Destruction+ (MP Game mode idea)

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Destruction+ (MP Game mode idea)

Postby DeuZerre » Fri 14 Jun 2013 12:59

Well, it's more of an idea on how to change what's wrong with destruction, while keeping the core concept and picking good ideas from the other game modes.

As the single player suggests, destruction represents the losses one can take before breaking off the engagement, basically, "affordable losses". I say the SP suggests this because a high morale army can suffer more losses than a low morale one and still win.

Now, what are people's gripes about Destruction?

    - taking ground brings more income, but more ground to defend, nullifying the income advantage overall.
    - There is not incentive to attack, since attacking causes losses.

Taking both of those into consideration, I came up with this concept:

- Controlling more ground reduces the enemy score, depending on the difference in owned areas values. Example: I own 4 areas, worth 2-3-4-5 (14) points. The enemy owns 3 areas worth 2-3-4 (9) points. We have a 5-points difference: He will lose 5 points every few seconds.

What does this change?
    - The player that owns more ground can afford more losses: Since the enemy gets further from his goal, you can afford to take more ground with more losses than the enemy since, over time, that ground will compensate for the losses.
    - The player that "camps" and waits for the timer will lose if he doesn't make counter attacks to inflict losses to the player that owns more ground

Basically, it causes a back and forth: The player that has less ground HAS to counter attack to inflict more losses, while the player that owns more ground can keep on attacking.

The game would not be resolved simply with the initial clash and territory grab.

Why not add the difference, instead of taking it out?
Because that would take away one of the things this idea tries to promote: Dynamism from both sides. If you just gain points by sitting still, the game would be even more about securing ground early and then wait. The player that loses the initial ground grab would be doomed with less income and no way to break through; By the time he's ready to make an other attack, the one that has more ground would be way ahead in score.

TLDR
Having more ground than the enemy reduces enemy score, causing a more dynamic gameplay.
Last edited by DeuZerre on Fri 14 Jun 2013 14:45, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

Bryan
General
Posts: 5993
Joined: Mon 7 Jan 2013 07:16
Contact:

Re: Destruction + (MP Game mode idea)

Postby Bryan » Fri 14 Jun 2013 13:10

Just like Battlefield conquest mode! Except casualties dont add to winning score.
How about...RANDOM OBJECTIVES that way, you never know which area is contested!! Just like Project Reality!

And a 'Assault' mode! A player holds several objectives and the enemy must attack and secure as many as possible!
Or a Battlefield 'rush' mode where you have to defend objectives, but the thing is, you should be allowed when you want to pull out, not 'the enemy has taken the objective!fall back!' Forcing you to withdraw...instead of you calling when you want to withdraw. This is will be really fun IMO as Seige is really messed up right now, everyone starts attacking to secure a spawn point and the 'attackers' always turtle...

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Re: Destruction + (MP Game mode idea)

Postby DeuZerre » Fri 14 Jun 2013 13:13

Mh, nope. You mistook something.

I kill a unit worth 100 points: I get 100 points. The enemy has an income advantage: I lose 5 points. Then 5 points. Then 5 points. Etc... Getting me further from the goal.
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

iwancoppa
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed 18 Apr 2012 13:03
Contact:

Re: Destruction + (MP Game mode idea)

Postby iwancoppa » Fri 14 Jun 2013 13:14

Another fabulous quality post by Deuzerre.



This sounds a lot like battlefield conquest modes.


The only possible issue I can see here is initial expansion becoming too prevalent. However, I do believe this would effectively combat camping the initial sector.


Perhaps a minimum difference before points subtraction?
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." -Euripides
BM-30 SMERCH - unstoppable killer - please NERF
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

User avatar
Sotek
Master Sergeant
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu 6 Sep 2012 10:03
Contact:

Re: Destruction + (MP Game mode idea)

Postby Sotek » Fri 14 Jun 2013 13:21

That's a very good idea, much better indeed than adding points. It will probably need some fine tuning but I wholly support the concept.

However, I don't really agree with that statement: "taking ground brings more income, but more ground to defend, nullifying the income advantage overall ". The new income very often outweighs the new costs.

Bryan wrote:Just like Battlefield conquest mode! Except casualties dont add to winning score.
How about...RANDOM OBJECTIVES that way, you never know which area is contested!! Just like Project Reality!
..


Man, seriously. It is nice to have ideas and stuff but please stop proposing changes that will ANYWAY never happen. Unfortunately, your post is only lowering the visibility of the discussion and that of the OP's argument. Let's keep it real, simple, useful and to the point.

User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu 18 Oct 2012 07:01
Contact:

Re: Destruction + (MP Game mode idea)

Postby Uncle_Joe » Fri 14 Jun 2013 13:39

Interesting idea and might be worth a try but I think it will still leave a fundamental problem in that the 'disadvantaged' player is simply being forced to attack at an even further disadvantage (ie, they have less income, presumably less unit because they have lost more, and the higher income player is now bringing in even more units to defend with).

The current Econ mode has a nice counter-balance to that situation because if the higher income player wants to gain points off his income, he has to slacken off bringing in new units which gives the lower income player a potential chance to counter-attack. And yet people still complain that this mode is nothing BUT map control.

What you're proposing brings the worst of that situation to the forefront without the counter-balance of needing to stop spending to accumulate points.

The problem with Destruction IMO is that there no incentive to continue the attack once you have an advantage and the disadvantaged player has an even harder time trying to get back into the game. I don't see that changing with that you're proposing.

At least ADDING the difference to the 'winner's' total rather than subtracting it from the 'loser's' brings the game to an end faster...ie, if the loser DOESN'T come out and attack, the game will end sooner. But subtracting it could just lead to more 'camping' since the defender isn't likely to come out ahead on the attack if he now has farther to go AND he is being forced to attack hastily. So once again, his incentive is to sit back and wait and hope the attacker gets bored and does something stupid which will let him back into the game.
"Don't you know that in the Service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?"

Quinte
Corporal
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2013 13:28
Contact:

Re: Destruction + (MP Game mode idea)

Postby Quinte » Fri 14 Jun 2013 13:46

DeuZerre wrote:- taking ground brings more income, but more ground to defend, nullifying the income advantage overall.


I kinda disagree with the fact that this would be a bad thing. Seems to me that this is a basic in strategy: you want more ground, you need to defend it. Otherwise any spam attack becomes a valid tactic.
Plus you seem to assume that the one that lost the first engagement, and thus the one who's already at a disadvantage, is not attacking and sticks to defense. So there would be a contradiction there.

Way I see it, this would put the guy that wins the first engagement at such an advantageous position that he wouldn't have to attack ever again: He probably has the advantage in points already, he's got a better income, and his adversary needs to bring home way more points to complete the same objective.
I guess what you would see more than often is people leaving after the first forty-five seconds of the game, because unless you're a good player, there's no way you make up for that handicap. If they don't, the leading guy, for one, just needs to fortify his positions and wait for the inferior enemy force to crush on his lines again and again. Any points the attacker might gain, will be lost anyway immediately after.

Note that I don't have any solution to present myself, these are just my thoughts when reading your idea. I myself find that the economy and total destruction modes make for quite a dynamic gameplay, and don't need much in terms of fixing.

User avatar
DeuZerre
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11125
Joined: Mon 27 Feb 2012 23:17
Location: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Earth, Ground, Eurasian Continent, Main Landmass.
Contact:

Re: Destruction + (MP Game mode idea)

Postby DeuZerre » Fri 14 Jun 2013 13:51

Uncle_Joe wrote:Interesting idea and might be worth a try but I think it will still leave a fundamental problem in that the 'disadvantaged' player is simply being forced to attack at an even further disadvantage


It should be looked at as a half full glass, not a half empty one: The player that initially lost my be forced to attack, but that's to be able to seize the advantage again, not "Well, I already lost so many troops. If I try to grab more ground, I'm screwed, getting the other guy closer to victory.

The current Econ mode has a nice counter-balance to that situation because if the higher income player wants to gain points off his income, he has to slacken off bringing in new units which gives the lower income player a potential chance to counter-attack. And yet people still complain that this mode is nothing BUT map control.


The problem I have with Economy is that losses are only relevant tactically; They're forgettable. One of the great things about the wargame series is that pretty unique fact: Losses are not just numbers you can replace, they can actually cost you the victory.

The problem with Destruction IMO is that there no incentive to continue the attack once you have an advantage and the disadvantaged player has an even harder time trying to get back into the game. I don't see that changing with that you're proposing.


A player that ahs the advantage can afford more losses to grab even more ground. What makes the game stall, usually, is that there really is no reason to attack the enemy once you have the advantage, since it's risky, and gets the enemy closer to a draw/win.

At least ADDING the difference to the 'winner's' total rather than subtracting it from the 'loser's' brings the game to an end faster...ie, if the loser DOESN'T come out and attack, the game will end sooner.


True, games could take longer, except that if everything goes right, there will be more fighting and thus, the game would go just as fast when reducing one of the guy's score.

But subtracting it could just lead to more 'camping' since the defender isn't likely to come out ahead on the attack if he now has farther to go AND he is being forced to attack hastily.


Not necessarily hastily. If you have the time, you can get a suitable force and attack to either prevent the enemy from controlling more ground and, if things go well, revert the situation.

So once again, his incentive is to sit back and wait and hope the attacker gets bored and does something stupid which will let him back into the game.


Sit back and wait to change "Minor defeat" into "total defeat" by the end of the timer would most certainly be the worst decision you could take out there.

@ Sotek:
Sotek wrote:[...] I don't really agree with that statement: "taking ground brings more income, but more ground to defend, nullifying the income advantage overall ". The new income very often outweighs the new costs.[...]


What I tried to mean by that is that the income/m² is pretty much the same for the defender and the attacker.
Image
Marshal honoris causa
FLX wrote:Removing the weaknesses from the divisions leads to all divisions being the same in the long run. We won't proceed like that.

plex
Corporal
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri 29 Mar 2013 01:34
Contact:

Re: Destruction + (MP Game mode idea)

Postby plex » Fri 14 Jun 2013 13:59

Very good idea, this would hugely improve destruction gamemode and wargame as a whole.
W:ALB's greatest weakness is its gamemodes.

Accensus
Private First-Class
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon 13 May 2013 18:38
Contact:

Re: Destruction + (MP Game mode idea)

Postby Accensus » Fri 14 Jun 2013 14:40

Great idea.

I'd add counting each controlled reinforcement route and air corridor as half a point in the income comparison to underscore their strategic value, since they're usually worth less/zero points.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests