Jump to content
  • 1
tynblpb

Little rework of CP capture BP earning.

Question

WW3 is objective based teamplay shooter. Objective is to have ground control. Playing the objectives is rewarded with BattlePoints. Performing teamwork actions while playing objectives is rewarded too.

But I see one flaw in current mechanic of rewarding the CP capturing. There is NO difference what CP u r capturing. It doesn't matter A1,B1,C1 u've captured or A1-A2, B1. For u personally, I mean. In both cases it'll be ~2400 BPs.

But for the overall teamscore difference is huge. Only 2nd case is increasing ur teamscore.

But it's only if u care. Unfortunately many ppl do not. Their own score matters more.

So the idea is to make that individual's urge to have more BPs will coincide with team's necessity.

The idea is: for capturing the CP, doesn't matter is it neutral or enemy's, the player will be rewarded with 300BPs. But if he would capture second linked CP, he will receive 300BPs for capture and 200BPs for completing the chain.

Total amount BPs will still 800 as it's IMO balanced right now, but only if u r capturing linked CPs. If it's different zone CPs u'll receive only 600BPs.

The same bonus will be applied if it was defended point when u've stopped enemy from breaking the link:

-U've defended ur CP and recaptured it to be fully urs? Here is ur reward.

Because now I often see how ppl leave the defended CP even though it's halfcaptured. Because: if there is no order from SL all u'll have are 4BPs per sec for recapturing if u r alone. Yes, order can give u significantl amount of BPs, but only if it is given. But if u r SL and u r alone on CP recapturing it(like it's often happening with me) nothing can help u. U r sitting and looking at these 4...4...4... Mmmmmaaaaaaa!...

Nobody likes to sit still for half a minute only to receive ~100BPs.

Sorry, if I'm being too arrogant here thinking that this idea has no need of approval by upvotes, but, @Ragir, sorry for bothering u, but could u plz answer can something like this be implemented? Because of my shameless IMO, it perfectly fits idea of rewarding gameplay of WW3. Or devteam has other ideas on how organize traffic on maps and promote objective playing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I see where your are coming from and I like the idea to give more BPs for actions that acutally help your team (looking at all the SLs who give the order to capture the objective they are on instead of the one their whole squad is capping).

With your suggestion I see a problem though. In general you are right, it is more useful to capture an objective which will complete the link. On the other hand, there is no neutral state. So whenever I am not completing a link, I am breaking a link of the enemy team (except for the start of the game). So what is more useful for your team? If your team has one linked objective and you have the choice to complete a second link or destroy the remaining link the enemy has, I think arguments can be made for both cases. If the enemy has already close to 5.000 points the most important part is to make sure he

So I don't vote yes for now, but I like the general idea to reward "useful" actions more. The difficult part is how to determine which action is useful and which not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
16 минут назад, HeiligeRobbe сказал:

On the other hand, there is no neutral state. So whenever I am not completing a link, I am breaking a link of the enemy team (except for the start of the game). So what is more useful for your team? If your team has one linked objective and you have the choice to complete a second link or destroy the remaining link the enemy has, I think arguments can be made for both cases

If there would be reward for breaking the link between enemy's CP then there would be no difference between suggested and current systems. Just because after first captures there would be no neutral CPs and u'll always or create or break link. I thought about it, but the premise was that should be rewarded actions that HELP ur team to increase ur teamscore, not the other ones.

Or, in other words: our teamscore must be higher, not the enemy's teamscore be lower.

Edited by tynblpb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, tynblpb said:

If there would be reward for breaking the link between enemy's CP then there would be no difference between suggested and current systems.

Exactly. Because you can easily argue that both actions help your team. By preventing the enemy team from scoring points I am helping my team. Or in other words: Our teamscore will be higher than the enemy's, if the enemy can't score.

So why would you argue that one thing is more helpful than the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
20 минут назад, HeiligeRobbe сказал:

Exactly. Because you can easily argue that both actions help your team. By preventing the enemy team from scoring points I am helping my team. Or in other words: Our teamscore will be higher than the enemy's, if the enemy can't score.

So why would you argue that one thing is more helpful than the other?

Doing everything to prosper. Prevent my enemies from prospering. The difference is that if it is the latter, it can be described as:

I'm in shit knee-high, but my rival/enemy is up to his ears, because I'm pushing him into it.

The problem is we are both in shit and I'm not doing anything to get out of it. I'm trying to drown my rival/enemy.

The first modus operandi I find more appealing. I'm best because I'm better, not because I'm hindering efforts of other ppl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Honestly, I find this to be a really narrow way to look at it. In the context of WW3 your team is better if it has more points than the enemy. Looking at it from a philosophical perspective, which is what you are doing I guess, I find your argumentation very biased because of your preferences. To give an analogy: It's like saying defenders in football are not worth as much as strikers because you want to win be scoring goals and not by preventing the enemy from scoring.

From a mechanical perspective there is not much to discuss given the way your teamscore increases is quite simple.

From a tactical perspective I would say that you will often run into a situation in which it makes more sense to break the enemy's link instead of pushing for your second. That is especially in close games shortly before one team reaches 5k points.

So I agree that there are plenty situations where one action makes more sense than the other and it would be nice to see respective incentives, but I am sceptical that there is a good method to determine which action is better than another in the flow of a game. Your suggestion is way too simplistic for my liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
19 минут назад, HeiligeRobbe сказал:

Honestly, I find this to be a really narrow way to look at it

 

19 минут назад, HeiligeRobbe сказал:

I find your argumentation very biased because of your preferences

 

There are many ways to hinder enemy's efforts:

1. I'm not camping. I'm controlling the path.

2. I'm not run'n'gunning. I'm blocking enemies.

3. I'm attacking this CP not because there are more enemies I can shoot at.

All these "playstyles" one way or another give player so much desired BPs. But ONLY  when he is creating link on CPs his teamscore is increasing. That was in my mind, when I reduced in my suggestion bonus BP earning only to 1 way. Ppl can still run'n'gun all they want, but players who'll place the objective first should be rewarded. Currently there is no profit in creating linked CPs other than "I'm trying to win" feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yeah, but if I am breaking the enemy's link shortly before they reach 5k points I am just as much placing the objective first. That is all what I am trying to say. Your team has managed to secured one objective area, say A, and holds B1. The enemy holds B2 and C. Why should it be rewarded more, to capture B2 than any of the C points? The result for your team will be the same. Your teamscore will increase faster than the enemies by on score/second if I am not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 минуту назад, HeiligeRobbe сказал:

Yeah, but if I am breaking the enemy's link shortly before they reach 5k points I am just as much placing the objective first. That is all what I am trying to say. Your team has managed to secured one objective area, say A, and holds B1. The enemy holds B2 and C. Why should it be rewarded more, to capture B2 than any of the C points? The result for your team will be the same. Your teamscore will increase faster than the enemies by on score/second if I am not mistaken.

Why? It's simple. Because inb4 this "shortly before 5k points" u have all this 4500+ points where u'll capture, lose and recapture ur CPs. Answer urself, why gameplay feature should be based on hypothetical situation? My idea is about promoting the capturing by giving "extra" BPs. 

U r trying to increase the difference between teamscores by capturing and holding CPs. The higher is difference - the less a chances for comeback. With 2 teams only breaking the links the closer is the end of the match the higher is the cost of mistake. Yes, not so fun without that tension in the end that can be with low scores, but I don't want to play lottery with 14-19 randoms in my team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

tbh reward system rework wont work. For now we have extra BP for completing orders and what do we have here? Nobody follows them. It will work with other your suggestion (or maybe not yours, cant recall): to use squad points only (+these points from capturing points) for strikes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
36 минут назад, Atway сказал:

tbh reward system rework wont work. For now we have extra BP for completing orders and what do we have here? Nobody follows them. It will work with other your suggestion (or maybe not yours, cant recall): to use squad points only (+these points from capturing points) for strikes

Unfortunately not mine. But I'll wholeheartedly support it even though it's rly unlikely to be implemented as it is to hardcore for average players.

As of my idea. I fully understand that it wouldn't change much in people's behaviour but those who play objectives would be richer and ignorant or noobs... They must suffer.

Edited by tynblpb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 minutes ago, tynblpb said:

but those who play objectives would be richer

even without that system Im always richer than 90% of players, sometimes 2-4x times more.

I think there should be something more attractive than BP bonus. Like glowing highlight for the points on the map, you know, everybody loves shiny stuff :D

8 minutes ago, tynblpb said:

or noobs... They must suffer.

im not even surprised :D But agree at some point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The main idea behind keeping cap rewards the same for capping enemy points and completing links is basically what's been said: sometimes it's more important to break links than it is to complete them.

We've all seen matches that go from 1000 : 4820 to 5000 : 4820, and that's precisely when you want to ignore completing links in order to win the match, you can have 2 links and the enemy only 1, but you will loose if you don't break them. If you have one link and the enemy has 0, you are still winning, so the most important thing is to have more, not necessarily to link all of them.

This means that skewing scoring towards completing links might sometimes go against what's best for the team.

I personally think that it's frequently more beneficial to DEFEND points rather than attacking them because of this. We only need one link and to keep the enemy from taking it - they'd have to focus their attacks, which is really hard to do, so you need more attackers to take defending point, which frees the rest of the team and bounds the enemy in one spot.

We're planning a few changes to Warzone regarding defense (more points!) and, most of all, educating people about how to play Warzone properly. It might seem like a simple case of cap more points, but it's not always as simple and we all know one good squad can easily win the whole game, even if they start out loosing.

TL;DR: It's not always best to complete links, we'll have tutorials and we'll increase rewards for defending.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 минут назад, Ragir сказал:

The main idea behind keeping cap rewards the same for capping enemy points and completing links is basically what's been said: sometimes it's more important to break links than it is to complete them

Thx for the answer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...