Symthic Forum was shut down on January 11th, 2019. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2019-01-08 at 22:09. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

Welcome to symthic forums! We would love if you'd register!
You don't have to be expert in bit baking, everyone is more than welcome to join our community.

You are not logged in.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,345)

Posts: 7,304

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

21

Wednesday, November 14th 2018, 11:43pm

Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

"Skill" may indeed be the most magical of words. Chant it well enough and any desire can be yours.

Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,427)

Posts: 2,836

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

22

Wednesday, November 14th 2018, 11:43pm

always thought the team nuke of Metro was a decent thing. It gave the losing team 9 seconds to get their shit together and put themselves in a position where they could hold their gimme, and even a push was possible if you are quick on the uptake. You need a very specific map design and a spawn trap for making that work. In any way, a genius idea, whatever server admin came up with that.



You think a team-wide kill is fair and good, but slightly faster cap speed, which does nothing by itself unless the losing team actually makes the push and caps stuff, and even then you're talking only a few seconds advantage for it?

k.


It's an admin kill, so no death added. It gives 9 seconds breathing room. On a spawntrap situation, so that the losing team has the chance of getting their gimme back. Yes I prefer that to a bugged mechanic that throws ticket balance around as it pleases. The inherent goal of conquest is to cap flags, so actually doing so is hardly an achievement. You do not even need a consequent push, you only need a guy at a flag and it caps faster than you can defend it. And it is not a few seconds advantage either.

As can be read from my replies, I am also not against those mechanics per se. However it needs to be transparent, otherwise you can just throw any competitiveness out of the window. We are all open to ideas, so if you want to put out an elaborate contribution you are very welcome to do so.

Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,695)

Posts: 1,415

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

23

Wednesday, November 14th 2018, 11:53pm

It doesn't matter that there's no death added. This is a clear problem mechanic. there's no counterplay or gameplay at all. it's just
"If team 1 winning X hard, Team 1 is killed."

There's no interactivity here.

Faster flag caps don't alter the balance of power between the teams, it doesn't give people ground or space they did not earn (like the admin kill). it acts as a small enhancement to give them more time to make a comeback if they are able (faster flag caps = more time they can be ticking / faster people can spawn there to make a push). The winning team can still defend and contest those flags, they just have to be a little faster, their players will still block the burn if they're on the flags.

The Metro admin kill is Literally a handout it gives the losing team a powerful edge they don't have to use themselves. the faster flag caps is an enhancement, they still have to make the play themselves, they just have a slightly better tool to do it with.

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"


Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,695)

Posts: 1,415

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

24

Thursday, November 15th 2018, 12:00am



This is an excellent example of how defensive the gameplay of conquest is. gC were the best team around after TSYM for 32v32s.

Flags rarely change hands, and almost all flag contests are defended by the holding team.

This is how conquest is actually played. If you're in a pub setting you should also be playing like this.

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"


Posts: 307

Date of registration
: Mar 31st 2015

Platform: Xbox One

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

25

Thursday, November 15th 2018, 12:02am

Part of me wants to shout repeatedly:

You asked DICE to stop the zerging and this is one way to combat that. It forces the winning team to hold their territory...like an actual conquest. No more running in circles faster than the other team if you want to win. I am wholeheartedly in favor of this (if done correctly, and clearly it needs tweaking).

EDIT: That video above explains this much better than my words.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,345)

Posts: 7,304

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

26

Thursday, November 15th 2018, 12:12am

Yes. It even forces them to split up because setting 32 players to defend one flag isn't a good strategy.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

"Skill" may indeed be the most magical of words. Chant it well enough and any desire can be yours.

Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

VincentNZ

Holy War? No Thanks.

(2,427)

Posts: 2,836

Date of registration
: Jul 25th 2013

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 16

  • Send private message

27

Thursday, November 15th 2018, 12:20am

It doesn't matter that there's no death added. This is a clear problem mechanic. there's no counterplay or gameplay at all. it's just
"If team 1 winning X hard, Team 1 is killed."

There's no interactivity here.

Faster flag caps don't alter the balance of power between the teams, it doesn't give people ground or space they did not earn (like the admin kill). it acts as a small enhancement to give them more time to make a comeback if they are able (faster flag caps = more time they can be ticking / faster people can spawn there to make a push). The winning team can still defend and contest those flags, they just have to be a little faster, their players will still block the burn if they're on the flags.

The Metro admin kill is Literally a handout it gives the losing team a powerful edge they don't have to use themselves. the faster flag caps is an enhancement, they still have to make the play themselves, they just have a slightly better tool to do it with.


Well, well. A nuke does not give anyone ground. It gives a downtime in which a flag CAN be retaken. It offers a window of opportunity nothing more. It is interactive because it is usually done once per round, by an admin, to keep a round and a server alive. It delivers breathing room in a hopeless situation and should therefore be welcomed. I explicitly stated that this is usually a Metro only thing and would likely not work on other maps. I admired the simplicity and the effect. It is not powerful though. A complete turnover, comeback or even balanced round, would require much more than just the possible gimme flag. At the most it is a chance, at the least it is mercy.

Attacking flags is, as said, ineherent in the Battlefield player, there is no effort involved, players are taking flags all the time, even in lopsided rounds. The current catch-up mechanic makes defending already contested targets impossible and retaking flags futile. The only counter is a hard defense, which is made more difficult by the map sizes and sheer number of flags as well as the hive mind meta. It also does not give a spawn-trapped team a chance. What it does is turn the table and will continue to do so until the ticket count flips. It can flip several times at a certain stage it will choose a winner. It can also happen in a rather late stage of the game in an actually closer game and choose a winner minutes before the round is over. This is possibly exploitable, but there is no point experimenting on that since it will be adjusted.

I do not know if it is really bugged, since it must have been this way in the beta, and they must have noticed it. What bothers me is that they did not explain it as a feature and did not market it accordingly. It is alright if you want to create artificially close games, but then do not market your game about being tactical or strategic or back to the roots. It is just casual, and that is fine, too.

@InterimAegis
It does not stop the zerging though. Decent map design stops Zergs. The BF3 and 4 ticket system stops the Zerg. 32 players stop the Zerg. The whole catch-up literally promotes attacking objectives and swarming the nearest objective. Nobody disagrees that defending should be a thing. The game just does not lend itself to it. Not even the fortification system does.

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "VincentNZ" (Nov 15th 2018, 12:26am)


Posts: 307

Date of registration
: Mar 31st 2015

Platform: Xbox One

Reputation modifier: 8

  • Send private message

28

Thursday, November 15th 2018, 12:31am

It does not stop the zerging though. Decent map design stops Zergs. The BF3 and 4 ticket system stops the Zerg. 32 players stop the Zerg. The whole catch-up literally promotes attacking objectives and swarming the nearest objective. Nobody disagrees that defending should be a thing. The game just does not lend itself to it. Not even the fortification system does.


I respectfully disagree. This mechanic incentivizes defending a majority of flags (half +1) and ensures that is a more valuable strategy than capturing an additional point. It also stops teams from getting stomped 5 flags to 0. I am also fairly certain if this were communicated and tweaked properly, the naysayers would have liked it a lot more.

NoctyrneSAGA

PvF 2017 Champion

(10,345)

Posts: 7,304

Date of registration
: Apr 3rd 2012

Platform: PC

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 19

  • Send private message

29

Thursday, November 15th 2018, 12:53am

The BF3 and 4 ticket system stops the Zerg.


BFV uses BF3/4's majority rule. Zergs are still here.

As I've always said, zerging is a player psychology problem. Everything from "safety in numbers" to "STOP LONEWOLFING" contributes to congregating in larger and larger numbers.

The lack of rewards for defending and the patience to do it leads to attacking instead. Many important jobs such as sweeping vehicle spawns for mines or sitting inside the stationary AA protecting your jets are all unrewarding/boring and therefore no one does it.

32 players stop the Zerg.


This is simply using your own zerg to stop the other zerg.

The whole catch-up literally promotes attacking objectives


It promotes attacking for the team that holds fewer flags which is something they should already be doing. They are the ones in need of getting back half + 1. Of course they will attack.

The team that owns half + 1 is the team that is already in the lead. They do not require half + 2. This DISCOURAGES them from attempting to capture more flags. Not only are they thinning their presence on the flags they already own, the slowed down capture speed is a huge risk that seriously brings into question whether it is worth the investment. It is safer to DEFEND.
Data Browser

Passive Spotting is the future!

"Skill" may indeed be the most magical of words. Chant it well enough and any desire can be yours.

Are you a scrub?

If it flies, it dies™.

Darktan13

Unhappy Camper

(4,695)

Posts: 1,415

Date of registration
: Feb 13th 2012

Platform: PC

Location: Europe

Battlelog:

Reputation modifier: 15

  • Send private message

30

Thursday, November 15th 2018, 12:56am

Well, well. A nuke does not give anyone ground. It gives a downtime in which a flag CAN be retaken.

It literally gives people ground, the other team are not there to defend their space because they are dead.

It is interactive because it is usually done once per round, by an admin, to keep a round and a server alive.

That is not what Interactive means. There's no interaction between the players that happens. the metro wipe functions LITERALLY on the absence of available interactions between players because the whole team is dead. There is no player choice involved here. there's no option they can take that avoids or defeats the wipe.

Attacking flags is, as said, ineherent in the Battlefield player, there is no effort involved, players are taking flags all the time, even in lopsided rounds.

no effort in taking flags? GL taking a flag from TSYM.

The current catch-up mechanic makes defending already contested targets impossible and retaking flags futile. The only counter is a hard defense, which is made more difficult by the map sizes and sheer number of flags as well as the hive mind meta. It also does not give a spawn-trapped team a chance. What it does is turn the table and will continue to do so until the ticket count flips. It can flip several times at a certain stage it will choose a winner. It can also happen in a rather late stage of the game in an actually closer game and choose a winner minutes before the round is over.

That is not what this mechanic does. You actually don't know either what you're talking about, or are ignorant of the definitions of the words you are using.

the Losing team gains a + % cap speed, but if a flag is contested and a winning team player steps onto the flag, the flag burn will stop Retaking flags is not futile either. None of this is impossible.
Defence is easy, offence is hard.
"hive mind meta" is player-created, and is not caused by the game mechanics. Conquest game mechanics reward defence heavily, and make defending much easier than attacking.
The mechanics do not "choose" a winner before the game ends.
This isn't just a disagreement, you are just wrong.

It does not stop the zerging though. Decent map design stops Zergs. The BF3 and 4 ticket system stops the Zerg. 32 players stop the Zerg. The whole catch-up literally promotes attacking objectives and swarming the nearest objective. Nobody disagrees that defending should be a thing. The game just does not lend itself to it. Not even the fortification system does.


The game-mode lends itself to defence, you are wrong. Zerging is a player-created mentality not a high-value tactic incentivised by the maps.

Quoted from "J0hn-Stuart-Mill"