I played on a server once before where people had a great time actually defending a bridge that was being built. There were sappers that were trying to destroy the supports and builders trying to reinforce the areas around it.

1.Would anybody else like to see something where you have to defend something from being destroyed that pre exists on the maps?

2. Second idea...Would anybody like the idea of having a mode where one team needs to build or finish a structure (like a bridge across a map) and the other team has to defend or destroy it?

This might be easier to implement with the addition of user made maps eventually,but maybe it might fit in with the whole war theme. Bridges have always been valuable to destroy and build during the wars. Theres a clear division of people who see building as a nuisance and those who only build on maps since theres is no real victory conditions right now. Maybe this might be the perfect middle ground? Any feedback would be awesome.

Oh yea....Hi everybody, this is my first post!

mite b cool

Sketch out the details more in depth.

1. Yes

2. Perhaps, needs more in depth explanation and fine tuning

the first one sounds brilliant

Give any feedback you'd like. My ideas as follows:

1. Defend the Building/Bridge/etc.

- Each team is assigned a static building/structure/ etc that they are assigned to protect at all costs.

- This building or structure would provide a tactical advantage to a team whether it be a tower, bridge, or large bunker. This building would also go in line with team colors. ie- blue bunker/green tower.

-To prevent griefing, the blocks that make up the building cannot be destroyed by teammates. If a bridge is to be defended, the bridge supports cannot be broken by teammates. Bunkers, tower, etc that are to be defended and on a hill/mountain will have similar support legs that run underground to still allow teammates to tunnel underneath, but not allow them to collapse the land they are on to destroy the structure.

- The enemy team members are the only ones who can destroy said structure through use of grenades, pickaxes, and shovels. If satchel charges are added later on, it would fit even better into the possible building destruction. The enemy team members are the only ones who can destroy the opposing team's structural blocks and support blocks. A structure can also be collapsed by the enemy team should they destroy the supports and area underneath.

- Gunfire cannot destroy blocks. This prevents people just huddling up and sniping at the structure from across the map.

2. Build/Complete a structure to win.

- Either blue or green is tasked to create (or complete) a bridge that spans a river/valley on an area of the map. One team acts as "Team Builder" with the other being the "Saboteurs. The river is equidistant from both blue or green spawns meaning that there won't be a home field advantage with green already being closer to the river or vice versa.

- Indestructible Team Builder colored blocks are added to the terrain as "Start indicators". These indicate where said bridge/structure should start the width that is needed for said bridge/structure.

- Ending indicators (same as start indicators) with an equal width as start indicators are placed directly across the river/valley. The two indicators must be "connected" with the correct width of blocks before Victory. Both the start and end indicators can be viewed and are bright enough to be seen on the map so the team doesn't have to search for the correct areas similar to the intel or resupply.

- I don't know how many people would like this,but the addition of 1-3 supporting pillars for "bridge supports" could also be required should the bridge have to span a large river/valley.

- Teammates cannot destroy blocks that have already been laid down that are attached to the bridge. The enemy team is/are the only ones who can destroy bridge blocks.

These were my initial ideas for this game type. Once again, this might be the balance between building/shooting that everybody might need in order to cater to both play types. The builders would need defenders to protect the bridge, and the defenders would rely on the builders in order to win. Let me know your feedback or critisism.

1. I think that defending the Alamo (or the structures that be) would be a boatload of fun. Perhaps there can be a mode like this, where the defenders are given good tactical advantage by means of cover and shooting position, as well as access to ammo and health, but are unable to respawn which will lead to gruesome battles to the last man until the fort falls.

2. This sounds like it would be frustrating, honestly. I like where you are going, but if one team has to build something, and the other team gets to shoot the builders, guess which side will get more players. Perhaps a more goal-oriented mode (possibly without respawn) would be more approachable from both sides. (i.e., destroying the enemy command tent, crossing a bridge which the other team defends, things like that)

I like the idea of a "Defend the Alamo" type of system that iamthemoose suggested. Having only a set amount of respawns is fine because it might make people actually pay attention to their health and go back to the resupply along with using their remaining lives better.

The only thing I don't want is a respawn amount pool for the team as a whole. What this would mean is that when a player starts the match he/she gets 2-3 respawns and once they are used up, they need to observe. This would prevent one person's stupidity/ frivolous life usage to not take away from a large pool of respawns that are used by the whole team like in the "Battlefield" series of games.

The second idea I had of building a structure is difficult and yes there would be major problems with it. I do enjoy seeing the feedback as that's what its there for.

u brought it bak to life and ur saying let it die