delems

AB capture mechanic.

121 posts in this topic

Maybe have OP  control the City CP before ABs even come into play.

In other words the City ain't capped the AB will never go hot . That would give the underpop the chance to control at least the AB and would not have to spend resources on defending an AB till the City CP is lost. Also once City CP is lost a 20 min timer goes live before the AB goes hot , giving the UP side enough time to concentrate to get that CP back.

Of course I have no clue how that would be controlled once the pentlum swings in mid battle , and the Attack side goes underpop, if that could even be coded into game , so that all of a sudden the AB does come into play without having to cap the city CP 1st. 

I guess would had to be a system message that AB is now in play cause the Attacking side is UP .

I'm looking for ways to get that City CP involved into game play somehow , cause as of now it's a useless CP , that is either and after thought or the 1st one being capped cause no one ever defends it. 

At least in the idea I have outlined it would become a rather important CP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dre21 my personal issue with cap timer related solutions is that the gameplay stays the the same---attacker sets up an attack, THEN sets the AO, a few defenders come in (note that every single stage of this is made worse by lower pop---defenders can't possibly be sitting in "maybe they'll attack soon" towns when you are underpop, and can't even get an already under attack defense up to that minimum number of people to be viable). These defenders spawn in to the town with ei all over the place. Longer timers makes the current paradigm defenses better, I'll grant you that, but it's more of the same run around town with ei coming from any direction at all, shooting, largely in the CPs gameplay. Meh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tater said:

@dre21 my personal issue with cap timer related solutions is that the gameplay stays the the same---attacker sets up an attack, THEN sets the AO, a few defenders come in (note that every single stage of this is made worse by lower pop---defenders can't possibly be sitting in "maybe they'll attack soon" towns when you are underpop, and can't even get an already under attack defense up to that minimum number of people to be viable). These defenders spawn in to the town with ei all over the place. Longer timers makes the current paradigm defenses better, I'll grant you that, but it's more of the same run around town with ei coming from any direction at all, shooting, largely in the CPs gameplay. Meh.

 

I hear ya, but even area capture will benefit the OP side , cause the underpop will just not be able to muster enough together to retake an area on a consistent basis.

You and I both agree  ( I think) that the FMS all over and around town actually hurts the game play more then it draws benifits

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dre21 said:

Maybe have OP  control the City CP before ABs even come into play.

In other words the City ain't capped the AB will never go hot . That would give the underpop the chance to control at least the AB and would not have to spend resources on defending an AB till the City CP is lost. Also once City CP is lost a 20 min timer goes live before the AB goes hot , giving the UP side enough time to concentrate to get that CP back.

Of course I have no clue how that would be controlled once the pentlum swings in mid battle , and the Attack side goes underpop, if that could even be coded into game , so that all of a sudden the AB does come into play without having to cap the city CP 1st. 

I guess would had to be a system message that AB is now in play cause the Attacking side is UP .

I'm looking for ways to get that City CP involved into game play somehow , cause as of now it's a useless CP , that is either and after thought or the 1st one being capped cause no one ever defends it. 

At least in the idea I have outlined it would become a rather important CP.

 

This could be gamed quite a bit though. Op side just has a few players log out for 5 min to go underpop, then they log back in, etc etc. Be a nightmare in TZ 3 when total numbers are low. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, matamor said:

Hopefully area captures will never exist. 

I have to agree with Matamor on this one. Area captures will completely favor the Overpopped side, with it becoming possible that the underpopped side would be completely unable to even try to effectively defend. At least with capture CPs, defenders can try to hold out and can recap them without needing numbers superiority.

Make it impossible for underpopped folks to achieve anything except getting rolled, and they will stop logging in at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** mentioned that the defenders can spawn extra units from the linking depots to defend a town "without working for it." But the opposite also holds true........  But as long as the attacker can use spawns and warping... then it's more than an even situation.

 

The opposite is NOT true at all.  And it is in no way even.

When attacker town A - attacks defender town D - supply is 1 to 1 (say even ABs); when attackers captures the AB- SUDDENLY defend town D gets supply from backline towns E and F.  The defender now has 3 sources of supply, two of which JWBS across towns to magically appear in another town.

This is NOT the case with the attacker, so attacker A captures a spawn in defender D town... that spawn is drawing from same attacker A town, no new supply from attacker backline towns.

Also, this is a perfectly reasonable and good abstraction of how battle works.  Attacker first gets town A and moves in, then gets FB and moves to FB; then sets MS and moves to MS, finally attacker captures spawn and moves to spawn.  This a a logical progression of attacker supply moving up as they capture stuff from the enemy.

 

The attacker, using same supply out of attacking town, moving up and taking a spawn and spawning in, is no where the same as defender getting free supply, NEVER moved up, from back line towns.

 

This is why backline towns should not be allowed to spawn into frontline town when the frontline town AB is captured.  However, very reasonable to allow the attacker to spawn into their spawn when attacking.

 

Edited by delems
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Quincannon said:

I have to agree with Matamor on this one. Area captures will completely favor the Overpopped side, with it becoming possible that the underpopped side would be completely unable to even try to effectively defend. At least with capture CPs, defenders can try to hold out and can recap them without needing numbers superiority.

Make it impossible for underpopped folks to achieve anything except getting rolled, and they will stop logging in at all.

Wait, we already have an area capture which is the room of AB radio and inside CPs ; please CRS don't waste your precious time on people that won't spend time doing the dirty jobs and cap organically stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, delems said:

*** mentioned that the defenders can spawn extra units from the linking depots to defend a town "without working for it." But the opposite also holds true........  But as long as the attacker can use spawns and warping... then it's more than an even situation.

 

The opposite is NOT true at all.  And it is in no way even.

When attacker town A - attacks defender town D - supply is 1 to 1 (say even ABs); when attackers captures the AB- SUDDENLY defend town D gets supply from backline towns E and F.  The defender now has 3 sources of supply, two of which JWBS across towns to magically appear in another town.

This is NOT the case with the attacker, so attacker A captures a spawn in defender D town... that spawn is drawing from same attacker A town, no new supply from attacker backline towns.

Also, this is a perfectly reasonable and good abstraction of how battle works.  Attacker first gets town A and moves in, then gets FB and moves to FB; then sets MS and moves to MS, finally attacker captures spawn and moves to spawn.  This a a logical progression of attacker supply moving up as they capture stuff from the enemy.

 

The attacker, using same supply out of attacking town, moving up and taking a spawn and spawning in, is no where the same as defender getting free supply, NEVER moved up, from back line towns.

 

This is why backline towns should not be allowed to spawn into frontline town when the frontline town AB is captured.  However, very reasonable to allow the attacker to spawn into their spawn when attacking.

 

I don't see it as reasonable at all, unless you just favor the attackers having an advantage. I have never seen warping or spawn depots (by attackers) as reasonable. If you want to capture a town bring your troops in from outside the town and capture it. If you want a spawn inside the town, build a UMS. At no point is it reasonable to assume that an enemy army should suddenly be able to spawn dozens of units INSIDE your town from inside one of your own buildings. The very idea that an attacker should suddenly be able to spawn ARMOR inside the town they are attacking has always seemed incredibly unbelievable to me.

I have already said I agree about the link supply for defense... but removing that while still allowing attackers to do it... I can't see that as being at all reasonable or fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

CPs are always situated to the road direction to the next linked town and represent control of that road as a reinfircement route while Fbs are effectively checkpoints along that road controlled by one side or the other ¬ as in real warfare its all to do with the roads and logistics. Control the road you get supply and reinforcement - this is what the game simlates very well and always has uniquely done so.

Really we are fighting always for the roads not the towns.

Edited by actonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, matamor said:

Wait, we already have an area capture which is the room of AB radio and inside CPs ; please CRS don't waste your precious time on people that won't spend time doing the dirty jobs and cap organically stuff.

I'm open to different ideas on capture paradigms, myself, and don't know which would work best, but this statement I utterly disagree with (bolded).

If there are "dirty jobs" that are boring, etc---it's bad game design. Period.

The fact that "guarding" is a thing is absurd when players are serially playing one of many infantry (or whatever). The CP guards should be AI.

Yes, AI. Anyone in a CP when it is captured (or some number per CP, max) should be able to leave an AI copy of themselves as a PPO. It fires at anyone within X yards in a narrow arc in front of it. If they leave it pointing out the window (player stands somewhere, and hits a key and that inf position is literally copied), then it shoots out the window, pointed at the stairs, it shoots at the stairs. Anyone coming to assault that CP then needs to clear it. Throw nades, blow the CP, whatever, then they cap. If a real player wants to stay and also guard... then things get really interesting, and no one will ever know if the guy in the closet is real, or a bot, until one leaves the room (bots will be fixed).

Such a system could be tied to pop balance, too. Max bots in a CP tied to relative pop. Then underpop defenders can leave a bot in each CP, and actually play a little.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tater said:

The CP guards should be AI.

...underpop defenders can leave a bot in each CP, and actually play a little.

I like it.

Maybe limit it to subscribers, as a further motivation for that?

There of course will be objections that overpop players play to fight other players, not AI...but what they're really saying is they want to fight no one, or at best an inadequate number of underpop players, because it's easier for the overpop side to win that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jwilly said:

I like it.

Maybe limit it to subscribers, as a further motivation for that?

There of course will be objections that overpop players play to fight other players, not AI...but what they're really saying is they want to fight no one, or at best an inadequate number of underpop players, because it's easier for the overpop side to win that way.

If the capture mechanic was such that both sides had to clear the CP to cap it, always, little changes.

You don't just run into a CP and hide (as you often do now, to not alert that you are capping). You'd run up, throw nades in, etc, and clear it. The difference between an AI shooting down the stairs, and ME shooting down the stairs is nil. It's not like I'm aiming, I see movement, and I shoot. It;s exactly the sort of work a computer should do.

Note that these AI defenders would get killed just as fast as the real ones do, so holding a CP would still require real people to spawn in, and check CP, but it would make alternate defenses possible---one CP defender (this is CP defense, he could be the side attacking the town!) could leave an AI guard, and sit outside and guard more proactively than staring at a wall. It would massively improve guarding, and it would enable more interesting gameplay.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that while I have always wished we could have more AI to help out, especially when underpopped. I HATE the idea of player placed duplicates. I recently had an experience that was one of the few that almost made me ragequit. I was checking our AB. I went upstairs to check it and there were FOUR EI. I freaked because no way can i kill 4 EI,,,but none of them moved. I killed them... Then about a minute later, here came 4 (exactly 4) EI and they killed me and proceeded to cap the bunker. I realized that all four had placed dummies in our AB to cap so they could be out doing other stuff. There I am, busting my butt to try to defend here there and everywhere and they are just placing dummies in an AB while on the attack, either to cap or to act as an EWS that we were defending, so that they would have time to come back and keep us from having any chance at all of defending. It was the angriest I have been since I started playing the game. Not only were they incredibly OP, but they were each attacking with two accounts to my one.  It was a tactic that is unbeatable, unless you have a full squad to fight each set of them.

It's one thing to be able to have server controlled AI... and even harder if players could place an AI defensive position... But the idea that players can place AI guards INSIDE a CP and then run outside  and fight as well?  That would be a disaster, especially for the underpopped side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Quincannon said:

I have to say that while I have always wished we could have more AI to help out, especially when underpopped. I HATE the idea of player placed duplicates. I recently had an experience that was one of the few that almost made me ragequit. I was checking our AB. I went upstairs to check it and there were FOUR EI. I freaked because no way can i kill 4 EI,,,but none of them moved. I killed them... Then about a minute later, here came 4 (exactly 4) EI and they killed me and proceeded to cap the bunker. I realized that all four had placed dummies in our AB to cap so they could be out doing other stuff. There I am, busting my butt to try to defend here there and everywhere and they are just placing dummies in an AB while on the attack, either to cap or to act as an EWS that we were defending, so that they would have time to come back and keep us from having any chance at all of defending. It was the angriest I have been since I started playing the game. Not only were they incredibly OP, but they were each attacking with two accounts to my one.  It was a tactic that is unbeatable, unless you have a full squad to fight each set of them.

It's one thing to be able to have server controlled AI... and even harder if players could place an AI defensive position... But the idea that players can place AI guards INSIDE a CP and then run outside  and fight as well?  That would be a disaster, especially for the underpopped side.

There is zero difference between being shot walking into a CP or bunker by a computer controlled inf (otherwise a normal rifle/SMG, whatever, dies the same, has to reload, etc, but cannot move) and being shot by a player. Instead of wondering if a CP is guarded or not, you'll quickly have to always assume it is, and assault it, every time. Throw some nades in. If the field of fire is very narrow, they only cover a small area.

The pop balance can control this capability. if sides are even, then maybe X such guards per town is possible. Overpop, then the underpop gets more guards allowed, and at some level overpop gets none, and underpop gets a so many that every CP can be covered.

The whole point is the side balance issue, so that the underpop people can set a few of these, then recap, or blow the EFMS, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, tater said:

There is zero difference between being shot walking into a CP or bunker by a computer controlled inf (otherwise a normal rifle/SMG, whatever, dies the same, has to reload, etc, but cannot move) and being shot by a player. Instead of wondering if a CP is guarded or not, you'll quickly have to always assume it is, and assault it, every time. Throw some nades in. If the field of fire is very narrow, they only cover a small area.

The pop balance can control this capability. if sides are even, then maybe X such guards per town is possible. Overpop, then the underpop gets more guards allowed, and at some level overpop gets none, and underpop gets a so many that every CP can be covered.

The whole point is the side balance issue, so that the underpop people can set a few of these, then recap, or blow the EFMS, etc.

Actually there is a big difference. Computer controlled AI don't hesitate... They often aren't fooled by smoke... they almost never miss... People make mistakes... AI don't. And I wasn't knocking the idea of server controlled AI... I have an issue with player placed AI inside buildings. Imagine  town being attacked... the first thing the OP attackers do is get inside the AB and set up a dozen AI PPOs inside. THEN they set the AO... defenders come in and check the bunker, and have to spend a lot of time, supply and effort to flush out the AI while also defending the CPs and bunker against the live players.

I think, if we went this route, that there should be EXTERNAL player placed defensive PPOs. Imagine a MG nest that can be placed to protect CPs, bunkers or FMSs. Then again, it's all a moot point because it won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tater said:

I'm open to different ideas on capture paradigms, myself, and don't know which would work best, but this statement I utterly disagree with (bolded).

If there are "dirty jobs" that are boring, etc---it's bad game design. Period.

The fact that "guarding" is a thing is absurd when players are serially playing one of many infantry (or whatever). The CP guards should be AI.

Yes, AI.

Let's go gents, put AIs everywhere! At this point we still call it a multiplayer game .

This whole idea to me is that people trying to find ways to cover their lazyness with AI doing basic stuff that is part of the essence of a multiplayer game.

By dirty jobs I meant 'go inside, cap and recap'. Yes you can die a lot but you kill a lot too. You don't need to defend it for hours, like a golden turtle, you better go on attack and cap one. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a time when area capture was being put up as a feature to be added. Strongly. There was opposition and it never happened. Dodged a bullet I'd say, but you could hear it whiz by it was so close.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

This could be gamed quite a bit though. Op side just has a few players log out for 5 min to go underpop, then they log back in, etc etc. Be a nightmare in TZ 3 when total numbers are low. 

Well how is it any different then what Quinncannon just wrote with the 2nd accounts in the AB bunker. 

We always find away around issues that's what Humans do we solve problems,  some more successful then others. 

No matter what Quinncannon would have done he already lost the battle once he killed the 1st guy in that bunker.

He was playing vs 8 players and didn't even know it .  4 were capping or about to be ready to cap the Bunker once it went hot , while the other manned 4 players were running around town capping CPs. The only reason why the real players had to storm the AB is cause their 2nd accounts all got killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Quincannon said:

Actually there is a big difference. Computer controlled AI don't hesitate... They often aren't fooled by smoke... they almost never miss... People make mistakes... AI don't. And I wasn't knocking the idea of server controlled AI... I have an issue with player placed AI inside buildings. Imagine  town being attacked... the first thing the OP attackers do is get inside the AB and set up a dozen AI PPOs inside. THEN they set the AO... defenders come in and check the bunker, and have to spend a lot of time, supply and effort to flush out the AI while also defending the CPs and bunker against the live players.

I think, if we went this route, that there should be EXTERNAL player placed defensive PPOs. Imagine a MG nest that can be placed to protect CPs, bunkers or FMSs. Then again, it's all a moot point because it won't happen.

Not if it's done right. If there is smoke, have the AI shoot every few seconds into the smoke.

There is no getting inside the AB and setting up PPOs, these can only be set in a facility that you own in the idea I have just presented. So your entire scenario is not a thing.

4 hours ago, dre21 said:

Well how is it any different then what Quinncannon just wrote with the 2nd accounts in the AB bunker. 

If you can only place these for CP/bunker guard duty, in a facility you own, you don't even need a second account. You place a guard, then you play. Attackers cannot place one until they own something to place it in. Only the owner can do this. Attackers (if balanced sides) might be able to place a CP guard, then move outside and defend the area at large, but as I said, you tweak so that when one side is OP enough, they have to only guard manually, then when the UP defenders recap, they place a guard to allow them to recap another CP, or help defend (since 1 guys is not defending a CP vs a team that works together at all).

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DOC said:

There was a time when area capture was being put up as a feature to be added. Strongly. There was opposition and it never happened. Dodged a bullet I'd say, but you could hear it whiz by it was so close.

Yay for bullets whizzing past. A great effect.

I supported and still support area capture. Yes, it would be disruptive and no doubt the mechanics would require lots of evolution to get them right. It however is the way to better realism. The current mechanics are both too gamey and too game-normal for WWIIOL to break out as a commercial success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jwilly said:

Yay for bullets whizzing past. A great effect.

I supported and still support area capture. Yes, it would be disruptive and no doubt the mechanics would require lots of evolution to get them right. It however is the way to better realism. The current mechanics are both too gamey and too game-normal for WWIIOL to break out as a commercial success.

Then please explain how a seriously underpopped side could even hope to attack or defend an area capture position. The OP side could just flood the area and capture it. The OP side could easily take out the few UP players who are trying to find them. The ONLY chance might be if the areas had to be completely cleared of the enemy to cap or recap, and that still gives an almost insurmountable advantage to the OP side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Quincannon said:

I have to say that while I have always wished we could have more AI to help out, especially when underpopped. I HATE the idea of player placed duplicates. I recently had an experience that was one of the few that almost made me ragequit. I was checking our AB. I went upstairs to check it and there were FOUR EI. I freaked because no way can i kill 4 EI,,,but none of them moved. I killed them... Then about a minute later, here came 4 (exactly 4) EI and they killed me and proceeded to cap the bunker. I realized that all four had placed dummies in our AB to cap so they could be out doing other stuff. There I am, busting my butt to try to defend here there and everywhere and they are just placing dummies in an AB while on the attack, either to cap or to act as an EWS that we were defending, so that they would have time to come back and keep us from having any chance at all of defending. It was the angriest I have been since I started playing the game. Not only were they incredibly OP, but they were each attacking with two accounts to my one.  It was a tactic that is unbeatable, unless you have a full squad to fight each set of them.

It's one thing to be able to have server controlled AI... and even harder if players could place an AI defensive position... But the idea that players can place AI guards INSIDE a CP and then run outside  and fight as well?  That would be a disaster, especially for the underpopped side.

Explain to me why this is even allowed, and not a ban-able offense? 

The only thing a second account should be able to do is to drive a truck, period. 

This rates right up there with intentional clipping in regards to cheating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about bannable offense. Very annoying though. Some guys running 4 accounts or so during severely low pop times ... kind of impressive in one sense, but poor taste IMO. However, if you are capable of pulling it off .... congrats because i have tried running 2 inf accounts and it ain't the easiest thing in the world.

I think though, if the game allows for this .... well not much you can say. Soon ... the game will not allow for it, so it is likely a problem no more. That is, unless they wanna sub four accounts, in which case have at it i guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.