Lockdown: Reinforcements

[MarioBava]

Two of the biggest complaints about the lockdown feature is the arbitrariness of a timer on early objectives (in close fights, an early timer end feels wrong) and that it encourages foolhardy rushing in where it may not always be productive. (In many cases counterproductive...a waste of reinforcements that can feel punishing later in the round even if the lockdown is overcome)

Some kind of overtime (I suggest indefinite --lasting until the lockdown objective goes 100% to one side or the other) in cases where objectives are still being contested at the time of lockdown is one solution. But the problems might be mitigated without even the need for an overtime by simply tying the lockdown not to a time-limit per objective(s) but rather a percentage (for example 50%) of reinforcements lost by attackers per objective(s), depending on the map. In cases of rolling lockdowns, rather than adding to the timer the lockdown would be based on a new percentage (depending on the map) of reinforcements remaining at the time of capture.

That way, some sense of balance in attacking can be struck without compulsion. You will never see a timer tick down and feel compelled that your only choice is to rush in or lose. Teams that choose to rush in can still do so and succeed or fail still based on sheer numbers or skill. There also will never be a dead zone at the end of a timer where the entire team knows they won't have time to capture. Even if you can see your reinforcements fall to danger of losing on lockdown when the lockdown objectives have not been captured, you will have a sense that you are worth more alive than dead and the final capture effort can be more deliberate without taking too much time.

On the other hand, a defense that is dominating can still be rewarded with a swift decisive victory, an aspect of lockdown that I find important to preserve. It balances with the attacker's ability to do the same if they are good enough.

[NikolaiLev]

Don't like it. Running out of reinforcements has a nasty habit of creating drawn out campfests by less useful members of the offensive team. Lockdown's supposed to avoid that, not instigate it.

Overtime is a reliable way to address close battles being ended by lockdown.

Heh. I remember playing on Station, signing up late in the round on Axis. I then discover I've signed on for a loss, with lockdown timer at one minute. Many attackers were simply camping and sniping. I remarked, "Thank god for lockdown." The second round was a little better, we still lost though. It's too bad a lockdown timer end doesn't shuffle team members around in effort to rebalance.

[Nezzer]

Like I said in another thread, lockdown shouldn't be a timer in the first place, because time by itself means NOTHING and doesn't tell if the attacking team is doing well or bad. Faster gameplay, which is another intention of lockdown, also should not be forced, especially in a tactical shooter.

Like the OP said, lockdown should be based on the reinforcements (which don't mean nothing in most of the maps, because teams rarely run out of them), but it should take into account the losses of the defenders as well.

Lockdown should be a comparison between the losses of the attackers and the losses of the defenders during a specific time, of course letting the attackers lose X times more than the defenders on a number specified by each map.

Say a map establishes a ratio of 3:1 as a limit, which means the attackers can lose up to three times more men than the defenders, and if the attackers start losing more than that during a specific time determined by the map (like 3min) without returning to a ratio within the limit determined by the map, lockdown will be activated.

After lockdown's been activated, the attackers are given three more minutes to return to a ratio within the limit. To do so they should be more careful with their reinforcements and kill more enemies. If they manage to do so, the lockdown timer stops and they'll have to stay three more minutes within that limit to cancel lockdown and the process gets back to the start, but if they cross the limit once again durign that time, the lockdown timer returns to where it stopped.

The defenders would have to manage their reinforcements as well as the attackers, so that would be the most fair option of lockdown IMHO, though it's a lot more complex. I think that's the only way lockdown would work properly and fairly.

[OneBloodyHero]

I'm glad you liked my idea.

I support your notion, of course.

Lockdown is suppose to encourage the attacking side to attack and capture objectives. Implimenting a Lockdown timer for defenders may defeat the purpose as they have no pressure to defend a given objecitve(s) for any given time.

What could be done is impliment Lockdown for objectives lost by defenders. Meaning that they only have 8 minutes, for example, to counterattack and recapture lost objectives. If they fail, the objectives are permanently lost for that round. Reinforcement depletion for defenders to recapture lost objectives should not be severe; but then again, certain objective could be considered more pertinent than others.

Reinforcement percentage loss in conjunction with Lockdown timer should coincide with the historical context of the map and battle it emulates. So, the Germans may only lose 15% of their reinforcement pool after Lockdown on Spartanovka (early days of Stalingrad). While reinforcement loss may be greater for battles which take place later in the battle.

I don't like Lockdown. But I would enjoy Lockdown if this sort of feature was added. I hate ending a game prematurely. On the other hand, Lockdown can be a blessing, ending a game which has bogged down into a slaughter for attackers.

[MarioBava]

Originally Posted by NikolaiLev

Don't like it. Running out of reinforcements has a nasty habit of creating drawn out campfests by less useful members of the offensive team. Lockdown's supposed to avoid that, not instigate it.

Overtime is a reliable way to address close battles being ended by lockdown.

Hmm. I'm not sure the few holdouts at the end of a round after reinforcements are depleted is a good example of what would be inspired by this change to the mechanic, but I understand your concern. You seem to be worried that it will inspire entire teams to camp rather than risk losing to the reinforcements-based lockdown. But if they are spending so much time knowingly not taking objectives just to preserve reinforcements, they know they are doing nothing to actually win the round while those who are dying to proactive defenders are still counting up to that percentage of reinforcements that can't be lost. And those lost reinforcements do not get recovered so they are only making it harder on themselves the longer they wait, not only because of the round timer. It would be a team-wide misunderstanding of how the mechanic works. I find it an unlikely scenario, but if that kind of widespread misunderstanding is indeed likely, it would admittedly be a huge weakness in my idea.

[MarioBava]

Originally Posted by Nezzer

Lockdown should be a comparison between the losses of the attackers and the losses of the defenders during a specific time, of course letting the attackers lose X times more than the defenders on a number specified by each map.

Say a map establishes a ratio of 3:1 as a limit, which means the attackers can lose up to three times more men than the defenders, and if the attackers start losing more than that during a specific time determined by the map (like 3min) without returning to a ratio within the limit determined by the map, lockdown will be activated.

After lockdown's been activated, the attackers are given three more minutes to return to a ratio within the limit. To do so they should be more careful with their reinforcements and kill more enemies. If they manage to do so, the lockdown timer stops and they'll have to stay three more minutes within that limit to cancel lockdown and the process gets back to the start, but if they cross the limit once again durign that time, the lockdown timer returns to where it stopped.

The defenders would have to manage their reinforcements as well as the attackers, so that would be the most fair option of lockdown IMHO, though it's a lot more complex. I think that's the only way lockdown would work properly and fairly.

This is an interesting idea. It would be a lot more complex, I agree. But it's an interesting idea. The one hypothetical problem I have with it is that because it is still tied to a timer of sorts, it may just inspire attackers, once the lockdown kicks in, to find camping spots until the ratio comes down through a resulting sharp decrease in attacker deaths. It could become a predictable cycle of "attack, do nothing, attack, do nothing." I could hear it now...the respawn queue is full to the brim, and a wise man speaks up, "Guys, lockdown just kicked in: RESPAWNS, DO NOT LEAVE THE SPAWN, hide until it gets cancelled".

[Nezzer]

Originally Posted by MarioBava

This is an interesting idea. It would be a lot more complex, I agree. But it's an interesting idea. The one hypothetical problem I have with it is that because it is still tied to a timer of sorts, it may just inspire attackers, once the lockdown kicks in, to find camping spots until the ratio comes down through a resulting sharp decrease in attacker deaths. It could become a predictable cycle of "attack, do nothing, attack, do nothing." I could hear it now...the respawn queue is full to the brim, and a wise man speaks up, "Guys, lockdown just kicked in: RESPAWNS, DO NOT LEAVE THE SPAWN, hide until it gets cancelled".

Yes, I see your point, but I also thought this over. The defenders would have to be more careful as well as the attackers in order to keep lockdown on, so they would try to bring the attackers close if they are smart, because the attackers would still have to kill their enemies to stop the lockdown timer. And don't forget the attackers still have objectives to capture and they still have the map time to beat, so camping is bad business for them. On public servers it's hard to predict what would happen though.

[MarioBava]

Originally Posted by Nezzer

Yes, I see your point, but I also thought this over. The defenders would have to be more careful as well as the attackers in order to keep lockdown on, so they would try to bring the attackers close if they are smart, because the attackers would still have to kill their enemies to stop the lockdown timer. And don't forget the attackers still have objectives to capture and they still have the map time to beat, so camping is bad business for them. On public servers it's hard to predict what would happen though.

I think, if your assumed lockdown-inducing ratio is for example 3:1 losses per period, though, when the lockdown kicks in, attackers can decide to hide/camp and highly minimize their losses. Even if the defense is at the same time being very careful, the ratio will drop steeply once attackers decide to preserve lives. So maybe the attackers will behave normally when the lockdown first hits, but do a turtle for the last minute of the 3, just to take a chunk out of the ratio and escape lockdown loss. If the defenders want to preserve a higher ratio, they'll stay out of the objectives, too, but at best this will make the ratio fall closer to 1:1, which is well within the limit of 3:1 and probably enough to quickly correct anything above that in terms of a running average. Fighting will virtually stop for a minute (or less) every so often, and resume artificially when the lockdown turns back off.

It's still an interesting idea.

[Nezzer]

Originally Posted by MarioBava

I think, if your assumed lockdown-inducing ratio is for example 3:1 losses per period, though, when the lockdown kicks in, attackers can decide to hide/camp and highly minimize their losses. Even if the defense is at the same time being very careful, the ratio will drop steeply once attackers decide to preserve lives. So maybe the attackers will behave normally when the lockdown first hits, but do a turtle for the last minute of the 3, just to take a chunk out of the ratio and escape lockdown loss. If the defenders want to preserve a higher ratio, they'll stay out of the objectives, too, but at best this will make the ratio fall closer to 1:1, which is well within the limit of 3:1 and probably enough to quickly correct anything above that in terms of a running average. Fighting will virtually stop for a minute (or less) every so often, and resume artificially when the lockdown turns back off.

It's still an interesting idea.

Well, the attackers still have the map time to beat, and sit on their asses for too long would be a stupid move for them. My idea needs a lot of rework, but IMHO is the basis for the only way lockdown woudl work properly. The current lockdown just give the defenders more room to rush instead of defending as they don't have to care about their reinforcements much, so I think there should be some tool to make them care for their reinforcements as much as the attackers have to. I still think there shouldn't be any kind of lockdown.

[Moranh]

Originally Posted by OneBloodyHero

What could be done is impliment Lockdown for objectives lost by defenders. Meaning that they only have 8 minutes, for example, to counterattack and recapture lost objectives. If they fail, the objectives are permanently lost for that round. Reinforcement depletion for defenders to recapture lost objectives should not be severe; but then again, certain objective could be considered more pertinent than others.

THIS interests me! I have often wondered why defenders cannot retake certain points due to an instant lock-off. This would encourage more in-point play and give real desperation to a defending team trying to recapture a strategically important point. Also it would add that strategy to defending as to whether attempting a re-cap in the given time would be viable or not worth the deaths

[Tak]

What about tying it to say kills per minute instead?

That way the people hanging out in the back sucking at the game still initiate lockdown, but the ones who are actually doing some mid-range sniping and being productive don't.

Tangentially related note: countdown should ALWAYS stop if there is a cap in progress. By either side, and even if only for a split second. Can we get that change too?

[MarioBava]

Originally Posted by Tak

Tangentially related note: countdown should ALWAYS stop if there is a cap in progress. By either side, and even if only for a split second. Can we get that change too?

Wait, "by either side"?? Why would the lockdown timer stop when defenders are capturing? Stopping the lockdown timer hurts their chances at winning, so why punish them when they are making progress in the cap?

I resist this idea because I interpret the lockdown mechanic beyond a simple motivator for attackers to try to move forward. I also see it as a victory option for defenders. I know not everyone agrees. But I like being able to "lock down" the first few objectives as a victory option when on defense. There's also a risk/reward element to it. If the defenders want to lock it down at all costs but ultimately aren't good enough to hold the attackers back, the aggressive effort could come at too great a cost in reinforcements. In Ostfront, attackers could always, if they were really good, win rounds very very quickly by sweeping through the map, but for defenders to win it always took the entire round. With lockdown defenders now have equal opportunity to win quickly if they are really dominating (or the attackers are really bad).

If you stop the lockdown timer every time the objective is being attacked, attackers could spend a lot of time trying and failing to capture the lockdown objectives and still get rewarded for the failure, just making it take longer for a solid defense to secure a win even though the attackers will have nothing to show for it. It's an E for Effort.

Imagine in baseball the guy at the plate gets a reward 4th strike as long as was swinging at the first 3. Or in football the team with the ball gets rewarded an extra minute of overtime for every minute they spend in the defense's territory. Running with that analogy, however, my indefinite overtime idea is similar to the rule in football that when the game clock winds down during a play, the final play must finish before the game is declared ended.

[QUOTE=Tak;992634]What about tying it to say kills per minute instead?

That way the people hanging out in the back sucking at the game still initiate lockdown, but the ones who are actually doing some mid-range sniping and being productive don't.

Originally Posted by Tak

What about tying it to say kills per minute instead?

That way the people hanging out in the back sucking at the game still initiate lockdown, but the ones who are actually doing some mid-range sniping and being productive don't.

Do you mean that at the end of the lockdown timer if the attackers have a kill/minute ratio above a certain threshold the round continues and if below, they lose? I don't think we should divorce the lockdown mechanic from objective capture. Teams should only be concerned about kills insofar as necessary to claim and secure objectives.

[MarioBava]

Originally Posted by Nezzer

Well, the attackers still have the map time to beat, and sit on their asses for too long would be a stupid move for them. My idea needs a lot of rework, but IMHO is the basis for the only way lockdown woudl work properly. The current lockdown just give the defenders more room to rush instead of defending as they don't have to care about their reinforcements much, so I think there should be some tool to make them care for their reinforcements as much as the attackers have to. I still think there shouldn't be any kind of lockdown.

Right, but my idea was that since the timer kicks in at a set ratio, if the ratio was calculated dynamically it wouldn't take very long to get into hiding to stop all reinforcement losses and get the ratio under that threshold, so not a lot of time would be lost in getting it turned back off. If it is only calculated once only every 3 minutes or something, then even if you immediately correct the ratio you will automatically lose 3 minutes off the lockdown timer (unless you capture, of course). If that's the idea, I think I understand you better. It could still be managed by certain teams. Even 30 seconds of no lost reinforcements could be enough to correct the ratio over 3 minutes. See what I mean?