Do not let a win or loss be determined by artificial teamwork indicators

[Zetsumei]

Currently in the game there are a lot of additional score based indicators that are in place to promote teamwork.

When playing in a clan setting you already work at the max of your teamwork, so obtaining additional points should not affect whether your team wins or loses in the end.

For instance:
- In a tie-brake situation a team should not win because they resupplied their MG more with ammo.
- Or a team should not win because they capped a zone with more people in the actual capzone. And therefore got more total +10 points to their score.
- A team should not win because they killed more enemies inside the capzone rather than killing the enemies before they enter the capzone.

[Proud_God]

Agreed with the above.

[Ryssk]

Agreed here too!

[tejo.hr]

I would kinda like the points to stay. Everyone hate draws, so it's nice to have a system that will determine the winners by some other standards. Now what kind of system that would be is other thing. This artificial bonuses are still the games system that we all know how it works, so playing by those rules gives you an extra advantage in the case of draws.

[Zetsumei]

Originally Posted by tejo.hr

I would kinda like the points to stay. Everyone hate draws, so it's nice to have a system that will determine the winners by some other standards. Now what kind of system that would be is other thing. This artificial bonuses are still the games system that we all know how it works, so playing by those rules gives you an extra advantage in the case of draws.

You can base it on various things and even create rules. if a game does not report it. The thing is what should matter is that an objective was capped, not with how many you capped it. What should matter is that an mg mows down the enemy team not how he obtained his bullets. What should matter is that the enemy was prevented from taking the objective, not location where he was prevented from taking the objective.

I think you catch my drift.
The how you do it should matter more to distinguish yourself as a player from your other teammates.
The what you do should be the only thing that matters for your team vs the opponent team.

[[ITAK]Gr3y_s0ul]

Originally Posted by Zetsumei

For instance:
- In a tie-brake situation a team should not win because they resupplied their MG more with ammo.

Disagree, honestly, ... 5 points
It is very difficult that 5 points are the cause of a lost match...

- Or a team should not win because they capped a zone with more people in the actual capzone. And therefore got more total +10 points to their score.

Disagree,
I think this isn't correct, if my team go in cap-zone with 5 people and the defend team defend only with 4 my team get 18 points...ok...

BUT

defend teams get 2 point for every people survive in cap, and they get 8 point...

Then, or leave all teams points, all from capture points at defend commander points... orrible IMHO (Red Orchestra for me is a teamworkgame), or hold all team point.

- A team should not win because they killed more enemies inside the capzone rather than killing the enemies before they enter the capzone.

With this i Agree...

[Zetsumei]

Originally Posted by [ITAK]Gr3y_s0ul

Disagree, honestly, ... 5 points
It is very difficult that 5 points are the cause of a lost match...

Who says that a MG will be resupplied once? you can resupply it millions of times . In ROLeague it was a pretty good tactic on a draw map like backsanvalley to continue to resupply the machineguns, or move back from a capzone to let the enemy cap it with a single guy, kill him and cap it back with 8 guys. That simple step gave your team then +70 points over the opposing team. I think in the end we drew on but won due to having about 300 more points than the opposing team, if you know the goal is to obtain more points then there are always easy ways to do so.

Winning is always about teamwork, but isn't it exactly good use of teamwork to not put more people in the capzone than is needed to obtain a cap. While sending the remaining people already forward to perhaps prepare for the next cap, defend the entrance routes or enemy supply lines.

I think teamwork is much more complex than a simply count of how many are in the capzone. And that is why in competitive gaming I think things should be kept simple.

[[ITAK]Gr3y_s0ul]

Originally Posted by Zetsumei

Who says that a MG will be resupplied once? you can resupply it millions of times . In ROLeague it was a pretty good tactic on a draw map like backsanvalley to continue to resupply the machineguns,

Who do somethings is not a player, but ****...IMHO.

then or move back from a capzone to let the enemy cap it with a single guy, kill him and cap it back with 8 guys. That simple step gave your team then +70 points over the opposing team.

yeah but in Te figth if you cap a capzone you must prevent the counterattack, i think...
but ok, leave the "many pll cap bonus" and do the same thing, all of 8 guys get 10 points, +80 points team...
Isn't same thing?

Winning is always about teamwork, but isn't it exactly good use of teamwork to not put more people in the capzone than is needed to obtain a cap. While sending the remaining people already forward to perhaps prepare for the next cap, defend the entrance routes or enemy supply lines.
I think teamwork is much more complex than a simply count of how many are in the capzone. And that is why in competitive gaming I think things should be kept simple.

and in fact I'm not saying that Red Orchestra is just a count of players in capzone but much more,
but
the defense of the objective for me is correct is stimulated this way, so only those who attack with a few men can afford the luxury of send the rest of the team in the next capzone.
And guard with a few men means that the rest should do their work outside capzone like cutting reinforcement, etc. ... as still happens in clan matches ...

[Zetsumei]

Originally Posted by [ITAK]Gr3y_s0ul

Who do somethings is not a player, but ****...IMHO.


yeah but in Te figth if you cap a capzone you must prevent the counterattack, i think...
but ok, leave the "many pll cap bonus" and do the same thing, all of 8 guys get 10 points, +80 points team...
Isn't same thing?



and in fact I'm not saying that Red Orchestra is just a count of players in capzone but much more,
but
the defense of the objective for me is correct is stimulated this way, so only those who attack with a few men can afford the luxury of send the rest of the team in the next capzone.
And guard with a few men means that the rest should do their work outside capzone like cutting reinforcement, etc. ... as still happens in clan matches ...

The thing is that you cannot earn equal points by defending from outside the capzone as when defending inside the capzone. So effectively the point system forces competitive people to play a certain way to maximize their winning chances. And that method is often found dirty or cheap by the more fresh teams that still have morals.

It generally makes it such that only the people that play the game very competitive and way too much know what the actual win conditions are. Keeping things simple makes it understandable for everybody.

If you get say +100 team points for every cap you make regardless of how many people are in there. Then it doesn't matter if one person caps it or 10 million. What you earn for obtaining a capture should probably be more related on strategic importance than howmany of your teammates were there.

Competitive clans will always manage to find ways to play and win. The issue is that they result in all sorts of small little tricks, that will just agonize a lot of the smaller teams.

[Pa++on]

Of course I agree with the premise of this topic.

I saw someone mention that 5 points is miniscule, and I understand, however I have two main issues with this.

Competitive play is a different beast, the most important is that, especially in a ladder style, you play teams that are near your skill level. Your matches will be close, and 5 points means so, so much more.

Secondly, competitive play gets tense and losing is extremely frustrating, it's both unfair and dumb to lose to a last second resupply.

This is more fair to new teams, less time spent learning goofy little tricks to victory means more time learning from actually playing. It would be good for the growth of the Ladder.

[®omano]

I agree with the first post, the win condition should be simple and not biased by little tricks like resupplying MG and other additional points you may have by doing a lot of things like killing ennemies in the capzone from the capzone etc...

The simpler the better.

[yours truly]

Matches should be best 2 of 3 so tie-breaking points wont matter

[Pa++on]

Originally Posted by yours truly

Matches should be best 2 of 3 so tie-breaking points wont matter

No. Best two out of three would mean not playing both sides of two maps. Normally, in order to ensure fairness both teams switch Axis/Allies because certain maps favor one side or the other. No matter what it comes out to an even number so tiebreakers are extremely important.

[Zetsumei]

In ladders (and even leagues) in general a draw is not that bad, so you can just keep draws there. If anything its preferred as it shows better that 2 teams in a skill sense were pretty close.

Tie-break rules are needed for competitions where a victor must come out like cups/tournaments.

As stated maps are often not perfectly balanced (and even if they were teams wouldn't believe they are perfectly balanced). For that reason you must make sure that both teams have equal chances at victory.

A clear tiebreaker rule that works like, the team with the most caps wins, if caps are equal, the team with the most kills wins, and if that is equal well you could flip a coin or replay 2 rounds on another map.

In the early days of ROLadder there were no specific tie-breaking rules just another map would be randomly selected until a victor came out (so a bit like tennis). But in the end that didn't end up like such a good success due for instance the CoreNA vs Suomi match ending up to last like 4-5 hours over the regular 1.5 hours.

[yours truly]

For Battlefield 1942 competitions the reinforcements remaining for each team would be totaled after the two rounds and the team with the most would have side choice for the third and final round. Could this be a good alternative?

[ButchCassidy]

Originally Posted by yours truly

For Battlefield 1942 competitions the reinforcements remaining for each team would be totaled after the two rounds and the team with the most would have side choice for the third and final round. Could this be a good alternative?

Interesting idea not sure if it could be done during the chaos of a live a match..But its worth exploring..

[Zetsumei]

Originally Posted by yours truly

For Battlefield 1942 competitions the reinforcements remaining for each team would be totaled after the two rounds and the team with the most would have side choice for the third and final round. Could this be a good alternative?

Not that ideal, image you just played an unbalanced map. One team indeed based on reinf seemed to have played better. But then that same team gets to pick and logically chooses what side's the easiest.

Imagine playing a map like arad for another round, you always know the allies win there in competitive matches. Maps are mostly balanced for 32 players or whatever, making them usually pretty unbalanced in competitive play.

If a third map is played both teams in my opinion should have the same chance of winning that third map, especially if its an unbalanced map, and the only way to obtain that is by playing both sides.

[yours truly]

Originally Posted by Zetsumei

Not that ideal, image you just played an unbalanced map. One team indeed based on reinf seemed to have played better. But then that same team gets to pick and logically chooses what side's the easiest.

Imagine playing a map like arad for another round, you always know the allies win there in competitive matches. Maps are mostly balanced for 32 players or whatever, making them usually pretty unbalanced in competitive play.

If a third map is played both teams in my opinion should have the same chance of winning that third map, especially if its an unbalanced map, and the only way to obtain that is by playing both sides.

Maybe then use number of deaths as the tie breaker. Team with less wins. Cannot use kills as a tie breaker because teamkills count towards total kills

[Zetsumei]

Originally Posted by yours truly

Maybe then use number of deaths as the tie breaker. Team with less wins. Cannot use kills as a tie breaker because teamkills count towards total kills

Reinforcements are based on deaths so that could work. Although logically you should add up the reinf of both rounds.