Info > Feedback and Suggestions
CP Neutralisation Mechanics
Zyem:
I've mentioned this in another topic and got some encouraging feedback when I mentioned it in-game last night.
In my experience, capture point biases pretty strongly to "who gets there first". The defending team then have the advantage that as long as they can get back fast enough to block, it is very difficult for the attackers to neutralise/capture the point.
So my original suggestion is this: destroying one of the defending teams ships in proximity of the point, "damages" the point towards being neutral.
The idea is that you get rewarded for successfully removing an enemy from the point, rather than only being rewarded for removing all enemy ships and doing so fast enough that none of them get back to the point to block before you can even neutralise it.
Further things for consideration include:
Basing the amount of damage done to the point on the ship that was destroyed. For example, removing a Squid off the point would only move it bit towards neutral, whereas removing a Galleon would move it quite a lot.
It shouldn't be based on being on the point or set range with a binary "either does or doesn't damage it", but has a fall-off based on the distance. 100% damage within 100 metres, falling off to 0% at 300 metres (liner, cubic whatever).
Doing damage based on the points total "health" or just the remaining ownership. So if the point is captured and at 50% health, destroying a ship that moves it 50% towards neutral would put it at neutral (total health) versus 25% health (remaining ownership).
I think this would make CP a bit more to-and-fro with less matches ending 650-0.
Any obvious problems with this that I've missed? Any thoughts?
Spud Nick:
Players should have to be at the point in order to get points. If you don't have any ships at the point it should go neutral. This would give players more ways to fight over the points in 2v2 and 3v3.
Crafeksterty:
Just making the capture time go down quicker sounds more like it than teing %'s and deaths.
If a ship is about to go down then it is better to sacrifice letting them stand on the point, escaping with what could have given them 50% of the timer less to wait.
If the capture time is greatly reduced then you will force people to stay on the point. Not staying at it can be risky and may make youhave to recapture it. Hense "King of the hill"/"crazy king"
Zyem:
--- Quote from: Crafeksterty on December 14, 2013, 01:45:46 pm ---Just making the capture time go down quicker sounds more like it than teing %'s and deaths.
If a ship is about to go down then it is better to sacrifice letting them stand on the point, escaping with what could have given them 50% of the timer less to wait.
If the capture time is greatly reduced then you will force people to stay on the point. Not staying at it can be risky and may make youhave to recapture it. Hense "King of the hill"/"crazy king"
--- End quote ---
Consider this:
R1 and R2 gets to the point first and capture it. B1 and B2 arrive at the point, destroys R1 and is engaged with R2. R1 gets back to the point just before R2 dies. R2 gets back to the point before R1 dies. R1 gets back to the point just before R2 dies. Repeat until 650-0 in R's favour.
This is perfectly possible and happens (it gets worse the more ships that are available to defend the point) reducing the capture time would not affect this at all.
Is this a reasonable gameplay mechanic where one team can sustain 100% of the losses but wins unchallenged?
Crafeksterty:
By greatly reducing the timer i mean GREATLY not by a tiny amount. You stay on that point for just 5 seconds and it is allready neutrelised.
The spot to stand and capture a cp is allready a tight also. So it would really be a king of the hill.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version