End Game Suggestion

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[von_Luchs]

Here's an idea: one of the pet peeves I have with EiR is the detemination of winners and losers, so its either cap territory (so you need inf), or destroy the enemy (ussualy requiring armor and elite inf etc), and usually some combinaiton of the two.  In any case, the win/loss is determined in a pretty straight forward way.

So I was thinking of an RTS game I thought had a really cool way of deciding win/loss.  In the first place, it allowed for marginal, tactical, and decisive victories and these were determined by a combination of factors map control and damage done to the enemy (much like the end game stats, cept they were actually worth something).  Now map control didnt have sectors, but 2 or 3 vp locations worth different amounts of points; eg, in a 3 vp game 500, 300, 250.  So ones control of those vps was combined with the damage one did.  So conceivably one could control the two lesser vps and still win by inflicting more damage.  

In any case, the design of such a system seemed really elegant to me and allowed for a lot of battle flexibility in terms of strategy in a way that outstrips EiR.

Some probs I can anticipate, that dont seem prohibitive, but I leave that to you guys to think about:

How would our maps work out in a vp framework? Would that make some areas OP like a town square?

How could we discourage sim city approaches, or arty spam?

In terms of casualty scores, what would be the scale used for say volks deaths vs piats, or an M10 vs P4 etc?

I know this sounds like a lot of work, but its just a thought.  Im more interested if you guys find the general idea attractive...

[EliteGren]

I actually do like this idea, and support any form of new gamemodes that have something to do with Victory points.

Might bring in some fresh wind in this stinky hole.

[tank130]

I think this is a fantastic idea. Perhaps the VP should be important, but if the enemy holds the rest of the map,( or 70% lets say ) the VP is moot. That would help counter the camping.
A combination of kills and territory would be the win, but rewards would still be given for the territory and kills of the looser. This calculation of territories could also be carried over to a war map type idea.
Needs lots of fine tuning, but I think the idea is great.

[Mysthalin]

OCP = stale, campy-ass gameplay.

We'd need to basically at least double the size of EVERY map to make VPs work like that properly. Yeah, imagine playing abbevile as a 2v2. That's how big the 2v2 maps would need to become to really work properly, without camping all the time over the VPs.

[Ununoctium]

if we could make the enw objectives randomly appear on the map it would work but thats so FPS....

[tank130]

OCP = stale, campy-ass gameplay.

We'd need to basically at least double the size of EVERY map to make VPs work like that properly. Yeah, imagine playing abbevile as a 2v2. That's how big the 2v2 maps would need to become to really work properly, without camping all the time over the VPs.

Did you actually read my post before you posted? I assume not.

You could not win by only holding the VP. It would count much higher than just a territory or 2 or maybe 3, but you would need to also have other areas and kills to win. The amount of each would have to be carefully created, but it makes a unique idea.
There is no need to change the size of maps. We may not even have to change the territories. The VP could be at the intersection of 2 or 3 points. Maybe 3 VP per map.
It's time to think outside the box!!! Just because there are VPs does not mean it will play exactly the same as VCoH. We just need to score it differently.

[Skaevola]

OCP = stale, campy-ass gameplay.

We'd need to basically at least double the size of EVERY map to make VPs work like that properly. Yeah, imagine playing abbevile as a 2v2. That's how big the 2v2 maps would need to become to really work properly, without camping all the time over the VPs.

I loved OCP. Ardennes valley was THE SHIT

[Tymathee]

i always thought OCP was broken after T oV

[von_Luchs]

Vps could be worked a lot of different ways, it need not be just 1 sector but a collection or cluster of them.  There's different ways to work around the problem of camping since its such an obvious one, just would take some work.  And, yes ideally a viable strat should be going for kills as well as some map control to offset a campy opponent.  I dont think calls for new maps, just each map should have a different combo of vp regions (instead of points?).

[Mysthalin]

Yes, I did win. And unless the VPs were put in absolutely awkward locations, you wouldn't need to go out of your way to actually keep the other territory intact as well.
Imagine a map like Church, for example. Where'd the VPs be? I would guess the highest VP point in the church, the other ones in the northern wooden house, the house parralel to the church(that has no windows to the north) and the house near the bottom spawn.
Now, if you managed to hold the church, you're likely also in control of the church sector, and the sector paralel to it. Meaning, it's impossible to flank you. You're not only in control of the main VPs, but also have majority map control. You're on the defense, so it's very likely you'll kill far more than you'll lose via the usage of support weapons.

To make a map like church work, you'd need to double the width of the map, so flanking and back-capping became viable tactics against someone who just camps down the church.

Another problem with your suggestion is that on the defence, you're likely to kill a LOT more than the one attacking. Meaning that on top of having the main VP point for a tremendous point boost, you're also racking up points for killing the enemy as he attempts to dislodge you. Giving you an immense increment in points - just because you've got control of the main VP sector. Who cares if you've got slightly less map control, if you're winning by a huge margin in both kills and VPs?

You asked for input on how people thing this kind of system would work on the current maps. That's what I gave you - I think the current maps would be far too small for a system like that to work as intended. If you only wanted positive input, and no criticism, you should have written so in fine print.

[bristiler]

Honestly, Mysthalin, you seem to shoot down every new idea that comes around. I dont mean to flame or start an argument but some of these ideas are pretty good, I dont see why an idea that seems plausable couldnt be tested out given that it doesnt put alot of stress on the devs

[von_Luchs]

Ok Myst, it seems the main prob is the size of the map in relation to VPs.  So, for example, in a map like Church its not wide enough to support multiple VPs viably it would be to cluttered, and the game would always start with a death charge to see who could hold a particualr point on the map, whuich on the face of it doesnt seem too bad but would get stale fast.

Given that, how about this, what if every sector on the map was alloted a value?  Say from 50-100, so that backcapping would be of some value, and a campy enemy could be avoided.  In essence then the game would be about creating a front that is bigger, or more valuable than the enemy's rather than just a few sectors.

On a more general note, are you guys happy with the way end game works now?  Aside from the war map not being up yet, I mean in each individual battle, does it seem stale to you guys?

[tank130]

Yes, I did win. And unless the VPs were put in absolutely awkward locations, you wouldn't need to go out of your way to actually keep the other territory intact as well.
Imagine a map like Church, for example. Where'd the VPs be? I would guess the highest VP point in the church, the other ones in the northern wooden house, the house parralel to the church(that has no windows to the north) and the house near the bottom spawn.
Now, if you managed to hold the church, you're likely also in control of the church sector, and the sector paralel to it. Meaning, it's impossible to flank you. You're not only in control of the main VPs, but also have majority map control. You're on the defense, so it's very likely you'll kill far more than you'll lose via the usage of support weapons.

To make a map like church work, you'd need to double the width of the map, so flanking and back-capping became viable tactics against someone who just camps down the church.

Another problem with your suggestion is that on the defence, you're likely to kill a LOT more than the one attacking. Meaning that on top of having the main VP point for a tremendous point boost, you're also racking up points for killing the enemy as he attempts to dislodge you. Giving you an immense increment in points - just because you've got control of the main VP sector. Who cares if you've got slightly less map control, if you're winning by a huge margin in both kills and VPs?

You asked for input on how people thing this kind of system would work on the current maps. That's what I gave you - I think the current maps would be far too small for a system like that to work as intended. If you only wanted positive input, and no criticism, you should have written so in fine print.

The problem is, your entire argument is centered around the VP's being A tremendous point boost. You also assume the VPs are in buildings. I don't remember anybody even mentioning that option. I kinda assumed the VP would be a point like it is in VCoH.
This option would be a balance of VP, Kill points and territory points. Being able to control a couple of VP would be easier than controlling the rest of the map, but you still need more than the VP to win. You also can't win just be steam rolling heavy tanks around the map. You need to hold some ground as well.

Mysthalin you do not have to support this idea, but I agree with others that you have shot it down with little or no thought to a way it may work. You have blinders on to anything but "we have to make bigger maps". There is no justification to your points in consideration of the material put in front of you. You have focused on one part and made that a problem. The idea will not work with out a balanced system. I challenge you to think outside the box and come up with something creative. It is easy to criticize, but it take smarts and creativity to come up with good ideas. This is not intended as a flame.

[Mysthalin]

You seem to be shooting down what I say assuming it is wrong in it's essence and playing the "you shoot down everything", "criticism is easy" and "you don't even read" cards, rather than actually arguing my points. Look at von_luchs post : he seems to have understood what I meant, and considers my point, offering a work-around.

The problem is, your entire argument is centered around the VP's being A tremendous point boost.

Tremendous or not tremendous - it's still a point boost. And unless the VPs would be placed in absolutely awkward locations, they'd still be within the usual fighting locations on any given map. If you'd take majority map control, you're likely to have also taken the VP(and vice-versa). Giving you a double boost to your points. With that kind of situation, the enemy would be forced to attack you even more than he would normally be, forcing him to lose more men(giving you more kill score) in the process. I am not arguing that it'd be a tremendous point boost, but that it would provide a TRIPPLE point boost to the defending party, rather than a single one like it currently is, severely tilting the scales to the army that can defend itself better.
 

You also assume the VPs are in buildings. I don't remember anybody even mentioning that option. I kinda assumed the VP would be a point like it is in VCoH.

I'm not assuming they are IN buildings, just that they're within the same general area of the main buildings of a map. The fighting generally revolves around certain key buildings in most maps, as they are "natural" strongpoints that are easier to defend, and I only gave church as an example. For instance, on Tanteville, the crossroads on the left side of the fields could be a VP, as it's a natural fighting point.


Finally, to my knowledge, it would be a very large hastle to implement what you are suggesting.
1. We'd need every map to be allocated VPs(would be rather a challenge to get all the mappers to do it, and then update all the maps), and then we would need to form a balance team(or have the devs do it) on deciding which VPs are more important than others, and which should grant more points towards victory.
2. We'd need to create a BALANCED system on what is worth how many points. Do we consider a sherman to be worth the same as a P4? Do we think rangers are equal point value man for man when we compare them to grenadiers? Etc. It'd be a severely hard to balance situation. If you're about to argue that we could judge them based on cost - then why bother? If you're using your units to kill more than they're worth, you're likely going win sherely by attrition, anyway, so a point boost on top of that is kind of pointless.

[RikiRude]

you're pretty much suggesting the same idea that Project Reality mod uses for its games, and it's a really effective way to do things, and i personally think its fun.

in PR which is a BF2 mod, if you haven't played either ill explain it quickly. there would be 5 flags on a map, if each team has 2 flags and 1 is neutral, there would be no "ticket bleed" each team starts off with 500 tickets. if blue team has 3/5 of the flags, red gets a slow ticket bleed. if blue has 4/5 of the flags faster ticket bleed. and of course holding all 5 flags would be even faster ticket bleed. every time someone dies, when they respawn that takes a ticket from their team as well.

what PR did was went beyond the simple one person dies and takes away one ticket to, every time a tank is destroyed that would be 10 tickets, normal infantry would be 1 ticket, squad leaders 2 tickets, planes 25 tickets, and so on. so i could def see this working in an EIRR environment, would be really cool.

might also stop spam to some extent or punish people for spamming in game. if each airborne is worth 2 tickets, but a rifleman is worth 1, you might not spam as many AB.

[Mysthalin]

might also stop spam to some extent or punish people for spamming in game. if each airborne is worth 2 tickets, but a rifleman is worth 1, you might not spam as many AB.

We already have that.
1 rifleman is worth 31.66 manpower.
1 airborne is worth 50 manpower.
Not even counting in munitions and supply pool costs.

The thing is, with the whole costing system - we do the "ticket bleed upon deaths" part pre-game. If this were a vCoH styled mod(reminds me a lot of the Panzerkrieg mode in TOV), then it would work. However, we pre-spend our "ticket bleed" points.

[von_Luchs]

No doubt the suggested changes here would take work, perhaps too much work.  But if we are trying to make the mod better, then the end game is somethng that I think definetly needs work.

To Myst:

1)  You're right, every map sector would have to be alloted VPs (per my example, between 50-100), such that  control of a chunk of a map granted X amount of points. Now the distribution of those points could be relatively simple.  For example, all sectors around the edge of the map or with a dirt road 50, all sectors with a main road in them 75, and all sectors with buildings and roads 100.  Or, one could make the points relative to the center of the map so the central 4 or 5 sectors to a map are 100 and as you go further away they scale down, like a dart board.  Those are just rough examples and not necessarily exclusive of one another, and would probably be dependent on each map.

2)  Balancing the per unit value would take some work, and this would probably never make everyone happy.  In the end, there's no real way to justify a gren death being say 5 points, and a commando 8.  But I dont think it has to be that complicated.  In the end, all we're looking for is a system where some combination of territory AND casualties is what gives a team victory, and a victory that can be scaled from marginal to decisive which, if i jump ahead of myself, could fit in nicely with a war map. 

[AmPM]

Territory and casualties already give you victory/loss.

You aren't playing based on bodycount or vehicles destroyed, but on points lost by the enemy. A P4 costs more points than an M10, so if you M10 kills one, and is then lost in turn, you come out ahead. At the end you should outlast your enemy by being more efficient. This leads to victory.

UNLESS of course you lose the tactical and strategic game, and all you have is 1 squad to cap and a couple tanks and they just flank and cap your territory. Then you lose. And you deserve to. Armor doesn't hold territory, it doesn't even take territory. It breaks through and spreads into the rear so Infantry can take and hold territory.

Also, VP style maps can easily be made, all it takes is choosing where to put them, and then making a little area with a lot of sectors in it. Viola, instant control point.

The other thing, is this casualty ticker idea would promote camping, hard to kill heavy units, and artillery and support spam. Wee...sounds like fun....

[LeoPhone]

actually, this is very easy to get to work:

step 1:
remake all the big maps placing VPs on them and only territory at both the players spawns (so both armies have the same amount of territories all the time)

step 2:
set an option in the game lobby(in coh) so you can select the old VP control gamemode.

step 3:
PLAY!
both teams gain popcap at the same rate, and winning is only about capturing VPs so the enemy loses the game becouse their VPs got to 0, or just annihilating the enemy


edit:
oh, seems ampm just said the exact same thing i did. while i only read the 1st few posts 

[tank130]

actually, this is very easy to get to work:

step 1:
remake all the big maps placing VPs on them and only territory at both the players spawns (so both armies have the same amount of territories all the time)

step 2:
set an option in the game lobby(in coh) so you can select the old VP control gamemode.

step 3:
PLAY!
both teams gain popcap at the same rate, and winning is only about capturing VPs so the enemy loses the game becouse their VPs got to 0, or just annihilating the enemy


edit:
oh, seems ampm just said the exact same thing i did. while i only read the 1st few posts 

Sorry Leophone, but your suggestion would most likely result in camping. Most would probably agree that is something we want to avoid.
We need to make it so the VP is important, but not the most important. The balance would be in kills and other territories combined.  Make it so you can not win with VP only.
Just my thoughts.