This is true. There has been a plan that another Neutral faction would be loaded in with different map color to mark the uncapturable bases.

Surely setting it up manually is easier and allows one to configure the map exactly as is required. If the automatic system cannot allow a base connection between Shop Lane and East Beach, which I see as essential for the playability of the Keepsake Bay connection network, then it's not fulfilling what is needed for the task.

I am highly confident that the refined map proposals I put forth yesterday are clearly the optimal system so far envisaged for this mode. So I invite scrutiny to determine any flaws (which I cannot currently see) or better alternative proposals (which I cannot currently conceive).

All I care about is trying to achieve the best PvP team game that can be made for the game. I have demonstrated that I'm willing to change my opinion of how this would be best achieved based on convincing logic and demonstrable evidence.

So I encourage debate as to the reasons why, if at all, another system is a better fit for this mode than yesterday's proposals.

Here are three variations that can be made from Rattlesnake Crescent map, using the same method as previously applied to Keepsake Bay.

None of the starting locations are repeated in the variations, so they should all have a different feel. The TOW weapons pre-deployed around the map should be removed and tank/APC spawning balanced.

Or, Keepsake Bay is not fit to the mode I don't see the point in trying to forcibly make linear maps, such as Keepsake Bay and Fridge Valley, work under multiple capture points logic. All it does is create unexpected connections between far away bases which encourage long distance backdooring. Most players will anyway enjoy attacking more than camping at their own capturable base far away from front line defending from a potential enemy backdoor attempt, and as the fast way to spawn at a far away friendly base to join such defense requires a suicide + spawn point selection, having such connections available won't contribute to fun gameplay in my opinion. If it did, any base capture should've been equally as fitting for these maps.

Having a dynamic border base detection for a base capture mode in the core game was certainly faster to implement than creating structures to handle a capturable base network script side or in game. The natural outcome of border capture mode is that captures are distributed to side bases and not back bases, which has been the target all along. The approach also supports switching between attack and defense roles more fluently than one that would have backdooring allowed.

One problem with the current system, using automatic proximal base capture, is that it will frequently result in all the players fighting over a single base connection. Experience has shown that this leads to slow, constricted meatgrinder firefights that bog down the flow of the game. The more human players there are playing, the more this is the case.

The manual proximal base connection system, combined with the down-to-the-last base/"minus one" victory mechanism, prevents there ever being an instance of all players fighting over a single base connection.

You also appear to have deemed that only map areas with a close distance between them will work with the current automatic system in use now.

So of the seven maps that are suitable for the proximal base capture format - Moorland Trenches, Keepsake Bay, Old Fort Creek, Fridge Valley, Bootleg Islands, Rattlenake Crescent, Black Gold Estuary (and so excluding Power Junction, Vigil Island, Copehill Down) - you have concluded that only two and a half maps are useable: Moorland Trenches, Old Fort Creek, half of Bootleg Islands.

It's true that some of the maps, while great maps in themselves, are not ideally set up for the PvP team format, but I think most players would prefer to find a way to make an agreeable gaming experience out of them rather than not play on them at all.

Both the automatic and the manual proximal base capture systems are similar, but the manual method allows one to customise and tweak a map to optimise it for play, for example by eliminating the possibility for firefights over a single base.

Using the manual method, there is generally a clear, logical and unobstructed route to the next enemy base.

The base connection between Shop Lane and East Beach on Keepsake Bay is admittedly unorthodox, but I think it's pretty much a unique one-off exception out of all the maps.

It's an essential way, though, of ensuring there are two capturable bases at that map location, so there's no unwanted bottlenecking over a single base connection. It also really opens up the Northern map area for useful play on a very squeezed and linear map.

On the map display, I would show a curved connection line for it, rather than a straight line.

Concerning the issue of backdooring, there are two ways I can see it being more of an issue using the manual system than the automatic system:

i) There is a slight increase in the opportunity for backdooring when there is more than one base connection. It is built into the manual system that there is always more than one base connection - indeed that was the intended aim. So the automatic system, with it's frequent instances of single base captures, might have less for that reason.

ii) It has been deemed that, with the automatic system, the game can only work in map areas with an even base distribution and where bases are located within a close proximity of each other - hence the two and a half useable maps. The manual system uses all the bases on all the maps. So it will include base connections that aren't as closely located. Longer distances between bases mean less time to switch between offensive and defensive roles.

I think it comes down to a couple of choices:

Choice 1:

A - slightly reduced risk of backdooring but having to deal with the single base capture problem on a regular basis

or

B - slightly increased risk of backdooring but single base capture problem completely eliminated

Choice 2:

A - only use a small portion of the playable maps, but reduced risk of backdooring

or

B - use all the playable maps, but with an increased risk of backdooring

Personally, I would choose B for both.

Also remember that the more people are playing, the less backdooring is an issue. The more people playing, the more of a problem the single base capture issue becomes. So you could also perhaps say that the automatic system is better for low player numbers, while the manual system is better for higher player numbers.

A following train of thought could be: are there perhaps ways of reducing the impact of backdooring? Here are some possibilities:

i) Ensure there are bots "garrisoning" bases (although they could always be sequestered by human players for their squads). I think this happens anyway...

ii) An alert message when gunfire goes off at a peaceful base. I think the game already does this ("Gunfire at...")?

iii) A "Hostiles detected at..." warning, when a spawn point is blocked at an otherwise peaceful friendly base.

iv) When a "hostiles detected" or "gunshots heard" notice occurs at a peaceful base they get reinforced by other friendly bots. This could potentially be via the form of a paradrop. Maybe this only occurs once for each friendly base per game. Or maybe first time it happens the base gets gets reinforced by eight paras, the second time by four and thereafter none.

More thoughts on team PvP mode...

Squad members

I think I preferred the old way where even a PvP noob controlled three squad members. It's harder to make an impact on the battle and capture bases with no squad members. Also, it means one can't use the vehicles. I currently have one squad member so if I use the tank, my strategy is to run over the enemy with it.

RP

It's hard to get RP. I'm probably an average player but, since I've played a lot, I've improved and become an above average player. I still find it hard to get RP in this mode, though. I currently have 0 RP and can only afford a vest some of the time.

Battlefield size

Playing with very low player numbers (one or two a side) it's slow to make progress on the map. This is probably exacerbated by the lack of bot squad members. If one had some squad members it'd be easier to capture bases and hence the game would move a bit quicker.

Since progress can be slow, I'm wondering if this format would be best suited to as little as four capturable bases. Probably better to judge this after another Sunday session with more human players.

If it is the case, then potentially the game could do with more armories added for the PvP mode only. For example, Bootleg Islands might need one at Residence or Aqualand. The ones added for PvP could be a different colour - grey, green, brown.

Persistent RP/stash

As you may have noted, I'm not in favour of the recent introduction of persistent RP/stash.

For example, I currently have 0 RP, and nothing in stash. Dio currently has lots of stuff in stash and God knows how much RP. Therefore the persistent RP/stash has made it even harder to play against him now than it would be without persistent RP/stash (as it was previously).

This example will be repeated every time anyone plays against someone else in this mode. It is a system that rewards the good players, making them even better and harder to play against. Therefore it has created even greater inequality.

I am of the view that competition is best when it takes place on a level playing field, so it comes down to whoever plays better on the day - a test of ability and performance alone. Most competitive anything works that way.

Imagine it's chess. I'm an average chess chess player and I suspect Dio's a grandmaster. Imagine a series of games where he beats me. That's fine - he's the better player. Now imagine that he's rewarded for his success by earning extra chess pieces which he can bring into play at any time. Also imagine that Dio can play solo against the computer at other times of the day and earn some more chess pieces to use in his games against me.

Sound a bit unfair? Well, that's basically exactly how it's set up now with persistent profiles for the PvP mode.

Squad member XP cost has been changed for the next version, also bot XP range has been changed to favor more low ranked bots.


Last time I was playing RP income seemed decent. I don't consider myself a great RWR player either, even less so when it's PvP.

While the RP income seemed decent, based on those two sessions, the RP income could be teeny tiny bit more, just to keep it flowing more and get more mortars in play.


This is also why squad member cost and availability was changed, you need to be able to make captures on your own earlier, and that means with a squad.

Keepsake Bay has been configured for 4 bases now as a test, Rattlesnake Crescent could possibly work well as 3 or 4 base map as well.

I've been having a look at how a four base format might work in practice, using Bootleg Islands.

The capture networks are all diamond-shaped, made up of two triangles. So there's always two bases inbetween each team's starting bases. It's a simple, easy-as-pie format and I think would make for good and tight PvP team battles.

Ideally for the PvP format, it's desirable for each team to have an equal opportunity to capture half the bases. This makes having five capturable bases problematical, and six bases is getting to a bigger, longer, more complex game. Maybe four is the answer?

Since the four-base method uses fewer bases, there is less need for a visual display of the whole capture network (using lines on the map). A shorter game would also mean it's less of an issue having all the players fighting over a single base, with the slowdown that leads to.

There are several variations that could be made on Bootleg Islands. Some are better than others due to: positioning of the middle bases, giving one team a better chance of capturing them before the other team; the terrain in general, for example the cliff around Village and Memorium.

A couple of the variations would need the placement of an additional armoury at the team's starting base.

The previous Shatner's post explains quite successfully how the things going on.
I played maybe 7-8 hours in Beers mostly against bots and that way I have gained some XP+RP, so currently I have stashed ~ 120 flares, 70 SVDs, 60 AK-47s, 15 vests and some other stuff. Spent maybe 1 hour summarized breaking crates for those RP.
In my opinion it would be better if players starts from 1000 XP + some initial RP.
Overall I'd say that I also kinda prefer the old system. In fact, the new system also has its positive aspects, but I still can not determine what they are because I need more time by playing.


Since this thread increased, but mostly with posts which are no longer related to its title(Scheduled PvP match weekly), perhaps it would be better if you create a new, separate one, related to the PVP suggestions/discussions.
Just a suggestion.....

_________________
"Ad cogitandum et agendum homo natus es"

I work quickly, cheaply and qualitatively. You can choose only two of the three options.

Okay, continuing here:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2071&start=10