Fair win? Natrd0g and slowzo disagree what do you think?

[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

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

Nated0g and slowzo think this win was due to inbalances in MCP, what do you think?

Battle: 880

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Duckordie]

map?

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

abbeville.

[CommanderNewbie]

Definately fair.  They simply got beat out in the end.

[Duckordie]

Not beat out, they got flanked

[slowzo2]

I think when the 60 min timer ends, the game should be over. period.

[nated0g]

Personally, slowzo and I are agreed that the purpose of the 60 min timer is the defender timer.
If the 60 minute timer reaches 0 and the defender doesnt win, then we may as well have an MCP only system where map control domination wins, similar to the COH VP system.

[fldash]

At the end of the 60 minute timer, the defenders should win, unless of course they are under the 3:00 minute capture more territory constraint.  I didn't watch the reply, don't really have the time right now.  Is this what happened?

[nated0g]

Yes,they did have the 3 minute terriorty capture timer. However it almost makes the 60 minute timer useless, it may as well not have the 60 minute defense timer. Surely if you fail to caputure a military objective on time constitues a mission failure.

[Smithy17]

The 3 minute timer means that the objective has been achieved, it just gives the defenders a chance to counterattack/cap

[TorJado]

If the 3 minute timer did not have priority, then the defenders would only have to defend 57 mins. Once they defend 57 minutes, the three minute timer would be useless if the defenders auto-win at 60.

[nated0g]

The mission is the destruction of the enemy forces ahead.

[slowzo2]

I think a compromise would be when the 60 min timer hits 0 the defender should get full popcap and the attacker should lose the ability to reinforce.  the 60 min timer should be a game deciding factor.  It also makes sense that if they hold out for 60 min, reinforcements should arrive.

[scrapking]

Personally, slowzo and I are agreed that the purpose of the 60 min timer is the defender timer.
If the 60 minute timer reaches 0 and the defender doesnt win, then we may as well have an MCP only system where map control domination wins, similar to the COH VP system.

This happened to me once too.  I did vote "No", although in terms of true fairness, of course it is fair, since it can affect all players equally.  I mean for my vote to indicate that I don't like the mechanism.  Especially painful is how it played out with the 3:2 advantage.  

First off, to lose a game by a slim margin is always going to be a bitter pill to swallow for whoever loses, no matter what the cause.

But the way it works now, and it is intentional as I understand it, is that once the MCP timer kicks in, it must be stopped above all else.  The defender timer no longer matters once that happens.  I would prefer it if it were as simple as whichever timer reaches zero first, decides the game.  At least it would feel more like two sides racing for a finish line.  As is, the MCP timer is like a bomb about to explode, and plays stronger than I personally would like.  When a player drops late game, if the defenders at least had their timer taking precedence, they'd have a chance.  Call it part of the defender's advantage if you will.

However, we must remember that these cases are not the norm, and to put too much thought into how the game plays in rare exceptions is not exxactly important either.  And our votes have zero meaning on game mechanics or design, so lets not make ourselves too empowered here.  This is not a democracy.

[nated0g]

Torjado, regardless of the 3 minute timer, the game would still last 60 minutes, which is enough.
Although I do think that the attacker needs a starting pop increase too.

[fldash]

The 60 minute timer is something we've debated removing, which is why the 3 minute timer takes precedence.  Hope that makes it a little more clear as to why it works the way it does.

[slowzo2]

I think a compromise would be when the 60 min timer hits 0 the defender should get full popcap and the attacker should lose the ability to reinforce.  the 60 min timer should be a game deciding factor.  It also makes sense that if they hold out for 60 min, reinforcements should arrive.

Is that dumb?

[nated0g]

fldash, I think it should be either on or the other. But thats my personal view.
If not I'm in favour of having the option for two game modes; 60 minute defending or Map Control Victory.

[scrapking]

The 60 minute timer is something we've debated removing, which is why the 3 minute timer takes precedence.  Hope that makes it a little more clear as to why it works the way it does.

The only thing I would point out is that aside from the defender timer, the only advantage that the defender has is early map control (which with the way MCP scales over time, is not really huge), and preparing a defense, which blitz / infantry / airborne opponents can already severely disrupt.  I've played many games as both sides where I wasn't even able to finish a small (8 or so) stretch of TTs / wire, with 2 pios.

Attacker has more to gain (CP, RB, spoils, territory) with not many things working against them, there should be some advantage to defense commensurate with this.  If not timer, something else perhaps.

[Stuart750]

We still should have won. We defended for 60 minutes. That's the request of the Allied HQ, and we did our job.

Period.