Victory conditions rework

Suggestions
1

i just had a great idea, how about we forget about “victory/defeat” model and instead look at things a bit diffrently…

picture this: an assault game mode (with 5 capture points), one team is being filled with noobs (attackers) and other with complete tryhards (defenders).

two rounds are being played, in first round, noobs dont capture a single point and just get mashed.

in second round, noobs try harder from the experience they gained and manage to capture 3 points, but still lose

in both scenarios, tryhards received full victory multiplier and noobs none, of this experience, noobs figure out they might just as well try to farm and not play the objective, hoping they get teamed with people that will do that for them.

however, if we change the rules, so the victory reward is being given depending on how much one team had won and lost, this becomes an entirely diffrent story…

imagine if instead of victory/defeat rewards are being now given depending on how many capture points were captured, so, if none point is captured, noobs get 0% multiplier and pros 100%, if one noobs get 20% and pros 80% and so on…

now, should we reset their minds and same 2 matches are being played, noobs will figure out teamwork is actually rewarding and play as a team, eventually becoming a good team, problem solved.

.
.
.
.

AND i know what you are going to say upfront! “this will make it impossible for defenders to get full 100% rewards while attackers still have chances to win”

well, then, lets change battle resources as well (and fix another problem in the process):

instead of being given 1000 troops with small reinforcement for each point captured, attackers should have always same pre-set amount of reinforcements for each point, and to make sure game keeps its flavour, resources are distribured by the following model:

-for the first point, attackers have advantage
-for the second, attackers have small advantage
-for the third, it is balanced
-for the fourth, defenders have small advantage
-for the fifth, defenders have advantage

now, tell me what you think… keep in mind i could have forgotten to write up something, so feel free to ask if something seems wrong :slight_smile: .

15 Likes
2

Yeah, I also prefer a more nuanced “close defeat”, “Pyrrhic victory” and similar kinds of stuff, rather than just black and white outcomes.

5 Likes
3

i meant people quitting the matches early, because having 200 infantry resources at a second point is just not winnable, and then some poor guy gets thrown into that game…

1 Like
4

For me personally, I do not like the idea of “participation trophies” mentality. I get what you are trying for but in the same token the current system already works perfectly. The current system being that there are additional rewards that increase your xp gain “tactician, best (insert infantry type here), best tanker, marksman, crusher, etc.”. The winning team should rightfully receive the xp multiplier. If the issue is with the instances of major blowouts, there should be other things considered much more before the score. Like balancing, and the thought of “what was missing that kept us from doing better?”

Along with that, for newer players there should be extra “advice” tabs at the end of a game, especially targeted for that game. My main example is if nobody put down a single rally point, it would give the advice about using rally points at the end.

My point being is making the losing team feel better about losing is not a good solution. Pushing players to do better and not be a drag on their team is much more important.

1 Like
5

I normally don’t say this less it’s deserving of it and I understand that you put in a lot of thought, but no.
Just get better. Games usually have steep learning curves.

6

yes, and instead of playing for objective to make their team win, teammates will try to obtain those badges instead.

its not just about me but about other people as well, i usually do end on the top of the scoreboard, but if team is just too bad, there is nohting i can do about it, and we lose (y aint defending skillful this time, eh?), this made me think about just farming the enemies and therefore getting out with actually better rewards (and it works, you know), then, it finnaly made sense why my team wont play for objective.

1 Like
7

True, I am somewhat reluctant in this aspect as well, but - how else are You going to make battles not a complete roflstomp for 1 side?
Heck, there were numerous close matches in invasion - attackers were unable to take the last point for example. Are You also just going to show the attackers a middle finger for all this effort?

And as for these additional rewards:

Jandaro made a good point. These badges rarely, if ever, help to achieve victory.

1 Like
8

Agree,not on the idea because it really need a reshape, but on the fact victory and defeat need be more dynamic

3 Likes
9

if you can actually improve my idea i would appreciate your effort

10

That’s the thing though. They aren’t there to help you “achieve victory”. They are there to reward you for the effort you put in. If you didn’t get any of them, then sorry, but your efforts really weren’t enough. I passively get 2-4 of them per game without really even trying. It doesn’t even matter if its a win or loss. Just playing well will usually let you earn these.

11

That’s not playing well and getting anywhere close to victory.
If anything, that is more satisfying the demands “of the party”, rather than meaningful effort.

Also, how come these are rewarded, but not the actual capability to get close to victory by capturing points?

1 Like
12

I will note that I understand you trying to get people to push harder. However, in my experience (on console) it would have the opposite effect.

On top of that, on Invasion mode, you are absolutely screwing over the defenders with this system. That game mode is designed around bleeding the attackers of their reinforcements over the course of several objectives. Their whole goal is to run them out giving the victory with the bonus xp for the hard fought victory. However, with your system, the defenders don’t get any rewards for the amount of tickets they drained on those previous objectives, it would only count them as absolute losses. Your system ONLY works for offense, and not at all for defense. For example: if the noobs were on defense and the pros on offense, and the noobs somehow held the very last objective, they only get 20% rewards. Playing on defense isn’t always about every single objective, but the overall big picture.

13

No, not only for attackers.
If anything, even a pyrrhic victory should grant 10% experience bonus.
If anything, think of it this way -
If it is a draw, which we can’t… get now, I think? (We need to try confrontation mode, where both last blokes stand on a point and points run out and time runs out…) both teams, assuming both had identical amount of kills and all that, would get 50% bonus each (150% total for both sides).
If there was a total victory/defeat, the exp bonus/malus is maximum/minimum - 200/100%.
Major Victory/defeat - 180/120
Minor Win/lose - 160/140
Costly/Pyrrhic win/lose - um… 155/145?
I might need to recheck the math and create excel/calc spreadsheet , but I hope You get the point.

Basically, both teams are fighting each other for that sweet extra exp…

But, now that I think about it, that 200% exp bonus could also encourage roflstomps… Hm…
More thought into this is needed.

2 Likes
15

rather than getting just stomped over, noobs would stand a chance, because the amount of attacker team tickets are set for each point, this means that at last point, noobs would actually have reasons to keep fighting thanks to them having advantage, even if they didnt achieve much prior to the very last point.

1 Like
16

Unless defenders have at least one engineer team go back toward the next point and set up defenses, they are NEVER at the advantage (on invasion at least). They don’t have limited tickets like the attackers do, but mainly because they are forced to hold the objective that in many cases is an absolute massacre. Defenders have to hold that point at all costs, at all times. Meanwhile, attackers can chose their angle of attack, or even have a couple guys set up on flanks to kill off attacker reinforcements before they even get to the point. While their teammates push objective. Once progress has been made on an objective, it can’t be reversed. The attackers also get back a pretty hefty number of tickets when they cap a point in most campaigns. This gives them advantage on most, if not all objectives. UNLESS defenders have actually had a chance to fortify.

17

you missed my point, i didnt claim that defenders are at an advantage…

about your post though, you are wrong, defenders can choose where they are going to defend, they just have to make sure control point remains safe, you are not supposed to build defences just on the control point (most of the time) but in front of it and on its flanks as well, should enemy just push the point, the secured flanks will be able to provide supporting fire, thus heavily hampering enemy invasion, and should they actually make it to the point, soldiers at the flanks can still relocate.

1 Like
18

We will have to agree to disagree. Defenders have to keep that control point safe. In MOST cases, the location in that area with the highest potential for fortification is in the building that the control point is in. If you set up the area around it as a kill zone and fortify the structure itself, you are doing your job right. The problem though, is defenders aren’t given hardly any time at all to set up, and usually have to guess where it is going to go. Barbwire (especially in trenches for added protection from bombardment), need to be placed in the “open” stretch in front of objective or at flanks. Optimally there will be an MG nest of some kind in place watching that as well. However, again, this requires time to set up. This is where it ties into the main subject:

Just because an engineer squad or two go back to set up next point, doesn’t mean they should lose xp because they are forced to sacrifice the foremost position. If they WIN because of that decision, they should get the xp for it. With what you are suggesting, defenders will always be at a disadvantage because they won’t have the option of sacrificing a point to setup defenses without incurring a heavy penalty. Even though it may win them the game. Instead, they would be forced to fight at a disadvantage on every point (due to lack of defensive fortification) just to try to get the credit they should get for winning outright.

19

i disagree

you are not supposed to spam barbed wires, sandbags and czech hedgehogs everywhere, but build few of them in a more importmant location, control points are or should be fortified upfront. If you dont waste time ““fortifying”” stuff, you will not be at a disadvantage.

until EC game mode drops, enginners will be only good for making hardpoints little harder.

also, arty strike erases all your work anyway…

1 Like
20

Thats why we trench our barbwire. It makes it much more resistant to artillery fire.

21

this takes even more time, you are not supposed to do this on a mass scale in a such fast-paced game