About objectives

Some things to fix about objectives.
-A lot of times people think they are on the objective when they
are literally ON the objective, meaning they are upstairs, objective is
actually just downstairs.
So a lot new players think they are blocking
capture when they are not. I dont think this should be a thing, if theres a two
level building as an objectve both floors should be the objective.

-Then sometimes there are spots that are not "objective" but you can still
block on them
, so only an experienced player has any idea where to check for blockers.
-The objective icon on the map is often larger than the objective itself, giving the impression that people are on it when they are not.

Nwi, pls fix.

last edited by Viheraho
This post is deleted!

Hello @Viheraho
I wasn't aware of this at all, thank you for pointing it out. I will send this feedback to our team 🙂
Have a great one!

I agree. At least in co-op rounds often fail because the last defender steps out of the zone resulting in instant capture by the enemy. It even happens to experienced players because the capture zones are unreasonable. It's usually stairs that are the culprit on a variety of maps.

I believe farmhouse has that problem on two objectives:

  • The last one for security where players step out onto the outside stairs to cover them, unfortunately even the part of the stairs that's on the same level as the same floor of the objective is not within the cap zone.

  • The last one for insurgents where only half of the interior stairs, the ones with the roof above them are within the cap zone and when people take one wrong step to cover them they leave the cap zone often resulting in a disappointing defeat.

In case of hideout the first security objective in co-op across the tall bridge has that problem with two sets of stairs where the ammo box opens after it's taken.

@pakislav 0_1557350721142_Insurgency Sandstorm 2019.05.04 - 17.11.19.01 PKM Farmhouse 67 to 1 lost because of 1,5 cm off the point.mp4.JPG

source: 2019.05.04-17.11.19.01-pkm-farmhouse-67-to-1-lost-because-1,5-cm-off-the-point.mp4

Needless to say, this "DEFEAT!" was also beyond any logic or reason. I crouched 1 or 2 centimeters off over an unseen border.

It would be nice if this inane farce would be fixed at long last. If you can't grant us the upper floor, fine, I won't ask any questions, why (... I'm still a bit curious though). But at least give us the whole staircase then - fair is fair.

There are other places where we're still stumbling upon unseen borders making us temporarily unable to fire our weapons or causing similar mishaps, but this is the most egregious example I could recall from recent memory.

last edited by kanneltaja72

So let me share my (opposite to topic starter) point of view.

First of all it's hard to make everyone's happy.

So a lot new players think they are blocking capture when they are not.

As for me this is VERY wrong assumption. New players do not understand how to play at all.

Then, excuse me, but what is those "thinking I am at the objective" and "steps out of the zone resulting in instant capture by the enemy"?
This is exactly the gameplay logic: the game shows you precisely when you are at the objective or not, so there is no such thing as guessing; also it does show you when you block the objective (and not owning it anymore, which means that enemies worked better on it than your team, but you still have your last chance to hold it til help comes) so if you leave it you will lose it immediately.

if theres a two level building as an objective both floors should be the objective

I am personally voting for more realism at the end, but anyways, lets say devs will satisfy your wish but then map will became non-playable it terms of balance, what you will ask then?
I did notice that some objectives seems to have no sense like some ruins on the 2nd floor with the huge hole in the floor (seem useless place in any aspect), instead of some office room where enemy probably would have their business in real life. But do I really care? Am I really questioning it, being a soldier on operation, like, why its second floor we going to claim only, or what are exact objective borders? 🙂
My answer would be: its just intuitively enough that you just seek to the center of the objective (which by the way is just a marker on the map, so its your own problem how you manage to navigate to/in it).
But mostly objectives seems alright to me, even when you can block the objective(room) standing after wall, making fighting on objective not instant. Instead, one team taking the point have to perform proper cleaning-up by finding all the enemies around before they can claim the territory (settle).

I am not saying there are no issues, but let's not break what making this game so special (including its hardcore-ness).

last edited by tomatniy

@kanneltaja72 OK, I am not sure if current borders are fair or not, but think of them as a balance where you moving one centimeter away from it making your position significantly weaker against the opponents that filled objective (or significantly stronger, which makes it not fair), meaning logical lose for you like a 'checkmate'. I mean, there has to be a border and there is no realism in it anyways.
To be more specific with your example, why you think your proposal is fair? Making borders as you said would make Insurgents a good spot at staircase to hide there and still having view on both floors/entries having your back covered (view of your screen-shoot showing this).

P.S. I am not trying to say you are wrong, but to make you to rethink and probably make you happy.

@tomatniy I expect no more logic or reason in this game anymore then I'd expect from a circus louse. For example the game granted me 0 (= zero) experience points after a Winning round, 17:51 minutes of playtime, 65:0 K/D mostly with a salvaged weapon (PKM), which I can prove to anyone with 4K footage.

No.

I play this game because of the sound design and team coop, nothing more. This makes me happy. It would be high time though, if the developers just stopped claiming bold nonsense like "our hardcore game honors skilled players", because nothing could be farther from the truth.

last edited by kanneltaja72

@kanneltaja72 said in About objectives:

I play this game because of the sound design and team coop, nothing more. This makes me happy. It would be high time though, if the developers just stopped claiming bold nonsense like "our hardcore game honors skilled players", because nothing could be farther from the truth.

Isn't one of the marks of a skilled player knowing where the objectives are?

last edited by skillet

@skillet said in About objectives:

@kanneltaja72 said in About objectives:

I play this game because of the sound design and team coop, nothing more. This makes me happy. It would be high time though, if the developers just stopped claiming bold nonsense like "our hardcore game honors skilled players", because nothing could be farther from the truth.

Isn't one of the marks of a skilled player knowing where the objectives are?

My main issue is that less-skilled, new players don’t seems to grasp the concept of an ‘objective’.
I mentioned this before, but if they could have an intro announcer like in Source, that may help a little bit.

@skillet your self-indulgent comment didn't add any measurable insight to this conversation. Have you bought this game to indulge in trigonometry and hone your surveyor skills or have fun? Perhaps you're Walter Sobchak himself and claiming I was over the line and should mark a zero? Go troll somewhere else.

last edited by kanneltaja72

@kanneltaja72 Every time guys like the OP--and presumably you given your degree of saltiness--lose a match they demand that the devs redesign the game to accommodate their weaknesses.

Knowing the objective boundaries is not difficult. A skilled player knows where the objective is, whether it's upstairs or downstairs or both, whether or not you're on it if you step onto the tiles over there, and whether or not an enemy can cap from the other side of that wall.

It's called a hardcore shooter, which should tell the prospective player to expect it to be difficult. There are things that make Sandstorm difficult, but knowing whether or not you're on point is not one of them. The game says if you're on point and what the point's status is really big up top. The bottom objective icon flashes when an attacker is on point in case you aren't sure whether or not they are capping. If that's not enough to clue you in, you're most likely in the wrong game.

last edited by skillet

@skillet Excuse me, but don't start patronizing others. I played already more than 550 hours in this game, for what it's worth. I find your innuendos rather tenuous and far-fetched. If you have anything constructive to say other than vague accusation and impertinent remarks about missing skills to be able to grab basic concepts of this game, then spare it to yourself. Other than amusing, they add nothing worth to solve issues this thread is about.

This issue is only one of many more which need to be polished in this game, to retain its player base.

Based on your assumptions, you think it's up to skills to dodge artillery strikes killing teammates on the ground floor of a two-storey building, or it's up to skills not to die by a magic DSHK round fired 100 meters away as the first round, while you're prone inside a ruin, covered by trees and bush, but I think not. According to your arguments, I presume you totally misunderstood the whole concept of hardcore shooters. It is one thing to be "hardcore" and reward forward-thinking, tactics, skills, strong reflexes, and a completely opposite approach to terminate players calculated by a random generator or rob the team their much deserved prize based on a whim.

The basic concept of developers is the same as stepping out of the objective by 1,5 cm: punishing players for things they didn't commit. This kind of developer's approach is unfair to say the least, and must definitely go.

I don't think I must be the only one, who'd sense a strong conflict between calling it perfectly normal to "camp" on enemy players on said staircase, but then calling "fault, you lost the game" if you move 1 inch away, while the enemy is still in perfect line of sight. This kind of judgement is unsound, as there is no difference between the two stances at all, the person can still hold the enemy under perfect control. But if there's no difference, how can it be judged differently in terms of game result?

Sorry, but you won't ever convince me of your point, however hard you try.

last edited by kanneltaja72

Well, maybe one solution to part of this could be to show the player a warning that they have stepped outside the objective's boundary, and to return before a countdown timer of (e.g.) 3 seconds expires. If the timer expires, then you have officially stepped outside the objective and if you were the last one out, you have lost it.

Also: The restricted areas are now marked on the map, so now how about also adding some colour shading to depict the objective area?

last edited by Congas

@congas said in About objectives:

show the player a warning that they have stepped outside the objective's boundary, and to return before a countdown timer of (e.g.) 3 seconds expires

This is a good compromise, I would wholeheartedly agreed upon. A lot better then the current lassez-fair approach and leave the game in a beta state in this regard.

last edited by kanneltaja72