Feedback - Capture

[Skurcey]

3 ideas, one half from sailtrail:

Why not, when some one is capping, to enter building, than leave (beeing bind to all players inside) and help the timer to cap/decap faster and be able to cover from outside, until the player(s) that were still inside are dead, and you need to reenter the building.

Timer in correlation with total supply in defense like in attack (total of units points)

And (but need dig in), ability for attackers(and recappers) the ability to make the cap zone growth the more they are inside, i think a bit boring the fact to always fight in these too simple and always the same CP, so i think fighting in the neighborhood would be good

[glaz]

I like the new capture mechanics, wasn't too slow with 2-3 players and if you had more it went quick. I think it encourages players to group up to hit cp's instead of just playing Lone Ranger and hoping the enemy doesn't check the depot. The new bunkers also are fantastic, especially the design. Kudo's to the Rats on this I think it will make the game much more interesting and give battles a more epic feel.

[drave]

You should really do something about the messages and colors in the bar. I still don't understand what is going on when I'm in a flag building. Like today, when I was in our spawnable cp. There was a blue bar going right, a red bar losing ground and with the message "liberating". I mean blue is my friendly color, red my enemy color and "liberating" I though it was me. Until I realized that it was the enemy that was liberating the cp ... what the?

It looks like the messages are from the view of the cp and not of the player. This is really confusing. You should change those messages to the view of the player or a lot will have problems with those messages.

Everything else on the capture system I really enjoyed. Perhaps there will be some need for fine tuning on the live server. But as I heard this should be way easier now to do than before.

[ancord]

Its a bit difficult to encourge grouping up to capture cps on low ews attacks, your lucky if you have a fellow player within 1km of yourself in town.

I captured 491 cps in campaign, I have been doing the maths, at 12mins a cap, that would have meant 4 days within cps.

As for warning when a cp is being captured, this morning axis had 2AOs, one for which FB was allied, leaving one axis spawnable. How difficult is it to guard a single CP without having to be told when its being captured. I did 30mins of guard duty, shooting axis cappers in the back, its not that difficult.

[khbigjoe]

Not sure if its been mentioned, but ...I jumped off the roof of a depot, onto the roof of an enemy Cp and was able to cap it by laying on the roof outside.

This was maybe a month ago during testing. I did a .report so I guess its been picked up?

Dont know if anyone elese experienced this? Wouldnt be good if this was possible really

[snailtrail]

Its a bit difficult to encourge grouping up to capture cps on low ews attacks, your lucky if you have a fellow player within 1km of yourself in town.

I captured 491 cps in campaign, I have been doing the maths, at 12mins a cap, that would have meant 4 days within cps.

Working as a team would reduce the 4 days to 8 hours. Although, people will still attempt to ninja attack even if it took 20 minutes but they will complain more. The only way to stop it is to make it a minimum of 2 people.

As for warning when a cp is being captured, this morning axis had 2AOs, one for which FB was allied, leaving one axis spawnable. How difficult is it to guard a single CP without having to be told when its being captured. I did 30mins of guard duty, shooting axis cappers in the back, its not that difficult.

There is EWS which is basically civilians, scouts or what ever spotting the enemy and telling the military. If the enemy came into a depot or factory in a attempt to take it over I am sure the word would get out. The alert could be random anywhere from 10% of capture completed to 90%. It would make the fighting more believable. If that makes it harder for ninja's that is fine. The ninja is lucky he isn't getting pitch forked by a bunch of angry farmers.

[speed]

QUOTE"I think the timer is a bit too long.Being in a flag house that long with few places to defend yourself in there.Taken the logic changed,but the radio room is the same.

We may understand the team up feature,but being in a room waiting long minutes is kinda demotivating,unless we could defend properly the flag house.

I see piles & piles of bodies stacked up on a major attack,people spawning over&over again right next to the flag house,in the adjacent depot.

We could have a timer for ALL spawnable features;If you die,10 seconds SD,again,20 sec.,again 30 sec.In my opinion "the fear of death"would make fights more realistic and,give

attacking forces a chance to set perimeter,without the ant spawning like crazy effect.

The death cam feature already over,big progress.I think people should fear death,or be punished by the SD timer,on any event..Ab,Fb,depots,Ms's,planes and such,IMHO.

S!

Speed "UNQUOTE

Guys its just gonna be a skirmishy fight,endless deaths&noone recaps a spawn CP.Today,we arlready have a rediculous die,respawn,die,respawn for any depot that is taken.Tough luck on the defenders,who cant be inside long enough for a proper radio recap.

I can only imagine the new system.The radio room has no defensive quarters to properly defend your position to recap.

Only personal SD for a better chance of defending/attacking,specially in a area capture system.The concept is way cool,but the enviourment is poor(radio room).

For Gods sake,give it a try.Gameability above all.Eternal spawning on a CP is porked up and

does not give the game any balance&tactical achievments to whoever tries to defend a town.FEAR OF DEATH NOW.. PLEASE.

S!

Speed

[jeke]

And (but need dig in)' date=' ability for attackers(and recappers) the ability to make the cap zone growth the more they are inside, i think a bit boring the fact to always fight in these too simple and always the same CP, so i think fighting in the neighborhood would be good[/quote']

This is what i've had in mind too. Instead of only counting the interior of the cp, make also the exterior nearby count. This way defenders can setup a zone in the perimeter of the cp and rifles can actually be used (effectively) in defence. Just feels silly one SMG cowering in the corner of the attic of a CP could "occupy" a facility surrounded by enemies

I totally understand it might not even be possible to do but a man can dream

[snailtrail]

This is what i've had in mind too. Instead of only counting the interior of the cp, make also the exterior nearby count. This way defenders can setup a zone in the perimeter of the cp and rifles can actually be used (effectively) in defence. Just feels silly one SMG cowering in the corner of the attic of a CP could "occupy" a facility surrounded by enemies

I totally understand it might not even be possible to do but a man can dream

An area capture would be much better. They could have a 500ft by 500ft floor with out walls and that whole base could be the capture zone. Putting objects such as tree's, boulders, bushes, small buildings, rock walls, fences, dirt mounds, hay,ect, on top of the base might be an issue? The 'floor' could have its own texture like grass or dirt. Tanks, ATG and AA guns would be blocked from going onto/into the capture zone.

[romzburg]

An area capture would be much better. They could have a 500ft by 500ft floor with out walls and that whole base could be the capture zone. Putting objects such as tree's' date=' boulders, bushes, small buildings, rock walls, fences, dirt mounds, hay,ect, on top of the base might be an issue? The 'floor' could have its own texture like grass or dirt. Tanks, ATG and AA guns would be blocked from going onto/into the capture zone.[/quote']

But then capture would be silly. People cowering in a bush 300 feet from an enemy defensive post "captures" that post?!

I don't even like the fact that defenders can outnumber attackers and the attackers still capture.

I think the cap algorithm needs to be limited to the interior of a building, and you have to be in the building 20 seconds before you even get counted, and the timer moves in the direction of whichever side has the most players inside, and the greater the differential, the greater the rate of cap.

That way players inside can defend and continue capping against players who zerg and die within 20 seconds.

But a giant zone would have capture taking place by unseen players, who never kill the players they are supposedly fighting & capturing real estate from.

__________________

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[jeke]

But then capture would be silly. People cowering in a bush 300 feet from an enemy defensive post "captures" that post?!

But a giant zone would have capture taking place by unseen players, who never kill the players they are supposedly fighting & capturing real estate from.

__________________

We're not talking about a huge zone here, just something like ~20-50m perimeter to allow meaningful defence. For example a post surrounded immediately by buildings could have defenders in those other buildings as well (and i'm talking really tightly build places, not hundreds of meters) since being stuck in the one building in the middle getting surrounded simply is ridiculous. Also if there's good lines of sight with a batch of trees right outside it just makes sense for a commander with rifles in his force to defend from outside not inside.

You have a valid point of capping by unseen players who are just hiding and not fighting. Maybe allow the side "holding" the CP have people in the perimeter only count if there's someone also inside the cp and the attacker needs to get someone inside as well before perimeter is counted for his side.

[GOPHUR]

Another capture question/comment:

How long does someone have to be in a building to get an assist in capturing?

Also, will we be notified when a facility is being overrun/captured? The way it is now is frustrating when you don't have enough people to guard all the facilities and then a facility on the other side of town gets ninja capped. If something is being overrun the owners of the cp could be alerted so they can defend it.

There are no assists. Anyone there at the moment that capture happens gets scored for it. Likewise for liberating.

[GOPHUR]

Let's not wander off into area capture. Not going to happen soon.

[Tandel]

is it intended to be able to capture the army base right after you capture the first cp in a town?

live server = 1- minute wait before the ab can be captured.

current beta = AB capped right after the first cp was captured.

[speed]

Oh dear,poor ol'fellars trying to cap a CP when full POP server goes wild! I can only imagine

5 guys inside a former radio room,surrounded by 232's/pan's,EI,bullits everywhere,nades exploding....Gonna be real hard to cap this puppy,in my opinion.Ever ending ei spawning,jumping from depot into the house..

Properly done,it will take an extra effort to cap a CP..perimeter secure,depot covered in all angles,incoming paths to CP,from AB or surrounding facilities,say 12 guys for 1 cap...more or less.

NOW,if we implement the death penalty(personnal SD)a defender who dies,will have to wait

say 10/15/20/25/30/35 seconds on every spawn in after death thus,giving cappers enough room for proper defence and capping capabilities,or even retreating to a safer position to regroup.

If this is a code function,then it will have a long time to code it in,clearly understandable,but waaay important not to look into this feature,for playablilitiy reasons.

This will only enforce team work and grant fairness to attacking forces.

What you see today,endless,fearless ei spawning over&over again from depot,trying to kill capper in radio room,dying,respawn,die,respawn...until he gets the capper..put in the death

SD...he will think twice before running in there..use tactics&team work to retake or kill the capper.

S!

Speed

[speed]

Again,and insisting on the personal SD feature in regards to the capture system.Can one imagine the result of any major AO?

First thing the defenders will do is destroy all ex-radio houses,half blown,they will be easily defended from many angles,upstairs%down too.As I said before,it will be a tough puppy to cap a CP.

Today,we get killed inside the bunker,protected by concrete walls,by ets/ea/atg's shooting non stop into the bunker.

Imagine the poor little rambos inside a destroyed ex-radio room compound,with everlasting endlessly spawning&respawning ei coming in,untill they kill us all inside the damm thing.

Prepare for a ton of unhappy customers whining in the forums.

The concept of this feature is awesome,but with proper design,requireing recoding and new structures for it to happen.Having a ex-radio room and the new feature,without other(fear of death SD) means to insure playability&fun factor,will only make players leave or not try to cap a CP.

I,for one,will never enter a contested town,into a CP,knowing I will not stand a chance of living more than a couple of seconds in there.Take server SD,ums far out....do it once,twice and you get bored and go elsewhere or logout.....

S!

Speed

PS.You guys revamped the bunkers,should have revamped the radio room for proper defending from inside cappers also!Then,it would be an awesome fight to secure∩ the darn thing but,with proper chance of succeeding your intent and defending yourself.

Edited May 19, 2010 by speedbird

[romzburg]

How come there's never a space after your punctuation? Is that on purpose, or is whatever you are posting from doing something?

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[speed]

You must try to procure SEX..Have something other than forum activity and gamma tweaking.

Maybe masturbate yourself once in a life.

You really think you are something in here??Is this your life?

Have fun! go get Laid!!!!!!

S!

Speed

[ZeroAce]

My initial reaction was that the capture timer was too long, but during the playtesting I only ever found it be a significant problem when I was alone and without backup. Most of the time there were others nearby helping me (but then again there were a LOT of players). And in those few instances where I was alone, there were equally few enemies coming to stop me.

I think that we should give it some time in game and let people adjust to it before we are so quick to reduce the timer. Right now we play the game according to a mindset which says it's perfectly viable for one infantry to capture a depot with a little luck and swing the tide of a battle.

While it's true that such a system might be detrimental in low population sectors, I think that with time players will begin to regard capturing with a different perspective and focus on actually securing the area as small groups out of necessary. Any game will show you that spontaneous teamwork between strangers only happens when the game absolutely requires it, because the individual wants to succeed but wants to succeed with the least effort, but once they realize it requires collective action to achieve anything they start seeking that out of necessity rather than continually fail to ever capture anything.

Thoughts on the system from playtesting:

Pro

-I like the fact that you can make progress on capturing and it takes just as long for the enemy to erase it. There's a sense then that even if you don't fully cap it, you've made progress for the next wave to continue pushing.

-I like the fact that I can find a good defensive position inside the CP and stand a chance at holding it.

Con

-I was originally hoping that the capture system would truly be area based, and not building based. Although it might result in some minor frustrations tracking down people nearby, it would represent a true battle for control over a plot of land, rather than control over a building.

-I believe you will find capturing a depot to be even more difficult than it is now if the area is active, because what you gain by not being tied down to a predictable and exposed table position is overtaken by the fact that the enemy can now take their leisurely time grenading you out of the house or giving you headaches with high explosives shells.

Furthermore, with the way the netcode works, it's very difficult to legitimately kill an enemy before they kill you. High ping is a handicap for poor reaction times in this game when it comes to close combat.

The effect of this is that those who assault a CP are more willing to go head to head with someone in a superior defensive position, knowing that even if they die they will at least take out the defender before they die.

Edited May 21, 2010 by ZeroAce

[smythes]

I read your thoughts with interest, which echo an aspect of speedbirds concerns over the design of the CP building and the physical characteristics and what it means for attacckers.

Con

-I believe you will find capturing a depot to be even more difficult than it is now if the area is active, because what you gain by not being tied down to a predictable and exposed table position is overtaken by the fact that the enemy can now take their leisurely time grenading you out of the house or giving you headaches with high explosives shells.

Furthermore, with the way the netcode works, it's very difficult to legitimately kill an enemy before they kill you. High ping is a handicap for poor reaction times in this game when it comes to close combat.

I guess that perhaps this may make people behave in the manner you suggest you wanted to happen, if they are co-ordinated.

That is you should try to seize the area, not just the building because as you say if not contested the enemy will just nade you to death or storm the building suicidee style.

The issue is perhaps that the Spawn point being close to the CP means that your main defense to resist interuption of the capping is camping not the use of a team of people guarding approaches of a bigger geographical area.

I wonder if that is the issue with area capture, that although slower, the enemy can still run straight in and blat you...there is no battle to get to the CP.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Smythes

[ZeroAce]

The issue is perhaps that the Spawn point being close to the CP means that your main defense to resist interuption of the capping is camping not the use of a team of people guarding approaches of a bigger geographical area.

Yes, that is an issue.

One solution may be to turn off spawning of a depot once the associated CP is being capped.

It will reduce the lemming factor significantly.

They can use whatever players are already spawned in nearby to recap it if the attackers are small in number, but they won't be able to jump back in and be 10m away from the objective while the attacker is 500-1000m away.

Although, a case can be made that quick re-enforcement is a benefit of being the defender, in practical terms I think it might be too skewed.

I think instead we should regard the idea that quick re-enforcement is what comes from the nearby depots.

If the defenders allow a psoition to be siezed, and don't have enough guys on hand to push the attackers out, then consider it an over-run position and let nearby positions move to counter attack.

The long capture timers will at least ensure that a proper counter attack will have time to be mounted.

And in the case of guarding against softcap simulcapping against an inactive town, the fact is that the CPS still can't be captured until a time after the AO has been placed so there is plenty of opportunity for scouts to see what is going on.

Edited May 21, 2010 by ZeroAce

[romzburg]

Con

-I was originally hoping that the capture system would truly be area based, and not building based. Although it might result in some minor frustrations tracking down people nearby, it would represent a true battle for control over a plot of land, rather than control over a building.

The problem with this is that at some point a switch has to be triggered, that is, now this "area" is Allied, and no longer "Axis".

So there must necessarily be a binary function.

So if the "area" is big, or biggish, and the algorithm says whoever has more players inside the area boundaries for a certain period of time, or whoever has *only* their side in that boundary for a certain period, then people will find a way to hide at the extreme edge of the boundary, and not move for fear of calling attention to themselves.

So areas could be captured by someone hiding in a bush, or going AFK for the afternoon.

I like the idea of a multi-story building with multiple rooms, hallways, furniture, etc and the need to clear that building of enemy, and keep it clear.

I would like the flag buildings to be a little bigger and more complex, and if there is a soldier form the other side in it, it doesn't move at all. The timer only moves when the players inside are 100% the same side.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[ZeroAce]

The problem with this is that at some point a switch has to be triggered, that is, now this "area" is Allied, and no longer "Axis".

The switch can be a difference in numbers. The more numbers you've got in the control zone above the number of the enemy the faster up it goes.

This is the most purely representative of territorial control - You win when you've thrown the enemy out of it. This includes rooting them out of the buildings nearby. But it also represents that it's not necessary to kill everyone in an area to take control of it.

You can isolate the guys in the bunker and still control the area, you just want to deal with those guys in the bunker eventually otherwise they'll come out and cause trouble.

However, this would be a sea change in terms of how we approach combat; No longer would we have a system based around the idea that a small force holding up in a building defensively represents taking control of an area against superior numbers.

Arguably this is more proper anyway. But it does bring about important practical gameplay questions about whether the spawn system the game has right would make such a system viable for the attackers to achieve.

Although, as I said, I think we might find this dynamic of the few capturing against the many to be obsolete anyway even under the current system; where you will need overwhelming force in a coordinated way to capture a heavily defended CP, given the long timers and defender advantage.

An area capture system like this might be more suited to a rethinking of the fundamental spawn system of the game; Where we have dynamic field base deployments and can map out facilities in a frontline of zone control.

But that's really not in the scope of this topic so I'm willing to say that building capture, or area capture immediately around the building, is probably the best way to go about this under the current system.

Edited May 21, 2010 by ZeroAce

[speed]

Very clear and logical replies from zero&smythes,well posted.

The main issue here is that we will have area capture,despite the non revamp of the radio room.

Rat Gods will not recode the game for now so,in my humbe opinion,to achieve a better gameability status and insure team work,implementing fear of death SD would be the anwser to this issue.

It would really bring this game to another level,allowing planned attacks,team work and many other situations like FB fights to really improve,cutting off the silly everlasting spawn/respawn of our current playmode.

Why not give it a try? Would it take too much changing to reconfigure the game core?Many to whom I have spoken to,abides this feature and welcomes it.

Lets poll it and see the results....

S!

Speed

PS.My comments are non emotional,non side biased.Only for the sake of the game.Please keep your personal opinions regarding typing and other issues to yourself.

Post constructive comments and stay focused.

Edited May 21, 2010 by speedbird

[timmy41]

maybe the capture flags could work like they did in the battlefield games?

when one is capturing, at 50% the CP turns neutral and nobody can spawn at it, then at 100% it changed to your team.

it gave the defenders a chance, but also prevented the lemming attacks beyond a certain point.