Incentive for attacking / Reward system

[Nimsky]

One thing that has always frustrated me about RO is that too many players put in very little effort to get in the capzones.

Example: Basovka as Germans, first cap. Often there are only a handful of Germans doing their best to reach the capzone. Or LyesKrovy, first objective. Again, usually it gets capped by only a handful of Russians, if it even gets capped in the first place. Oftentimes I'll be one of the few players who start capping, typing in chat "Get in the capzone" or asking for help on VOIP, only to see the cap getting reverted at 15% because there are only a few teammates in the capzone while the rest of the team is back at spawn, being busy taking potshots at the enemy.

I can somewhat understand why they're doing it because RO is a difficult game but when it happens it always annoys me.

Now, this isn't a plead to change map balance (it's quite fine actually), but I feel that there needs to be some kind of incentive for players to reach the capzone. A reward in the shape of faster leveling or a higher score, for example. Or maybe loadout benefits, such as an extra grenade.

On the other hand, it would be entirely possible to punish players who never attack.

But that might not be very newbie-friendly, or even fair. The point is that an attacking player should get rewarded, even if he gets shot 1 meter outside of the capzone, because at least he put in the effort needed to start capping.

The tricky part is how the game calculates that effort. Number of seconds spent inside the capzone? Amount of ground covered? Number of defenders killed while in the capzone? The possibilities are probably endless.

Obviously, these attacking bonuses would only apply to assault classes (riflemen, assault troopers etc), not marksmen or machine gunners, who have to stay put in order to be effective. They'd get rewarded in different ways. Indeed, why reward only assault classes? Give marksmen a bonus for killing officers and machine gunners, and reward machine gunners for killing and suppressing defenders.

Thoughts?

 

[VariousNames]

I think that the idea of an actual, functioning reward to bait people to play a game is unconscionable and that it will make the game progressively less balanced as players surpass their compatriots.

I also think that the idea that the game should be reduced into rushing capzones is nauseating. This is only one tactic. The fact that you lose the match if you don't "LANGERLANGERLANGER" is already one of the weakest parts of the game. The idea that putting 10 people in a capzone in 30 seconds permanently places the front lines 50 yards back is just as frustrating and it doesn't need to be emphasized.

Not everybody has an overpowering desire to zerg rush a machine gun/PPSH crossfire every night for 6 hours, and I personally think that some people need to learn how to deal with that.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I personally enjoy playing games where I cautiously advance and pixelhunt, but some of the map designs make that impossible. It also doesn't help getting screamed at for ten minutes by people whose life depends on winning a virtual battle by standing in an imaginary cap zone for 10 seconds.

 

[Nimsky]

I think that the idea of an actual, functioning reward to bait people to play a game is unconscionable and that it will make the game progressively less balanced as players surpass their compatriots.

I also think that the idea that the game should be reduced into rushing capzones is nauseating. This is only one tactic. The fact that you lose the match if you don't "LANGERLANGERLANGER" is already one of the weakest parts of the game. The idea that putting 10 people in a capzone in 30 seconds permanently places the front lines 50 yards back is just as frustrating and it doesn't need to be emphasized.

Not everybody has an overpowering desire to zerg rush a machine gun/PPSH crossfire every night for 6 hours, and I personally think that some people need to learn how to deal with that.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I personally enjoy playing games where I cautiously advance and pixelhunt, but some of the map designs make that impossible. It also doesn't help getting screamed at for ten minutes by people whose life depends on winning a virtual battle by standing in an imaginary cap zone for 10 seconds.

The thing is, capturing objectives (and in some cases, destroying them) is the only game mechanic that wins maps, not counting depleting the enemy's reinforcements. Of course there are many other ways by which you can help your team that don't involve that particular game mechanic, but those can be rewarded as well. That's not the point.

When only 10% of attackers actually attack, and the rest hangs back at spawn not helping their team, don't you think that that is a problem? I do, and it can be very annoying for the ones who do try to reach the capzones. Capturing objectives is part of the game and that is not going to change. The bulk of the assault classes should be attacking the capzone. That's how that role is supposed to be played. All I'm suggesting is a mechanic that rewards player for helping their team, i.e. being in the capzone. It would still be possible (and rewarded?) to pull a flanking maneuver and engage targets from the flanks or any other tactic you might want to use.

I've never been screamed at in RO tbh, but it's not uncommon to hear a player step up to become the 'leader', who then encourages people to get in the capzones through VOIP. There's nothing wrong with that and that's only good for teamwork.

 

[Devil_Inside]

I always chose an MG role if one is available, be it RO or DH, and most of the time I try to sneak behind the front-line on one of the flanks, and cut off enemy reinforcements supplying the cap zones. I believe that mowing down even 1 wave of enemy reinforcements could really make the difference.

I'm trying to do the same even when I can't get an MG role, though I never chose anything other than a riflemen.
The only time I'm rushing towards the capzones if it's the beginning of the map, and I can still get a good MG position and maybe take down the first wave of attackers.

So, my main problem with rewarding a specific tactic is that it just isn't fair. There are just situations when it could be much better for the team to actually hold position, or flank, or god know what else. And there's not too many ways to actually monitor all the players actions, finding patterns for a specific tactic, determining when a player is effective and when he's not.

 

[Taisenki]

Incentive


Remove game stats
Remove Global Stats

-

Now people just want to play for fun rather than to have a pretty stat page

 

[Chadwiick]

I like this idea.
-Motivate the team to play to the objective and reward them for doing so-
Perfect strategy, it doesn't discourage people from playing the game.

 

[Nicholas]

This sounds like a good idea, but you still need attackers to stay back and suppress the enemy.

Say for example on a map like Tula outskirts, make it so that smg's get extra points for charging forward, but everyone else gets points for staying back and suppressing.

 

[Dogfacboy]

Not everybody has an overpowering desire to zerg rush a machine gun/PPSH

Lol

 

[Unterscharfuhrer]

This sounds like a good idea, but you still need attackers to stay back and suppress the enemy.

Say for example on a map like Tula outskirts, make it so that smg's get extra points for charging forward, but everyone else gets points for staying back and suppressing.

thats excactly the problem the smg soldiers often stay back and the guys with the carabines attack, maybe the officer should have a option to change roles of players if they aren

 

[Snuffeldjuret]

I think a score system should be designed to give people points for doing the tactically right thing to do to win. If that does not result in satisfying game-play then the victory conditions need to change. The more different ways to get score and the less influence (more or less) random outcome has over score the better.

That way if people play for score or to win does not matter =).

 

[-[SiN]-bswearer]

if you don't have a mg or sniper rifle, or are the SL throwing smoke and radioing arty, then you should be advancing towards the capzone. understandably assaults are better suited to assault defenses, and riflemen can help provide suppressing fire to give cover for an advance.....but the thing is that in this game, you need bodies in the zone to cap. i know exactly what Nimsky is saying and yes it sucks to be one of only a couple who can push up to the cap but you can't capture it since the rest of your team is thinking they're some kind of elite rifleman sharpshooters.....

you can't punish people for not advancing, but i do like the idea of giving a reward for advancing. people have already suggested points given for time spent in the capzone defending it...i like this idea. say you get up to the capzone and maybe are only able to be in it defending for 2 seconds, at least you can get something for your efforts. in territory mode, the purpose is capturing objectives. if people aren't encouraged to attack then the game just becomes a longer-ranged game of deathmatch with people trying to get kills......

 

[Devil_Inside]

Rushing to the capzone 20 times in a row, and being constantly mowed down by the same well placed machine gun is not always productive. And rewarding players just for their stubborn attempts to get to the capzone when they know that they will be killed by that same machine gun over and over is not a good idea.

As I said earlier - I don't think there exists a good way to automatically determine when a player is effectively fulfilling his role and when he's not. There are just too many situations and exceptions, and each situation has too many solutions to find a pattern and develop a system which will automatically rewards players for their effectiveness.

And, as in a real war (I believe), there would always be players who rush forward, and those that prefer to go prone and pixel hunt from safety.

So, all they need to do is give the officers the right to teamkill and introduce the "barrier troops", which will shoot cowards and retreating soldiers :trollface:

P.S. And sometimes I get mad at people that reached the capzone for the first time in their 35 attempts, and start yelling over the mic, or spamming the "Need help" button, even though 30 other players are constantly spawning, running towards the cap, dieing, spawning, rushing towards the cap, dieing, spawning.... Don't think that you're the only one trying to win the game. (This wasn't directed at someone specific).

 

[Agenda_Suicide]

Something like a capzone bonus might work. Simply if you kill someone in the capzone whether defending it or attacking you get bonus points for doing so.

 

[Reise]

I thought winning the match was incentive enough. If you have a bonehead team that won't even make the effort I think you'd be better of just throwing your hands up and forgetting about teamwork altogether.

On the flipside there are already handfuls of people who would jump at the chance to farm cap points by capping, losing, and recapping the same objective.

Just separate the points given for each action (kills, defense kills, caps, attack kills) like Day of Defeat does it, and similarly weigh certain points more than others to sort the scoreboard.

People wouldn't bother playing at all if there were no stats or points. How many people here would find sports interesting if players were just hitting a ball around a field for no reason?

 

[aD.Luoson]

Make capping points give way more EXP for ranking up levels, even more on the final part of a level/stage.. is a good incentive in my opinion and make it extremely low for kills.. so people that camp every game will take years to rank up,

 

[jalex3]

im sure teamplay points will do this, but K-D may take away from it. Im sure many people will not care about cap points if it still shows you have a "bad" K-D.

the system in ro2 is plenty if incentive for me, rush in get 10points stab some people.

 

[Xendance]

Incentive


Remove game stats
Remove Global Stats

-

Now people just want to play for fun rather than to have a pretty stat page

Oh wow, when did Ostfront get stats like HoS will have?

 

[SCandChives]

Make capping points give way more EXP for ranking up levels, even more on the final part of a level/stage.. is a good incentive in my opinion and make it extremely low for kills.. so people that camp every game will take years to rank up,

Make killing the enemy a task of little importance by giving only a minimal amount of points? Last time I checked it was the job of a sniper to "camp" and kill players. Wouldn't giving less points make sniping next to useless in terms of increasing stats? Considering there will be limited respawns (AFAIK) killing the enemy is a very important thing, not to diminish the importance of capping.

It is a pain in the butt though when people downright refuse to do their jobs and treat an SMG as a sniper rifle for some reason.

Anyways IIRC there will be some system that rewards machine gunners/snipers that protect players who are capping and for killing enemy players who are capping. So I guess incentives to play your role are not a bad thing. I'm not sure how they could be worked in though.

 

[aD.Luoson]

Make killing the enemy a task of little importance by giving only a minimal amount of points? Last time I checked it was the job of a sniper to "camp" and kill players. Wouldn't giving less points make sniping next to useless in terms of increasing stats? Considering there will be limited respawns (AFAIK) killing the enemy is a very important thing, not to diminish the importance of capping.

It is a pain in the butt though when people downright refuse to do their jobs and treat an SMG as a sniper rifle for some reason.

Anyways IIRC there will be some system that rewards machine gunners/snipers that protect players who are capping and for killing enemy players who are capping. So I guess incentives to play your role are not a bad thing. I'm not sure how they could be worked in though.

What are you talking about, i didnt say anything about points, i am talking about how you level up your avatar. You would still get xp points for kills, just at a slower rate.. Not many other ways around it.

 

[Devil_Inside]

Make capping points give way more EXP for ranking up levels, even more on the final part of a level/stage.. is a good incentive in my opinion and make it extremely low for kills.. so people that camp every game will take years to rank up,

As I said multiple times: sometimes 2-3 people that went behind the enemy lines and cut off their reinforcement for a few seconds are doing much more for their team than rushing and dieing at the cap zone.
Please, don't think that people which are not in the cap zone the moment you are there, are camping at the spawn... And don't try to handicap the roles which are not supposed to be in the cap zone in the first place, like MGs, Snipers and tank crew.