How does territory game mode even work?

[bradleyg5]

Ok here is what I don't understand, say there is 6 objectives on the map, and it's not one of those rush maps. I understand that you win if you take all the objectives, but beyond that what is the point?

Do we get points for holding objectives? as far as I can tell it's entirely based off reinforcements, but when you push into a teams last objective or two you take more losses(closer to their respawn/more cover/emplacements).

So isn't it a disadvantage to take objectives if they put you in a worse tactical position.

I've played for 50 hours and I still don't understand what you get for holding objectives, there is no points counter it's not listed in the score dialog, I sorta understand that you get points for taking an objective, but what points do you get for holding it?

Like at the end of the match when it lists that number, what in the hell does that number mean? is that just a addition of all the players on a teams score? if so then again I ask, what is the point of holding objectives? holding an objective doesn't give you any points from an individual point.

the way it is set up now, there really is very little indication of what the team should actually be trying to do, I understand we should take objectives, but obviously with reinforcements there is a cost that needs to be taken into account, but without the game telling you any other information during the match how are we supposed to know?

 

[Prof]

Ways to win in territory:

-keep more objectives than the enemy when the timer runs out
-capture all objectives before the timer runs out
-deplete the enemy reinforcements

On maps with attackers and defenders:

-deplete enemy reinforcements
-keep at least one objective until the timer runs out as defender
-capture all objectives before the timer runs out as attacker

This game mode is all about the objectives so you barely help your team if you stay outside the capzones and try just to get kills. It is more important that a majority of the team tries to get into the capzones.

You get points for capturing objectives, defending objectives and killing enemies in or from objective zones.

Also the game tells you what to do while you are loading the map.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

You don't get points for holding an objective, but for capturing it. And who wins depends on which kind of territory map it is. It comes in two flavours:

Attack/Defense (like Spartanovka):

One team holds all the objectives, the other one has to cap. The defending team win if it can hold at least one objective at round end. The attacking team wins when it manages to cap all objectives.


"Onslaught" (PavlovsHouse):
Starts in the "middle" of the map, the goal is to push the enemy team off the map. In this game mode, if there isn't a decisive victory, as in one team capturing all points, the winner is the one with the most accumulated team points.

So generally, capping is the way to score, not defending, even if you do get bonuses for kelling people while you or they are in a zone you defend (double that if both of you are in the zone)

 

[LHeureux]

You get points by killing enemies from the objectives.

 

[bradleyg5]

again why push out past your objectives? stick with the objectives that are easy to hold and don't bother pushing up.

if the map has 6 objectives there is zero reason to hold 5 of them any time other than right before the round ends.

I say this because I was playing on pavlovs house and our team had all but the last objective 90% of the match but then at the end we ran out of reinforcements and they took back all but our last 2 objectives and won.


what reason was there for our team to keep pushing? we should have just fallen back to an easier to defend objective and camped.

if there is no incrementing points for holding objectives there is no reason to fight hard for the middle objectives because it makes no difference, just don't lose all the objectives and try to grind down the opponent.

seriously you guys can't be saying this makes any sense. the only reason it works is because people keep pushing up without realizing that dying while pushing hurts the team vastly more than camping the center objectives.

 

[LogisticEarth]

Well, if your team is still attacking and losing reinforcements quickly, then that's a poor strategy. However, if you're on equal footing, there's no reason to not keep pushing, otherwise the enemy can get into better positions to attack YOU. Unless you're getting creamed on reinforcements, it's usually a good idea to keep pressing the attack, rather than hoping that the other team is stupid and bleeds out against you. When you cap that last objective, you've definitely won. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush...

 

[Krobar]

You get points by killing enemies from the objectives.

Defending Objectives.

 

[Swi1ch]

again why push out past your objectives? stick with the objectives that are easy to hold and don't bother pushing up.

if the map has 6 objectives there is zero reason to hold 5 of them any time other than right before the round ends.

I say this because I was playing on pavlovs house and our team had all but the last objective 90% of the match but then at the end we ran out of reinforcements and they took back all but our last 2 objectives and won.


what reason was there for our team to keep pushing? we should have just fallen back to an easier to defend objective and camped.

if there is no incrementing points for holding objectives there is no reason to fight hard for the middle objectives because it makes no difference, just don't lose all the objectives and try to grind down the opponent.

seriously you guys can't be saying this makes any sense. the only reason it works is because people keep pushing up without realizing that dying while pushing hurts the team vastly more than camping the center objectives.

I kinda agree. Seems a bit overkill to have time, respawn tickets and objectives. I'd like to see some experimentations, like removing respawns and just having time on attack/defend. There's a bunch of other things that could be done, such as having a time limit with unlimited attacker reinforcements, and the defending team having 200 reinforcements and start in heavily defended positions. Maybe have no time limit and unlimited defence reinforcements, with the attackers having to be super aggressive with their 200 respawns.

 

[drjoez]

I could have sworn you got team points for killing enemies in objectives that they currently hold as well. I can see the argument in the thread is a legitimate one but usually when you cap the next zone it offers a new defendable position that you can now occupy. Then you can begin attrition battle once again from your new position.

 

[Warishell]

Generally the more you advance on a map, the more flanks you're covering thus a good attack will lead to a good defense.

If you are able to advance without having to many losses why not go on?

If reinforcements are getting to low the best is to settle for a good defense of what has already been captured, but you need more capzones or the equal amount to win!!

But this only applies to non attacker/defender maps where you have to attack to win.

I don't really get you're point, isn't war about trying to get the furthest possible?

And as i said in the begining of my post the more you advance, to the contrary of what you're saying, the more you will have a tactical advantage over the enemy in the sense you cover more ground.

 

[Steezy_Six]

This is what I have gathered.

Territory in RO2 is not the same as RO1, they're all essentially attack vs attack maps. Whoever controls the most objectives at the end of the round wins, or if one team controls all of them before the end of the round.

The only exception to that are maps where one team starts with all the objectives and the other none. Then you can't win the map by capturing all the objectives (if you're on the team with all of them from start), you just have to make sure they don't capture more than half of yours.

There are no such thing as draws, and there's no such thing as a team with one objective remaining and the time running out winning the round, the team that has caught the most objectives always wins at time out.

 

[ellnic]

Probebly another COD player. Its a realistic game mode for a game which aims to be realistic. In war you dont get imaginary points for holding objectives and besides that game mode is what RO:OSF was all about and what RO:HS is based on. FF and CD have only been introduced to keep amm those COD and BF players quiet

 

[Warishell]

This is what I have gathered.

Territory in RO2 is not the same as RO1, they're all essentially attack vs attack maps. Whoever controls the most objectives at the end of the round wins, or if one team controls all of them before the end of the round.

The only exception to that are maps where one team starts with all the objectives and the other none. Then you can't win the map by capturing all the objectives (if you're on the team with all of them from start), you just have to make sure they don't capture more than half of yours.

There are no such thing as draws, and there's no such thing as a team with one objective remaining and the time running out winning the round, the team that has caught the most objectives always wins at time out.

Hmm are you sure? I don't think so.
Spartakova: the germans have to capture the whole map.
Commisars house: the russians have to capture the whole map.
Appartements: the russians have to capture the whole map.

Ro1 was the same when it came territory you had attacker defender maps and attack/attack maps

Ex: Danzig(appartements): russians had to capture the whole map
ex: Baksan Valley and Arad: the most capzones = winner

 

[Sir Reginald]

you do get points for defending if your in the cap when it changes hands if your still alive that is

 

[Warishell]

Probebly another COD player. Its a realistic game mode for a game which aims to be realistic. In war you dont get imaginary points for holding objectives and besides that game mode is what RO:OSF was all about and what RO:HS is based on. FF and CD have only been introduced to keep amm those COD and BF players quiet

Ahh give me a break! This COD player business is getting old and pathetic. Everyone who talk like this sounds the same: like indoctrinated nazi youth.
You don't know if this guy plays COD.

By the way i think COD is boring but i like the new game modes and i've been playing this game since 2006 at launch.

 

[Warishell]

you do get points for defending if your in the cap when it changes hands if your still alive that is

Yea you get personnal points for defending a capzone and attacking but in the end what counts more is capzones, i have to agree with this: WAR IS ABOUT TAKING OBJECTIVES? what is not understandable about this?

 

[ellnic]

By the way i think COD is boring but i like the new game modes and i've been playing this game since 2006 at launch.

you and me both

 

[Moonymoon]

The description of territory in the loading screen is not helpful at all for new players. It said something like "Territory game mode simulates waves of reinforcements". I think that should be changed to something more informative. Like uhh, "Territory is a game mode in which two teams attempt to control most of the map..."

 

[TheRealGunther]

Personally I prefer all out defensive or attacking maps so there is a clear cut way to victory or defeat.That way one side is on the offensive and the other is defending.The duel attack maps can be a little iffy when it come to strategy but as long as you hold more objective you can win these maps.

I agree tho a full out attack on all objectives on a duel attack map can often be a slaughter against a well defending enemy.You just have to be aware of when the point comes that you loosing reinforcements and just try to hold the objectives you have as long as you have more than the enemy. Full out offensive and defensive maps are alot clearer in the goals for victory.What really bugs me is when a defensive side insists on attacking even when there is no objective to take.Then 2 enemy comes in and caps the empty capzone.Or even worse a attacking side insisting on defending their own spawns and not pushing.( can be very frustrating at times)

90% of the time if you try to win by killing the enemy's reinforcements and ignore the caps either attacking or defending you will loose the match(never a good idea).So it all comes down to the objectives and bodies in the capzone. At first the territory matches have a learning curve specially the duel attack maps.Takes some time to know where you need to be at any given time.For me that adds alot to the game instead of just mindless death matching ....Tactical Positioning

 

[Nenjin]

I kind of agree with the OP. I mean, I love territory-based gameplay in many titles, and RO2 has brought back a lot of stuff I really enjoyed.

But short of wanting to really stick it to the other team, there are not a lot of reasons to continue attacking forward.

It doesn't seem like reinforcements take a hit when a team loses an objective. That alone would be a huge reason to try and capture them rather than sitting on your butt in a house somewhere.

It also seems like, despite team points being important on a personal score level, it means diddly for the outcome of the battle. What exactly is the point of team points in the larger scope of things? I thought it was one thing used to determine the outcome of the battle....but clearly it means nothing with regards to that, because I've seen either side win with 1/2 as many team points.

I don't dislike the system, it's just a little unclear what some of the mechanics are honestly supposed to do in game modes like Countdown and Territory.