Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Attack Incentives

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Attack Incentives

    Well, I created this thread based on one central assumption: On "attack" maps, the attacking team should not be able to defend an initial flag and win.

    The scenarios I am going to describe happen all too often, and I am of the opinion that they go against the "spirit" of the map. The "attack" maps (as opposed to mirror maps such as Qwai, Kashan or Ejod) feature a clear attacking force. These maps are:

    - Assault on Mestia
    - Jabal Al Burj
    - Road to Kyongan'ni

    I have not included Counter Attack maps such as Seven Gates or Zatar as the problem does not exist on those maps.

    Assuming that the teams are of equal capability, these scenarios, in my opinion, go against the "spirit" of a map:
    Jabal Al Burj: At roundstart, any decent US team can grab both the beaches. Any commander worth his salt knows that as long as East Beach is secure, the bleed stays off. Then, the round stagnates as the MEC capture the dam and fortify their positions there with bunkers and firebases. The US still has the ticket lead it started off with.

    In almost all PR maps, the side that establishes a ticket lead first, wins in a "no-bleed" situation. Bunkers get built at East beach and the US digs in there. Meanwhile the MEC can easily come down from Dam to West beach and eventually overwhelm it, but lose precious tickets.

    Considering that the MEC have most of the flags in a map that the US is supposed to attack, the MEc should win. The ticket deficit on the MEC side gives them the incentive to get East Beach as well, since the only way they can recover is if they get the bleed back.

    This is a perversion of the map where the MEC has an incentive to attack and the US has incentive to simply hold East Beach with almost all their team. Since the "defenders" get the "home ground" advantage by letting the attackers come to them and assuming all things (including each team's skill) remain equal, the US defenders win.

    The US can win the map simply by cocooning themselves at East Beach. The MEC, who are technically the defenders are forced to attack. In my opinion, if they MEC has every single flag except one (and remember they are meant to be the defenders), they should win. The US needs incentive to attack. Therefore, my proposed "fixes" are:

    -Giving the US a larger ticket lead (perhaps a 300-400 point ticket lead) but keeping the bleed going till they have Dam. Any "beach assault" map should encourage the attackers to atleast get off the beach, and this will.

    - As it stands, the US have to defend East and West while attacking dam. The defenders have to hold one flag, while the attackers have two flags to hold. This should not happen. A more appropriate "cap order" would be when after East is capped, West should become "attackable" and after West is capped, the Dam should be "attackable". The MEC defenders have a height advantage from Dam to West Beach and the US has the ticket lead. Therefore, the US does not get tied down defending East and can focus on the fight between West Beach and Dam. The US cannot cocoon as effectively at West Bach because the MEC defenders can pick them off from high ground meaning that the US has to attack (as they are meant to)

    - Make it a Counter-attack map. This fixes everything. The attackers do not have to defend, until they have established a credible foothold.

    Assault on Mestia This map faces a similar problem. At roundstart, the Militia can cap both the Tower flags in the first 2 minutes that it takes the British to set their first rally points and form up. A British commander can direct ALL his squads to West Tower and stop the bleed while retaining the ticket advantage.

    The Militia is meant to hold the East and West to keep the bleed going until the British Ticket lead has been bled away. However, the militia has to split its defences between East and West while the British do not. Therefore, assuming that 15 out of 30 Militia are at West Tower, the British can afford to send 30/30 people there. In those circumstances, the British can easily cap the West Tower, retain the ticket lead, and stop the bleed.

    Now, the British can win the map without even taking the fight past the Tower flags. The Militia have an incentive to attack to because to make up for the Ticket defecit, they have to counter-attack West Tower (or East, depending on which Tower the British choose to go all out for). The British have better weapons than the Militia, and they can comfortably defend one flag and win.

    The only way to "reverse" the incentives as they now stand is for the Militia to keep their initial hold on the Tower flags till the British ticket lead has been diminished. That is very hard when the attackers have a 2:1 advantage. The defending squads would have to be exceptional (and this would violate the assumption that both teams are of equal capability) or the attackers would have to be, for lack of a better adjective, really dumb.

    It is possible, just not plausible. If this happens, the British find themselves in a "no-bleed" situation with a ticket deficit. Therefore, they must attack, as they are meant to. Currently, more often than not, the Militia find themselves in a "no-bleed" situation and therefore, have the incentive to counter attack to regain the bleed, losing them more tickets because the British can simply cocoon themselves at West Tower.

    The irony is that attacking team can thus win by defending. The fight rarely goes past the towers in Mestia, or the Beaches in Jabal Al Burj. This gets boring, redundant, and wastes a large amount of the map. My proposed solution to fix this map would be much the same:

    -Give the British a bigger ticket advantage but keep the bleed going until they neutralise Storage Bunker or Munitions. IE: Keep the bleed going until the attackers establish a credible foothold.

    - Make it a counter-attack map, thereby unburdening the attackers of the need to defend captured positions for a certain amount of time. In Mestia, this would work if the ticket count is equal to start with, as the Militia would have a fairer chance.

    Road to Kyongan'ni I am not even going to bother typing out the situation with this one. The US caps airdrop with the ticket lead. The US wins by defending Airdrop or the Chinese, manage to cap airdrop to get the bleed back and win. The beautiful central flag, which is obviously the focus of the map, Kyongan'ni, goes unused 90% of the time. The US has no incentive to attack.

    In all, my gripe is the fact that the attackers have no incentive to establish a credible foothold (IE: to attack). They can win by defending initial flags and this goes against the "spirit" of the map. It confines a beautiful map to a handful of locations and the "incentives" in these maps need to be fixed.

    Do not get me wrong, cocooning is fine in a "Mirror" map such as Qwai, Kashan, Qinling, EJOD, Sunset, etc. Those maps do not feature a clear attacking force and either side can take the initiative and both sides have equal incentives. The map is not wasted at fighting around initial flags as one team has to "push through" and carry the fight. This problem only occurs on the 3 "attack" maps I have described.

  • #2
    Re: Attack Incentives

    Personally I really don't think that anything will be changed in the way we play these maps. This looks like something for the developers to consider though. Try the PR Forums?

    | |

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Attack Incentives

      As long as this distortion of incentives (in my view) continues, nothing will change in the way that these maps are played. I posted this thread simply to garner some other opinions on the matter.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Attack Incentives

        Catraphact - nice post. Well thought out and you describe the issues with these maps very clearly and are dead on.

        I agree with the proposed fixes. I also agree that this post would be an excellent candidate to be mirrored onto the RealityMod forums as well.

        The devs seem to be constantly changing the AAS on existing maps between releases in an attempt to strike the right balance, which is a huge credit to them. Hopefully they will do the same with these maps, as I enjoy playing 2 of the 3 (Ni is just too small I think, making it too predictable).

        "You milsim guys are ruining the game."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Attack Incentives

          A good fix would be requiring the additional flags to be taken in a certain amount of time or the bleed starts again.

          Or the bleed is dependent on how many flags have been taken, a more severe bleed for no flags vs no bleed for all but main. Have the bleed very slow on the last few flags but enough that sitting won't win and the defenders can wait it out to a point.
          |TG-6th|Snooggums

          Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Attack Incentives

            I can understand why they put it the way it is for Jabal and Mestia.

            Back in v.6, on Jabal, the USMC would get raped trying to get west beach because the MEC would easily move in with APCs/H-ATs and pretty much deny West Beach from the USMC, resulting in having the Marines not putting much of a fight. Atleast now, the US has a chance to gain a beachhead instead of waiting on the carrier till the round is over. More rounds favored MEC, than USMC in v.6.

            Same with Mestia; rarely did GB capture both Towers and stopped the bleed. It was usually in favor of the Militia winning most of the rounds. Now, I've seen around the same amount of wins from Milita and GB.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Attack Incentives

              Speaking about flags rather then tickets - what might swing the balance on Mestia is if the central two towers were completely destructible.

              The UK 30mm cannons and HAT would have a part to play in gaining that vital first rung on the ladder.

              With all these assault type maps I think it should be easy for the invading force to gain their first couple flags, then the balance and landscape should become not be so favourable


              As far as tickets go then I think the system is flawed in general and bleed should be more important then KDR always. I dont think many agree with this though, you should make a thread on the main forums.

              PR should be about flags not kills, the contradiction causes frustration in players like the OP because the game is still based on rushing and melee kills not tactical strategys to gain ground

              I was disappointed when they removed the ticket bonus that bunkers gave on captured flags. I understand why it was changed and thats good but their was an overall effect that removed hope of flags mattering more then kills :/
              So now we have an unhappy stalemate situation to every game where playing 'clever' is very boring and nonsensical in gaining a numbers win when no ground was won or good strategy demonstrated

              I have heard of a new mission or objective based game play mode, maybe that is a new hope for the way PR should be played. Till then I suggest to anyone frustrated, just focus on successful battles & maneuvers within any single game rather then the result itself absolutely


              Originally posted by snooggums View Post
              A good fix would be requiring the additional flags to be taken in a certain amount of time or the bleed starts again.

              Or the bleed is dependent on how many flags have been taken, a more severe bleed for no flags vs no bleed for all but main. Have the bleed very slow on the last few flags but enough that sitting won't win and the defenders can wait it out to a point.


              Yep agree with that. Is it possible to have every flag with a bleed effect, qinling has a two tier bleed effect I believe
              Last edited by Sabre_Tooth_Tigger; 04-29-2008, 07:30 PM.


              If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Attack Incentives

                I was recently entertaining an idea in my head to make the maps base more on gaining ground. Basically this idea is to remove flags. Squads could only spawn at main and need to push to get strong positions. This would encourage building firebases and tactical movements.

                I like the map Sunset City in the current version very much. There is only one central flag and so fighting is more squad based and fought in different positions around the city as opposed to simply defending/assaulting one area (flag cap area).

                These are my key reasons for the idea.

                -Annoying situations in which team A captures the next flag but team B greys the flag team A was defending can be avoided.

                -The whole flag cap system never seemed very realistic to me. In war, the point is to destroy the enemy, their assets, and push to gain ground and create new frontlines.

                Keep in mind, this is just an idea and I'm not serious about it put into the game (at least not yet).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Attack Incentives

                  Originally posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 View Post
                  Catraphact - nice post. Well thought out and you describe the issues with these maps very clearly and are dead on.

                  I agree with the proposed fixes. I also agree that this post would be an excellent candidate to be mirrored onto the RealityMod forums as well.

                  The devs seem to be constantly changing the AAS on existing maps between releases in an attempt to strike the right balance, which is a huge credit to them. Hopefully they will do the same with these maps, as I enjoy playing 2 of the 3 (Ni is just too small I think, making it too predictable).
                  I also agree with the proposed fixes. I didn't have enough time to explain that I agreed, but don't think anything reasonable can be done on our part to fix gameplay on these maps. So, until a fix is in order (which I highly believe is very possible if we suggest this) we're off to defend East Beach from the BLEED.

                  | |

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Attack Incentives

                    To address a few points generally:

                    For those who vouch for objective based maps: Flags are objectives. Flags are to Battlefield what bread is to butter. Remove that, and you lose the game. Flags concentrate fighting over prized grounds.

                    Sometimes, even when my team loses or wins, I do not feel that we outplayed them. I feel like we simply outkilled them. EJOD Desert is a prime example.

                    On Mirror maps, I have a minor problem with this too, as I do not beleive that the US should win by holding Mine on Qwai when the Chinese have every other flag. In this respect, Vanilla Battlefield was better (*GASP*). EJOD Desert, if you think about it, is almost like Qinling in its flag layout. I find the Qinling bleed system to be Vanilla-istic (50+% control=bleed), which I agree with. Therefore, I do think that once both East and West City are held by one team, the other team should bleed.

                    The minute the "stalemate" is broken and one team controls 50+% of the flags (IE: Chinese got Government on Qwai), the bleed would start in my opinion. I believe that if an important flag holding the "balance" is captured by the enemy, your team should bleed until it is re-capped. This would make the fight more about "holding ground" rather than "outkilling the enemy."

                    If the Chinese attack Govt Office, they will lose tickets if the US has a good defense set up there. What's the point then? What's the pay-off? Why attack?

                    In vanilla battlefield conquest (In 1942 they called them "head-to-head" maps, I call them "Mirror Maps." Remember El alamein, Gazala, etc) the incentive to take the initiative was that even if tickets were lost, territory was gained and the bleed is started on the other team, thus compensating the successful attackers for their risk. This is EXACTLY what Qinling does when one team captures Coal Mine and Village (think East City/West City on EJOD, North/South Bunkers on Kashan, Fishing/Government on Qwai and so on). This is what Qwai, Ejod, Kashan and other such maps should do.

                    However, Mirror maps lie outside of this thread's initial premise. I agree to disagree with people who are "anti-bleed." Perhaps bleed rates could be lowered or ticket counts increased to give the losing team some time to regain its momentum. The Vanilla-conquest mode swings like a pendulum as each team grapples for the initiative. I am a "traditionalist" in that respect. I like that. It keeps the game interesting.

                    This thread was started to discuss the perversion of "Attack Incentives" on "Assault" maps which I have outlined. To respond to ReaperMAC's post, which I believe made a counter-argument:
                    I can understand why they put it the way it is for Jabal and Mestia.

                    Back in v.6, on Jabal, the USMC would get raped trying to get west beach because the MEC would easily move in with APCs/H-ATs and pretty much deny West Beach from the USMC, resulting in having the Marines not putting much of a fight. Atleast now, the US has a chance to gain a beachhead instead of waiting on the carrier till the round is over. More rounds favored MEC, than USMC in v.6.

                    Same with Mestia; rarely did GB capture both Towers and stopped the bleed. It was usually in favor of the Militia winning most of the rounds. Now, I've seen around the same amount of wins from Milita and GB.
                    You are indeed right. It was like that before. However, the fight did not go beyond the Towers or the Beaches back then, and it certainly does not now. Back then, the attackers atleast had the initiative to get off the beach or get past the towers. I believe we should revert back to that.

                    The reason why the previous system failed was because the attackers got steamrolled too often. Under the new, "no-bleed" system, the attackers do not even need to attack. If the purpose of the reform was to give attackers a better chance at pushing through, it failed. The attackers have no reason to push through.

                    The previous system would have been successful if the attackers had more time. This means Slower bleeds and higher ticket leads. The DEVS actually fixed the whole issue when they created the "Counter-Attack" mode, which encourages attacking initiative for the attacking team. All "Assault Maps" should be made into "counter-attack" maps. That is the easiest way to fix these maps and to encourage the fight to go beyond the initial objectives.

                    In all, the attackers should not be able to win if they do not establish a credible foothold.

                    I would post this on he PR forums, but I'm too lazy to register there, and I want to test my argument out with a few TGers first.
                    Last edited by Catraphact; 04-30-2008, 11:46 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Attack Incentives

                      Jabal Al Burj
                      I agree that this map could use some work to make it better. I also realize that it was and is extreme difficult for the US to get a foothold if the MEC team decides to camp the West Beach heavily. Now a Counter Attack would indeed make this map more interesting. However if we were to keep the AAS I would say that a change in flag order is needed.

                      East Flag -> Bridge
                      West Flag -> Dam
                      Once Bridge and Dam are taken then US moves into city area. Once both of those are taken then it should really fall back to that Bridge which should be a new CP. Then the MEC main base.

                      At least that's the way I would think a real battle might go. I also believe that there should be a road on the lower level along the beach towards the bottom of Dam to make taking West a more effective route towards Dam instead of having to climb a mountain. Which forces the US to go through Bridge, go via APC down the coast or go via APC all the way around the north side just to get Dam.

                      Road to Kyongan'ni
                      This one is a no brainer and Cat is exact correct on this map. Kyongan'ni needs to be the center of the fight. I would even venture to see both sides of the city across the river being two CP points. West Kyongan'ni and East Kyongan'ni. Can you image the firefights across that river and the flanking attacks if one side held the West and the other the East? That city would become chaotic and whole lot of fun. Might have to make the city a touch bigger for that though but I'm more than willing to give it a try if it were done.
                      .
                      "Young gamers assault while Older gamers flank."
                      "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Attack Incentives

                        I swear they altered jabal so you can attack from the water at the southern/carrier side, I dont think that was possible previously. Now you can climb up


                        If you find yourself in a fair fight, then you have obviously failed to plan properly.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Attack Incentives

                          Originally posted by kilroy0097 View Post
                          I also believe that there should be a road on the lower level along the beach towards the bottom of Dam to make taking West a more effective route towards Dam instead of having to climb a mountain. Which forces the US to go through Bridge, go via APC down the coast or go via APC all the way around the north side just to get Dam.


                          It is possible to get any vehicle up to dam directly from West Beach. Supply truck, Humvee, APC, you name it. You just have to look closely ;)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Attack Incentives

                            I agree that there needs to be a better incentive for attacking, or defending for that matter. If this was a retail game, i would make it so, taking so many flags gets you a new gun, or holding some place for a set amount of time, gets you a different set of guns.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Attack Incentives

                              I think the bleed system needs to be fixed. I have played games where my team held all but 2 flags and ended up losing because the enemy dug in like ticks. I think ticket bleed should start when the opposing team controls 2/3 of the flags. Eg. On Jabal Al Burj there are 8 flags. I think once a team hold 5 flags then a ticket bleed should start for the opposing team.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X