• 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/

too many win/lose conditions ?

katzcinsky

Grizzled Veteran
Feb 17, 2011
102
44
does anybody else have the hunch that there's too many winning and losing conditions ?

currently in territory, we have:

1) depleted reinforcements
2) all objectives captures
3) lockdown limit reached
4) team points accumulated

it's good to have options but at the same time there's several instances where I know it in my gut that my team lost the current round, only to be surprised when we won. I think this confuses alot of people and disorients teamplay.

sometimes certain variables make the game rather unbalanced. say you have defending/attacking teams and the attacking team wins because their team points are higher than a defending team who doesn't have to capture point and sometimes attacks enemies outside of objectives. certainly it's good to encourage teamwork, but should a team win because they worked together or because they accomplished the goals of the mission ?

there's already enough discussion about lockdown - so i'll avoid that for now.

what do you guys think ?
 
Last edited:
I agree completely with you, Katzcinsky.

Far too often, I see a team with 30 reinforcements left lose to a team that has completely depleted its reinforcements and is unable to hold any objectives just because time runs out and the team points are used. I think it would be much better if the time limit was removed as soon as one side completely depleted its reinforcements.
 
Upvote 0
I remember some good Tulaoutskirt firefights with artillery ravaging the Russians positions.

I remember fierce Leningrad fighting in the buildings, in the street and the sewers.

Crawling and running under the german fire at Koenigsplatz trying to attack the central ruins with volleys of grenades.


And theses battle weren't a 5 minutes rush & gun fight. Great battles when you push until the last objective. Nothing more rewarding to cap the last enemy point or achieve the defence when there is fighting all over the last position.

Put this lock-down in the trash bin. Is my advice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Six_Ten
Upvote 0
I also do remember some Berezina + Leningrad 30+30 min grinding, Axis not capping 1st line @ Bere or AT position @ Leningrad. That was not rewarding, not even fun.

I think lockdown is still a decent solution to prevent this kind of endless grinding. Some maps could possibly benefit from a little tinkering of lockdown timers, e.g. CommissarsHouse could allow for a minute more for allies to cap No Man's Land - or even better, give a little extra time after capping Park South.

Some maps, e.g. Apartments, which are short enough time-wise, could do without lockdown possibly altogether.

It's a bit frustrating when you're told nowhere what cap zone you need to rush to get that extra time - if there are multiple cap zones to choose from.

But I would not remove lockdown entirely. It speeds things up and prevents that tiresome grinding.
 
Upvote 0
Lockdown doesn't eliminate long battles. It only allows the defense a quick, decisive victory if they are dominant, same as the offense can earn a quick, decisive victory if they are dominant.

A great deal of attack/defend map wins or losses in RO2 actually do come within a hair's breadth of the round timer expiration.

I think lockdown could be tweaked with some judicious changes. There's been a lot of ideas for how to improve it, some better than others in my opinion. If it would somehow be tied to reinforcements lost per lockdown period, that would eliminate the feeling of being rushed into danger by an arbitrary timer (on the other hand, I can see that this would encourage an arbitrary "guys, just camp and pick off the enemy when you can until the lockdown expires" mentality...a problematic inverse of the rush-to-your-death-because-lockdown-is-counting mentality).

Another idea which to my thinking has no downside is to have an overtime for lockdown objectives that are being captured at the moment the lockdown timer expires. If there is no progress on any lockdown objective at the expiry of the timer, too bad, that's just a normal lockdown loss. Such an overtime would be indefinite (not a set time period) and last until the objective bar is 100% to one team or another. Take this idea further and apply such an overtime to round ends where captures are in progress --the round doesn't end until all captures are resolved one way or another. Good idea, no?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It's a bit frustrating when you're told nowhere what cap zone you need to rush to get that extra time - if there are multiple cap zones to choose from.

But I would not remove lockdown entirely. It speeds things up and prevents that tiresome grinding.

I agree with you, and it would be nice if objectives that push the lockdown timer were distinctively marked somehow.

What would be even more cool is if the TL could actually choose which objective is priority. Although I can already imagine the grief of poor choice or of a clueless team that won't follow orders...then again a team that won't follow orders probably should lose.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I agree with MarioBrava and others. Lock down is essential to moving the gameplay forward (while it likely should be tweaked on certain levels). There's plenty of time for tactical attacks within current lockdown timers IF you have a competent team. Normally we only lose to lockdown when my team lacks enough experienced & necessarily aggressive players (and we will almost certainly lose anyways...so why drag it out?).

As-is, a 3 round match can last nearly an hour when all is said and done. Slow the game down? Make it last longer? I fear some people might have too much time on their hands...

I think PAUSING the timer while capping PROGRESS is occurring (or something similar) is a great idea.
 
Upvote 0
currently in territory, we have:

1) depleted reinforcements
2) all objectives captures
3) lockdown limit reached
4) team points accumulated

And another point to the OP, it would be VERY VERY helpful if TWI could explain, in detail, the precise requisites for winning on each map under each of these categories...as you indicated, it's often hard to predict and, on top of that, it appears to vary based on server settings.
 
Upvote 0
I'll have a swing at explaining the win conditions in place now (Most are probably fairly obvious :p).


For ALL maps, running out of reinforcments and the last player dying will result in a Victory for the other team.


For ATTACK / DEFEND maps (Commisars House, Apartments, Red Oktober, GrainElevator, Spartanovka), the lockdown is in action, the Attacking team must capture which-ever points within the lockdown limit or the defending team will win. Capturing all the Objectives will result in a victory for the Attacking team.


For the SKIRMISH / BATTLE styled maps (Pavlovs House, Red Barracks, FallenFighters), capturing all the objectives will result in a victory for that team. If the timer runs out, the team with the most objectives held will win. If the number of objectives held by both sides are the same, the winner will be decided by team points (EG Red Barracks, Axis have the Infirmary and the Allies have the CO Barracks).


Tell me if I've missed any. xP
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think PAUSING the timer while capping PROGRESS is occurring (or something similar) is a great idea.

My only problem with this specific idea is that an attacking team can spend a lot of time trying to capture an objective but still clearly failing. But since the lockdown timer is not ticking down while they are progressing, it is only lengthening the time it takes a strong defense to win. It's giving failed attacks an E for effort and taking away a quick win from the defense just because the attackers were trying.

It isn't a terrible idea, it's just that since I think of the lockdown as a positive way to afford quick decisive victories for dominant defenders, anything that undermines that principle I see as having a downside. On the other hand it's fair, I suppose, to allow fighting to go on longer directly proportional to how much productive fighting for lockdown objectives is actually going on. But because I like the idea of a dominant defense that prevents capture of the lockdown objectives getting rewarded with a quick win (since attackers are allowed to win very quickly if they dominate), that's my reservation about timer suspension during capture.
 
Upvote 0
Has it occurred to you that we are not all playing for quick, decisive victories?

I'm not saying that everyone is. But why shouldn't it be possible??

Given this point, are you equally arguing against a round ending when attackers have captured all objectives? If you want to force a defense to last an entire round, it should be the same with attackers.

I wouldn't actually be opposed to that idea. Don't end the round when the final objective is captured, and give defenders a final spawn out of which they can counterattack the last objective.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
i think you all are making some great points.

the lockdown timer does eliminate alot of the stagnation/grinding that was in RO1, but it also does create some spastic/rush decision making. personally i'd like to see players more in control of how they approach objectives.

it would be fun to see a couple of games with a mutator to remove the lockdown, and see how that changes the gameplay.

i think that the team points condition is the most problematic, and should be removed all together. TWI should find new rewards for accumulating team points.
 
Upvote 0