4v4+ or 40v40

[JustinCarter 11]

For years, I’ve always wondered why the developers never took one of the already pre-existing mission maps and added in a 40v40 TDM/Conquest/War mode.
 

I think we’d see more faction unity in a kind of all out war between enforcers and crims. Take financial, slap a control point or two in the middle of the map and make enforcers and criminals dog it out to hold it down. Maybe even add in capture-able bases. Could even declare a winner based on which faction won the most each week with rewards going to the winning faction.

 

I understand that we have Baylan and Asylum, but those maps have always felt claustrophobic to me and seemed to specifically cater to certain weapon range types. I think an all out war district would breathe some new life into APB. 

What’s y’all’s opinions? Is the general population more for the traditional small 4v4 with additional backup match ups or would ya’ll like to see a “Battlefield” esc kind of faction war on the streets of San Paro?

 

[vsb 6165]

anarchy/chaos districts were in a perfect spot for orbit to put in some minimal work (adding objectives) for a big payoff, but instead they spent a year on riot for bupkis

 

at this point i think it’s a lost cause, not enough pop and not enough devs 

[Y2Venom 218]

if you remember G1 tried this as well as LO. It ended up as a standoff between 2 teams with sniper rifles.

[TheMessiah 428]

+1 also player must be able to progress the contacts(otherwise is pointless and gonna die fast)

Edited Monday at 07:31 PM by TheMessiah

[MStomm 19]

The idea I've pondered in the shower for years would be a hybrid of the current mission system, and the chaos of the 'Open Conflict' or whatever those districts were called.

 

Take the mission district map, and divide it up into areas that more or less come down to the areas between roads. Then, each faction fights to control the most areas, with bonuses for the side that controls the most area to encourage play (Increased rewards? Joker Ticket store discount? Cheaper Ammo? Less market tax?).

 

At the start (and a weekly reset would probably be good too), only a few areas are controlled by each faction, all based around major contact locations, maybe 4 of them per side per district. These areas are permanently controlled by their faction. The areas around these areas would not be able to be claimed by the opposing faction (but can be neutral), and members of the opposing faction who get too close get 'spotted' to help prevent spawn camping.

 

The rest of the areas are up for grabs, with players having to do a variety of mission tasks (hack, spray, burn, bomb, raid, rob, defuse bombs, plant bugs, so on, and so forth) to reduce enemy control, and assert their faction's control over areas. To keep things from getting too crazy, a neutral buffer area would be needed between a Crim area and an Enforcer area. Players can only spawn in areas controlled by their faction.

 

If a faction controls over 2/3 of the map, areas they haven't done anything to assert their control over in a while (A few hours? Less? More?) would return to neutral, giving the "losing" side a slightly shot at gaining some ground.

 

And maybe hide enemy names/icons until they start shooting- encourage people to blend in with the citizens for extra sneakiness.

[Mitne 721]

On 9/23/2024 at 9:30 PM, TheMessiah said:

+1 also player must be able to progress the contacts(otherwise is pointless and gonna die fast)

This and absolutely this.

 

Problem is also with objectives, there would need to be a lot of them widespread. Why? Because problem is with mission roles ranking which is slow even in standard MM already. That aside, this allows to spread defending forces thin, allowing for better tactical approach to them.

Edited Thursday at 09:06 AM by Mitne

[Gro 104]

They did.