• 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/

Time limits and point captures

dwhee

Grizzled Veteran
Sep 13, 2011
113
24
...should be less important.

As it is they are the defining factor in almost every map.

War is about people, and it is about killing. A battle was never won by standing on a point. And egg timers won surprisingly few battles in WW2. Every battle should end with either reinforcements being exhausted or cut off (their last point is captured, but they still get a chance to re-take).

Territories, as far as I can tell, is two different gametypes masquerading as one. One (Spartanovka, Commissar's, Station etc) has a lockdown timer that makes the attackers lose if they don't capture a certain number of points at ever interval. The other (Barracks, Pavlov's, FF I think) has an arbitrary timer ticking down that ends the game at that time regardless of how either side feels about it or how many points they have capped or how many reinforcements they have left.

The first "territories" I've gotten the hang of- the lockdown timer seems equally arbitrary, but it could represent the fact that the offense's high command wouldn't continue with an assault if the troops stopped making progress. I would simply like a "sudden death" period for the defenders to re-take their last point as long as they stay on it. It's very anti-climactic for 7 germans to take a point from 5 russians and then the map just ends as though the conflict has been resolved amicably.

The need for "sudden-death" is even greater in Countdown and the single-player campaign- you're not done defending the point until you either leave the point or are killed. Period.

The second "territories" seems like it was tacked on for lack of being able to balance the maps properly. The rules appear to be "let's fight for exactly 20 minutes and then decide who wins based on who's winning on that exact last second." Both sides have reinforcements still? Map still highly contested? Irrelevant! The Red Army fights its wars by the sacred egg timer of Stalin.

I will not play on any server that allows some stupid ticking clock that has no connection to the battle whatsoever to define who wins and who loses. It is ridiculous that these servers are mixed in with the rest as though they are the same gametype.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norse Soldat
Lockdown was a good idea but badly implemented. It would be fin to just have it for the first or second cap and then disable it. If your team sucks they won't get past those. If they do get past the first 2 it means they are an ok team so they are given the chance to play the full round. Like a test to see if they are worthy to play the map. Atm in commisar's house lockdown stays on for almost the whole time. I saw the russians lose on the last 2 caps a few time because of lockdown, that doesn't make sense. They were going to win if it wasn't for lockdown.
 
Upvote 0
Territories, as far as I can tell, is two different gametypes masquerading as one. One (Spartanovka, Commissar's, Station etc) has a lockdown timer that makes the attackers lose if they don't capture a certain number of points at ever interval. The other (Barracks, Pavlov's, FF I think) has an arbitrary timer ticking down that ends the game at that time regardless of how either side feels about it or how many points they have capped or how many reinforcements they have left.
There are two distinct scenarios when it comes to territory maps.

One is the balanced territory map. (Barracks, Pavlov's, Fallen Fighters) where both teams just try to make the most of the time for round.

The other are the attack defense maps. (RO Factory, Spartanovka, Commissar's, ect...)

TWI didn't do a great job of explaining the differences between them and ALL the mechanics that define them. That's their bad. But, once you get what the rules are for each (including, for example, how territories are connected differently on different maps) it makes each map play very differently than another, before you even start looking at things like how the terrain is laid out.

It's confusing. And it can be frustrating. And it means some maps have lots of individual balance problems.

But I think when people spend more time with it and whole teams actually get what's going on, it makes for very interesting map design and a variety of scenarios, which is something most FPS's shy away from these days. It encourages deeper tactical play from people that want to play tactically.

Personally, I'm glad TWI is doing something different. It's frustrating as hell because at least 50% of your team is clueless....but in time the people that aren't interested in trying anything new are going to move on, leaving behind the people who get it, and like it.

Lockdown timers could be adjusted on a per map basis, and some things could be put in to make it a little more forgiving (like the timer freezing while you're capturing a point.) But I want these scenarios to stay, and I want the mechanics that define not to get gutted simply because people don't understand them.

I sort of think maybe a separate game type is warranted....but then again, we've got 3 game types which are derivative of each other already. It could go either way on this one I think. But it should be pretty obvious when there's only one point to attack or defend which kind of territory map it is.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Really? I never find it. I only see TE and CD everywhere... :-O There are no firefight servers?
In TE and CD there are clocks, lockdown. Why? If Hitler said, you have to take Spartanovka, by christmas, I don't think it's mean you have 2 minutes before they win, if you can't take the Gullies. I don't know how to explain it, I hope you understand.
And thanks fore the firefight mode, I will search it. :)
 
Upvote 0
No, I get what you mean. TWI made a decision to add an additional mechanic to force people to deal with the objectives. Because I can say that "tactical waiting" in RO2 is really effective. If all someone wants to do is camp, they're going to make plenty of kills doing it and never see a reason to go after the objective, even if they do get more points for doing it.

I think the lockdown timer is a good thing for serious players because it creates drama, tension and urgency.

On the other hand, it also leads to a lot of 5 minute games with no drama or tension because people choose not to try. Or just fail miserably.

It could use work. But I think it has a place in the game.

Also no one plays FF a lot because it ends up in a bunch of assaults running around gunning people down. Rounds also tend to be pretty short.
 
Upvote 0
Ok, I have a follow-up. Is there any way a territories round (the offensive/defensive variety) can end early without reinforcements being exhausted or the lockdown timer going down? I swear I just played a Red October map where we had 5 minutes left on the lockdown clock, 30 reinforcements, 2 objectives left to capture... and the game just ended and said the Allies had won.

This is a level of anticlimax that I don't quite understand. Am I missing part of the rules?
 
Upvote 0
Is there any way a territories round (the offensive/defensive variety) can end early without reinforcements being exhausted or the lockdown timer going down?
There is also the master game clock, which I believe set to 20 minutes default. (Top left of the screen) The game ends at that point and it starts totaling scores and objectives held to determine the winner.

The master game clock is there to keep a match to a maximum of 60 minutes.
 
Upvote 0