Game mode for any kind of competetive play aka RIBAR mode.

User avatar
praslovan
Major-General
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 21:56
Location: Slav inhabited Alps
Contact:

Game mode for any kind of competetive play aka RIBAR mode.

Postby praslovan » Mon 17 Jun 2013 17:43

This was a post in this: http://www.wargame-ee.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31570 thread.


I was asked to bring forth my own suggestion... I did it couple of times already in this thread. But this:
praslovan wrote:I understand situation like this:
- Enemy has managed to push me out of income stalemate.
- Because I don't act or I get driven back while trying to reclaim that sector in the next 10 or whatever minutes I loose (moving CVs for a couple of seconds to dodge blind arty doesn't resets the timer).
- More sectors I loose less time time I have to counter attack
- Because I got driven back all the way to my initial sector I loose, even though attacker sustained 2:1 while doing that
Was actually a suggestion. And because apparently Eugen doesn't like timers let me rephrase it:

Things to consider for competitive/ranked game mode :

- Only slightly "fixing" destruction will not work... it is too basic
- Every map has a stalemate. Territorial or income one. And every one race in the start to achieve that foot hold form where they can then attack, or not. This will not go away.
- Camping happens because of those stalemates
- You can't have bonuses on victory conditions especially ones that can fluctuate in small time frame for enormous amount... like kills
- Bonuses can help you with achieving victory, but not directly influencing it like in your case Deuzerre. That is just broken because balancing that bonus is a difficult task.
- Income is quite high so loosing only 1 sector is not really enormous disadvantage (well ok depends on the sector)
- Apologising certain thing by saying: "You shouldn't play like that but like that... look at me I do it in the right way." when there is no "right way" is just stupid. If you want people to play right in the that certain way, you have to make exact rules for them to obey.

So this is my suggestion for ranked game mode:

Basic setting:
- 40 min time limit
- kills don't count... you can't expect people to attack if they have to take care of every little loss they might get in the process
- kill points are substituted with victory points. How to obtain them will be explained in this post

How to win:
- Kill all enemy CVs

- What would be a fair idea of a victory condition? Something like:
a) Every map has an income stalemate that normally represents 1/2 of the map territory. (already said that 1000x)
b) People should win when they go over their 1/2 of the map into enemy side.
c) More aggressive they are in doing that, faster they win.
d) Team that has "invaders" on their side should not be penalised right away but in certain time forced to act
e) If they fail in doing that they should have a chance to do that again as long as they didn't delay acting for too long

So in conclusion... how to proclaim the winner?

Answer: If he went into enemy half of the map and stayed there for a certain amount of time or completely destroy his enemy. That person is a winner.

- Sectors that are braking the stalemate (meaning on the enemy half of the map) are the key.
- Now they give you income advantage only, but they should give you a win as well
Spoiler : Here is an example: :
Image
Red line marks stalemate that normally happens on this map. If you, dear reader of this post, find yourself in control of more than that for most of the match, then congratulations. You have won. Or at least you should have.


Victory points:
You can call them political points as well. Because they sound cooler. And a better story can be made behind them compared to plain "victory" points + we already "have" them in the game.

- You score political points by moving inside, what should be, enemy sectors.
- When you score certain amount of political points you win
- If you don't but your enemy doesn't as well after 40 min then you draw

Fool proof explanation on example:
Look at the picture in example spoiler:
- If white team moves into red sector 3 they are braking the stalemate and scoring political points.
- If they are really in momentum and they push and secure red sector 2 as well, they score political points faster
- If they get pushed off both sectors in successful red counter offensive they don't loose political points. That promotes aggressive counter counter attacks in cases of close victory.

Questions that are up for debate:

-Should sectors that are above stalemate provide an income as well?
I think they shouldn't... well all depends on maps I guess... but income is high enough already and loosing team is down on it. No need on super income + that makes loosing team at least have some chance to organise an counter attack.

- Should reinforcement sectors that are above stalemate provide reinforcement points?
I think they should. Although it would be interesting to see what would happen if they don't.

- How big should political point limit till victory be?
In pub games it should be able to be set just like kill points.
In ranked it should depend on what kind of sectors there are on the map.


This is not EE conquest... there are no new sectors... sectors you are after if you want to win are sectors enemy needs for cash.


So there you have it. Something that would be easy to change. And makes a lot more sense to me than those - kill points.

EDIT:

For clear explanation read this post (same thread only on other page).
Last edited by praslovan on Tue 18 Jun 2013 22:28, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Oliver
Colonel
Posts: 2920
Joined: Sat 2 Jul 2011 18:00
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

Re: Praslovan's new game mode

Postby Oliver » Mon 17 Jun 2013 18:08

Splitted from Destruction+, feel free to rename it however you like.
Image

User avatar
Kolovrat
Lieutenant
Posts: 1051
Joined: Mon 29 Apr 2013 22:03
Contact:

Re: Praslovan's new game mode

Postby Kolovrat » Mon 17 Jun 2013 18:26

Seems reasonable, but has few issues.

1. This game mode implies a debut (opening) totaly desicive phase a game. Who wins debut - wins the game, ~95%. This issue forces a debut as a meta-game concept to be PERFECTLY balanced. Or the game cease to be competitve.

2. Almost all maps need to be reworked.

User avatar
Hartmann
Lieutenant
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 18:31
Contact:

Re: Praslovan's new game mode

Postby Hartmann » Mon 17 Jun 2013 18:29

Let's just wait until we see conquest mode eh.

User avatar
Panzerspahwagen85
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 502
Joined: Wed 15 Feb 2012 09:40
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Praslovan's new game mode

Postby Panzerspahwagen85 » Mon 17 Jun 2013 18:30

Too complicated, conquest will be better unless Eugen screw it up.
Image

User avatar
praslovan
Major-General
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 21:56
Location: Slav inhabited Alps
Contact:

Re: Praslovan's new game mode

Postby praslovan » Mon 17 Jun 2013 18:49

Panzerspahwagen85 wrote:Too complicated, conquest will be better unless Eugen screw it up.

?
You don't have any new sectors. You don't need to make anything new. Everything you need to make this mode is already in destruction.

Maybe you think it is complicated because it was written in long post and I didn't wrote it more clearly. Or you didn't understand. Or a bit of everything.

Kolovrat wrote:Seems reasonable, but has few issues.

1. This game mode implies a debut (opening) totaly desicive phase a game. Who wins debut - wins the game, ~95%. This issue forces a debut as a meta-game concept to be PERFECTLY balanced. Or the game cease to be competitve.

2. Almost all maps need to be reworked.

This is a response to Deuzerres - kill points idea. It was split by mods as you can see.
If you take that idea into context with this one you will see that while it is still important but not as much important to seize land right of the start.
You start winning only when you are in enemy half of the map which means you take longer to get there than the enemy. Why isn't he there if he can get there sooner?
And even that you have more land you only win after having it for certain amount of time and you don't get no bonuses for that.
Last edited by praslovan on Mon 17 Jun 2013 18:57, edited 1 time in total.

naizarak
Captain
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue 25 Dec 2012 12:53
Contact:

Re: Praslovan's new game mode

Postby naizarak » Mon 17 Jun 2013 18:55

Too confusing, so basically you want an arbitrary stalemate-boundary that needs to be crossed to win the game?


Why not keep it simpler? Controlling sectors gives you score-points. When you reach the necessary amount first you win. Income is kept equal for both sides regardless of territory control to give the losing team fair odds in an attack.

User avatar
Spektre
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 20:13
Location: germany
Contact:

Re: Praslovan's new game mode

Postby Spektre » Mon 17 Jun 2013 18:59

hey
Im thinking about the destruction problem since ee
and have no idea on my own
so this here sounds cool for me :)
there is something in me what is not satisfied at moment with the game
and pras mode is something I would really like to get honored for when I play this game
only anti atgm and anti arti moves at some point sucks big time
I think this anti apc thing from ee has gone a bit! to far
WTF?

User avatar
praslovan
Major-General
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 21:56
Location: Slav inhabited Alps
Contact:

Re: Praslovan's new game mode

Postby praslovan » Mon 17 Jun 2013 19:01

naizarak wrote:Too confusing, so basically you want an arbitrary stalemate-boundary that needs to be crossed to win the game?

It is already there. On most maps. Or am I wrong?


naizarak wrote:Why not keep it simpler? Controlling sectors gives you score-points. When you reach the necessary amount first you win. Income is kept equal for both sides regardless of territory control to give the losing team fair odds in an attack.

This is a spin off from economy. My thing is more spin off from both economy and conquest.

By now it is clear destruction can't be made better. You can't make campers attack without completely changing the game mode. Trying to patch it up only a little won't work. It will not result in a fair game mode.

Hartmann wrote:Let's just wait until we see conquest mode eh.

This is not conquest. Conquest is couple of annoying circles that don't give you anything and are in the middle of some field.
Last edited by praslovan on Mon 17 Jun 2013 19:03, edited 1 time in total.

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: Game mode

Postby DeuZerre » Mon 17 Jun 2013 19:03

I thought it would be an idea that involves "givingg a chance to the one that doesn't hold over half of the map, ut I seem to be mistaken.

If you want a game mode where ground control is the victory condition, you should separate income and victory condition.

Income is directly related / dependent on ground control, currently;

The only workaround I see with this would be having preset incomes for the map; Take the map's objectives values, add them, and divide by two: Give that income to both sides; Both sides have the same flow of income, and the battle goes on however you please depending on what you want to do with the game mode. Add all the fancy rules you want.
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.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests