New objective capture idea

[The_Emperor]

hi lads,

I believe it was Zetsumei who wanted the problem solved that your team is physically under the control of the objective and still the enemy can capture the objective. When I was going for a walk yesterday this idea came to my mind.

Let's say we got 13 Germans in defense of an objective. So the Axis team is under (complete) control of the objective. Now let's imagine an assault of the Russian team, we got 25 players in this assault squad. Now they enter the building and gather themselves in one room after they killed 3 Germans who became aware of their presence and tried to remove the threat. The defenders killed 5 Russians in return. Now we got 10 Germans at the objective site left, 20 Russians left who try to capture the objective. The capture bar will fill up with the red bar but it will stop at 66%, as the other 34% are still under control of the Germans. So the capture bar stops if there are still enemy players in the objective radius/area. So even if just one German survives the eviction of the building the bar will never reach 100%.
The other way round is the same, the defending team will never reach 100% of defense again if there's just one Russian left in the objective radius/area.

I hope it's described in an understandable way.

[Matt Baker]

Smart i like it but some people are quite good at hiding, new players may use 5 min to find him. so if there is minor resistance against a much stronger force, after 3 min the capture bar will be forced to be active. for the Russians.

This should not apply when there is like 5 vs 5 and 10 vs 7 so on. at least 300% more Russians in the cap than Germans, before this comes in.
Example: 3 Russians vs 1 German, if not get German is killed the capture bar will start again, and yes if he’s killed too it will start.

What you peeps think.

Cool new profile picture emperor.

[Zetsumei]

The issue is that your suggestion primarily shifts the focus from the attackers hiding to the defenders hiding and stopping the cap. what if 3 germans hide somewhere in a single room where you simply connot enter safely the capzone will never be captured then.

The easiest system that atleast helps already. Is cutting the capzones up in smaller sections. Like having 6 seperate capzones. And if you "capture" 4 or 5 of those for a certain time limit then you get the capzone.

The issue with this becomes, you ideally do not want to show what exact capzones are capped and where. As then you immediately know the exact location of the enemy forces. But if you do not show the exact locations of the minicapzones the game can become overly complex.

Thats why ideally in my opinion you have a system that is able to find out what ground is controlled by whom even if you dont stand on it. Frontline systems and influence systems work well for this.

But im not a coder and don't know how cpu intensive such systems would be. Although it could be another revolution in gameplay modes.

Or you can solve the issue by simplification like keeping the capzones low (similar to now) and making the sizes small. Although i see that myself more as avoiding the issue than solving it, it thoroughly limits options for mappers as well.

[LogisticEarth]

I think part of the fix should also just be a rethinking of where the mappers place the cap zone triggers themselves. Far too often do the cap areas spill over into other areas. Like, for example, you have to cap a house. Often you're able to just go right up to the outside wall of the house and pile on soliders without actually ever entering the structure.

[Capt.Cool]

good overall idea, emperor.

I think 1 or 2 defenders should not count anymore, if there are already overwhelming odds in the cappzone.
Like 7 soviets in the cappzone and 1 german defender, the soviets shoud win anyway.

Otherwise the game would be just hide and seek.

[Matt Baker]

Originally Posted by Capt.Cool

good overall idea, emperor.

I think 1 or 2 defenders should not count anymore, if there are already overwhelming odds in the cappzone.
Like 7 soviets in the cappzone and 1 german defender, the soviets shoud win anyway.

Otherwise the game would be just hide and seek.

My point exactly.
Note: not being and a,s,s . Good idea E.

[Zetsumei]

Originally Posted by Capt.Cool

good overall idea, emperor.

I think 1 or 2 defenders should not count anymore, if there are already overwhelming odds in the cappzone.
Like 7 soviets in the cappzone and 1 german defender, the soviets shoud win anyway.

Otherwise the game would be just hide and seek.

The thing is where would you draw the line. If you base a system on purely numbers you will remain keeping the issue. Say if you need less than 3 enemies in the capzone, what if 3 start barricading a single room. That room should be insignificant to the entire whole of the capzone.

The entire issue is that the system is purely based on having X people located in a capzone, but not looking at where they are located within a capzone. Especially if the enemy precense in the capzone bar will be removed (of which i dearly hope it will) the issue will be much bigger as nobody will know there are enemies in the capzone till they start capping from nowhere.

What i think would work the best is dividing every capzone in multiple minicapzones which all carry a certain value.
Then the closest soldier (in terms of minicapzones away with making a corner increasing the distance) to a minicapzone becomes the owner of the capzone. Then if one side owns say 80% of the total values of the minicapzones that side will have capped the building.

Here a crude illustration of what i mean. There are more axis (blue ovals) than allies (red ovals) yet the allies got a bigger territorium as they are closer to more minicapzones than the axis. However the issue is that a proximity check for a capzone especially as it should use botpaths to not go through walls etc, requires too many cpu cycles probably. But there are probably some code tricks to avoid that.

Although i dont know how heavy something like this would be on a processor to calculate, however the coders at twi could probably find something similar thats less resource heavy.