I've played RWR co-op multiplayer extensively now and really enjoy the game.

I've also played a fair bit of PvP, mostly in the Beerdrinkers server, which is the PvP server that gets played most; I've played the Mini Modes server only once - the games lasted about five minutes and were way too short.

While it works for the single-player and co-op games, I don't feel the game format works as well for PvP, mostly in relation to the base capture sequencing. I've been thinking a lot about it recently, and I believe that there are some changes to the game format that could be made to produce a much richer and more enjoyable PvP experience.

I am not an expert on the rules, so correct me if I get things wrong, but the following is my understanding of the base-capturing format. Base-capturing in the game is broadly the same in single-player, co-op and in Beerdrinkers PvP, except that Beerdrinkers applies a "no back-capturing rule". That is, that only the single designated target base can be captured by each team. In the single-player and co-op games, the red target symbol on the map is merely a guide and players can capture bases in any order they like.

I believe this "no back-capturing rule" was put in place because the regular game format could get rather chaotic and formless in PvP. It would be easy for a player to go around the map to an enemy rear base, kill a few troops with silenced weapons, bring in some paras and capture the base. I could see how it might turn into a bit of a messy whack-a-mole or fighting fires type of game.

However, I don't believe the "no back-capturing rule" rule has improved the PvP game; rather it has replaced one unsatisfactory format with another one. By focusing all the gameplay into battles between adjacent bases in a linear format, it has turned the game into constricted bottleneck meatgrinder. Firefights between two bases can be close to stalemate and can go on potentially for hours. So it can make PvP a very intense and drawn out affair and lacking in the variety of gameplay that the co-op game provides.

I feel that what is needed for PvP is a game format that finds a middle way between the two extremes of base capture gameplay that the regular game provides (all bases capturable) and that the "no back-capturing" rule provides (only one base capturable).

I would be interested in your feedback on the following simple and easy system...

A SUGGESTED PvP SYSTEM
=================

- Each of the two teams has an HQ. The aim of the game is to capture the opposing team's HQ.

People like having HQs/home bases and it gives a clear objective to the game.

Most of the maps have at least two pairs of bases that would be suitable for the purpose. It would be good if these pairs of bases varied at random or rotation every time that map level came up in the map/level cycle.

- You can only capture bases next to bases you control.

By having more bases to attack, the game would be no longer constricted and it would be given more room to breathe. It would also introduce more tactical and strategic aspects to the game, rather than it being a basic slugfest, as there would potentially be several routes to victory. Since bases can only be attacked by bases adjacent to them, the bases that are to the rear cannot be captured by infiltrators, thereby reducing the worst of the problems presented in PvP by the regular all-bases-can-be-captured system.

- HQs cannot directly attack adjacent HQs

Just a small additional rule only relevant to the Keepsake Bay and maybe Fridge Valley maps.

----------------

I feel this system is simple and would provide a more fun, and indeed deeper, PvP experience. I feel it would reduce the intensity of PvP and make for a more dynamic and varied game. I also feel it would appeal to all of the kinds of player who play the co-op player format. As well as those that love the main firefights, those that love sneaky, commando-style raids would enjoy it. Players that like setting up pre-prepared defensive positions with emplacements and claymores and defending their land would have fun too.

THE SYSTEM IN ACTION

Below is discussion of this game format in practise with some of the maps. In the map images, the green dots are the bases and the red lines are the connections between them which show attack and capture routes. I've put some lines as dotted and whether to use them probably requires further thought and discussion.



Old Fort Creek

There are probably at least two base pair combinations: perhaps Textile Factory vs Great Bridge, South Side vs North End, perhaps a third in Shopping Mall vs East Residences.

I've put a dotted connection between South Side vs East Residences which could be used or not.



Keepsake Bay

There are probably only two good base combinations: Villa vs Ranch (obviously) and West End vs East Beach.

I've put two lines as dotted lines. I would probably include the one between Shop Lane and East Beach as it eases congestion on Eastern District, opens up the North of the map and makes a symmetrical base "grid". I would probably not include Docks to Ranch so Villa and Ranch have the same number of adjacent bases.

You will notice a connection by sea between Ranch and Villa. In the Villa vs Ranch variation of the game this route would be verboten and defunct because of the "HQs cannot directly attack HQs rule". However, in the West End vs East Beach variation, this connection would be active and I think could turn into a fun feature of the map. A commando-raid across the sea would be a gamble, since both Ranch and Villa are very defensible locations but it could pay off.



Black Gold Estuary

I forget the locations of all the armories and comms towers on this map, but there are at least a couple of base combinations: perhaps Carrier or Beachhead against Western/Eastern Airbase; Refinery vs Hotel.



Bootleg Islands

I suppose the key issue for this one is whether to use two or three teams in PvP. There's always a danger with three teams that games have the potential to drag on ad infinitum as the two weaker teams team up against whoever is the dominant team. The bases are more numerous in the West vs the East, which has some implications for East v West gameplay.

I think there are five bases with armories and comms tower locations (correct me if I'm wrong): Copabanana, Memorium, Old Port, Dunes Camp and Old Fortress. So they'd be candidates for home bases.

I've put three dotted connections so using them could require further discussion.



Rattlesnake Crescent

There are at least a couple of base pair combinations: Forward HQ alpha vs Mosque, Forward HQ bravo vs Powerhouse.

Bases are slightly more numerous in the East. I've put three dotted connections. I think they could be used, but perhaps not Outpost to Bazaar.

----------------------

ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES TO EARNING RP

================================

I was also thinking some tweaks to the RP-gaining system might be beneficial.

One is that some sources of RP could be shared between all players on a particular side. Perhaps, blowing up water towers and fuel tanks could also be set to give an additional small RP bonus to all friendly players. Maybe briefcases too. Perhaps the same could also be done for RP from base-capturing - so that players elsewhere on the map outside a capture zone could get some, perhaps reduced, RP too.

I'm partly thinking of this, because I feel that while many players will enjoy being on the front line in the main firefight, I feel other players would enjoy the defensive and "counter-infiltration" aspects of the game - setting up defensive locations with sandbags, perhaps claymores and patrolling for enemy players trying to flank and infiltrate. They may not have easy sources of RP revenue by doing so. So I think there should be a way for a player to hypothetically play completely as a defensive player and still get perhaps 150 or 200 RP over the course of a game for some sandbags and perhaps claymores. Spreading out the gains from RP windfalls would do that.

Previously, I had been thinking about a system where control of a base would generate RP revenue for every friendly player, say 1 RP per base every minute. However, I've gone off this idea after looking more at the maps, as I feel it would give a greater advantage to one team over the other on the maps which have more bases on one side of the map than the other.

Thanks for the extensive post, very well explained. I think it seems like a good system, JackMayol was talking about something very similar recently what could be tried to see how it works in action.

Technically, this all should be supported by the game itself already, so it can be done with just a server side mode script. The base capture system would use any under the hood, and the script would control each base capturability property individually. Owning a certain base would open capturability in predefined other bases owned by someone else. To help players understand which bases can be captured and which the enemy can capture, some additional map view / screen edge markers could be used.

Depending on data comms timing between the game and the script, this could potentially lead to a situation that there are no capturable bases momentarily. This normally triggers a match to end but there's an option to disable that too, and then just handle match end manually at the script by tracking HQ captures.

Thanks for the reply. I think it could be a good system as it has extremely simple rules that are pretty intuitive anyway.

Regarding map view markers. There would need to be map markers for bases either side of the "front line": friendly bases that are capable of being captured by the enemy at that particular moment (and need to be defended) and enemy (and perhaps neutral) bases that are capable of being captured. There would also need to be a marker for each team's HQ.

The game already uses the red target symbol and blue shield. One option would be to use those. Perhaps they could be reduced in size since there would be several visible on the map at one time. Then maybe use something like a large red target/blue shield with a star or "HQ" written on it for each side's HQ. Perhaps have smaller red targets/blue shields that don't pulsate (like those markers do) and save the pulsating for the big HQ marker, otherwise there'd be lots of pulsating markers going on on the map screen.

Or alternatively, the red target and blue shield could be used for each team's HQs and some other symbols used for the front line bases.

------------------------

I mentioned that since there are usually two or three good pairs of bases on the maps for opposing HQs that it would be good if they rotated each time the map came up in the map cycle. So it would be Villa vs Ranch, then the next time it would be West End vs East Beach. This would be do-able?

---------------------------

Another consideration is what bases teams start with. I think the best way would be to have each team start with their HQ base and control of one or two other bases, the rest of the bases starting under neutral control.

The choice of which bases to give to each side at the start can be weighted to help counter-balance the fact that some maps have more bases on one side of the map than the other.

So for example on Bootleg Islands, which has more bases on the West island than East. If it was perhaps Old Fortress HQ vs Memorium HQ then the Memorium Team could also start with control of Copabanana or Diving School which are less strategically useful on the island rim; the Eastern team, on the other hand, could start with Old Port, maybe, which is more strategically useful. This is statistically demonstrable: the Memorium/Copabanana starting combination on base-rich Western island can only capture three neutral bases from start; Old Fortress/Old Port combo yields four neutral bases that can be captured from start. In this way, the maps can be balanced slightly better for PvP on a case-by-case basis.

----------------------

Any thoughts on the additional idea of distributing an RP bonus to all friendly players from blowing up comms towers, water towers, fuel tanks and stuff?

So, for example, the player that blows up a tower gets their RP and then each other friendly player gets an RP bonus to the value of say 10% of that.

It would mean that if players did want to try and infiltrate and blow up enemy stuff (which I think is a good thing) then it wouldn't be seen as something selfish for one's own RP's sake but as something that is helping the team as a whole and that all friendlies are benefiting from.

Similarly for territory capture, players who are outside the capture zone could get maybe a bonus of 10% of what a player receives from being inside the zone.

Yeah, there can be several settings for stages, it's just up to setup to handle.


Yah, can be done, and seems reasonable for the mode. It's a matter of hooking up with various destroy events and giving additional rewards to other players but the destroyer.

I feel that Greenbelts vs Brownpants could be the best combination for PvP. I feel that of the three uniforms, grey has the best ability to blend in to the background, while green and brown have a more similar visibility level. Green and brown areas also show up more clearly on the map than grey.

So, would it be possible to trial this format? I think it would be worth giving it a go...

If so, we would need to settle on the HQ pairs. Ideally, they should have similar resources, so both bases having a comms tower, for example. My knowledge of the maps is good but not 100%.

Also, the connection points between bases would also need to be decided on (as the dotted connections in the images above are "still-to-be-determined" ones).

One thing I am unclear on with the rules now. Comms towers have a function in that blowing them up blocks enemy communications or allows friendly comms. What about water towers, fuel tanks and mortar ammunition? Do they bestow any benefits in controlling them? Or are they only something that provide RP to the enemy by being blowing up?

Right now I'm working with making the final planned remaining adjustments with the client side / single player game, which I believe to be taking about 2 weeks in total allowing some room for unexpected stuff. After that, the further work would be on server side only until 1.0, in an attempt to freeze the changes on client side for the big launch.

During that freeze time, it might be possible to try this type of game mode as well. Other tasks we've got planned there are at least
- fix Invasion penalty mode issues
- implement Convoy/Ambush mode as a component of Minimodes
- remake Classic as a component of Minimodes, to make it possible to re-use certain stuff and basically enable further development; the ideas presented here could be potentially part of this task
- remake Deathmatch as a component of Minimodes
- create some new things for Team Deathmatch substage in Minimodes, e.g. revealing player locations with markers if no kills are happening in certain time

Depending how we timebox the freeze period and what will be the prioritization between the tasks, we just might be able to try the mode. Apart from the logic changes involved, the settings and setup needs to be decided as well, at least the starting point.


Yeah, blowing one up stops enemy commander (not much effect if it's without bots), drops capacity (not really meaningful without bots, but may have an effect on respawn times in some cases), makes most markers disappear on map view, denies calls. Owning a comms tower denies calls for the enemies only near the tower.


RP source only. They could be connected to availability of any resources, weapons, throwables, calls, vehicles, for example, but we haven't used that.

The issue of resources - mortar ammunition, water towers, fuel tanks, AA guns - needs to be resolved in any case for PvP, as at the moment they are more useful under enemy control, since they can be farmed, than by controlling them since they give no benefits. They could be linked to different weapons and suchlike, but maybe a simple option would just be to have them as generic resources that generate an RP income. The income would need to be more than that is gained from farming them.

-----------------------

HQs of each team should ideally have the same resources as each other, e.g. both having an armoury, both having a comms tower.

I thought I'd look at a map in more detail to see how the format might work, by looking at the Old Fort Creek map.

Old Fort Creek

There are four bases with armories on this map. It is relatively free in terms of explodable resources - all I can think of is there is mortar ammunition at South Side and at North End. Is there anything else?

The four bases with armories are, roughly speaking, at the four compass directions, so opposing HQ pairs are readily apparent: North v South (Shopping Mall vs South Side) and West vs East (Textile Factory vs Great Bridge).

General thoughts on map: I think it would work PvP. The North-East has a greater clustering of bases than the South And West. Rivers will create choke points.

I would include the connection I had as dotted in the original map between South Side and East Residences so that all bases have at least three connections and it opens up the South of the map.

Now to look at the HQ pairs. Each team starts with control of their HQ base and one other base and players would spawn at the start randomly in these two bases.



Variation A: Shopping Mall vs South Side

Starting with Shopping Mall vs South Side. I would give the Shopping Mall team additional starting control over North End and the South Side team starting control over West Residences. There are a couple of reasons for these choices: firstly, they are resource-equal, neither having an armory (and both having having a stash).

Secondly, it also means both teams will be able to easily capture two neutral bases and therefore each have control over an equal number of bases (North team captures Midtown and Great Bridge, South team captures Textile Factory and East Residences).

A question: is it possible to start the Armory Truck in one map position but then have it regularly spawn in another place thereafter? Because neither of the non-HQ bases starting under player control - North End and West Residences - have an Armoury. Players like to go to an Armory at the start of a game so it would be good if these bases started with the Armory Truck so that players that who spawned at the start in these bases didn't then have to walk back to the Armory at HQ. However, if the Armory Truck was destroyed it should then respawn in the home base HQ.



Variation B: Textile Factory vs Great Bridge

The second game variation is the West-East Textile Factory vs Great Bridge HQ pair. One point to notice is that Textile Factory has two adjacent bases with Armories while Great Bridge does not. I still feel there are still interesting tactical possibilities. The Armories at Shopping Mall and South Side are both outside the capture zones and to the East, where the Eastern team could have a chance to gain access to them.

For the additional starting base for each team, I feel Textile Factory should get Shopping Mall and Great Bridge should get East Residences. The East-West variation means that West team start the game with two (non-truck) armories while the Eastern team start with one, but this is unavoidable.

The reason for these starting choices is to try and avoid the game evolving in a similar way to the previous variation. By having each team straddle a river this time and West team already having a foot in the northern town, it should not develop so readily into one team controlling the four bases in the North and the other the four in the south, divided by the river.

So while at first glance, things may appear advantageous to the Western team, since they have two fixed armories from the start, the Eastern team can very quickly capture Midtown and West Residences and have a solid compact four bases and the ability to strike at any base on the map.

Of the two variations, I think this one excites me slightly more in the tactical possiblities.

----------

I feel this format would produce a more streamlined, and most probably quicker, PvP game. I feel that PvP games should last much less time than the regular co-op games. If an average co-op game lasts 45 minutes to an hour, PvP games should last twenty minutes, half an hour - three-quarters of an hour would be a longer PvP game. These are my reasons for this belief:

1) PvP games are a lot more intense. In co-op the humans win 99% of the time, so it's generally a matter of how long. In PvP, you cannot take your foot off the gas. You can feel that if you went to the loo for a couple of minutes, you'd be compromising your team's chances of victory. So long PvP games are physically and mentally draining and shorter games would be, I feel, preferrable.

2) The nature of PvP means that half the players wil end up disappointed by ending up on the losing time. If you're on a team that looks like it will inevitably lose, you don't really want to be dragging that game on and on for a long time as it's not fun.

3) Unlike co-op, where you can join a map at any time and work on your long-term player character/avatar (by gaining RP and XP, rare weapons etc) the one-off nature of PvP games means that joining the fag end of some other players' game, particularly on the losing side, is a little meaningless.

So I think a format that produces quicker PvP games is the way forward.

These are pretty much the reasons why Minimodes was created, too. The big practical development challenge there is about getting the stages into some sort of balance when you don't have a properly organized test group of, let's say, 20 PvP players.

More thoughts on PvP play and the suggested new format...

I played some more PvP in the Beerdrinkers server on Sunday. I've played quite a few sessions of this format now and, as I've said, I firmly believe that it produces games that are much too long. The first game was almost an hour. I think the format for PvP needs to be such that it cuts the game time by half.

Another reason for shorter games being preferrable, to add to the reasons I gave above in a previous post, is that games can go on for so long that people leave, creating unbalanced teams. Quicker games would mean the players are re-distributed into evenly numbered teams more frequently, and people would be more inclined to stay to the end of a match if they could see its end in sight.

As I've said, the current PvP format produces long "meatgrinder" games, especially with more players. One player summed it up when he commented something along the lines of "it's all just run, shoot, die repeated". This is because of the single capture/no back-capturing rule. It just creates the classic irresistible force vs immovable object formulation.

Imagine there are six players on either team. By having one capturable target it is always 6 vs 6. However, if there are three bases to capture there are a huge number of combinations of how the players can face off: each team of six players divided by three bases can be arranged 6-0-0, 2-2-2, 3-1-2, 1-1-4 etc.

Then the other team is doing similar, so there are even more combinations. These will create imbalances - weak points and strong points in each side's line. It is up to both sides to work as a team to try and exploit weaknesses in the enemy line and shore up weak points in their own. This is what military warfare is all about - tactics and applied concentration of force.

My feelings in a nutshell: the current PvP format produces one long, sometimes way too long, firefight. By tweaking the format along the lines described above you will produce a battle!

I also feel that teamwork, co-operation and communication between players would be much more important with this PvP format.

In PvP, I don't use the chat as much as in co-op. This is partly because there isn't time for any non-essential or frivolous chat - if you take your foot off the gas for a moment, it can be costing your team's chance of victory. But also because there isn't much to say in game terms either. All friendly players are attacking the same target, they're all "running, shooting, dying" and there's not much else to it. There is no need for using team chat and I'm not aware of anyone ever using it.

With this new format, team chat becomes very useful: co-ordinating bases to attack and defend, requesting assistance defending a base, sharing intelligence on which base Dio, Street Veteran and Jack Mayol are attacking (i.e. the point of the spear).

From my PvP playing, what I've heard people often saying is that they like the little solo battles that often end up taking place between them and a particular opposing player on the battlefield. I can say that the most fun I had in PvP was on Bootleg Islands one time, while everyone else was fighting at Bridge. I noticed an enemy player trying to stealth in to Old Fortress. So I shot him, of course. Then for a while this player and I had a mini-game where he'd try and stealth in to Old Fortress from one way or another and I'd try to be there waiting for him with a gun. It was Spy vs Spy stuff and I had this guitar riff going in my head... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS8Th4O8VT4

So, what I'm trying to say is that I feel there's a lot of fun to be had in these one-on-one battles that would occur if there were low numbers of people playing this format. For larger numbers of players, I feel it would undoubtedly provide a more fun, dynamic and, indeed, realistic game.

A real world military commander is given an objective and it is up to the commander to decide the best way of capturing the objective in terms of tactics, use of terrain, manouevring/approach to target, surprise and suchlike. This game format is probably as close to that as RWR can get.

-----------------------------

More discussion on the application of the format:

Visual representation

Earlier in the thread I wrote that the format would need the map to have HQ markers and also perhaps red target/blue shields for all the bases along the front line. Having thought about it some more, I think there is a better, and probably simpler, way to do the whole map side of things: each final home base/HQ - the Objective - uses the standard red target/blue shield shield. So one red target and one blue shield on the map - just the two, no more no less, and they wouldn't change during the game. They are like the goal posts on a football field.

Additionally, and crucially, the map for this mode would have lines showing the connections between the bases, similar to the diagrams above. They could be dotted lines, whatever, as long as players can see the connections.

This method is undoubtedly better as players can see all connections on the battlefield at the same time, and can plan their tactics better.

---------------------------

Trialling the format

I feel that it would be excellent to trial the format on one map, for testing in a Sunday session. I feel Old Fort Creek would be good for this purpose, for a couple of reasons:

a) It has minimal resources - just two mortar ammo dumps - and they could even be omitted for a trial game.

b) The bases on the map are relatively evenly distributed, so connections between bases are pretty natural and intuitive. Therefore, for a trial game, showing the connections between bases on the map would not necessarily be necessary.

Things needed to be done for a trial of this format:

Capture sequencing

Set up the capture sequencing - enemy bases can only be captured if they are adjacent to a friendly base.

Target/shield markers

Put a red target marker/blue shield for each of the team's home bases/HQs.

Set up the map

Each team starts with control of their home base and additional base, there are neutral bases (Greycollars, preferrably), placement of trucks, maybe remove mortar ammo.

Things not needed to be done for a trial:

Map connections

As I've said, showing base connections on the map would not be essential on Old Fort Creek map.

Resources

Deciding what to do with resources, like mortar ammo, water towers etc, need not be considered for a test map.

Shared RP bonus

The idea about all friendly players getting a small RP bonus from capturing zones, blowing resources etc, while I think is a good idea, could be left out of a test game/map. For testing, maybe start each player with 150 RP.

Are there any updates on discussion/implementation of ideas in this thread?

Wald