Jump to content
Dunabar

Suggestions to enhance Breakthrough - Large changes.

Recommended Posts

Hey Folks

So I did small change suggestions last time, changes that I don't think would require any real considerable length of development time to achieve, and now I move on to the stuff that I'm very confident will require a good chunk of time to accomplish if it was going to be tackled. Do I expect any of this to be added? No, of course not. I merely make the suggestions and let the Developers do with it as they see fit. If they take it to the drawing board to make it happen, cool. If they take it to the trash can, fine. I just make suggestions and let the winds take over once I hit that Submit button for the most part. So, with that out of the way, lets get started with the big suggestions to enhance Breakthrough.

---

Suggestion #1 - Allow Defenders to build Defenses in Objective Areas.

I know there has been talk about doing this on Warzone to make the Defense role a little more enjoyable, so it's not like this is anything extremely out of the ball park of thinking. In regards to Breakthrough though, this could make being on the defense a little more enjoyable as it can allow Defenders to explore some different means of protecting the Objective. Now depending on how nuts the Developers go with this, it could force the Attackers to change up their strategy depending upon how the Defenders build up their defenses in the area. This of course brings up the question of how far do you allow the Defenders to go with building stuff, what do you allow them to build, how do you keep them from spamming stuff to grind the attackers down with cheap annoyances, and etc? Well, using a little suspension of disbelief, here are some suggestions I have...

  1. Predetermined build locations - While I'm sure many would prefer the ability to place defenses anywhere they want, I suspect it could lead to a lot of issues, so I recommend doing predetermined locations to avoid any possible headaches. Though by making predetermined locations over free form, the Developers will need to ensure that the Defenders will have plenty of options for defending the objective points a little differently depending on their needs in each game of Breakthrough.
  2. Defenses cost Battle Points to Construct - While primarily to prevent Defenders from spamming up defenses around an objective, it also forces the Defenders to strongly consider if defenses or one of their Strikes is far more important to the team at a particular moment. Maybe the enemy team is running a lot of Vehicles, so instead of the player calling in their Battle Bot, they instead choose to build up some Tank Traps along the main road to help stall the attacking Vehicles, and in turn give one of their allies an easy Bombing Run target.

As for what kind of Defenses the Defenders should be able to build...I think Sandbag Walls, Tank Traps, Machine Gun Nests, TOW Launcher Nests, and Barbed-wire barricades should be plenty. I could come up with a lot more than just that, but I rather keep this simple for the time being. If the Developers are actually interested in allowing the Defenders on Breakthrough to build defenses, then I will go into a much larger list of suggestions in regards to this particular topic.

---

Suggestion #2 - Varied Objective Types.

Now I suspect People are going to assume I'm trying to "destroy the concept of Breakthrough" with this. But, the one thing I had mentioned before in regards to WW3 getting a Rush Style game mode, was that I didn't want to see a mere copy & paste. Currently the Objective types are a mere copy & paste, which is fine for where Breakthrough is currently. But, not for something later down the road in my opinion when the game is to be released. The more Breakthrough looks like a mere copy & paste of Battlefield's Rush, the more People are going to give the Developers & the Game flak for it. So, while I do not expect this by any stretch of the imagination to happen over night, I do think WW3's Breakthrough game mode would benefit long term from having a variety of objective types beyond just "Destroy the Radio Station." These objectives do not need to change the outcome for either the Attackers or Defenders, but should at the very least feel different from what we have done before even if it's only a small change. Some Objective suggestions I have are-

  1. Target Destruction
    • What we currently have. (This part is more for suggested naming for the Objective Type)
  2. Secure & Extract
    • The Attackers seek to capture a designated region on the map where a High Value Target is located. Once the area is captured from the Defenders, a Helicopter will fly in to secure the Objective Target.
    • Defenders seek to keep the Attackers from securing the designated area.
    • Area Capture time: 40 Seconds unless a Defender is in the Capture Area. If a Defender is inside the capture area, the timer is paused.
  3. Intelligence Gathering
    • The Attackers seek to capture intelligence from a designated area using a Device.
    • Defenders seek to keep the Attackers from planting their Device. If planted, the Defenders can shut off the Device or Destroy it with their weapons.
    • Intel capture time: 40 Seconds.
  4. Disarmament
    • The Attackers seek to reach a target objective and from there must protect one of their own teammates while they try to disarm the objective.
    • Defenders seek to keep the Attackers from disarming the target and can prevent them from doing so by simply killing them.
    • Disarm time: 40 Seconds.

Now if these seem bland on the surface it's intentional for the next coming suggestion. But, by adding multiple Objective types, it keeps the game from feeling repetitive too quickly, and helps WW3's Breakthrough mode stand out more from Battlefield's Rush game mode. The Objectives types don't even need to be exact same across all the maps (to my knowledge). Warsaw's Alpha Objectives could be say...Secure & Extract and Disarmament, then Moscow's Alpha Objectives could be Intelligence Gathering & Target Destruction. Smolensk's Alpha Objectives could be two Target Destruction objectives, and etc etc...This can help each Breakthrough map feel uniquely different from each other beyond just the layout of the maps. It doesn't even need to be what I suggested above, it could even be hybrid stuff like Disarm & Extract, Intelligence Destruction, or some other combination, or something entirely different. But, with different Objective types there should also be a variety of Objective Targets which will be my segue into Suggestion #3...

---

Suggestion #3 - Varied Objective Targets.

One of my big issues with Breakthrough right now (even though I know why the Devs went in this direction for the time being) is the lack of interesting Objective Targets. In Battlefield we've destroyed M-Com stations after M-Com stations, after M-Com stations, and after the 10,000th M-Com station has been destroyed you begin to wonder; should we target the factory that is producing these M-Com stations instead? With WW3's Radio Stations it currently feels like we're just destroying the next 10,000 M-Com stations that some random factory cranked out. Rather than destroying M-Com station after M-Com station like Battlefield does, WW3 should let us destroy Radio Stations, the Factory that produces those Radio Stations, everything in between, and everything beyond those. The more interesting and varied targets the Attackers have to deal with, the longer it takes for the repetitive feeling to kick in, and most importantly the more WW3's Breakthrough differs itself from Battlefield's Rush. If this happens one can just imagine the conversation between a WW3 player & Battlefield Player over their respective versions of Rush/Breakthrough.

Battlefield Player: We destroyed a M-Com station...then another M-Com station...and another, then another, then five more after that...

WW3 player: Oh...Well, we disarmed a Anti-Air System, then we stole some Prototype Tank blueprints, then we destroyed a fuel depo, extracted an Experimental UGV, and we wrapped it up by disarming a tactical nuke that was put in place in the event that our forces captured the city from the enemy. But hey, at least you destroyed 9 M-Com stations...

And with that, this brings me to suggestion #4.

---

Suggestion #4 - Light Story Narrative.

Now when I say Light Story Narrative, I don't mean stories along the lines of a Call of Duty, Spec Ops: The Line, Homefront, or anything like that. I'm talking small Story Narratives that explain why our Team is currently doing what it is doing, why it's in the region, why it needs to take a certain path, complete certain objectives, etc etc...Some examples can be things like...

  • "We're unable to get Close-Air Support into this area because of a Anti-Air System. We need you to remove the threat!"
  • "If we're going to force the West to the Negotiating table, we need to capture Berlin from them. Lets make it happen team!"
  • "The Officer Club keeps a Record of all Officers that visit it. Get us the Records and we can begin weakening the Chain of Command!"
  • "Western Reinforcements are going to push us back if we don't destroy the northern bridge. Ensure they cannot cross that bridge, Team!"

And you get the idea. This isn't anything of massive importance and really Breakthrough could do just fine without it. But, I do think it would enhance the WW3 experience if it went in. Speaking of enhancing the experience though..., I will now cover my last large scale suggestion.

---

Suggestion #5 - Map layouts determined by Faction Control.

As my last suggestion for this post, I wanted to cover something I felt wouldn't take long to explain, even though I suspect it would take a long time to implement, or just not really be worth doing. But, I wanted to bring it up all the same. I think it would be cool if the Breakthrough maps and their Objective Types & Objective Targets were determined by who controls the region on the war map. So, lets say for example... The East controls Warsaw...Rather than the East attacking from the top of the map and heading down, the West is instead attacking from the bottom of the map and heading up. This gives off the feeling of the ever changing battlefield and factually would go a long way in both keeping the gameplay feeling fresh as well as (once again) making WW3's breakthrough stand out when compared to Battlefield's rush.

---

With that this brings my post to an end. I'm sure I will get some flak for this post. But, I just make the suggestion, what the Developers do with them is entirely up to them. All I really want in the end is for WW3's Breakthrough to NOT be a copy/paste of Battlefield's Rush and if these suggestions or some others can achieve that. Then I'm as happy as I can be. I did have a 6th suggestion in mind. But, I felt it might throw off the game balance generally speaking, so I figured it better to keep it off the list even if I still think it could possibly be a cool addition to the game mode a bit. I of course cannot confirm that without actually testing it, so I'm just speculating at best. Anyways, once Breakthrough goes through it's update on the PTE, I will get to posting my Breakthrough Map rework suggestions. Till then...

Have a good one folks and remember; I just make the suggestions. What the Developers do with them is up to them.

Breakthrough Suggestion posts

  • Suggestions to enhance Breakthrough - Small changes
  • Polyarny Breakthrough Map Rework Suggestion -> Still to come.
  • Berlin Breakthrough Map Rework Suggestion -> Still to come.
  • Smolensk Breakthrough Map Rework Suggestion -> Still to come.
  • Moscow Breakthrough Map Rework Suggestion -> Still to come.
  • Warsaw Breakthrough Map Rework Suggestion -> Still to come.

 

Edited by Dunabar
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this idea, I agree that it could get boring to players and that even if they have similar mechanics having different objective types would be a good differentiator considering most people see WW3 as "knockoff battlefield".

My ideas based on the objective types you put forward:

  • Target destruction is clearly a good one for Smolensk because the map is covered with radio systems. It also works great for more insulated areas, but looks really silly when you see a radio station sitting out in the open
  • Secure and Extract fits a couple of objectives really well, like the Berlin subway area. Having to control the area around where either station is would be more challenging than just planting a bomb and camping in one of 3 corners for each, and requiring only one defender to stop capping means that attackers will have to proactively look for defenders.
  • Intelligence gathering is a really cool one, but it has to have different functionality to just a regular radio station.
  • Disarmament I like. One really obvious use for this is the SS-20 missile systems on Smolensk, perhaps requiring the attackers to disable those via a command console.

On the whole I really like this suggestion. Because BRE is a much more linear game mode than WZ it's natural that it could become more repetitive, and having some differences with things like capture areas would mean that player strategy would have to change more than just "shotgun because I'm in a bunker".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defenders building defenses:

Could be cool. It would be nice to be able to have 50 cal MGs and other heavier weapons for defenses. The way to do this could be to pull out the vehicle repair tool, considering this is already built into the game, and allow players to right click to cycle through the available choices. Small things like sandbags are also good ideas because it would allow for people to use their own LMGs for ambush positions.

The BP cost is also a good idea because it means that attackers should also have access to more powerful abilities by the time the defence starts rolling out heavier defences.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think #2 #3 #4 all complement each other and would definitely help the breakthrough. One game I see do #4 do really well is battlefront 2 and I think it helps the game a lot. 

#1 is pretty important too but hard to balance Ulsan be cool though.

and #5 is also cool but it isn’t needed as you said it might not even be worth doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MOBBOB said:

I think #2 #3 #4 all complement each other and would definitely help the breakthrough. One game I see do #4 do really well is battlefront 2 and I think it helps the game a lot.

Entirely intentional at that. I was going to make it one massive suggestion. But, I felt it might get a bit heavy on the reading front and might be hard to really ID what I was getting at. So, I broke it up into three separate suggestions.

4 hours ago, MOBBOB said:

#1 is pretty important too but hard to balance Ulsan be cool though.

I was actually tempted not to post that as I thought it would be hard to balance also. But, if the Developers are willing to consider it for Warzone, then I think considering it for Breakthrough would be fair game. So, I went ahead and said; not my choice to make anyways, so why not get the idea up there at the very least for possible discussion?

4 hours ago, MOBBOB said:

and #5 is also cool but it isn’t needed as you said it might not even be worth doing.

Yeah it's not really needed. But oh man would it help my immersion to see it happen alongside the War map meta lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 7:53 PM, nubbits said:

I love this idea, I agree that it could get boring to players and that even if they have similar mechanics having different objective types would be a good differentiator considering most people see WW3 as "knockoff battlefield".

Indeed and variety is the spice of life as they say.

On 11/8/2019 at 7:53 PM, nubbits said:
  • Target destruction is clearly a good one for Smolensk because the map is covered with radio systems. It also works great for more insulated areas, but looks really silly when you see a radio station sitting out in the open
  • Secure and Extract fits a couple of objectives really well, like the Berlin subway area. Having to control the area around where either station is would be more challenging than just planting a bomb and camping in one of 3 corners for each, and requiring only one defender to stop capping means that attackers will have to proactively look for defenders.
  • Intelligence gathering is a really cool one, but it has to have different functionality to just a regular radio station.
  • Disarmament I like. One really obvious use for this is the SS-20 missile systems on Smolensk, perhaps requiring the attackers to disable those via a command console.

When I get around to posting map rework suggestions, all of these are going to have some sort of place in the reworks I suggest. I'm just waiting for Breakthrough to get it's newest update before I get too far ahead as I might find something I like/dislike in the update and want to keep it/get rid of it when it's time to make the rework suggestions.

On 11/8/2019 at 7:53 PM, nubbits said:

On the whole I really like this suggestion. Because BRE is a much more linear game mode than WZ it's natural that it could become more repetitive, and having some differences with things like capture areas would mean that player strategy would have to change more than just "shotgun because I'm in a bunker".

Exactly and that is one of the things I really want to see happen so much with Breakthrough. Get away from the one trick pony of Rush and get into that WW3 flare that demands Players to find a different approach, even if it's only a little change here & there. It would be more change than Battlefield has done in a long time lol. Last big change to Battlefield rush that I experienced with smaller game mode and calling in Artillery Strikes with the "totally not a M-Com station" station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2019 at 8:08 PM, nubbits said:

Defenders building defenses:

Could be cool. It would be nice to be able to have 50 cal MGs and other heavier weapons for defenses. The way to do this could be to pull out the vehicle repair tool, considering this is already built into the game, and allow players to right click to cycle through the available choices. Small things like sandbags are also good ideas because it would allow for people to use their own LMGs for ambush positions.

The BP cost is also a good idea because it means that attackers should also have access to more powerful abilities by the time the defence starts rolling out heavier defences.

So many possibilities and I did at one point actually start making a big detailed list that covered upgrade paths from the Weapon's nest that went from a 5.56 LMG all the way up to a TOW launcher, various sandbag walls, different Tank Traps, and etc. But, I felt it was making the post waaay too wordy,and would eventually start detracting from the other suggestions within. If a dedicated post was made over Defenders getting Defenses, then I would make a massive post of suggestions ranging from types, costs, and etc etc. The whole works if you will lol.

But, for right now this is at least getting the discussion of consideration out there.

The Attacker aspect has been the one that has got me hung up at the moment. Kind of want to see what the new Breakthrough update brings before I get too nuts with stuff lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...