How does territory game mode even work?

[TheRealGunther]

Whats unclear is all these dual attack maps makes it tougher for new guys to understand in RO1 we had few of these type maps .While they can be brutal combat 2 attacking teams clashing ....it makes battlefield awareness tougher unless you just really know the map.(then its fun)

The pure defensive/attacking maps are super simple tho.The attackers /defenders can only win by taking/defending their objectives(capzones).Very few times will a battle be decided by reinforcements so its either attack or defend depending on which team and map your own.

Id like to see more of these straight forward map designs myself

The duel attack maps can be alot of fun(chaotic) once u fully learn a map (which can take a while) making situational awareness almost 2nd nature.
Huge complex maps like in RO takes some time to learn and most are alot funner once you do.Small badly designed death match maps like in cod get old fast RO maps don't. /justmy2cents

 

[Nenjin]

It's just time, really. Time people so far aren't really willingly to spend understanding the game. I took an entire round of a match one day just to read the map, spectate and get a sense of what each game mode meant. My personal performance has improved dramatically since then.

Although I agree that the single objective maps are the most straight forward and perhaps the most "fun" (or brutal or whatever adjective you want.) The multi-objective maps tend to lead to people flanking, or to a team doing nothing but trading shots between their cap points. It leads to a slower paced game.

All the game modes have their merits to me, and I don't unduly worry about how hard it is for players to figure out what's going on. In time they will. When the average FPS used to be a hell of a lot more complex than what's out there today, people had to spend a little more time observing and a little less time charging forward. I think that's ok.

 

[Steezy_Six]

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

I could have sworn that multiple times I have won or lost a map without all the objectives being taken. Infact I know it's happened. Maybe different servers have different settings? I don't know, I haven't seen any rewards for winning a map in terms of XP and such so really it's just an 'emotional' thing but, that's what gaming's about right?

 

[bradleyg5]

Ok so are you guys saying the ONLY determinate of victory is which team has the most capture points at the end of the round?

So team points in no way determine the winner?

because my problem with team points being meaningful is the huge bonus you get for multiple person caps.

So if my team caps a point with 6 people they each get +3 capture points AND +10 multi person capture points, So they'd get 78 team points. But if the other team attacks and kills them but only has 2 people left to cap the point. They only get +3 and +5 both which is 16 points. That's a massive fluctuation in the amount of points awarded for taking the same objective. And again you get the SAME amount of bonus points if you kill an attacker in YOUR objective than you do when you kill a defender in THEIR objective. So when you attack you are more likely to die because you need to leave cover, they get +3 in objective and +3 enemy in objective.

It's just if it's by team points in any instance the game is broken because there are ways to get team points that deserve to be awarded but they are irrelavent in terms of how the teams played eachother.

Another point, I highly contest the idea that the map is easier to hold the more points you capture, it is undoubtedly harder based off the simple matter of you being further away from your spawn area, if there are 7 points and you have 4 you don't get a new spawn location, you still spawn at the back. So you will have to run further when you die, this is going to lower your forward concentration, this puts you at a disadvantage.

Also the last if not last 2 points are always fortified buildings, they are the easiest points to defend by far, if your team pushes to the last point you are going into a grind house.

lastly I've played plenty of matches of Spartakova where the last point isn't captured and the attacking team wins. What is their winning based off? is it just based off having more than half the objectives? if it is that means as soon as they get to D they've already won the match since it's impossible to counter attack back two points. the end of screen shows the points totals, but those points are not determined properly, if you win by points than you should NEVER capture a point without at least half your team being there. Capturing a point before enough people arrive to get bonus points could reduce the value of the capture by a factor of 10!

 

[Pika-Cthulhu]

Why cap out and force a round end, when you can leave one objective and level up your weapon..... when stats are working that is.

 

[bradleyg5]

So nobody actually have a definitive answer as to how exactly it determines who wins? I hear a lot of general talk about "taking objectives" and "playing better" but it seems down right odd that nobody knows exactly how the game determines who just won the match.