• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Remove Capture Bar

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#44
This is a bit of a necro but--

Objectives should be placed in areas it is necessary to move through. Let's say a map has a central road with bunkers overlooking it. Right now the capzone would probably be the inside of a bunker or something.

In realistic terms, the defender wants to ensure that no enemies can move on the road. The capzone should be on the road without cover. The attacker can only capture this point once he has secured all defensive postions watching the road. There is no need for complicated coding or clever cap zone shapes. If a lone infantryman can't stand up and move on the road without getting shot than it cearly follows that the defenders haven't been defeated.

This prevents attackers from zerging an arbitrary point and winning. A few defenders watching the road can easily kill attackers who enter. Therefore the attackers have to find a way up onto the hill and suppress or kill all of the defenders. The defenders cannot hide in corners because if they do, attackers will be able to waltz onto the capzone which is not physically near the defenders' position.

The number of soldiers hiding behind cover not firing but within a certain rectangle has no bearing on how well an area is being controlled.
 
Upvote 0
#45
Zetsumei said:
Don't forget about seeing that a capzone is being capped by enemies on the overhead map. When there is no friendly inside that capzone. Like on kaukasus when some enemies sneak to the tower and start capping, you get instantly notified of it.
Click to expand...

But wait. Now we have Tactical View. Which means we dont even have to open the map to see if an objective is being capped.

:(
 
Upvote 0
#48
sez_slothrop said:
This is a bit of a necro but--

Objectives should be placed in areas it is necessary to move through. Let's say a map has a central road with bunkers overlooking it. Right now the capzone would probably be the inside of a bunker or something.

In realistic terms, the defender wants to ensure that no enemies can move on the road. The capzone should be on the road without cover. The attacker can only capture this point once he has secured all defensive postions watching the road. There is no need for complicated coding or clever cap zone shapes. If a lone infantryman can't stand up and move on the road without getting shot than it cearly follows that the defenders haven't been defeated.

This prevents attackers from zerging an arbitrary point and winning. A few defenders watching the road can easily kill attackers who enter. Therefore the attackers have to find a way up onto the hill and suppress or kill all of the defenders. The defenders cannot hide in corners because if they do, attackers will be able to waltz onto the capzone which is not physically near the defenders' position.

The number of soldiers hiding behind cover not firing but within a certain rectangle has no bearing on how well an area is being controlled.
Click to expand...


I think this is a very good idea. Good thinking.
 
Upvote 0
#49
sez_slothrop said:
This is a bit of a necro but--
...
Click to expand...

Your thoughts are correct.
How about smokes? Attackers could smoke the road and capture it without attacking the bunker. In this case objective should be re-capturable.
Your example is simple. But we need a general rule for all objectives.
How about this:
Sitting in any place of objective you should be visible from any other places of same objective. You are able to have a cover inside few KEY points of objective (like bunker).

From your example: if you are on road, you are spotted from any other places of that road and from bunker.

But how about a building ? Will the same rule correctly apply for buildings? I believe yes.
 
Upvote 0
#50
PETERPANs said:
I am against capture bar in all terms. It giving you illegal informations about enemy movement, no matter on bar type. Both bars are bad, its just my thinking.

If you attack or holding objective in real conditions there is only TWO matters to win.

1. YOUR SOLDIERS IN AREA YOU NEED.
2. ENEMY DONT HAVE REINFORCEMENTS DUE TO FIGHTING TO TAKE OR HOLD IT.

Point 2 is best value to say who is winner. If you lost your soldiers and other side have them still you are looser, because you dont have soldiers to secure objective. There is no need of any type of bar.

Respawn of soldiers should be dynamic, it mean spawning near (suitable distance, no instant throw to battle) fight zone.
Click to expand...
Resistance and Liberation has this. It failed hard.

A capbar is absolutely needed to keep gameplay from getting confusing in the relaxed mode. In hardcore, go for it.
 
Upvote 0
#51
My point about caps out in the open is that both teams get to use their imaginations. Defenders will be useful if they are watching the objective. If you find a ditch which lets you watch the objective from 200 feet, you are useful because you can keep people from capping it.

If the attackers smoke the objective, just rake it with MG fire. I suggested the caps be in the open for just that reason.

With caps out in the open, defensive positions are of realistic value. A building overlooking a capzone in a plaza has lots of value to the defenders. Therefore, it is in the attackers' best interest to clear it out. However, it is not strictly necessary to do anything but have a guy stand in the plaza for thirty seconds.
 
Upvote 0
#52
sez_slothrop said:
This is a bit of a necro but--

Objectives should be placed in areas it is necessary to move through. Let's say a map has a central road with bunkers overlooking it. Right now the capzone would probably be the inside of a bunker or something.

In realistic terms, the defender wants to ensure that no enemies can move on the road. The capzone should be on the road without cover. The attacker can only capture this point once he has secured all defensive postions watching the road. There is no need for complicated coding or clever cap zone shapes. If a lone infantryman can't stand up and move on the road without getting shot than it cearly follows that the defenders haven't been defeated.

This prevents attackers from zerging an arbitrary point and winning. A few defenders watching the road can easily kill attackers who enter. Therefore the attackers have to find a way up onto the hill and suppress or kill all of the defenders. The defenders cannot hide in corners because if they do, attackers will be able to waltz onto the capzone which is not physically near the defenders' position.

The number of soldiers hiding behind cover not firing but within a certain rectangle has no bearing on how well an area is being controlled.
Click to expand...

The thing is that if the point the bunkers overlook is the capzone instead of the bunkers then everybody will fight with a focus on that road rather than the bunkers. It would be perfectly fine for me if the objective is truly that road.

If the objective is to seize and hold and control the bunkers i think it should be that. As by default there are often no clear points that are equivalent to controlling the area in current maps it would force maps to be created in a certain way.

Personally what i aim for is a system where realistic tactics and methods to attack an area actually work. So no aids and gameplay modifiers are needed to get people to attack an objective realisticially. It simply becomes the most efficient way doing it. People always try to find and exploit the simplest way to victory, if that is using realistic tactics then everybody will end up playing in a realistic way not because systems force them but because they feel its the best way to approach.
 
Upvote 0
#55
What if we keep the bar but the only way to show enemies. at the bar if the shoot in the cap zone or you point at them/firing against them/ pointing at them saying ,enemy spotted. When they get spotted they get added to the bar in 2 min, if not spotted again. then they get added in 2 min again.


What you guys think. I got felling there is a fatal flaw here???
 
Upvote 0
#58
What's about that kind of capture bar:

captureBar-1.jpg


- At least 2 or 3 soldiers needed to cap an objective so an alone hiding soldier can't cap.
- While the enemy is capping you notice nothing, only when is full or half capped (I would prefer full hehe, so you need to take care of the defense of the conquered objective also)
-When entering into a cap zone you don't know if the enemy is defending it and how many they are.
- That bar is "fractionary", you don't know if the bar is going up or down.
-You don't know nothing about enemy presence and who is dying or entering the cap zone.
-Hidden soldiers in enemy cap zone are not discover any more because of the bar.

I prefer remove cap bar totally but this can be a half way.
I think your team must take care if someone is attacking an objective and notice it to the team; i mean this is team bussiness not Mr bar bussines :p
 
Upvote 0
#59
i never thought the top portion of the capbar was an issue. players need to be able to see what the progress is for taking an objective. the issue is the bottom portion of the bar that indicates overall strength of the presence of enemies compared to friendlies. you can easily tell if there's one, two or three enemies in a capzone and if you know your maps, shouldn't be hard to figure out where they are.
 
Upvote 0
#60
It is important to remember a mod issue though that happened with the old cap system. Which is most likely the reason why the bottom enemy presence bar was added in the first place.

The cap system in general got as an issue that basically you just need to get more people than the enemy inside the cap zone to capture. The easiest way would be to just get more people in and cap without firing a shot.

The enemy presence bar removed stealth from the game and I hated that. However as long as there is stealth people try to sneak people into the cap zone stay stealthy and do a surprise cap and move like to a single room where they cannot be found easily. An effect similar to the cap wagon tactic in tank maps. Aka people try to stay hidden in a corner or room of the cap zone on purpose and try to cap without the enemy finding them on time. I think the idea of the enemy presence bar forces attackers to come out and attack more, as the defenders know they are there anyway and would start looking already.

The willingness to hide as long as you are alive in the cap zone is in my opinion a fundamental flaw in the capping system and would like to see that resolved by an area focussed cap system. And see people focussing to obtain an actual overhand within any location. However I am against the removal of stealth as a means of doing this.

Having people hiding in the cap zone is in my opinion still loads better than immediately notifying that enemies are in the cap zone. So if the cap system were to stay the same I would still prefer the enemy presence bar to be removed.

------------------------

For the Icon on the overhead map showing that the enemy is capping my solution is rather simple. Only if a friendly soldier is in that same cap zone, should the status of that cap zone be shown in the hud on demand / overhead map.

If there is no friendly soldier in a cap zone then you simply won't get a status report on that cap zone. This should allow the enemy to sneak behind everybody's back and surprise cap.

------------------------

For those interested here are some discussions about cap systems in general, where capturing is based on the territory hold by players rather than amount of players within the cap zone. (A change in the cap system is my NR1. preferred addition to the roost arsenal of features).

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=34708
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=40735
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu