• 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/

Suggestion for countdown

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Zetsumei

Zetsumei

Grizzled Veteran
Nov 22, 2005
12,457
1,433
35
Amsterdam, Netherlands
#1
Introduction:

Based on what I've read so far: With countdown the attackers lose the map when they basically fail a single attack for a cap zone. Basically if the attackers get killed while attacking the first cap zone the entire map is over.

If a map got 4 cap zones each with a 50% chance of success per cap for the attackers, then the chance for the attackers actually winning is 100% * (0.5)^4 = 6,3%

To actually give the attackers a 50% chance of winning the entire map the chance for the attackers of winning an individual cap zone must be 84% as 100% * (0.84)^4 = 50%

This means that for the map to be balanced, the actual attack for a cap zone must be easier than the defence of a cap zone. This goes against most logic, as normally the defence should be easier.

Now as with countdown you play as both axis and allies, the end result is still balanced, as one team might make it further than the other team. However it would be a waste if there would pretty much never be a battle for the last cap zone, with the game mostly ending with the first cap zones.

--------------------------------------------
Suggestions:
For me there are basically 2 suggestions for this issue. Please give your comments about these suggestions, and give your own suggestions for the case suggested. Either suggestion could be used or a combination of both.

Suggestion1:
Allow the attackers to have a numerical advantage over the defenders. Either through unbalanced teams or allowing the attackers to re-spawn more often.

Reason/Explanation:
Players in countdown normally re-spawn when an objective is captured, attackers could be given some objectives where they re-spawn but the attackers don't. By letting the attackers re-spawn more often the attackers allows the attackers to be given an numerical advantage without having to take away the geographical advantage of the defenders. (unbalanced teams from the get go like 10 vs 5 would give a similar result, and be interesting as I don't know any game utilizing unbalanced teams).

Suggestion2:
Give the attackers multiple tries before they loose the entire map. If the attackers all die or fail to capture a zone within the designated time limit, both the dead attackers and defenders re-spawn. However the attackers can attack "n" times before they definitely lose the map (when the attackers lose or win a cap they lose one of their tries ).

The win conditions then become.
The attackers win if they capture the last cap zone, the defenders win if the attackers fail to capture the final cap zone after "n" attack waves.

Reason/Explanation:
Using this winning condition a binomial probability can be used to calculate the chance of winning the map. (to keep things simple and so order won't matter I'll keep the chance for success for every cap the same)

f9288acae4a56eff6c15fe3915fbe0df.png


With "n" being the amount of tries the attackers have
"p" being the chance of successfully attacking a cap zone.
and "k" being how many times the attackers win a cap zone.
with "P(k)" being the chance of capping "k" cap zones.

So lets fill it in
Lets take "n" = 8 (the attackers must win the map within 8 tries)
Lets take "k" = 4,5,6,7,8 (you want to know when the opponent won 4 times, and winning 5 times means you won 4 times as well)
and lets take "p" = .5 (a 50% chance of capturing a capzone).

P(k=4) ==> 0.27 (27%)
P(k=5) ==> 0.22 (22%)
P(k=6) ==> 0.11 (11%)
P(k=7) ==> 0.031 (3.1%)
P(k=8) ==> 0.0039 (0.4%)
------------------------- +
P(k=4 to 8) ==> 0,63 (63%)

This means the total chance of the attackers to win in this case is 63%, which means that in this scenario attacking is actually easier than defending. While all cap zones have a 50% chance of success for both the attackers as defenders.

So where the chance with 4 tries to capture 4 cap zones is 6.3%, with 8 tries the chance to capture 4 cap zones is 63%. Aka the attackers got a 10 times bigger chance of going through and capping all cap zones. 8 tries might sound like a lot but 16 "rounds" in a Search&Destroy maps are quite common in for example competitive play in COD4 and CS:S.

Adding this functionality to countdown would make it a lot easier to balance maps in a way that actually all cap zones will see the light of day. And it would give the mappers a strong tool for balancing out their map, without having to make it super easy to capture a zone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Snuffeldjuret
#2
Attackers having to respawn can be a waste when they fail after 3 or 4 attempts on the first cap, as then you have just a few more waves left for the rest of the objectives.

Countdown itself is looking very superficial because you are just playing "linked" S&D maps with no consequences flowing between each consecutive map. It is the same as giving one life to each player in traditional RO:OST, and loading other maps depending on what happens in that game.
 
Upvote 0
#3
doesn't have to be. It often happens in Basovka that you basically haven't capped anything till the last 5 minutes and then still win. Even then you could bring in a limit of a max amount of respawns you can have per cap. Like with 8 tries you cannot use more than 3 on a single cap.

As far as I understood it countdown goes with that you start at the regular first cap, then you try to continue playing taking as many cap zones as possible (every time a zone is capped both teams re spawn). Then after the attackers die the teams swap side. so then the defenders will go and attack. And in the end the team that obtained the most cap zones wins.
 
Upvote 0
#4
i like the idea that the attackers get multiple attempts to attack the objective. i think i read it correctly, but it seemed like you said that if the first attack fails, the all players on BOTH teams respawn and a "new" attack begins. if so i agree with that since it wouldn't really be fair to the defenders to only keep the amount of troops still alive after the attack.

having multiple attacks would allow the attackers to try different tactics to look for ways to expose the defenders position. might result in some more strategic gameplay as opposed to the typical "rush to the capzone" style of play we tend to see a lot in pub matches.
 
Upvote 0
#6
Zetsumei said:
As far as I understood it countdown goes with that you start at the regular first cap, then you try to continue playing taking as many cap zones as possible (every time a zone is capped both teams re spawn). Then after the attackers die the teams swap side. so then the defenders will go and attack. And in the end the team that obtained the most cap zones wins.
Click to expand...

That.. makes it a brand new game mode to me. Imagine a map like Konigsberg with 3 capzones. The attackers can capture the capzones in any order that they wish. If they capture at least one of the three, then all the dead players respawn. Furthermore, they can put far more pressure on the defenders because they can attack more than one capzone at a time.
 
Upvote 0
#8
Tiger2 said:
That.. makes it a brand new game mode to me. Imagine a map like Konigsberg with 3 capzones. The attackers can capture the capzones in any order that they wish. If they capture at least one of the three, then all the dead players respawn. Furthermore, they can put far more pressure on the defenders because they can attack more than one capzone at a time.
Click to expand...

You cannot attack multiple capzones at the same time with countdown, that has already been stated in the last interview. So playing a map like Koningsberg with cap zone A,B and C. Means that you first attack capzone A, and if you succeed capping that both sides re-spawn and then you'll then attack capzone B. If your team succeeds capping capzone B both sides re-spawn and your team must then attack capzone C. So countdown is different from territory as you cannot have multiple cap zones open at the same time (which is why I fear that cap zone progression will be made more linear).

O'Shannon said:
one spawn per cap was TWI statment as far as i know.

the first way that came my mind to balance things out without (respawn of attackers) was player numbers.

8 defenders vs 24 attackers 1:3
4 defenders vs 12 attackers 1:3
11 defenders vs 21 attackers ~1:2
Click to expand...

Already stated unbalanced teams as a method with suggestion one ;), its just that unbalanced teams are not really feasible for competitive matches that much.

TWI did state one spawn per cap which brings the issue that the chance of the attackers making it to the last cap pretty slim. So my second suggestion is still make it one spawn per cap. But rather than only re-spawning both sides when the attackers succeed with capping an objective, re-spawning as well when the defenders succeed defending an objective.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#10
Tiger2 said:
But why make it more linear? Having open 3 open capzones is better in my opinion.
Click to expand...

But that is contrary to the entire point of the Countdown gamemode. If you want nonlinear gameplay, go for the traditional Territory mode.

As for the suggestions, I think difficulty in capping the early objectives can be solved by map design and allowing attackers a few more reinforcements than the defenders. Multiple "waves" of attacks would make the gameplay too slow paced for what I think Countdown is trying to be.
 
Upvote 0
#11
Bobdog said:
But that is contrary to the entire point of the Countdown gamemode. If you want nonlinear gameplay, go for the traditional Territory mode.

As for the suggestions, I think difficulty in capping the early objectives can be solved by map design and allowing attackers a few more reinforcements than the defenders. Multiple "waves" of attacks would make the gameplay too slow paced for what I think Countdown is trying to be.
Click to expand...

The entire issue is map design if a map will be designed for countdown to work well then you need that with 4 caps the attackers must have a 85% chance of capping a cap zone. While realistically the defenders should have the advantage in the cap zone and not the attacker. And countdown will most likely use the same maps as with territory. The first cap of Basovka, or the last cap of Kaukasus would never be won by the attackers if both teams just spawned with 16 players each with one life. Yet I would like to see those kind of maps, but then balanced through alternative means such as the 2 suggestions.

Allowing more reinforcement for the attackers as suggestion 1 works, however again with 4 cap zones you need to lift the advantage to 85% for the attackers. If we assume that 4 players perform 4 times as good as an individual player aka linear scaling of a teams performance based on player amounts. Then you will need a ratio of 17vs3 in the 4 cap scenario of 50% chance per cap to get a game average of 50%.

The main advantage of having more waves is that with a small amount of additional waves the balance shifts over to the other side making it a powerful tool in balancing. Next to that additional waves should have no impact on the pace of the actual game play, just the duration that a single map takes. (Actually countdown with 1 life per cap is most likely actually slower paced than territory with closer to infinite).

Remember that playing for the same cap 2 or 3 spawns isn't the end of the world, most maps in RO which take much longer than a single cap run 2 or 3 times.

@Tiger, don't look at me I hate linearity the most of anything. What I said is the description of countdown as far as I know it based on the interviews. The simple reason why TWI likely opts for more linearity is that without re-spawns the battlefield is less filled so you need some more focus, and grouping people together by forcing them to go to one cap zone does that. Personally I prefer the freedom of deciding what to attack over more focussed game play but a lot of people like heavier action. (although there are probably some chances to create some additional freedom like the multiple places to place the bomb in the CS S&D or dividing cap zones up into small sections)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#12
i really like where this is going so far.......i'm becoming more convinced that "multiple attacks" per objective sounds promising.

countdown is linear and focused around capturing one objective at a time. i think allowing the attackers to conduct multiple attacks allows them the "tactical freedom" to try a couple different routes or strategies to capture the objective, which would also help speed up the game since players won't be so tentative to risk losing their one "life" in a single attack. i've played in some "realism" matches before and they always took waaaay too long because people only having one life meant that the attackers would literally crawl their way around and then close to the capzones. imo, that type of play was BORING. my first impressions of countdown is that it will follow that same mentality unless either reinforcements or "multiple attacks" are added.

like zets said, reinforcements could work, but it'd not work well for smaller scale clanwars. imagine it getting to the point of 8v1 for a capzone.....yeah not gonna end well. additionally there's already a gametype with reinforcements so if countdown is supposed to be different, why include the central aspect of another gametype? with 1 life per attack, but the ability for a team to conduct multiple attacks, countdown could result in some of the best clanplay possible as it could combine the fast-paced "CS" style of play with the tactical, strategic type of play that RO promotes yet rarely ever sees.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Countdown probably wont replace the default game type for a lot of old RO clans though as long as you can only attack one cap at a time. As still having only cap zone to attack limits the possibilities. With multiple fronts you need to make choices how and where to defend which brings in additional depth and tactical fun.

Next to that personally I like having to manage reinforcements, so its not just about killing but actually making that push before the enemy's reinforcements come in. It makes teamwork simply so much more important than pure skill, as you need to utilize that one moment that is right for it.

However I would love the ability to play territory with relatively low reinforcements, basically territory with some of the countdown stuff Like perhaps 4 lives per cap per player.

-----

But anyway I just hope with countdown that the entire map gets played even if there are 20 cap zones. The thrill that your life is limited and important is probably the key of the excitement to countdown and s&d players, so that shouldn't change imo. However my suggestion however shouldn't change anything really about it all. Beside making a match take a bit longer, but with that allow an average team to play pretty much the entire map.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#14
yeah i was thinking more along the lines of competition for the "realism" community. territory will always be the bread and butter for standard competition but something that's plagued the realism community in the past was no "standardized" or built-in format for them to battle. seeing as countdown will focus more on tactical attack/defense and 1-life "realism", i could envision this helping out the realism guys standardize some type of gameplay to fit their style better. i probably should have made that point a little clearer earlier :eek:
 
Upvote 0
#16
Tiger2 said:
It is just S&D with consecutive map areas played one after the other. I cannot understand what all the enthusiasm is about.
Click to expand...

Although you're saying it rather crude in the basic concept you are right (with as difference capping instead of placing bombs). The novelty in it is that the same basic maps for territory can be used for countdown. Meaning that you can still have big maps for territory and countdown, rather than forcing you to play in a small map.

There is a big market out there that loves Search&Destroy so offering something as Countdown will attract more new players. A lot of new players coming from the Cod and CS-scene were turned off by the re-spawn game play RO offered.

However personally I hope for a 3rd option so that servers can have a mix of countdown and territory. Basically territory game play (with having multiple caps open etc.) with limited lives per player like 4 lives per cap (and every time a capzone is capped players lives get reset back to 4 ). (And possibly some classes using up more lives per spawn than others so SMG can allow to be more aggressive and die more than snipers before running out of reinf).

This for the reason of having the ability to pick what cap zone you will attack and the tactical freedom to go with it as in Territory. But keeping the importance of staying alive and killing enemies that can be found in Countdown.

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

Anyway the suggestion in this thread is purely if you have multiple consecutive caps that must be played in order and the attackers loose by losing once. Then the statistical chance of actually playing in the final part of the cap zone is rather low.

This was most likely the reason why swapping sides became a default part of countdown, because then team 1 might make it to cap zone C while team 2 only made it till cap zone B. Making team 1 the winner. Aka you do not need to play all the way till cap zone Z to win the match you just need to play better than the opponent.

As I'm from the clanning community swapping sides is always used anyway to ensure 100% balance, however it would simply a waste if nobody would ever get further than capzone C, making it that cap zones D to Z will probably never be played. Which is why I would like the attackers to have some additional chances in case of failure to basically retry at the same cap zone without switching to the next map.

To envision it think about flipping a coin.
1) The chance of getting 4 times heads in a row is pretty slim (6,3%).
2) The chance of getting 4 or more times heads when throwing 8 times is pretty high (63%).

Situation 1 ends when someone has thrown tails once, situation 2 ends after 8 tries. In situation 2 you simply have a much higher chance of actually seeing the final 2 cap zones rather than just the 1st and perhaps the second. And just like clans switch sides in territory, the functionality of switching sides could still easily work here.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#17
5 minute waiting threshold can make it very tight for attackers on larger maps. If you have little time, you just have to charge head on without any tricks. Defenders will have an easy job of wiping out attackers over open areas with no cover (imagine Basovka). This is why I think attackers should have more men to balance it out.
 
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