{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/23/2018 8:02:36 AM
5
How would you want a competitive campaign?
Rising Storm 2, Battlefield 1, and 40k skirmish games such as Necromunda and Kill Team. Each of these games be united in at least two ways: guns and having campaign modes where players fight one another for a wide series of battles.
Thing is, Battlefield 1 can often end up with one-sided situations in it’s Operations, Rising Storm 2 can last too long with the chance of a campaign lasting 11 whole (lengthy) battles, and 40k Skirmish games make losses really hurt and can screw your teams over if you suffer 2 defeats early on. As it can be fun to craft a war with friends and/or strangers, there are also flaws.
Say you were gonna try and design a competitive multiplayer campaign situation for a game. How you handle it? How much mission variety would you want? How many battles would you expect to be the normal size? What about progression for each side? What would happen to a team if they lost one of the campaign matches?
-
I wouldn’t. That system doesn’t support narrative which is what I look for in a campaign. A system where it may work though would be in line with Dynasty Warriors Empires. Different factions and a living map with static story milestones depending one who’s winning key territory and ultimately wins the map. Kind of like For Honor if each segment of land was a specific map that players had to fight for individually- or could vote as a faction which ones to attack. Defending would be automatic... A private set up may be better with a smaller population of dedicated players... full access to all players would dog pile the system and one faction would almost always win. It could be fun. But narrative-wise it would be weak. Could function as a supplement mode though.
