Ranked gamemode

User avatar
Arch
Lieutenant
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat 11 May 2013 13:13
Contact:

Re: Ranked gamemode

Postby Arch » Fri 16 May 2014 22:24

YTM wrote:Why are we still having this conversation?

Can we see replays where someone has this amazing kdr in a 1v1 conquest game and ends up losing the game by more than 50 points? This has never occurred when I've played, mostly because when you're behind you should start taking heavy losses as you desperately try to take zones...

It's silly to hear about tactics consisting of sneaking recon squads up to a cv and killing it called "cheese" because your opponent only has 4 total cvs in their deck.

No one will ever call in 2+ CV's to every zone because they simply don't have enough money. If you have enough money and no need to reinforce so you can buy an extra CV, either the opponent is crap or you're making a mistake.
At least my experience.

And nothing wrong with sneaking up SF recon to CV's, isn't that kinda their thing?

duro909
Lieutenant
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2013 22:16
Contact:

Re: Ranked gamemode

Postby duro909 » Fri 16 May 2014 22:37

Arch wrote:
YTM wrote:Why are we still having this conversation?

Can we see replays where someone has this amazing kdr in a 1v1 conquest game and ends up losing the game by more than 50 points? This has never occurred when I've played, mostly because when you're behind you should start taking heavy losses as you desperately try to take zones...

It's silly to hear about tactics consisting of sneaking recon squads up to a cv and killing it called "cheese" because your opponent only has 4 total cvs in their deck.

No one will ever call in 2+ CV's to every zone because they simply don't have enough money. If you have enough money and no need to reinforce so you can buy an extra CV, either the opponent is crap or you're making a mistake.
At least my experience.

And nothing wrong with sneaking up SF recon to CV's, isn't that kinda their thing?


But guys,

sneaking behind enemy lines has nothing to do with conquest...
Since I was playing both destruction and conquest in ranked I realized that no matter the game mode, it will be allways happening.
CV is just a nice juicy target :D
Image
... and Malware-free banner too!

Ritterlich
Warrant Officer
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri 7 Jun 2013 23:20
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Ranked gamemode

Postby Ritterlich » Fri 16 May 2014 23:29

Destruction was a terrible gamemode for ranked games. At the end of the day, people would just sit back, wait, camp, snipe here or there a bit, and shake balls while leaning back. That was it. People settled down into forests, hardpoints, and then rien ne va plus - any attack would cost you the game. Terrible.

User avatar
Arch
Lieutenant
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat 11 May 2013 13:13
Contact:

Re: Ranked gamemode

Postby Arch » Fri 16 May 2014 23:48

How about the current Conquest model, but with an improved early game?

If I play any deck but a helo rush EUROCORPS/IFV heavy USSR deck, then I'm at a heavy disadvantage early game with no advantages mid game or late game -> No use playing other decks.

User avatar
IIIHunterIII
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun 17 Mar 2013 14:44
Location: on the hunt...
Contact:

Re: Ranked gamemode

Postby IIIHunterIII » Sat 17 May 2014 00:00

Random wrote:95% of the top competitive players agree.
Citation needed. I'd agree though.

Random iz noob and has no proof of his 95% and I just l2p'd you in a similar fashion. This kinda made me feel bad(read: like an elitist snob), so I'm gonna elaborate a little bit.

Arch wrote:The problem isn't that my CV's get hunted down, it's that after the early game, if you lose the first fight, you will NOT have the money to buy any defenses for the CV in the first place if you want a chance to stop their advance.
Any attack he sends at zones can be countered, but if he's in the lead, he just has to hold you back and cap zones then mid game +1 it to victory.


Conquest is a very forgiving gamemode compared to other game modes and other games (which I will come to later). Here's why:
1. Both players start with an army worth 1000 points. (let's go with Random and Hunter)
2. Now Random uses his OP units to defeat Hunter's poor attempt at a helo drop and comes out ahead, losing only 80 points compared to Hunters 300. Additionally Random now controls a "neutral" 1 point sector.
3. The 220 points Hunter has lost put him at a disadvantage for the remainder of the game, unless he manages to trade x points for x+220 points worth of units.
4. Going forward: Random has to make the decision whether to sit on his positional advantage and small and ever diminishing kill advantage or to give up his positional advantage and try to end it right there.

TD Destruction (the gamemode OP suggested) is a lot less forgiving in this regard. Here's why:
1. Both players start with an army worth 1000 points. (let's go with Random and Hunter)
2. Now Random uses his OP units to defeat Hunter's poor attempt at a helo drop and comes out ahead, losing only 80 points compared to Hunters 300.
Additionally Random now controls a "neutral" 1 point sector.
3. The 220 points Hunter has lost put him at a disadvantage for the remainder of the game, unless he manages to trade x points for x+220+T points worth of units where T is the combined point value of the income advantage (Time in s since capping +1) / 4 * 7.
4. Going forward: Random has to make the same decision again. The most important difference in this scenario is that the longer he waits with attacking the larger his force is going to be (larger counting only the units he has additionally). Of course you could argue the longer Random waits before attacking the more time Hunter has to prepare his defenses. The problem here is that Random doesn't really have to attack in order to win. The smart thing is to just prepare defences and wait it out. Which is exactly why top players dislike destruction.

How do other games solve this problem? They don't. This is a problem of difference in skill, not gamedesign (or gamemode for that matter).
(slightly off-topic, hence spoiler).
Spoiler : :
Here's why:
There is a popular, ultra competitive strategy game by the name of starcraft. For the people who don't know it, in starcraft you also build bases and special units which can gather ressources and build buildings. Before you accuse me of apples 'n oranges bear with me for a couple lines.
1. Both players start with an equal number of harvesters.
2. With the money the two players earned they each buy two marines.
3. Player 2 attacks player 1 and both marines get killed without player 1 losing any his.
4. Now player 2 absolutely has to buy another two marines, otherwise he is going to get slaughtered, all the while player 1 builds harvesters.
5. Because of the additional harvesters player 1 gathers ressources faster which enables him to build even more harvester which gather even more ressources...
6. Going forward: This exponential growth can snowball out of control very quickly and usually results in an unrecoverable disadvantage for player two. There's no mechanism to balance out player 2's lack of love for his marines...


Conclusion:
One may or may not like destruction. However, changing the ranked-gamemode to destruction would not solve the "problem" OP wishes to address, it would do quite the opposite in fact.
IMHO the only solution to solving this "problem" is to improve one's game. Just to show it's well within the realm of the possible, I'll happily provide a replay of Sleksa and Daywalker defeating our (me and Random) early helo drop.
Spoiler : :
http://alb-replays.info/rdbeta/#/
Competitive 2v2 - Shazbots vs WTF? (the real one)
Last edited by IIIHunterIII on Sat 17 May 2014 06:30, edited 1 time in total.
No trees were killed in the posting of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced...

duro909
Lieutenant
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat 19 Jan 2013 22:16
Contact:

Re: Ranked gamemode

Postby duro909 » Sat 17 May 2014 01:09

IIIHunterIII wrote:
Random wrote:95% of the top competitive players agree.
Citation needed. I'd agree though.

Random iz noob and has no proof of his 95% and I just l2p'd you in a similar fashion. This kinda made me feel bad(read: like an elitist snob), so I'm gonna elaborate a little bit.

Arch wrote:The problem isn't that my CV's get hunted down, it's that after the early game, if you lose the first fight, you will NOT have the money to buy any defenses for the CV in the first place if you want a chance to stop their advance.
Any attack he sends at zones can be countered, but if he's in the lead, he just has to hold you back and cap zones then mid game +1 it to victory.


Conquest is a very forgiving gamemode compared to other game modes and other games (which I will come to later). Here's why:
1. Both players start with an army worth 1000 points. (let's go with Random and Hunter)
2. Now Random uses his OP units to defeat Hunter's poor attempt at a helo drop and comes out ahead, losing only 80 points compared to Hunters 300. Additionally Random now controls a "neutral" 1 point sector.
3. The 220 points Hunter has lost put him at a disadvantage for the remainder of the game, unless he manages to trade x points for x+220 points worth of units.
4. Going forward: Random has to make the decision whether to sit on his positional advantage and small and ever diminishing kill advantage or to give up his positional advantage and try to end it right there.

TD Destruction (the gamemode OP suggested) is a lot less forgiving in this regard. Here's why:
1. Both players start with an army worth 1000 points. (let's go with Random and Hunter)
2. Now Random uses his OP units to defeat Hunter's poor attempt at a helo drop and comes out ahead, losing only 80 points compared to Hunters 300.
Additionally Random now controls a "neutral" 1 point sector.
3. The 220 points Hunter has lost put him at a disadvantage for the remainder of the game, unless he manages to trade x points for x+220+T points worth of units where T is the combined point value of the income advantage (Time in s since capping +1) mod 4 * 7.
4. Going forward: Random has to make the same decision again. The most important difference in this scenario is that the longer he waits with attacking the larger his force is going to be (larger counting only the units he has additionally). Of course you could argue the longer Random waits before attacking the more time Hunter has to prepare his defenses. The problem here is that Random doesn't really have to attack in order to win. The smart thing is to just prepare defences and wait it out. Which is exactly why top players dislike destruction.

How do other games solve this problem? They don't. This is a problem of difference in skill, not gamedesign (or gamemode for that matter).
(slightly off-topic, hence spoiler).
Spoiler : :
Here's why:
There is a popular, ultra competitive strategy game by the name of starcraft. For the people who don't know it, in starcraft you also build bases and special units which can gather ressources and build buildings. Before you accuse me of apples 'n oranges bear with me for a couple lines.
1. Both players start with an equal number of harvesters.
2. With the money the two players earned they each buy two marines.
3. Player 2 attacks player 1 and both marines get killed without player 1 losing any his.
4. Now player 2 absolutely has to buy another two marines, otherwise he is going to get slaughtered, all the while player 1 builds harvesters.
5. Because of the additional harvesters player 1 gathers ressources faster which enables him to build even more harvester which gather even more ressources...
6. Going forward: This exponential growth can snowball out of control very quickly and usually results in an unrecoverable disadvantage for player two. There's no mechanism to balance out player 2's lack of love for his marines...


Conclusion:
One may or may not like destruction. However, changing the ranked-gamemode to destruction would not solve the "problem" OP wishes to address, it would do quite the opposite in fact.
IMHO the only solution to solving this "problem" is to improve one's game. Just to show it's well within the realm of the possible, I'll happily provide a replay of Sleksa and Daywalker defeating our (me and Random) early helo drop.
Spoiler : :
http://alb-replays.info/rdbeta/#/
Competitive 2v2 - Shazbots vs WTF? (the real one)


This guy made a point!
Image
... and Malware-free banner too!

User avatar
YTM
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed 4 Dec 2013 05:37
Contact:

Re: Ranked gamemode

Postby YTM » Sat 17 May 2014 05:03

IIIHunterIII wrote: words


That. That x 1000000
Image

User avatar
FleF[FFR]
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri 2 Sep 2011 08:55
Contact:

Re: Ranked gamemode

Postby FleF[FFR] » Sat 17 May 2014 08:27

Arch wrote:Destruction might be the superior mode this time.

I've found that 1v1 ranked just comes down to finding the CV with desperate recon then bombing it or rushing helos to kill the enemy CV in the beginning. Nothing else, and there is no other way to play against anyone who is decent.
Doing that in destruction would mean that if your little rush at the start or whatever fails, you're already losing. That didn't work in ALB because you could just sit tight and snipe units.

I also have not found that conquest rewards attacking, quite the opposite. Attacking in destruction means that you destroy more stuff fast which means you gain points fast, while in conquest it means you lose defenses for YOUR CV while attacking. The defender will always have enough defenses, while the attacker will not, meaning the defender has both the offensive and defensive edge.

I propose removing zones completely from Ranked and going on points alone, but having the need for a CV somewhere on the map to be able to deploy troops and getting more points the more CV's you have better spread out.
Too hard to do in RD, too complicated for Eugen to care, but one can wish. Every 1v1 opponent I have talked to agreed.

Thoughts?


What is motivating CV hunting?

The price of CVs, the effect of the CVs on the game (victory points), the scarcity and the fragility of 'em.

What are the effect of these?
1 price of the CVs. The more you put in CVs the less you put in combat troops. Right? So killing a 100$ unit is really worth it. Why not trying to shoot one with 50$ of SpecForces?And 2 CVs are immobilizing 200$ at least. Really worth it.

2 Victory points: A CV killed is a lot of point you'll never see (or that you'll see too late :D). For that there is 2 solutions: 2a.Multiplying the CVs on a sector and 2b.securing the sector with troops.
-2a Costly. Simply costly. And the scarcity of the CCVs doesn't make it an easy solution.
-2b Still costly. How much point will you spent to protect your CVs? It put off the active fight the same amount of point to counter an hypothetic threat or a less expensive threat. So... why not trying to shoot one with 50$ of specforce. In the end the player in front will spent more money to counter than the CV hunter. Still profitable. Needless to speak about the APM that requires to hunt down a lonely SF lost in the woods during a whole game.

3 Scarcity and fragility.
CVs are scarce. Losing one is an issue. Losing 2 can be really problematic depending on the deck. And it is easy to lose one as 99.9% of the CV used are not a T80UK.

4-Size of sectors.
Some sectors have the size of a stamp. So simple as that.Just combine with previous points.


So personnaly I find the CVs would gain to be a lot cheaper and to be a bit more numerous. This could profit to conquest and destruction both.
Rejoignez les FFR!
Une communauté de jeux videos sympa et conviviale

DarrickS
J'aime quand on me fait du mal
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon 13 Feb 2012 01:43
Contact:

Re: Ranked gamemode

Postby DarrickS » Sat 17 May 2014 08:56

Stop to say "Conquest", you are playing a modified Economic game mode, nor conquest at all.

Real conquest game mode is on WEE and I offer to every one who want to try it a 1vs1 on WEE if he wants to see the difference.
After this, we will do some economic 1vs1 still on WEE, and you will see by evidence what the conquest ALB/RD game mode is just a conquetonomy game mode and dont has a single report with the one of WEE.

On WEE conquest, killing CV was just an option for helping you to win by attrition, but if you were only focusing on it, your ennemy should just use 2 APCs for wining the game by.. conquest.

And If you think Destruction is better, I invite you to read 2 years of harsh debate about it on the WEE/ALB section forum.
Past, past is far.

User avatar
FleF[FFR]
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri 2 Sep 2011 08:55
Contact:

Re: Ranked gamemode

Postby FleF[FFR] » Sat 17 May 2014 10:07

:shock:
He.
is.
back.

Image
Rejoignez les FFR!
Une communauté de jeux videos sympa et conviviale

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 43 guests