New objective capture idea

[Zetsumei]

That is essentially the same as my suggestion.

The difference is basically there the frontline is decided on the locations of capzones capped (essentially how i imagine it as well on a macro scale and how unlocking objectives works currently in ro generally), but within capzones i want a similar mechanic based on basically the location of individual rooms.

Although imagine a big capzone with say 15 minicapzones (leningrad or so). When you don't show for every capzone exactly which one is capped unless you step on it, then perhaps one small room could be skipped and forgotten while it remains enemy territory. This is generally bad, as you cannot remember and know in what room the enemies walked into (unless you tell it on an overhead map but then you would know the exact enemy locations).

This is why basically for within a big capzone rather than basing it on individually capped rooms, base the frontline on the locations of individual soldiers. And through that assign what rooms are controlled by whom. This way if a soldier falls, his contribution to the cap is immediately removed. Making it impossible to possibly skip a room as you don't have to stand directly on a room to control it.

---------------

So in short in maps you generally have some sort of a frontline, based on what objectives can be capped.

And within capzones you basically have frontlines based on the location of soldiers within the capzone.

 

[Matt Baker]

That is essentially the same as my suggestion.

Although imagine a big capzone with say 15 minicapzones (leningrad or so). When you don't show for every capzone exactly which one is capped unless you step on it, then perhaps one small room could be skipped and forgotten while it remains enemy territory.

Thats why basically it would be nice if a system decided what capzones belong to what side. By basically checking if the closest soldier to that zone is either an allied or axis soldier even if he doesnt stand directly on it.

sry i'm so tired Z. no more post today, i think.

 

[LionbI4]

Good point for small objectives is: the map remains playable with any amount of players. You always know, where to meet enemies on the objective.
Currently, most maps are boring, then less than 10 players are playing.

 

[Zetsumei]

Good point for small objectives is: the map remains playable with any amount of players. You always know, where to meet enemies on the objective.
Currently, most maps are boring, then less than 10 players are playing.

Well if the system calculates who is the closest to a location then you could cap and fight well with less people than currently. But generally i think that maps should be made with a range of players in mind rather than work for both 4v4 and 32v32 players.

Competitively ro maps currently work generally the best with 8v8. Most games have clanmatches of 3v3, 5v5 etc. But ro maps are generally made for more players, and tbh i like clangaming in ro more than i did in any other game. So for lower player amount maps i rather have some seperate maps aimed directly at those player amounts.

Mappers if they prefer can already and should be able to make maps with small capzones so that would be up for the mappers. I just think if a mapper prefers to use big capzones that he can use them without the current issues.

 

[SgtH3nry3]

I think Zets system is pretty good. If a smaller team has a better position and/or the enemy pinned down from moving forward it means they still effectively hold their ground.

 

[Matt Baker]

That is essentially the same as my suggestion.

The difference is basically there the frontline is decided on the locations of capzones capped (essentially how i imagine it as well on a macro scale and how unlocking objectives works currently in ro generally), but within capzones i want a similar mechanic based on basically the location of individual rooms.

Although imagine a big capzone with say 15 minicapzones (leningrad or so). When you don't show for every capzone exactly which one is capped unless you step on it, then perhaps one small room could be skipped and forgotten while it remains enemy territory. This is generally bad, as you cannot remember and know in what room the enemies walked into (unless you tell it on an overhead map but then you would know the exact enemy locations).

This is why basically for within a big capzone rather than basing it on individually capped rooms, base the frontline on the locations of individual soldiers. And through that assign what rooms are controlled by whom. This way if a soldier falls, his contribution to the cap is immediately removed. Making it impossible to possibly skip a room as you don't have to stand directly on a room to control it.

---------------

So in short in maps you generally have some sort of a frontline, based on what objectives can be capped.

And within capzones you basically have frontlines based on the location of soldiers within the capzone.

What if a axis goes into a room to clear it, he don

 

[Zetsumei]

What if a axis goes into a room to clear it, he don’t see anyone he moves on. Wait the room isn’t cleared, it says on the map. He goes back and kills the Russian soldier who hid himself behind the bed. What do we do to fix this issue?

It wouldnt say on the map what rooms are captured and what rooms not, which is exactly what i've been trying to say in the exact post you quoted. And that is the prime reason for there being an automated system in my suggestion in the first place. Everything the overheadmap would show is big cap, like the entire building and who controls the entire building just like now in ROOST, it doesnt show exactly who controls every room or hallway.

If you could see on the overhead map what minicapzone is capped and what minicapzone isn't, then you wouldn't need any system to decide who owns what automatically at all. You could just individually show what capzones are not capped and a player could just move into that room.

The issue with that is as you stated yourself, that you will know the exact location of the enemies, thats why you need a system to decide who at what moment controls what (otherwise players would get lost). By simply trying to hold the building, the player only needs to know if they captured the building or not and need to communicate among themselves. (in relaxed realism mode you could logically give more information to the player to help them direct their gameplay).

So basically the only thing you have is something like a capmeter that says how much you totally control of the entire capzone and that in steps of say 25%, not 1% so you cannot deduct in what exact rooms someone is, or immediately see when someone enters the building.

So you don't see something like a capmeter for every individual capzone or whatever either, a lot is done behind the curtains. All a player needs to know is that he needs to capture a building. Believe me if there is one thing i do not want, then its a system telling a player too much information so nobody can use stealth anymore.

 

[LionbI4]

If that system is possible, would be nice.

But what about defenders?
If defenders 100% control an objective, what happens, if someone enters the objective? Are defenders notified by changing 100% to 98%?
What are good things for being notified? What are positive things?

PS. I have a pleasure to have a conversation with Zetsumei, since he keeps proper conversation without demagogy. As opposed to some other members.

 

[Zetsumei]

Indeed as i said in my last post if you show with detail the status in every percentage you would see when someone enters the capzone and could conduct where someone is in a similar way to minesweeper. And as you say that is indeed something you definitely do not want.

Which is why its important to basically not show anything in the first 20%, aka that if there is an enemy in the capzone he won't show till both sides control 20% of the capzone. This means that a single enemy could safely sneak in unnoticed and wouldnt show up at all till he already owns 1/5th (or another amount) of the entire place.

After that there is no need to show how much territory is controlled in steps of single percentages it could be showed in steps that are bigger like steps of 10% or even 20% and wouldnt have to be updated every tick. All the cap bar has to give is a general impression on how the cap is going. The idea with this is that a player cannot see, when he moves forward wether he individually took some territory or not (so you wont know when you're getting close to an enemy).

Personaly i think you could actually do without a capbar at all, atleast for more competitive matches where you'll just have to manage everything in the zone by yourself. So it would either just be capped or not capped. But atleast for publicplay (even in the realistic realism mode) you somewhat need some kind of situational status indicator.

For me personally i hate notifications (as they take the tension and fun away from finding it on your own), which is why i want to see as least notifications as possible atleast in realistic realism. However for relaxed realism it can be nice to guide players a little so they atleast know what to do (or help teamwork a little if there is none in public), so in that mode more information could possibly be showed to make it easier to pickup and play the game.

 

[Tiger2]

Whats with defense objective then?
Means, some objectives belongs to a side initially.

Actually, I already suggested the system, when all mentioned issues will be fixed:
Make all objectives as small as possible. Objective may be usable object, like door or radio or any other trigger.
If it is a building, then make objective on last floor of that building, last single room.
If it is large field, then put objective inside small bunker in the middle of it.

Now, if you defend the building, you will select a position, which best suits for protecting last floor: building entrances, stairways, key corridors, objective room.
If you attacking - you will need to find safest way to enter the building, and fight your way through the building to reach objective room.
You could have multiple objectives inside one building, recapturable or not. Capping time could be tweaked to suit to objective design.
But this will never turn into Seek&Destroy type of objective. (Which is actually team deathmatch type of game).
This will never turn into "Come and Hide" for assault team.

I agree with this. Having players dancing around rooms to capture many small cap zones seems ridiculous.

 

[Zetsumei]

Please read my posts carefully, i know my english aint the best, but i really doubt there would be any dancing over rooms in the way i depicted the system. Firstly a system depicts what room belongs to who, with there being no way to know for sure yourself which belongs to who, the only way to take ground is to basically find the enemy and kill him and push forward. Its basically more of a divisioning of a frontline, a player wont see where individual capzones are, and won't really have to bother where they are. All they need to know is that they hold their ground, and take the enemies ground.

The primary reason why maps like koitos have a running around in circles syndrome, is that you get a bonus of 10 points for capturing a zone, yet you do not get a bonus for defending a building resulting in many people going from cap to cap leaving the main zone abandoned. In matches where people do not care for the capbonus (for instance clanmatches) koitos becomes one of the best maps. Mappers can always design their maps to play the way they want it.

As people don't know what zones are hold by the enemy or themselves in the first place, they cannot go and just take the enemy ground that is probably the safest to take. Next to that the objective for everybody is holding more ground than the enemy, you do not get points for every individual minicapzone you walk in, aka a player fully decides himself whether he thinks its wise to move up or not.

The main thing for a player will basically be to lock off the biggest part of the capzone from an enemy, and take over ground that the enemy is holding within it, which is realistically the closest to controlling a building. With complete freedom on which area to focus. And that freedom for me is the big key.

 

[LionbI4]

Yes, this the closest to reality method.
Although, in reality you don't need to control the biggest ground of a building. You just need to control key points. Like stairs, entrance, main corridors. But with this system map designer could define (subjectively) these key points as a mini objectives.
I doubt anyone will do it, since atm we have some very ugly cap zones, where you can start to capture objective (building) by staying outside of it, just close to the wall.

 

[Zetsumei]

Yes, this the closest to reality method.
Although, in reality you don't need to control the biggest ground of a building. You just need to control key points. Like stairs, entrance, main corridors. But with this system map designer could define (subjectively) these key points as a mini objectives.
I doubt anyone will do it, since atm we have some very ugly cap zones, where you can start to capture objective (building) by staying outside of it, just close to the wall.

The thing is stairs entrances and main corridors become the main objectives in this sytem as well. Even if you simply make every room its own capzone without any special tinkering.

Not because you have to be there becase its an individual heavier weighted objective, but if you control the stairs main entrance and main corridors you automatically control all locations connected to those keypoints. Making you control that point not for the point itself, but for holding the places connected to it. As its easier to simply defend 1 hallway or set of stairs individually that connects to 7 pathways, than to defend every pathway individually.

If you hold the 2 stairs towards the top floor, then you're always closer to the top floor than the enemy and automatically control the entire top floor. This is the exact reason why i like this cap system. Points that are originally of the biggest important in capturing a location automatically become of the biggest importance in this system. So you generally do not need to artificially make spots more important as they will be important from the get go.

I have no doubt that mappers can make good capzones using a system like this, look for instance at killingfloor. In RO nobody adds any botpathing because it doesnt matter, in killingfloor every mapper adds good botpathing. The system should be easy to use and implement for mappers, so it doesnt strain them or become annoying.

They key point for mappers is that it should be easy to assign a group of minicapzones under 1 big capzone, so the entire capzone can be triggered on and off easily. And it should be easy to connect the minicapzones with each other so you know that room A is connected to room B and C.

 

[Tiger2]

It is very hard to pass a judgment on this, what you are suggesting is very unpredictable.

Consider a multiple storey factory with a warehouse 70% of which has to be controlled by one side for just 1 second to conquer the objective. The objective may never be captured because some players keep moving from one place to another and you never get the right dispersal level. You may never get the right concentration. Keep in mind that you are now fighting against the enemy and also trying to calculate which parts of the objective are not occupied by your side. This will no doubt lead to some very strange situations.

This is likely to occur where the cap area is large and communication is poor (which is usual in public play). We should also keep in mind that the enemies are infinite, so we are not clearing the area of the enemies in the true sense. Your suggestion would work in a deathmatch where the enemies are finite and one side has an obligation to enter the objective and clear the area before a time limit runs out.

If we have no dispersal restrictions, then it is easier to play the game as everyone will just storm the factory and take up whatever positions they want. At this point, we are back to RO:OST's concept which is simpler to use: Just get enough people near the objective to win.

 

[Zetsumei]

As i said before the 70% is just a number mappers can set, on special occasions perhaps obtaining 30% is enough for a retreat signal from the defenders. Its all up to the scenario the mapper creates. It all depends on the map and how its balanced and how the mapper wants to create a flow.

Its possible that a map is so big that enemies don't find each other and keep running around in circles. But that simply means that generally the map and capzone is way too big for the player amount. In the current RO it would mean that the enemy would cap a capzone, and your team is in the capzone but you simply cannot do anything about it because even if you run around you wont find each other. If soldiers are able to meet each other and kill each other then there wont be any issue with running around as at that moment basically axis and allied territory will exist and people will focus mostly on killing each other and then moving forward.

Personally in current ro i don't know any capzone where truly people can run around and not find each other, especially not if there would be area based cap system, as then you have an increased incidentive to find the enemies and take them out or hold down key positions. Meaning its of much bigger importance to find and look over the entire map.

Generally and especially in public servers you play on bigger and fuller servers with respawns, which means that more people are generally fighting within the same building. This actually means if anything that the disctinction between allied and axis territory will be clearer and clearer. And simply killing allies and moving forward is all the axis need to do.

If you end up being able to get more people in the capzone and basically run through it and kill the enemies you will end up capping the capzone. A lot of that is basically thesame as the current cap system when its working as it should. So in public games where 2 teams just storm the capzone and try to kill every enemy that moves, one team will end up as the winner. There is no forced requirement for tactics, but if teams use tactics, using realistic tactics for defending and assaulting an area will actually work. As those tactics are actually based on holding ground.

There is no need to disperse your team over the entire map, there is only a need to disperse your team over the front line. And by chance and normal distribution this will happen automatically on public servers. Can you perhaps name a current ro map that would see issues with this system. As especially maps like leningrad and koningsplatz would work ideally.

---------

The key thing is anything can be created using this system, so its easily to think up the most horrible map or the best map. And the same can be done with the current or any cap system. The key thing to this capsystem is that it works in pretty much all realistic scenarios, as its based on the same winning conditions as you had in reality. And that is a prime element for seeing battles being fought and won on more realistic terms without forcing anything down players their troats.

Normally in ro you win by bringing more people in the capzone with this system you win by bringing more people in the capzone, and using your numerical advantage to take ground off the enemy.

 

[Zetsumei]

I just found the old influence simulator for the board game go, logically the same system cannot be used for RO as a computer game. But i think it illustrates the best how I mean, capturing an objective.

Focus on the top left frame and click on the plusses. And see how it works on an open room.

http://lyon-shinogi.jeudego.org/simul_influence/

there is an other thread about a similar issue here as well: http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=34708