Persistent profiles for PvP is fine as long as you don't have a big advantage as high rank player over a low rank player.
It might be tedious for a new guy until reaching 1000XP (for vests) but then there's not much advantage the highest rank dude will have over a 1k XP guy.
Also capping the RP at 1000 will prevent DIO from calling hundreds of paratroopers whenever he feels it like in inva with his 50000000000000000 RP

Anyway, we need to start with something and I am pretty confident that we are going the right path with it but online tests with more players will tell.

Some questions then:

i) How will the bases be divided between the teams? Each team starts with half the bases? Or most bases neutral at start?

ii) Is the stash persistent? If so, then what is the point of an RP cap if someone can store items in stash in lieu of RP? One could convert RP into mortars, for example, and keep them in stash to sell when needed. Also, to quote you from a few posts ago: "sure, 1000 RP is probably too much".

iii) The border base proximity capture logic is the key to the new format. As I have said before, this makes some sort of visual display on the map of the base capture network essential, especially for maps like Bootleg Islands or Rattlesnake Crescent. Has this been implemented?

iv) "The headquarters concept is not there". How will the red target/blue shields be used, if at all?

Right now the maps have been configured with single initial bases for the factions. Neutral owns the rest. Some neutral bases have been set uncapturable to make the battle duration generally smaller. At this point it's impossible to say if the reduction is anywhere at target.


Stash is persistent. If someone wishes to juggle with items as extension to RP cap, go ahead. If it's going to be a real problem, then something will be done, e.g. stash capacity can be reduced. Stash persistency is ultimately required if we want to have any form of reward items.

I know I said 1000 RP is probably too much, and I still think it can be. We have to start testing from somewhere. Higher max RP can be good for getting people to stay on the server even alone in order to max out the RP before anyone else gets in. Sure, they'll have an advantage because of that, but maybe it's not significant down to deciding how the battle ends.


No visual network is in place. Even we don't know right now which bases open which possibilities.

Rattlesnake Crescent is not included in the rotation. Bootleg Islands only includes the west island.


Bases your faction can capture from others are shown with red marker, bases others can capture from your faction are shown with blue.

How are the single bases decided? Will both teams start in bases with armories?

I also before proposed that each team starts with control of two bases. By using just one starting base for each team, you will find that one team captures half the map before the other team, as bases are not evenly distributed on the map.

For example, on Bootleg Islands, the team that starts on the Western island will capture half the bases before the Eastern island team. Rattlesnake Crescent is also heavily lopsided.

One can redress the imbalance by granting each team a pre-selected adjacent additional base. I explained in my other thread how this would enable each team to have a more equal chance to conquer half the map's bases, with particular reference to Old Fort Creek map.


A bit disappointed to hear this - I thought that's what the PvP Minimodes was for. I would imagine most players would like to see the the grande team PvP mode use the whole map.


I can tell you now that my stash will be filled with whatever item costs the most at the armory. It makes the RP cap redundant and just replaces it with a rather tedious process where I'm going back and forth between my stash and the armory, buying and selling mortars or whatever.


I have little doubt it will be significant.

As I have said, I cannot see the benefits to persistent RP/Inventory. I much prefer the idea that everyone on my team in a PvP team game is doing whatever he can to win the battle (which is the current system of no persistent RP/inventory). It's what any team game (e.g. competitive sports) is all about.

Persistent RP/inventory undermines that. There will almost always be something more that a player can do to help his team by using his RP reserve, but it is human nature to want to conserve something for the future.

Imagine in a game, the other team is starting to get an advantage. Am I going to throw my RP at it or am I going to say "nah, it'll probably be a waste of RP, save it for next game". Much better, in my opinion, for players to be throwing everything they've got into winning the battle in hand.

I would look at competitive sports, like football, for inspiration. The aim is to have a level playing field. Everyone goes on the pitch with the same equipment and the match is a test of player ability and teamwork.



This was my initial suggestion to you. But thinking about it some more, I surmised that showing the connections on the whole network was preferrable, as only showing the immediate bases capturable does not allow one to plan ahead so easily.

Also, am disappointed Rattlesnake Crescent is not included as I think that would be a fun map.

I played a few minutes of the Beerdrinkers server solo. The map was Old Fort Creek and I could see that Textile Factory and North End were uncapturable.

The teams didn't start from single bases - instead each team occupied half of the remaining bases. So no neutral bases. I think having some neutral bases each time is preferable, so the front line is not fixed at the start of each game.

In the Armory, most of the items were prohibited, including sandbags and vests. What is the deal with them - they require rank?

I think for this mode, playing with vests is preferable. I don't find it so fun when one shot can kill me and I have to respawn again each time.

So I think that the average player should have enough RP for vests during the game. Maybe in the later stages of a game, when one team has the clear upper hand then it wouldn't matter so much - it could even hasten the end of a game, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing once the eventual outcome of a game looks inevitable.

I can see how the proximal base capturing system is a step in the right direction.

One more thing: the name of the team PvP server. I have nothing against beer - I am a beer drinker myself. But the name Beerdrinkers sounds like the server of some private drinking club.

I realise that that is kind of what it's origins are, but if it is being posited as the official server for this mode, then I feel it could do with a more "does exactly what it says on the tin" kind of name so a new player doesn't think it's a private server.

Additionally, in the server descriptions for all "official" servers, I feel it should make it more clear that they are official, for example by beginning with [OFFICIAL SERVER]. People would probably go in the other servers more if they know they had official status.

I randomly picked bases that leave a somewhat reasonable amount of bases in between them.


I don't see how that would happen frequently given how the capturable bases and initial bases have been picked.


This is exactly why Bootleg Islands only has west island enabled, and Rattlesnake Crescent isn't in rotation at all.


You're starting to fight against your own suggestions now The point is to keep the battles relatively short, 45min is the max right now for all maps, that's when the referee whistles the match over if no one wins it by capture. I'd hope most battles to be over in around 30 minutes. Enabling all 15 bases from map1 would never end in 30 minutes. My initial guess is that 6 bases with somewhat balanced teams will already reach 45min most of the time, but I hope I'm wrong. The base counts are 6-10 currently, if I'm not wrong.


If you prefer the tedious process of running back and forth over accepting the RP cap, I'm not stopping you!


I know what you think, and we had that going on for several years. Many people found the non-existing persistency disappointing in Classic. If PvP becomes a bigger thing and someone wants to remove persistency, inventory, etc, for their competitive league, they can do that. Even we might do it, but right now it's one of the things that stops people from playing PvP.

Could be a bug. Were you there from the very start of the match? Bots start the match immediately when the server is launched.

I'm also not sure if Beerdrinkers is using the new Classic already, haven't tried it yet myself. Also no idea if Beerdrinkers started to use the new persistency setting or if it's still with match settings.


Probably just undefined behavior. The settings are currently similar as they are in quickmatch. It's up to debate how it should be.


We haven't really established how we are going to approach servers anyway other than for Invasion with its shared realm which we just happened to decide to call Official. Could've been United or anything else, too. Anyway, there is no official Classic at this point.

Several servers could be setup to share profiles for Classic as well. It would allow you to play with the persistent profile on several servers.

Not really. One of my complaints about the previous format was that the single-base capture system put a straightjacket on the game. By making some bases uncapturable in the new format, there is a danger of doing the same. There is some improvement in the new format - the number of bases in the Old Fort Creek game that were capturable increased from one to two. I would probably prefer three or four.

The proximal base capture system, I feel, may have been enough in itself, without further pruning of capturable bases, but I can see your intention - to try and reduce game time.

I keep an open mind. I think, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. One can have ideas, but it's only by playtesting that one can really see how they shape up in practical reality. So I'll look forward to testing the format with a bunch of other players, probably tomorrow, and therefore get a better idea of how it plays out.

Also, what is the AI attack behaviour? I noticed the red targets had different sizes. The AI will only attack the large red target? How is the base for the large target determined - random or pre-programmed?

If the AI only attack a single base at a time, then one possibility I've been thinking (which could also work for the regular game) is that the highest-ranked player is able to change the attack target. Maybe additionally they need to be a general.

Plus: yeah, I may have missed the start of the Old Fork Creek map and so missed the team's starting positions.

AI is just playing the way it normally does, it attacks the capturable base that is the closest from the border. One of the targets is slightly bigger than the others, that's the one.

Optimally Classic would revolve around player leaders, each controlling 1-4 squad members (squad size maxes out at 4 now btw), who would largely make the attack and defense efforts happen together. E.g. Old fort creek has total soldier count setting at about 100, so with 15 vs 15 -players it could mean around 3-man squads for each given enough XP. This way about all bots would be in control of players, so it would serve no meaning what the AI commander is doing.

But sure, when there are no 30 players in the game, the AI commander plays a more significant role which he likely isn't capable of handling very well. E.g. at start, he doesn't prioritize capturing neutral base in order to increase soldier capacity, but just does what he always does. In this particular case it isn't awfully important, as a player can capture a neutral base even alone anyway, and should.

We'll see after some tests how big meaning this bears in the end, it's too soon to tell.

We did some tests a while ago and at least noticed that the XP progression and item XP requirements are not in proper condition. It had been overlooked that Classic earlier had players start from e.g. 2k XP, but in the new one they start from 0, revealing rather weird configs such as most of stock primaries being available from the start but e.g. bazooka and sandbag requiring 1000/500 XP, which is actually quite a lot if killing a bot only gives you 1 XP. You'd have to grind about 4x more than in Invasion if you'd be playing alone on the server.

These things should be configurable server side with some changes, still figuring out what to do with it all.

I feel we're both agreed on what needed to change for the team PvP mode.

We agree that there should be a persistent profile "career" with long term score and rank promotion system. We agree that rank promotion should lead to squad capacity increase (I think maybe the cap could be five squad members).

We are not currently in consensus with the idea of persistent RP and stash.

I would suggest that with the persistent RP/stash concept, your plan is to attract players to the mode server by giving them the chance to stockpile on RP and stash, i.e. attracting them by giving them sweeties, lollipops, bribes etc.

I am thinking that the approach to attracting people to the PvP team mode is by making it a fun game in its own right - right down to solo player. A game that I'll be happy to play on my own until other people arrive because it's fun, rather than because it gives me the chance for acquiring RP to give me an advantage in future games that haven't been played yet.

That is why I think the ability for the highest-ranked human player on each team to be able to change the primary capture target could prove a positive in this respect.

As it is, if you play on your own in this mode then you don't feel as if you're making a big impact on the battle. Particularly at the start, with no squad members, or vest or anything. You are a tiny cog in your team's military machine.

If the highest ranked human player playing, even as a private, can change the base the friendly bots attack, then he's having a bigger impact on the battle, and hence it's more enjoyable, especially if he's the only human playing at the time.

I think that would feel like a fun game in it's own right, having some control over how "your" army attacked the bases and won the battle. You'd feel like the "commander-in-chief" (C-in-C) of the army - and you would be.

Then it would also be fun with lots of players, as I'm sure many people would enjoy the chance to be their "team captain", so to speak, and that would attract people in to wanting to play the game more.

It would be a nice bonus, and it can't really go that wrong. It's human players that win battles, and the more human players there are, the more that is so. The ability to control some of the bots I don't think steps on other players' toes too much - they can still steal bots for their squads, in any case. And, of course, the C-in-C has no control over what human players do.

As you said, the AI isn't great at selecting which base to attack, anyway, so a player who's a poor tactical C-in-C may not be any worse.

The ability of the highest ranked human to change the primary target capture would also help take the game to new tactical heights. I'd find that an enjoyable game to play solo: having some form of choice in how my team of bots goes about defeating the enemy. More options means more replayability and long-term appeal. It'd be a chesslike meta-game.

Since there would always be two in each game, players that played the game for a period would get their opportunity to be C-in-C from time to time. Of course, the more you played, the more time you'd get to be the C-in-C, which fits neatly with the aim of attracting players to play the game mode.

Having the primary attack base changeable, would also add a bit more variety into each battle, avoiding stale predictability.

On the subject of having some bases uncapturable in this mode, which you've introduced with the current patch, we are also not currently in fully-aligned consensus, but I think we both agree what the end-result should be: a game with a typical duration of under half an hour (with a little leeway here or there).

I would argue that, all things being equal, players would prefer an open-play approach on the game maps, without parts of it being prohibited from being captured. It feels more natural and gives players unconstricted freedom, which is what people like in video games. I hope you would agree that as a concept, an unrestricted map is better than a restricted one?

My understanding, forgive me if I'm wrong, is that your view is that the (only) reason for making some bases uncapturable is a practical one: to try and bring the game duration time down to something more suitable, by reducing the battlefield size.

My view is that if the concept of an unrestricted battlefield is better than a restricted one, then why not at least give it a try? If it produces a game that leads to one hour slogs then I will be the first to say "this isn't working and the number of bases needs to be reduced to produce a shorter game".

There are opportunities for play-testing PvP formats on Sundays. Why not use that chance to give a couple of team PvP formats a work-out?

Trying out different methods and approaches to understand better their merits and drawbacks is an essential part of any creative process and ultimately leads to a better end product.