Additional general discussion on an improved format for the team PvP mode is currently continuing in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1960

Here are four variations of the four-base capture format using Rattlesnake Crescent.

Now having a look at the four-base system with Keepsake Bay map!

Maybe we'll find that, in practice, four bases feels too quick in game duration when there are lots of players. Until then, I'm going to remain optimistic and enthusiastic that this could be the format...

So maybe I'm getting ahead of myself by seeing how this system would work with the other maps, but I'll continue because of my passion for the game!

Also, I mostly play strategy games, including tactical battlefield ones, so I can enjoy for it's own sake looking at the maps from a tactical perspective.

A well-known quote:

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

If that's the case, then the refinements being made to the PvP team format should hopefully produce the game that we're looking for!

The minimum number of bases that can work with a non-linear proximal base capture system is four, arranged in a diamond of two triangles. With three bases you either have to go linear (no choice of bases to attack/100% of base captures are single base captures) or you arrange them in a triangle, in which case the proximal base capture system is meaningless as both of the other bases are adjacent.

With the four base system, the logic of including a proximal base capture system is still intact and providing two crucial roles for the gameplay:

i) Prevents teams attacking each others' starting bases directly. There is always two steps to the enemy base, with an intermediate base needed to be captured in order to attack it.

ii) If a team controls the middle two bases (and is therefore attacking the enemy's final base), then the proximal base capture system means they don't have to worry about their starting base being captured or "backdoored".

Anyway, enough hyperbole - on to the maps...!

There are only three variations that would have a chance of working on Keepsake Bay with the four base system. As discussed in the other thread, it's not as easy as some of the other maps to set up for PvP play. But I think that potentially all three variations could produce playable games. I like to think that some of the map's idiosyncrasies allow it to be viewed as something a bit different and therefore interesting because of that, from a tactical perspective.

The first variation provides a fairly straightforward game. Might need an added armory at West End somewhere to balance the one near the church for the Eastern District team.



The second variation contains the legendary tactical conundrum: the Keepsake Bay Crooked Diamond. In the future, military academies will spend countless hours debating the best way of approaching the Keepsake Bay Crooked Diamond, in the same way the cadets at Starfleet Academy do with the Kobaysashi Maru test ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru )

The capture network diamond is obviously a bit squished, but as I explained in the other thread, the Shop Lane to East Beach connection is essential for tactical and gameplay reasons to avoid a choke point around Eastern District to East Beach.



The third variation itself has two variations. At first I had one team starting at Shop Lane, but it's a bit imbalanced as the Shop Lane team has a better opportunity of getting the middle bases.

Then I switched the team's starting base from Shop Lane to Eastern District and it looks more balanced. Here are both variations anyway:

There is shitload of room in the north. Why not make some bases there for pvp?

Yes, that's a possibility.

If using four bases is the way forward, although it's yet to proved in practice, then I think it would be best to try and get three variations on each map that run in rotation in the map cycle. Ideally, these variations should try and utilise the map area fully by using all the bases, where feasible.

The above examples show that it can be done using the current bases alone on the Keepsake Bay map, and that includes incorporating Villa and Ranch bases. Adding more bases for this map for this format might not be necessary. If it's needed to make the map work, though, then something could be added.

I played a couple of rounds of the updated Beerdrinkers with a couple of other players. Both maps had four capturable bases. I liked the playing area size and so think four bases works well for the format.

It was good to have three squad members again. I also think it's good that there's no loot in this mode to distract players.

Perhaps inevitably, there was more minutes spent when it was down to a single option base capture, at the final base. Would need to play some more games, especially with more players, to see how much of an issue this is.

There would be a practical way of dealing with it by giving players RP revenue from having control of bases. So if a team had control of three of the four bases then they'd be getting an RP bonus that they could use to bring mortars and artillery down on the enemy's final base, therefore bringing the game to a speedier conclusion.

Potentially, the bonus could have a gradation applied to it. So having control of three bases for, say, five or ten minutes might bring no bonus and then the longer the three bases were held the bonus would so increase. This would give the other team a fighting chance to get back in the game, by not being immediately penalised. At the same time, if the team weren't able to get back into the game after a while, then it would bring it to a conclusion quicker.

I think it would make a fun finale to the games. So if a game was getting a bit bogged down in a final base capture and looking to go down to the timer, it would instead end in a climactic fury of explosions and flying body parts.

Of course, that wouldn't really work so well with persistent RP as it means there's an RP bonus for being on the winning side in a game, which would encourage defections. There would also be no way of forcing players to spend that RP bonus on mortars/artillery, which would be the intended aim, rather than saving it for vests in the next game.

Maybe you could post an advert encouraging players to come play test the new team PvP mode in tomorrow's Sunday Session?

Or maybe the mortar/artillery on the final enemy base could be completely automated? Would avoid doing it by giving the players RP - might create a hell of an artillery queue!

Maybe after a team is down to the final base for a few minutes, automated mortars/artillery start to come down on it with increasing frequency?

Would be good. This new version felt good.

Played some more. Looks to be working well - I think it's the most enjoyable PvP I've played so far, certainly with the player numbers there were - 2 or 3 a side. I'm looking forward to playing with at least half a dozen a side.

Since the other maps have been reduced in game duration, I felt the timer maps, especially Power Junction, seemed longer in comparison. I think there are a couple of ways the game duration of these maps could be trimmed slightly:

i) Currently the timer is always set to 600 seconds (I think). Power Junction changed hands quite a few times. Maybe if a team loses control of the base, then the second time they capture it, the timer starts from a reduced time of maybe 8 minutes. Then the third time down to six minutes and so on.

ii) Alternatively, it could probably be trimmed even more by making the aim to have control of the base for 600 seconds in total. So if you recaptured the base, the timer would continue from where it left off before.

Playing more Beerdrinkers. It's got bugged and the Rattlesnake map keeps repeating. Another feature of the bug is that the timer isn't showing.

More generally, unlike the other maps which now have four bases, the Rattlesnake Crescent map has five. I think it would work better with four.