team mates because of its sandbox and bad balanced maps aspects, causing misunderstanding. That's a big issue when you're in a frontline mode, which turns into death match because of its bad level design. A teamplay should be the team interest instead the simple sum of the individual's interests.

Duke 553 939
  • 30 May '19
 Goatie

Yeah I never saw 7v1s off to the side in TO. but in this it's the norm.