Guns Of Icarus Online
Info => Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: Zyem on December 14, 2013, 09:57:12 am
-
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?
-
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.
-
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"
-
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"
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?
-
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.
-
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.
What do you regard as greatly reducing it? I think it's already gone from 30 seconds to 15 seconds..?
-
The thing about todays king of the hill is, when the new kings take place, they still have to capture it. Technicaly making the defeated team for the time being still the kings.
Lower the timer GREATLY. Like fucken... neutrilised in 3, more or less seconds then you have a heavy fight for the point.
Leaving the hill will risk in getting its throne stolen, etc etc.
A random ass brawl where none of the ships are aware of the capture zone will randomly take the point.
But the oldest king of the hill mode that i can remember that is correct only offered points if inside the capture zone, and if your out of it... is neutrilised. If 2 opposing teams are in it, its neutrilised.
If someone pushes you out of it. He starts gaining points and etc. Basically, anyone on the hill gains points. That is how it is seppoused to be.
Put the timer down to very low, you can simulate that while still maintaining the ability to leave the point.
-
Currently it takes a lot more teamwork to reclaim a point, than to just capture it. The first one to capture it gains a massive advantage, and it can take almost a whole match just to flip it once.
I think one nice way to make it easier is to change the times. Currently it's like a tug of war match. You have three zones: Red, Neutral, and Blue. To capture of a point, you have to take it from neutral up to full (your color). At which point you'll continually gain points until it's put back to neutral.
So ideally you could make the Red/Blue zones smaller than the neutral zone. Something crazy small, like 5 seconds; while the neutral zones stays the same or becomes a little larger. This makes it easier to at least bring it back to neutral and prevent more points, while you still need to take it completely to your color to start earning.
I think Xyem has another good idea for making it a little more back and forth, although personally I'd dumb it down. Instead of it being based off how far from the point or what kind of ship/damage; just having a static number. This would make the gauge more like a point based system.
For example, lets pretend that there's still zones. Neutral starts at 0 and ends at +/-10. While the blue and red zones go from +/-10 to +/-20. We'll pretend these relate to seconds, although I'm fairly certain they're not accurate. So when you get to the point at first, you take it from 0 to 20 (you're red), and you'll keep getting points as long as it's in the 10 to 20 zone. The enemy needs to take it from 20 all the way down to -20 to start getting points.
With an idea based off of Xyems, just killing an enemy who's in that zone awards you 'points/seconds' to your color. So if red has it at 20, and you kill a red ship inside the zone, it'll put a -5 or so on the gauge, moving it down to 15. Kill another red ship and it's at 10, back in the neutral zone, and they are no longer earning points. This also helps recapture a point faster, since you need 30 seconds instead of 40. (while the initial capture only took 20 seconds).
Just an example, the numbers are totally tweakable. It's just less complicated, although it may push for tougher to kill ships in capture point matches, something I think Xyem was trying to balance for.
-
Then you have to create that zone, then the largness of that zone, then the system that reads what is happening.
It just makes things complicated even for a meta perspective just for a game of king of the hill.
Right now they have a CP system that they use for both resource race that no one plays and Crazy king.
Complicating things by too much, you get too much work for a complicated to keep track of game mode.
While at heart you will mostly want to just focus on the ship and what is going on in the game. Rather how the game mode works.
That is why im saying that, simply reducing the capturing time to very very small for king of the hill atleast is the most simple and elegant way.
-
.. snip ..
Thank you! You've helped me realise an issue with my suggested system.
People purposely leaving the point if they know they will die so them dying doesn't damage the point. Hmm *ponderponder*
The only way around that that I can think of is that it isn't based on distance, but rather each ship has a timer on itself and the damage is also done relative to how much "defending the point" timer they have. So a ship that doesn't go near the point, doesn't affect the point if it dies but a ship leaving the point and killed would still affect it, unless they'd been away from the point for a while.
@Thomas:
The issue with having a set number and a set range causes several issues.
Firstly, some ships are more difficult to remove from the point. Why is the reward the same for much more exerted effort?
With a set range, defenders can "skirt" the edge of the range and leave it when they are about to die to prevent damage to the point when they die.
If you don't have any range at all, ships that are not involved in the point defense dying affect the point when they shouldn't.
EDIT: Just wanted to say thank you for your input :) It is very appreciated!
-
My second idea was just for simplicity. I think it wouldn't really be worth the effort the apply the ranges or point values for certain ships. Some ships being harder to remove is mostly about their captain and crew. A good squid can be a monster to destroy in the hands of a great crew, where a galleon can go down in seconds with a terrible one. It's less about the ship choice and more about the player's ability.
If a player fears they might die and leave the point anyways to prevent damage, you're still in a good position to start recapping the point. You can either start capping it and wait for them to reenter in an effort to block, and destroy them then, or simply destroy them and let them respawn. It could lead to some interesting strategies.
I still feel the easiest adjustment that can be made to get desired results is simply to adjust the timer. By making it easier to convert, you'll have a little more back and forth; since teams will have less time to return and prevent a conversion.
-
I still feel the easiest adjustment that can be made to get desired results is simply to adjust the timer. By making it easier to convert, you'll have a little more back and forth; since teams will have less time to return and prevent a conversion.
As I mentioned before, this still leads to the possibility that there are 2 ships that are always on the point, never die, destroy the opponent repeatedly, but still lose 650-0, simply because they didn't get there first.
Tell me, Mr Thomas, what good is a short timer, if you are unable to start it?
Bear in mind that in my previous hypothetical, B would eventually lose the point if the timer was ever started, regardless of its length, due to attrition. However, as explained, the timer is never started because B always have a ship on the point, preventing it being captured by R.
If my hypothetical isn't clear by the way, let me know as I'm happy to make an animation to demonstrate it.
The current mechanics allow a situation where the team actually defending the point doesn't own it and can't capture it, even with a 0 second timer! I'm sure everyone agrees that shouldn't be the case :)
EDIT: By the way, great point about the skill of the crew having more impact than the ship type.
-
If there is a situation where there is constantly ships being on the point, then the probably deserve to keep that point. This is more for 2v2, but I can't remember a time when there wasn't at least a few seconds with them off the point. It would start to convert, but of course they'd continue gaining points the whole time, and then they'd remove the enemy, and gain those few seconds back. It takes quite a while to convert to neutral.
In 3v3 and 4v4 things get a little more complicated. With the sheer number of ships, there are situations where there's always at least one on the point. The current solution is just having more teamwork and coordinating the kills to give the largest gap from respawn to returning to the point. Once the hotfix goes in, some of the spawns should change and make it not as easy for ships to keep rushing back in. (I haven't looked at the spawns myself sadly. D; )
A reward for killing enemies on the point would certainly help this situation, but then it starts turning into more of a DM. If it were to be done so, it would have to work for both teams evenly. So killing a ship on the team that captured the point would move it towards your side on the gauge, but dying to them would move it back towards their color (by however many seconds).
-
How do you know if a short timer cant help the attacking team capture it before the defending team spawn back?
The deal with king of the hill is being on it not letting anyone else capture it until you are pushed off or eliminated. Its... really just simple.
A Short timer will not only reward being on the point while the others are just outside the border of the point. It is alot more threatning leaving the point in all.
And for 2 blue ships to destroy 1 red as the other 1 red is coming in, the short timer will atleast pass thru 3 seconds before that other red reaches the point to block it and then die eventualy because it is 2 v 1.
Todays, is a very large timer, punishing the act of killing ships because they will come right back. Instead, the best tactic now to capture a point is to disable them outside the capture zone.
And that is though.
With a very short timer, the blue team that captures the point can have a ship ram and stop the red team ship that flies in to try and block the point and that will be rewarded because they got an extra 2 or 3 or much more time for that one ship that stood on the point to capture.
If there is a situation where there is constantly ships being on the point, then the probably deserve to keep that point.
That is king of the hill.
-
If there is a situation where there is constantly ships being on the point, then the probably deserve to keep that point.
I will now describe a match where there are constantly 2 R ships on the point and they lose 650-0.
Match starts.
1) B1 and B2 are squids. They rush the point and capture it before R1 and R2 show up. They now 100% own the the point.
2) R1 and R2 arrive and focus fire B1. B1 is destroyed, leaving one B ship on the point and 2 R ships on the point. The timer is not started due to B2's presence. B owns 100% of the point.
3) B2 then uses their pilot tools, 2 engineers camping the hull and the terrain to avoid being destroyed by R. The timer is not started due to B2's presence. There is 1 B ship and 2 R ships on the point. B owns 100% of the point.
4) B1 respawns and rushes to the point. They get to the point while B2 is alive. The timer is not started due to B being present. There are 2 B ships and 2 R ships on the point. B owns 100% of the point.
5) B2 gets destroyed soon after B1 arrives, leaving one B ship on the point and 2 R ships on the point. The timer is not started due to B1's presence. B owns 100% of the point.
6) GOTO 3 unless score is 650-0. Switch B1 and B2 around.
7) B wins 650-0.
R Kills: 22
R Deaths: 0
R Point Presence: 98%
R Point Ship Presence Average: 2
B Kills: 0
B Deaths: 22
B Point Presence: 100%
B Point Ship Presence Average: 1.1
In this match, R has the dominate point position. They are acting defensively, but are actually trying to attack the point. B is acting aggresively, but is actually defending the point. This is completely backwards.
Feel free to plug any timer value you like in, you will see that it makes no difference. The timer is never started, so it doesn't matter how short it is. Make it shorter, it takes B less time to establish their win position. Make it long enough for R to get their before it is captured and the game would end at a time out with no-one fully capturing the point.
Making an argument based on changing the hypothesis (such as B getting totally removed from the point to allow your short timer to come into effect) is moving the goalposts. Explain how my hypothetical situation is a fair outcome without changing B and R's behaviour.
Given my suggestion, R "defending" the point would eventually cause to go neutral. They would still lose if they didn't change their behaviour, but it would only be 70-0. This reflects who captured the point much better. Extending it to also make R kills increase point ownership for R would cause them to win.
At a minimum, the point ownership should move to whichever team has most ships on it. So R would eventually capture the point because they can maintain 2 ships on it while B can only maintain 1. For example, if there is one ship of each team on the point, it doesn't move (50-50 balance). If there are 2 R and 1 B, it moves towards R (66-33 balance). Capturing the point should simply slow down the timer in the owning teams favour by counting as, say, 50% of a ship.
-
It's a bit of a gray area. The goal of the match is to claim and control the 'hill', and if they can manage to survive and get back to the point without having them both off the point at any time, that's pretty impressive. It's about controlling the zone as opposed to kills.
If there was even 1 second in between the last kill and the next ship arriving, the point would slowly be converting to the Red team. With a shorter time, they could convert it faster, and at the very least get it to neutral. The current timer would take them several waves to even reach neutral.
Although I can support the idea of having more ships on a point at a time will start to convert it towards your team, with each ship contributing a little. So each ship pushes for +1 second to your teams gauge, while the enemies get a +1 to their gauge. This could ideally help out the 3v3 matches too, where it's far more likely that they'll have at least one ship blocking the point.
Most of these suggestions will lead to longer matches, but that can be easily fixed by changing the points needed to win.
-
Youve explained it before. Your description of a match does not proove much because you are assuming R to be really bad.
Im sorry Xyem but your example does not work with actual skill going on. I definetly support the idea of 2 ships being on the point versus 1 ship will still count torwards capturing the point for the 2.
But the timer does make a diffrence. Just a slight, slight no ship blocking the point will result in a loss of the point. (asuming 3 seconds to neutral state). But right now the timer is too long, even for being blocked.
Heck if you assume the timer does no difference if it is 1 sec? Then i really urge you to learn how to do some quick kills. I mean, its 2 v 1 were talking about.
-
It's a bit of a gray area. The goal of the match is to claim and control the 'hill', and if they can manage to survive and get back to the point without having them both off the point at any time, that's pretty impressive. It's about controlling the zone as opposed to kills.
Exactly. In my example, is it not R controlling the zone rather than B?
-
Youve explained it before. Your description of a match does not proove much because you are assuming R to be really bad.
You don't have to be bad to struggle to get a kill on a ship totally focused on avoiding dying. B doesn't have to return fire, so everyone is focused on repair...
Im sorry Xyem but your example does not work with actual skill going on.
Then explain why most CP matches end 650-0, even with similar skilled crews on both sides. My example works fine because I've been in matches where what I describe actually happens.
But the timer does make a diffrence. Just a slight, slight no ship blocking the point will result in a loss of the point. (asuming 3 seconds to neutral state). But right now the timer is too long, even for being blocked.
I'm not arguing that a shorter timer wouldn't make for more to-and-fro in most matches, I'm arguing that there is an edge case where the timer is rendered irrelevent and the team that should win, doesn't. My suggestion handles this edge case without disrupting the usual case.
Heck if you assume the timer does no difference if it is 1 sec? Then i really urge you to learn how to do some quick kills. I mean, its 2 v 1 were talking about.
I've been 2v1'd an entire match by level 6+ crews and lasted long enough for my ally to get back to me. And I'm hardly a very good pilot. Find 2 experienced squid crews and 2v1 them while they are completely focused on staying alive. You will find that they can stay alive longer than it takes for their ally to return.
Saying I can't kill fast enough to work around the broken mechanics is blaming the wrong person :P
-
Then explain why most CP matches end 650-0, even with similar skilled crews on both sides. My example works fine because I've been in matches where what I describe actually happens.
Its because todays CP is not rewarding and does not punish leaving the point!!! I didnt assume your example with 300 seconds to capture a point, i assumed with 3 second capture. Where you also said Feel free to plug any timer value you like in, you will see that it makes no difference.
How do you know that?! With skill and or actual commitment into nabbing the other team away from the point with the concept of a very low timer, how do you know it will still be the same? Even if the timer that i mentioned is as narrow as a spawning ship just wont make it back to blocking...
-
It's actually surprisingly hard to focus on staying alive, especially with two ships on your tail. Any fancy maneuver you make to avoid a bucket-load of damage often damages you in the process, and you're still likely to take some scrapes. If all they're doing is repairing, it's time to change strategies. Beat them up a bit, get them close, but don't finish the kill. This obviously takes a lot of teamwork and coordination on your ship and with your ally. Wait for the other ship to make it back, as they should be rushing at the point to prevent the gauge from moving at all. Kill the ship that arrived, then finish off the weakened ally. Suddenly they're both dead and you'll have several seconds to start recapping the point. Then it becomes easier to finish them around the same time when they arrive again.
Another possibility is to redo the system completely, giving each team points for just being on the point. This way it's a better representation of zone control, and the score does a better job of accurately reflecting how match went down. In your scenario, the sides weren't all that different, but blue won by a landslide. In this system, red would win by a large amount, but blue would still have a decent score.
-
How do you know that?! With skill and or actual commitment into nabbing the other team away from the point with the concept of a very low timer, how do you know it will still be the same? Even if the timer that i mentioned is as narrow as a spawning ship just wont make it back to blocking...
How do I know that the timer value doesn't matter? Read the match description again. I said several times that the timer is never started due to B's continuous (but inferior) point presence. You could change the mechanics so that the instant B isn't on the point at all it skips neutral and fully switched to R and B would still win 650-0 because they are never not on the point..
x * y = z
Where x is whatever timer value you want and y is the number of times it is started in my hypothetical (0). When z equals 0, B wins 650-0.
Again, you and Thomas are arguing from a position of R and B having a different experience of the match than the one I described in my hypothetical (changing strategy, getting B off the point). It is irrelevant if a different strategy could get B off the point. It is irrelevant if a crew with better skills could get B off the point. The only thing that is relevant is the match happening as I have described.
It's called a corner case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case) and the current mechanics fail at handling it properly.
Out of curiosity, have either of you done any programming? I may only be seeing this as a problem because I have a very "programmer" mindset and strive to make a system handle any possible result properly, whereas you both seem to approach this with a more "very unlikely, so acceptable outcome" view.
-
Just spoken to someone and explained the match playout I've described here and they guesstimate that if B employed something like the hypothetical, but as an actual strategy, it could have a success rate of about 40% in public matches and 15% in competitive.
The significant drop to competitive is owed to 2v1 with a coordinated team would result in a too fast a kill for ally to get back in time, which I believe is what Crafeksterty and Thomas are getting at.
However, most matches are public matches, so this "problem" is more likely to crop up there anyway.
The proof is in the pudding though so.. I am going to test this. I will let you know the results of my experimentation :)
-
In the event you describe, blue deserves the win. Blue managed to reach the point and capture, and Red failed to remove them from the point for any length of time; while blue managed to constantly be blocking it.
I think the issue is that Red does not get properly acknowledged for it's efforts in the score.
In the original idea you posted, killing a ship would move the point towards neutral. In the event you described, this match would never ever end, as both teams are on the point at all times. All the ideas of shortening the timer and having kills move the point towards neutral still rely on having at least one team not present on the point for some period.
Then there has been the idea of more ships being on the point start converting it to their team. In a different scenario, that type of system could play out like this:
Red team has both ships rush to the point and they capture it before Blue arrives.
2 Red - 0 Blue on the point
Blue team arrives and kills R1
1 Red - 2 Blue on the point
R1 kills B1
1R - 1B
B1 arrives as R1 kills B2
1R - 1B
B2 arrives as R1 kills B1
1R - 1B
Keep repeating that for a while, the second red ship could be helping while off the point, or just floating around in a corner.
Under the current system, Red would win.
With changing the timer, Red would win.
Having kills push the timer towards neutral, game wouldn't end
With more ships converting the point, even with one ship trying to block (ie: 2v1 on the point), blue would win.
These would mostly be 650-0 situations. (except the endless game of course). With having more ships convert the point, the score would be something like 10-650
In this situation, Red wouldn't be fairly rewarded for their efforts if the system is changed to reward teams for having more than one ship on the point.
I think that most systems will end up having an issue like this. I did list another possibility of both teams being rewarded per ship on the point. In that situation that score would just about be tied in this event, and would be something around 650-340 in the situation you mentioned.
-
In the event you describe, blue deserves the win. Blue managed to reach the point and capture, and Red failed to remove them from the point for any length of time; while blue managed to constantly be blocking it.
I do find it interesting that you think Blue deserves the win. Surely blocking is far easier than destroying two ships at the same time?
That actually reminds me of when I played on Crazy King with someone. They flew their squid under the building surrounding the capture point to perma-block it while being immune to damage (couldn't get arcs on it). Cheap move, in my opinion, and very effective.
I think the issue is that Red does not get properly acknowledged for it's efforts in the score.
It certainly doesn't help the situation :)
In the event you described, this match would never ever end, as both teams are on the point at all times.
This is why I said it may need to be extended to allow capture via kills.
For example:
You kill an enemy ship who is on the point which they are capturing or have captured. It loses a chunk (goes towards neutral).
You are on the point which is neutral or you are capturing and kill an enemy ship. It adds a chunk to your ownership.
I believe (bearing in mind I haven't slept properly in the last week) that this would have the same effect as shortening the timer, but allow the team who is actually dominating the point to capture it through kills, instead of timer.
Thus my hypothetical match would go like this:
B captures the point via timer and starts accruing points.
R destroys B1, reduces the point to 66% B owned. B2 blocks timer capture.
B1 returns. B blocks timer capture.
R destroys B2, reduces the point to 33% B owned. B1 blocks timer capture.
B2 returns. B blocks timer capture.
R destroys B1, reduces the point to neutral.
Then every time B1 or B2 is destroyed thereafter, the point would become more owned by R (33%, 66%) until they had "kill captured" it and then R would start accruing points. Match ends 650-300 or something (depending how fast the kills were).
I think this would be a better reflection of capturing and doesn't cause other breakage. In fact.. this might make snipers more viable on CP as they can neutralise the point from a distance (but they would still need to be on the point to capture it). I'm not sure if snipers have issues on CP though.
Any slip on either side would play out as CP does now anyway e.g if B didn't get to the point in time, the timer would start and R would capture it that way. Each kill ends up with the timer being shorter, which is what you were suggesting.
Could this be a win-win(-win) solution?
-
Ah, I only remember reading that the kills would move it towards neutral, and assumed you'd have to sit on the point to finish moving it to your color.
As for blocking being easier than killing ships, it really depends. Staying alive against two ships is incredibly difficult. Even staying alive against one ship is hard if you're not fighting back, the game was intended that way. Now there are some sneaky spots players can get to, to remain alive, but they generally leave them unable to fight back and open to certain attacks.
Scrap used to have some areas that squids and such could sink down into and remain relatively unseen and difficult to get a shot on them. You could however just slam down on top of them and crush them into dust. If there is a location that one ship can get to, another ship should be able to get in there as well. If it's a squid only sort of zone, it might not be an intentional area that players should be able to get to; and would need to be reported for it to be fixed.
This does feel like it would become a lot more like a DM, but I do like the idea of sniping ships becoming viable in a CP. Currently I feel they have a tougher time, since they can only provide so much ranged support and often have to move in close to try and stay on the point (although they probably play a more effective role in Crazy King). I think a timer reduction along with a kill conversion would be acceptable. Making it easier to take by controlling the zone, but still capable of taking it through kills.