Remove Capture Bar

[Zetsumei]

Currently, it is now possible, that 5 people are sitting on 2nd floor, and 6 attackers are sitting on first floor, capturing the objective.
Or 10 defenders sitting inside a church, 12 attachers lie on a ground right before a church, and capturing objective (Church) just because they have more numbers. Most captures ends up with that.
"We just need more people here".
"I know the point, there I can capture the objective, while being safe".
You don't need to cover someone. You don't need to kill someone. Just come to objective with more numbers. I don't see this fun.

I'm a supporter for changing the cap system, i just dont think that making the capzones smaller will make the game more fun rather the other way around. It will only allow mappers pretty much less options with how to design the gameplay of their map.

If the capsystem would be area based you would need to hold the biggest amount of ground in a capzone or the most important pieces of the ground. Meaning that the issues that can occur with the current system are gone as well. While mappers could make small, or large capzones, or for the heck of it make pretty much the entire map a big capzone. Offering a wider variety in playing options, and being more realistic at the same as well.

What is capping in reality, capping is controlling a certain location with strategic or political importance. A single room is neither. Now beside capping objective based gameplay would be a nice addition, like blowing up something, but freedom and variation in maps and their objectives can only increase the fun.

I rather prefer a cap system where the zones could possibly be bigger (or smaller depending on the mappers preference) without the issues that occur in the current system.

 

[RedGuardist]

I would prefer "come and use" objective style. Let's say there is a radio in special room in a building. You have to come and call for support, using this radio. Just as you use artillery support. If you are killed, during process, then capturing failed. If you succeeded, then objective is captured and you have new spawn point.

This would not increase realism or make the gameplay better if done wrong. Your suggestion of "come and use" gameplay would easily turn out too gamey and unrealistic. It would be as lame as "defending by camping in small rooms". Both are very unrealistic.

But sure, there could be objective based gameplay too, but it should be based on realistic tactical objectives. Like Zetsumei said, maybe blowing up something etc.

What is capping in reality, capping is controlling a certain location with strategic or political importance. A single room is neither.

Yeah. The tactical importance of the capzones should be more realistic and more clear. More like "take and hold the intersection", "take and hold that building" etc. style objectives. This "single room" capzones is just annoying and has nothing to do with tactical importance or realism.

And like you said, "one room" capzones have absolutely nothing to do with strategic importance. Well, small scale combat seldom rises to have "strategic" meaning or importance anyways, as strategic level in combat is beyond platoon/company level. But let

 

[LionbI4]

I'm all for more objectives types!
Sample types:
- Destroy an objective with satchel charges.
- Capture objective by using it (it may look like radio or detonating button).
- Capture objective by entering into it by any team member.
- Capture objective by destroying every enemy in it.
- Capture objective by entering into it by squad commander (VIP type).
- Capture objective by killing enemy squad commander inside.

 

[LionbI4]

This would not increase realism or make the gameplay better if done wrong. Your suggestion of "come and use" gameplay would easily turn out too gamey and unrealistic. It would be as lame as "defending by camping in small rooms". Both are very unrealistic.

What part of it is unrealistic ? What you mean by "capzones should be more realistic" ? I belive bridge is quite realistic objective. But capturing it in current system is very unrealistic, because you just need to sit there with bigger number.
You have to pay attention on process but not on place. What you need to achieve for capturing it.
Single point objective is easier to defend and easier to capture. But you need to do a teamplay for it.
Check other games for references (Americas Army Operations for example), there is no problem with that type of objectives, neither realism nor gameplay.

 

[Zetsumei]

The current system might have its flaws that i hope will be corrected, but your proposal is worse imo than the current system and doesn't even fix the issue itself. Ask yourself is it better to capture a building, by simply only controlling 1 room, rather than the entire building? Is it better capturing a bridge by controlling the center of it rather than the entire bridge?

RO's capsystem and changes back in 2004 felt to me like a huge improvement from the games where you pretty much capture only 1 spot of a base most often like 1 meter around a flag as in battlefield 1942 and return to castle wolfenstein etc. I think ro's system currently is still better than most other games that came out in the mean time, however there are some issues with RO's system that have become evident over the last 5,5 years I have been playing it.

I want the capping system to evolve and correct those issues and become better , and that is probably one of the highest things on my feature wishlist. However although the issues it currently has when going back to the traditional systems would be resolved, it would be a form of devolution and a clear step back to Red Orchestra's goal.

The goal of RO is to make you feel that you are a soldier in a battlefield, rather than a hero in a warmovie.

 

[RedGuardist]

I'm all for more objectives types!
Sample types:
- Destroy an objective with satchel charges.
- Capture objective by using it (it may look like radio or detonating button).
- Capture objective by entering into it by any team member.
- Capture objective by destroying every enemy in it.
- Capture objective by entering into it by squad commander (VIP type).
- Capture objective by killing enemy squad commander inside.

Yep. The problem is, like Zetsumei too said, that making objectives smaller does not increase realism and is not an answer.

Your ideas would be suitable for an agent/commando/special forces small group-arcade style game and gameplay. Not in a RO style game and gameplay.

In RO we are talking about platoon/company level infantry/combined arms combat and there the only realistic game-mode is "gain and hold ground". And objectives in this type of gameplay would be intersections, buildings in "strategic" locations, roads etc. Smaller objectives are not the answer. The answer is better solution to the capping of large scale objectives.

The goal of RO is to make you feel that you are a soldier in a battlefield, rather than a hero in a warmovie.

This is THE point.

 

[LionbI4]

Ask yourself is it better to capture a building, by simply only controlling 1 room, rather than the entire building? Is it better capturing a bridge by controlling the center of it rather than the entire bridge?

Are you talking about real life or computer game?
While RO is trying to be as realistic as possible, we should move to realistic and fun GAMEPLAY. Not "realistic objectives".
So, currently, it is enough to capture a building by entering only 1 room.
This is because capture area is too big. But if you make an objective area inside a small LAST room in building, you will need to CAPTURE WHOLE building to be able to capture THE OBJECTIVE.
So answering on your question: It is always better to capture a building by controlling whole building, not just single room (as currently). But how it is possible to achieve? Thats the question.

Regarding to realism: do you think respawn and nade to the location, you spot the enemy just before you die is realistic?
We are unable to make all things realistic, since its a game. So lets do realistic gameplay. If you compare it with americas army - there are things, much realistic than RO.

I want the capping system to evolve and correct those issues and become better , and that is probably one of the highest things on my feature wishlist. However although the issues it currently has when going back to the traditional systems would be resolved, it would be a form of devolution and a clear step back to Red Orchestra's goal.

How you want capping system to evolve? What issues do you see now in capping system? I believe most capping system would be fixed by implementing different types of objectives I explain.
Issues will not be fixed by themself. We have to provide WAYS to fix them.

PS guys if you affirm something like "making objectives smaller does not increase realism" try to explain why and provide some proofs. "proof or stfu (tm)"

 

[Zetsumei]

As i said in pretty much all my posts above an area based cap system would solve the issue, meaning you must control say 70% of the ground of a capzone to cap it. Exactly having to cap bigger areas than a single room is what makes ro fun, as people need to create tactics to defend the entire building rather than just a single room.

People always try to find ways to win in the easiest way possible, and this leads to the negative gameplay effect in making a building cap only worth that one room. As nobody will care about the other rooms and only sets up defenses optimally for that one room.

Respawning itself is not realistic, however playing a battle with only 8 people is even less realistic in my opinion. Thats why respawning is better than not respawning however, i would like a slightly bigger penalty to people dying to let em come closer to a form of fear of death. However for the players that prefer the more covert ops style gameplay with 1 life, there will be a gameplay mode with that as well.

Respawning and nading a location is possible and not realistic, but it's hardly a big issue. Beside with the usage over voice communication in 1 life games you could still tell exactly where someone is to have him needed. In any case you should never stay at exactly the same spot for too long.

Personally i would say that RO is a lot more realistic than americas army, but that is my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

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

Why making objectives smaller does not increase realism is simple. If your objective is to defend an entire 3 floor building. It should be to defend an entire 3 floor building and not a single room somewhere on the 3rd floor.

If your objective is to take and hold a crossroad to stop the enemy from advancing, then its defending the crossroad to stop the enemy from advancing. Not capping a single dot in the center of the crossroad.

---------------------------------
My biggest point for the ability for mappers to keep the capzone big is because it allows more diverse tactics. Otherwise nobody will even bother about capzones beside people that care for points. Just like how capping seems to be in most games.

In most games capping an objective is a side thing to do if you just happen to be around the capzone. The rest is primarily about killing the enemy. I want the game to revolve around obtaining ground and using killing of the enemies as a method to gain that ground rather than the other way around.

I'm not in a realism clan and never will be, i'm into competitive clan gaming and want gameplay modes that allow for high tactical diversity with more dept rather than just fast reflexes (although personal skill remains important). The more options there are in defending and attacking, the more diversity and ability to win based on teamwork and tactics.

I find bigger capzones to be more fun, as there are more ways to defend optimally allowing for more freedom. Beside that the bigger the capzone is, the bigger the chance that people will actually primarily try to defend it.

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

The issue with the current system is that you dont always cap when you really control the area, with your suggestion that wont be changed.

 

[LionbI4]

As i said an area based cap system would solve the issue, meaning you must control say 70% of the ground of a capzone to cap it. Exactly having to cap bigger areas than a single room is what makes ro fun, as people need to create tactics to defend the entire building rather than just a single room.

There is no "control" feature in game. It is simply not existing.
"Control" is a real life term. It means "The area is considered as safe for staying". And "considered as safe" is subjective feeling.
How the game could determine if you "control 70% of area" ?
You should agree, that you can't spread your small team of 3 members across big areas. So before telling me "you need to control 70% of area" you have to define term "control" in a game terms.

People always try to find ways to win in the easiest way possible, and this leads to the negative gameplay effect in making a building cap only worth that one room. As nobody will care about the other rooms and only sets up defenses optimally for that one room.

I must say, this is very realistic, since with small team people are unable to defend all possible entrance/rooms. So if you have 5 man team, you will defend only few rooms or key corridors.
But currently, not depending on key points of an objective, you will lose, if you just have less players on an objective.

Respawning itself is not realistic, however playing a battle with only 8 people is even less realistic in my opinion. Thats why respawning is better than not respawning however, i would like a slightly bigger penalty to people dying to let em come closer to a form of fear of death. However for the players that prefer the more covert ops style gameplay with 1 life, there will be a gameplay mode with that as well.

Agree with you on bigger penalty. But we must agree - not all points should be realistic, since it may lead to boring gameplay.

Personally i would say that RO is a lot more realistic than americas army, but that is my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

What makes you think so? What points are more realistic?
Or better ask: what points of gameplay makes RO more realistic than aao? I don't see any.
- respawning is unrealistic
- capturing objective is unrealistic
- no fear of death is unrealistic

this three points leads to overall unrealistic gameplay. You respawn, you run (almost every time alone) to objective area. You kill some, then you die (from the same enemy you just killed). Repeat.

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

Why making objectives smaller does not increase realism is simple. If your objective is to defend an entire 3 floor building. It should be to defend an entire 3 floor building and not a single room somewhere on the 3rd floor.

If your objective is to take and hold a crossroad to stop the enemy from advancing, then its defending the crossroad to stop the enemy from advancing. Not capping a single dot in the center of the crossroad.

You forgot, that except defending there is an attacking part.
Lets see how defending looks now:
1. stay in objective area.
2. check for "capping" status
3. if enemy appears in capping area, you see black line on capping bar.
then search for enemy, who is capping area.
4. if enemy starts to cap, then you must go for enemy.
-
Lets see what will happen, if cap bar is removed:
1. stay in objective area.
2. receive a notification: area is captured by enemy (since you don't see whole area usually, and now you don't see capping status).
-
So with your scenario:
defenders MUST defend whole area
attackers ENOUGH to get into one single peace of area. (just outnumber defenders).
-
With my scenario:
defenders must defend single dot in area
attackers must get into single dot in area.
Now defenders must defend ALL WAYS to that single dot.
Attackers must secure ALL SPOTS, from which enemy can defend that single spot.
You don't have to be in capture area to defend it. You just have to see that spot.
Here comes smoke grenades.. and many other gameplay features like covering teammates who is capturing objective.
What scenario is more fun/realistic?

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

My biggest point for the ability for mappers to keep the capzone big is because it allows more diverse tactics. Otherwise nobody will even bother about capzones beside people that care for points. Just like how capping seems to be in most games.

Currently, if big part of your team is not making an objective, but only camps some good positions for pew pew, you will not be able to capture the objective at all. Since you need numbers to win/capture.

In most games capping an objective is a side thing to do if you just happen to be around the capzone.

If it brings realism and fun, why not? If you will look at Bridge SE map on americas army 2, you will find, that all people playing it are trying to capture an objective. You will be surprised about level of teamplay on public servers. And yes, killing enemies is only a key to reach the objective. And I must say that gameplay is much more closer to "realism" than any map in RO.

The issue with the current system is that you dont always cap when you really control the area, with your suggestion that wont be changed.

I don't see any suggestion from you that will fix that. And I described in many ways, why my suggestion will fix it.

Edit: by the way, making objective secure before capturing it is very similar to "control" the area. And this "control" is exactly like in real life subjective feeling. This feeling makes you go and make the single dot objective.

 

[Zetsumei]

There is a control feature in the game. Although in this case its based on having a majority of your team in the zone for a certain amount of time.

Making this area based, can be done using an influence system, moving front system or fog of war system. Influence has been the key to the board game called GO that has existedfor over 2500 years.

You don't have a 5 man team, were talking about armies fighting not a covert ops mission. If you cannot defend all possible entrances then exactly will the battle be interesting if you fight it for the ground. Its about how you manage to keep most of the objective in your control. How you outsmart the enemy in your approach.

Indeed not all points should be realistic as it might lead to boring gameplay.
But giving teams more freedom in how to attack a location doesn't equal to boring gameplay, that ro's gameplay isn't boring can be shown with it having more players than america's army while that game is free.

Respawning to the game adds another level of tactics, its no longer all about killing the enemy and then getting the win. As you need to manage reinforcements where should reinforcements go, and how can you cut off the enemy reinforcements from getting to the capzone.

Because you can respawn maps can obtain more objectives in sequential order. Allowing you to fight in much bigger maps without the entire place getting empty.

With my scenario defenders must defend the location they are assigned to defend which can often be an entire building. Attackers must obtain and put 70% of the entire building under their control to call it a cap.
If 20 people stand in the basement they do not control 70% of the entire building they simply control the basement and thus do not cap.

In my scenario you need to correctly manage how you will obtain control of 70% of the location. And hold key points like stairs to lock the control of say the top floor to your side. You need to work as a team with your entire team, not just need 1 guy to cap and another two to cover him. Fighthing over a group of rooms is more complex and tactically challenging than fighting over a single room. Exactly for the reason that you cannot be in every place of importance at the same time, so you need to use your team wisely and adapt to the situation. Making the battle different every time you play it.

I say Ro is more realistic than americas army in its basic gameplay type (wars are often fought in order to conquer terrain and land), in weapon characteristics, handling and damage. In RO you fight with more than just a squad. In armericas army you don't fight a war you fight a covert ops mission.

About the capping system plz read what i said before and don't assume other things than what i said.

If your entire team doesnt aim to obtain an objective then your team should loose, its a team game its about team work, its not about individual achievements. Being able to capture a 3 story building swarming with enemies because you're in a single insignificant room, aint my idea of teamwork.

When you must cap a single room in a 3 story building, believe me you wont try to get controll the entire building before capping that room. And thats why i think that single spot capzones wont work for the TERRITORY gametype.

 

[Flogger23m]

I think the 2nd bar should go, the first one (capture progress) should stay.

You need to know when you have captured an objective, or the progress of it.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

I think the 2nd bar should go, the first one (capture progress) should stay.

You need to know when you have captured an objective, or the progress of it.

outstanding. amazing how 2 sentences can make so much sense.

 

[LionbI4]

There is a control feature in the game. Although in this case its based on having a majority of your team in the zone for a certain amount of time.

Its not a control. Its capturing or not capturing. We are inside a computer game, remember?

Making this area based, can be done using an influence system, moving front system or fog of war system. Influence has been the key to the board game called GO that has existedfor over 2500 years.

Thats quite easy in GO, and unbelievable hard in 3d computer game. How you imagine fog of war or moving front system could work inside a building? Can you talk with mathematical terms? "It is working in GO so should work in Red Orchestra" will not help.
That would be very complicated system, since the game will need to analyse every player movement inside an area. That simply will not be implemented. You need simple win conditions. Else it will confuse every player.

You don't have a 5 man team, were talking about armies fighting not a covert ops mission. If you cannot defend all possible entrances then exactly will the battle be interesting if you fight it for the ground. Its about how you manage to keep most of the objective in your control. How you outsmart the enemy in your approach.

Actually, we don't have armies fighting each other. We have 2 teams of limited players. And we have certain count of objectives. There could be 3 objectives, which could be taken simultaneously. You could have 2-3 players coming into 1 objective to capture it. Game should be playable with any amount of players. Imagine 3vs3 game with huge objective area.

In reality, battle is split up on small battles, where you have small local objectives. Same in RO. You don't need army to get that small local objective.
Currently you don't need to outsmart the enemy. You just need to enter the objective.

Indeed not all points should be realistic as it might lead to boring gameplay.
But giving teams more freedom in how to attack a location doesn't equal to boring gameplay, that ro's gameplay isn't boring can be shown with it having more players than america's army while that game is free.

Are you kidding me? Americas Army has ten million registered players.
Now its Total Registered Players: 10,177,981 (thats only aao2). But you can check the web by yourself. http://login.aa3.americasarmy.com/servers

Current Players Online (for aao3): 298 (now, at morning).

Respawning to the game adds another level of tactics, its no longer all about killing the enemy and then getting the win. As you need to manage reinforcements where should reinforcements go, and how can you cut off the enemy reinforcements from getting to the capzone.

I'm not totaly against respawning. I'm for balanced, well thought, dynamic spawn system.
Few variants for example:
- Once you die, you are unable to spawn, until your team takes next objective. If your team loose too many team members during attack of first objective, then you looose the round.
- You could have limited available respawn count. 3 lifes for each objective. Once your team takes next objective, your respawn count resets to 3.
- You increase your life count every 10 points you get.

Currently, if your team exceeds reinforcements, you are stuck to wait for last camper to die. Thats worst system ever. Imagine, you were the best unit, had more than any points, participated in capturing all objectives, and died only once. Now you need to wait for (lets say) 5 minutes, because most of your team just had dumb suicide runs, and you are out of reinforcements.

Because you can respawn maps can obtain more objectives in sequential order. Allowing you to fight in much bigger maps without the entire place getting empty.

Currently, the entire place is empty, except the next available objective to take. But I don't see a problem here.

With my scenario defenders must defend the location they are assigned to defend which can often be an entire building. Attackers must obtain and put 70% of the entire building under their control to call it a cap.
If 20 people stand in the basement they do not control 70% of the entire building they simply control the basement and thus do not cap.

Thats hard to imagine. Lets think about scenario:
You have to capture 3-floor building.
Your team obtain 65% of building (btw, how you know, you got 65%?), but got heavy resistance on 3rd floor.
So most of your team members inside a building should come to 2nd floor to make an assault on 3rd floor.
Finally, your team break resistance, but new enemies arrived at first floor. If capping area is big, then enemy could hide in every hole inside an objective.
This brings unrealistic gameplay, you don't need actually seek for every hole to control the building. But because game DECIDES by ITSELF do you control the building or not, you are forced to search. I don't call it freedom. I call it broken gameplay.
Do not forget, that you could have only 3 man, who is trying to capture a building and only 2 man, who is defending the building. Since 1 map could have 5 objectives. Think about possible scenarios, but not ideal scenarios.
Actual game is very far from ideals.

In my scenario you need to correctly manage how you will obtain control of 70% of the location. And hold key points like stairs to lock the control of say the top floor to your side. You need to work as a team with your entire team, not just need 1 guy to cap and another two to cover him. Fighthing over a group of rooms is more complex and tactically challenging than fighting over a single room. Exactly for the reason that you cannot be in every place of importance at the same time, so you need to use your team wisely and adapt to the situation. Making the battle different every time you play it.

Comming all together to one place is not "work as a team". Killing all enemies inside a building is not "work as a team". Thats team deathmatch. But, "1 guy to cap and another two to cover him" this is exactly "work as a team". Because without doing it, it is impossible to capture the objective. And it is very possible to capture the objective, just doing regular "team deathmatch" by killing all enemies inside.
You remember your point, where "people are trying to do things with most easier way". Why should they coordinate, if its just enought to pew pew everyone? This is what happening now. And will happen in your scenario.

I say Ro is more realistic than americas army in its basic gameplay type (wars are often fought in order to conquer terrain and land), in weapon characteristics, handling and damage. In RO you fight with more than just a squad. In armericas army you don't fight a war you fight a covert ops mission.

Basic gameplay type??? What part of basic gameplay is more realistic?
People are running suicide attacks? No coordination, because your life has no cost? Capturing objective by bringing more people inside it (zerg-style) ?
Making realistic weapon characteristics, handling and damage is not making gameplay realistic. It can make gun fights more realistic. Overall gameplay is not only gun fights.

About the capping system plz read what i said before and don't assume other things than what i said.

Ye, I remember. Area based capture system. Your people should split into more area to take it.
So 3 man team could capture objective by splitting inside in rooms, while 10 man are sitting inside KEY coridor, and ACTUALLY controlling the building. Worst and not logical system ever.
These 10 man will have no idea, why the objective were captured by enemies, if they CONTROL it and they have more numbers.
Why you make game to decide who is controlling the building?
Why you think making "more unrealistic ways to capture building" will bring fun/realism?

If your entire team doesnt aim to obtain an objective then your team should loose, its a team game its about team work, its not about individual achievements. Being able to capture a 3 story building swarming with enemies because you're in a single insignificant room, aint my idea of teamwork.

Problem is, THEY ARE AIMED to it. But they want to do it with different ways:
1) to control key hills with MG
2) to control ways to objective
3) covering someone, who is in cap zone
4) calling arty support with binoculars
5) killing enemies who is trying to kill your MG, which is covering smtng.

BUT. They are forced to physically come to objective to capture it. Yeah thats very realistic/fun. They are forced to, because GAME is deciding if objective is under control or not.
MG is running with heavy weapon to cap area to take it, because there are more enemies around.

When you must cap a single room in a 3 story building, believe me you wont try to get controll the entire building before capping that room. And thats why i think that single spot capzones wont work for the TERRITORY gametype.

HOW could I belive you, if it WORKS in other games?
How could I belive you, if it is NOT WORKING in Red Orchestra now?
The point is, to capture a single room you will need to secure the area from attacks. If you will not do it, then anyone could throw a small grenade and kill everyone who is near objective. If enemy is camping in small rooms - they are useless for a defending team.
So defenders should defend all possible ways inside an objective. They have to control all movements inside an objective building. They have to physically control the building. If attackers are managed to break the resistance, if they managed to fight a way to the objective point, then they are awarded by possibility to capture the objective itself. That is simplest, logical and realistic way to do.

 

[LogisticEarth]

The current cap system "works" as far as how to represent a zone that needs to be controlled. The problem in vanilla RO is that often these zones don't represent the actual stuff that "needs" to be capped in order to control the objective.

Take these two examples: Leningrad and Kriegstadt. Both have prominent bridge objectives. Leningrad makes the entire bridge the objective, and because of that, it suffers. The Germans end up not actually taking the bridge itself, but dogpiling under the first arch or two, UNDER the bridge. It's entirely possible for the Russians to have a completely intact firing line at the end of the bridge, and a tank providing overwatch, but they can still "lose" the objective. In contrast, Kriegstadt places the objective in a small strip at the far end (relative to the advance). When the Russians capture that, there's little doubt that they've defeated or suppressed the German defenses, and that they've actually taken the bridge.

If you're taking a hilltop, the objective should probably be the hilltop. If you're taking a building, the objective should probably be the floors above ground floor (forcing the attackers to clear the building). If you want to do things one better, make larger buildings have multiple cap zones for each floor/basement. The overall "building" is only capped and locked after all mini-objectives are taken. The same could work for a village with multiple small structures.

 

[LionbI4]

The current cap system "works" as far as how to represent a zone that needs to be controlled. The problem in vanilla RO is that often these zones don't represent the actual stuff that "needs" to be capped in order to control the objective.

Take these two examples: Leningrad and Kriegstadt. Both have prominent bridge objectives. Leningrad makes the entire bridge the objective, and because of that, it suffers. The Germans end up not actually taking the bridge itself, but dogpiling under the first arch or two, UNDER the bridge. It's entirely possible for the Russians to have a completely intact firing line at the end of the bridge, and a tank providing overwatch, but they can still "lose" the objective. In contrast, Kriegstadt places the objective in a small strip at the far end (relative to the advance). When the Russians capture that, there's little doubt that they've defeated or suppressed the German defenses, and that they've actually taken the bridge.

If you're taking a hilltop, the objective should probably be the hilltop. If you're taking a building, the objective should probably be the floors above ground floor (forcing the attackers to clear the building). If you want to do things one better, make larger buildings have multiple cap zones for each floor/basement. The overall "building" is only capped and locked after all mini-objectives are taken. The same could work for a village with multiple small structures.

Agree with you here.

 

[Miro!]

Agree with you here.

That multiple sub-objectives having to be capped before capping the whole objective isn't a bad idea idd. At least it forces ppl to clear the whole objective before capping it !

 

[LionbI4]

That multiple sub-objectives having to be capped before capping the whole objective isn't a bad idea idd. At least it forces ppl to clear the whole objective before capping it !

But this limits options for attackers, and their steps will be very predictable.
Defenders could just stick in one sub-objective, which is hard to capture. But this is still better than current system, where you could just take the bridge by sitting under first pillar of it.
I believe ONE key objective is always better, than whole area is objective or splitted capturable parts of it. Because attackers could think about best way and best plan of getting into it, depending on which areas are better controlled by defenders. They are not forced by artificial sub-objectives.
If you break the defense on some side, you have more chances to get into main objective and capture it. So thats your reward for breaking defense on that side.
Without risk and reward there will be no excitement in game.

This key objective must be well placed, so you are unable or very hard to capture it without controlling most area.
If it is building, then it could be last floor. If it is one floor of a building, then it should be main corridor. If its just a field, then objective could be small hill on the center of it, or a trench in the middle of it.
This will lead to actually attacking the objective, instead of just run-to-objective and hide somewhere.

 

[EvilHobo]

The removal of the ratio portion of the capture bar is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary. I worked with Deeival a bit on the aforementioned mutator that removed that part of the bar (he did the coding, I cleaned up the texture, big whoop). It's ROCAHud if I recall correctly.

With regard to the handling of objectives, I must agree with what Zets has really been pushing for, which I think of as a more dynamic approach to capture mechanics. I despise the notion of it being such that an objective can be taken without so much as a shot being fired owing to the fact that the objective is generally one large geometric volume spanning an area full of places to hide. I am of the opinion that objectives should encourage a fair deal of combat and to do so players should have to control key points within a capture zone to prevent the defense from collapsing and whatnot. I not being much of a theorist though leaves me without a truly conclusive solution to the problem, but I can at least speak from my mapping experience regarding objective design.

LogisticEarth has already brought to fore some of the things I did with Kriegstadt that I thought would be beneficial to the view that objectives should be fought for: objectives tend to be in locations that are not the most easily reached meaning that some extra degree of effort from those involved should come in to play for securing or defending the objective. I don't mean to make the objectives hard to reach, but it should not be the case that a large building with an interior suited for close combat be invalidated only because someone has managed to set their foot in the door. The situation rapidly degrades in to one where it becomes a matter of who has more people in the objective than the other guy.

To address this problem I made unusually shaped capzones in some cases. Some buildings start the cap simply on the second floor, requiring the attackers to have to overcome the stairwells. The attackers will in turn also have to secure these same stairs against counterattacks and should they be able to, the objective will fall easily and thus a great deal of importance becomes placed on these locations. My buildings still suffer from the Leningrad effect of having many many rooms in which players can hide, but the number and expanse of these rooms is reduced to keep combat more focused. Another objective is designed in a manner that the center stairwell can be capped from ground level, but the halls and rooms around it at ground contribute nothing to the cap. The mentality here is that the particular zone is a difficult one to overcome and if players manage to survive in that easily defensible zone, then they should contribute to the cap. One problem this location suffered from was a small corner room on the second floor which by means of rubble could be reached, and this led to the undesirable result of attackers piling in there and the moment a defender tried to remove them, he would get killed by a tank or the other players. To fix this I subtracted that room from the active cap, meaning that players then have to leave it and enter the halls to actively partake in securing the objective. All of this works toward bringing the opposing forces in to contact with each other within the objectives, and it is a formula many seem to have taken well to.

Nevertheless what I did was still fairly primitive and I feel that a capture process based on a multitude of factors ranging from controlling critical points or a majority of the area within an objective should be the foremost concern when looking in to constructing new model for objective based gameplay. Returning the the topic at hand, the removal of the troop ratio bar on the capture bar brings about uncertainty in the game which should require more activity from the participants in confirming the status of the objective by means of either scouting or holding key locations and relying on communication amongst other players to coordinate proper offenses and defenses.

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

a lot of quoted stuff

right after thanking a guy for posting something smart within 4 lines and then all that.

EH has very good points and kept it within 2000 words.

coming from a fellow forum novelist, please try to show some restraint on the quotes and text spam!

 

[Jono]

I would just like to add that the seconday ratio bar was the single worst addition to Red Orchestra...






... Ever.


And nobody can argue against that.