Jump to content
PWNAMATRON

Ticket System Needs to be Reworked

Recommended Posts

I think that the ticket system is severely flawed, and the fact know one seems to understand how it works makes things even worse.  What people need to realize is there is no way to earn tickets, you can only LOSE them by either dying or losing CPs and FOBs (-10 each).  So if a team takes an enemy CP, but loses 40 tickets to people dying you can still come out net negative compared to the other team.  The only way that capturing CP's becomes truly useful is when you push the enemy all the way back to the last CP, which most likely means you are dominating the other team anyway.

 

The problem is that securing CP's at the cost of lives is NOT worth it.  It is much more advantageous to camp the CP and pick off defenders than it is to lose lives trying to secure it yourselves.  The game is supposed to be about teamwork and coordination yet neither of these earn your team anything.  Every game is decided by the 2-3 guys who get 20+ kills (however they manage to do so) than any amount of strategic movements around the map.  As the game currently is, capturing a CP besides the first one (which keeps the enemy from taking it so you don't bleed tickets) is actually a disadvantage because you are now on the hook for defending it or you can lose 10 tickets.  I'd say half the matches I play, on team pushes up to the enemy's last CP but loses because they take heavier losses, which is just silly.

 

My suggestion is to lower the amount of starting tickets, but then have each team earn tickets over time by capturing CP's.  This makes holding more CP's worth it so long as your team's deaths don't outpace those earned by the CP's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree it's not working right now. I think that is due to bugs, tho I believe some design choices need to be made (in addition to fixing bugs).

 

As it stands right now, "giving up" costs 1 ticket. Taking down an enemy FOB costs the enemy 10 tickets. AFAIK there is no bleed in any circumstance and capturing objectives has no impact on tickets.

 

That's an interesting idea to make capturing CPs "reward" tickets. It could make for a very unpredictable game length, and sometimes that is not great - the game can get into a stalemate, but CPs changing hands prolongs it.

 

You could make losing FOBs deduct tickets, say 10 as it currently is. Capturing a CP rewards 10 tickets *and* deducts 10 tickets from the enemy. It's simple that way - FOBs and CPs deduct the same amount, but CPs reward 10 tickets when captured. It's not a huge reward, so it still can cause a team that is sloppy in attacking to lose the game. I think that's a decent dynamic.

 

A ticket bleed system is a necessity to bring "won" games to a close imo. I am not crazy about "the majority" of tickets initiating bleed because that can impose restrictions on mappers (maps need to be very symmetrical for them to be perceived as fair). Keeping it simple: when all but the last CP is captured a bleed is initiated is, imo, adequate and simple to understand.

 

But I totally agree that something needs to be done for Alpha 4 because right now it's not an objective based game - arguably taking the objectives is not the way to win matches.

 

Cheers,

eggman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ticket system is bugged atm. - devs know about it. it will be fixed.
 
http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/11137-prevent-steamrolling/?p=165305

Its a symptom of flags being broken for a long time and many people aren't playing objective based (attacking and defending flags) because it had little benefit to do so.
Now that the flag bug was fixed, if one team actually captures objectives it will swing and roll.

4.0 will introduce more rewards for taking and holding objectives.

I fully expect the first many days after release to be very swingy and lots of complaints threads until the community as a whole starts playing for the objectives again. The fault is on us for teaching the public bad manners with having that bug. It will likely take a good month before things start to settle down, but 4.0 will solve a lot of issues revolving around objective based play, or the lack thereof.

More details when we get closer to release.


http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/11137-prevent-steamrolling/?p=165415

Since before Steam launch the flags were bugged out, sometimes taking tickets away from the guys that took the flag instead of those that just lost it.

We fixed that, but in doing so, we broke it so that you never lost tickets for loosing a flag. which means there were only 2 ways to win an AAS map:

1. Kill more enemies than you take losses
2. Capture all the flags so you start bleeding out the enemy

Obviously this isn't helping and often you would see the people with most flags loose the game cause they had invested so many bodies in taking the flags that they were actually behind in kill/deaths.

All of this has been fixed, flags now correctly deduct tickets from the team it is supposed to, so people that are used to not playing for the flags all of a sudden gets steam rolled.

That is good and all, but there are a number of unfortunate trends that we have attempted to fix with the upcoming patch.

Problems like:

- If you are behind, there is very little incentive to mount an organized attack and gain ground, the best tactic is to hang back, as long as you have one flag
- If one team controls more flags than the other team, but it grinds in to a stalemate, it is 50/50 who wins, based on who has more kills
- Objectives are nice and all, but they don't really impact who wins or looses

Those are some of the main issues that prevent the game from being objective focused, and just sort of, "objectives helps you win" rather than "you need the objectives to win".

All of those issues will be addressed. We fully expect a lot of complaints and quick matches the first few days where one team gets a good spanking if they just want to sit in the hills and do target practice. But it should stabilize and make for more satisfying wins as well as comebacks for teams that regroup and do something about their dire situations.

All of that being said, it is hard to predict the exact extend of the changes. We will be watching very very closely throughout the 4.0 release and are fully prepared to make adjustments in 5.0 and beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I am not surprised I wasn't the first to notice this :-X  Glad they are on top of it because it really does kill the idea they are going for.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post. Let me add one concern that I didn't see mentioned here...

 

In the current system, only capping an objective that was previously in control of the other team provides the ticket penalty to the other team. That means that at the start of a match, capping neutral points has no intrinsic value whatsoever. Whatever you cap, you MUST defend just to stay neutral on tickets base-wise. But you don't gain anything from capping them first. The only thing you need to really defend is your last control point (to avoid ticket drain).

 

In fact, it might even be beneficial to let the other team cap the middle neutral objectives first, and then cap them back for a 20 ticket penalty each on the other team. That's more than if you had capped them first at the start of the game! And in the worst case scenario, you fail to cap them, but you'll still be even on tickets base-wise. That's a pretty weird mechanic...

 

And I'd disagree with the claim that "If you are behind, there is very little incentive to mount an organized attack and gain ground, the best tactic is to hang back, as long as you have one flag". Recapping those objectives 'awards' 20 tickets each (lost by the other team). That should be plenty of incentive. The problem is the start of the match...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely agree with all of this! The one thing I'd point out is that the 10 ticket incentive per cp is only really a 10 ticket swing if no one dies while capturing it. If your team nets -10 kills while taking the cp, you only broke even. So sure there is an incentive, the problem is that it quickly diminishes if you meet any resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some thoughts about a whole new way to score a match. Instead of a ticket number representing deaths + other things like captures and losses of FOBs. How about a race to reach a number? First team to reach that number or multiple score numbers wins?

Such as:

First team to get 10 captures of flags. Plus they must get a certain number of kills. Plus any other asset that scorrs points.

Although this may look like value of your life is comprimised, the fact a team must also get a certain number of kills means a team that values its lives can still win the match by prevrnting other team from killing you, which means your lives now have more value playing this way.

This is just ideas that can be tweaked or tried out. :)

PS

Separating the deaths and kills from tickets means a team knows exactly how many reinforcements (real reinforcements) it has because now losing a flag doesnt equal losing lives. They are different quantities and tickets dont differentiate the difference here like this method would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind any game type where you win directly via number of kills/deaths is going to severely hamper the strategic depth of the game. With a k/d system a team with better shooters will always win even if the other team works much better as a team. People will chose roles based on what they think is easiest to get kills with, not what provides a tactical advantage for the whole squad. Squad would be much better if you can only win by working together. The question is how? I see a few possibilities:

1. King of the hill/territories - basically holding cps grant points, first to x wins.

2. Ctf - cps are basically fobs that allow spawning closer to the enemy. Maps are most likely too large for this though

3. Kill the enemy base - this one would be the most difficult to implement, but I think has the most potential. Basically capturing cps grants some kind of resources to the controlling team that then allows them to get upgrades such as scopes, explosives, and vehicles. This can be tough go balance, but I think using a team res/personal res system (like in ns2) where tech is researched using a team res pool, but is then purchased using a players own personal res pool, would help balance things.

I also think map design and game size will also play a huge role in how viable a game mode is. Currently the maps are really big so it would be difficult to do a lot of these

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind any game type where you win directly via number of kills/deaths is going to severely hamper the strategic depth of the game. With a k/d system a team with better shooters will always win even if the other team works much better as a team. People will chose roles based on what they think is easiest to get kills with, not what provides a tactical advantage for the whole squad. Squad would be much better if you can only win by working together. The question is how? I see a few possibilities:

1. King of the hill/territories - basically holding cps grant points, first to x wins.

2. Ctf - cps are basically fobs that allow spawning closer to the enemy. Maps are most likely too large for this though

3. Kill the enemy base - this one would be the most difficult to implement, but I think has the most potential. Basically capturing cps grants some kind of resources to the controlling team that then allows them to get upgrades such as scopes, explosives, and vehicles. This can be tough go balance, but I think using a team res/personal res system (like in ns2) where tech is researched using a team res pool, but is then purchased using a players own personal res pool, would help balance things.

I also think map design and game size will also play a huge role in how viable a game mode is. Currently the maps are really big so it would be difficult to do a lot of these

I see your point but team would need teamwork to stay alive and the kills would not soley be the winning stat that determines winner. My method would also require capture points and other asset points to win not solely kills. My method places more value on lives and requires more teamwork to prevent deaths of team members while getting the objectives. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true about assaulting objectives. If you are killing the enemy then they are losing tickets too. It's also possible to be so swift and decisive in an assault that your squad can wipe out a whole enemy squad while taking minimal losses. That is a huge net gain for your team but requires good tactical knowledge and coordination but it very possible.

The ticket system may seem a bit bland right now but that's because the game is like 5% complete. The great thing about heavy assets such as tanks is their impact on the battlefield comes with a large ticket value. If you lose a tank or a transport chopper then your team just lost thirty tickets. That is on top of the fact that that asset is now gone for about 30 minutes. These two things combined do a great job of stressing just how important it is to safeguard a team's assets.

Yes, I know what you are thinking, how is a tank worth more than three flags? The answer is Alpha. We don't have tanks yet and ticket values are set up for infantry only layers. When we get vehicles and logistics these values will change to also represent the vehicles we are fighting with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assets and flags should be separate from kills and deaths they should not all be represented by tickets. A team should get so many tanks a round and if they use up last tank they do not get any more.

Tanks should not equal lives or tickets. Nor should a flag capture or loss be equal to losing or gaining lives or reinforcements.

By keeping them separate teams know exactly how many reinforcements are left and exactly how many assets are left.

Just my opinion. :) The system I suggested above could also work in reverse and still keep lives separate from captures and assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think the opposite is exactly the point. We shouldn't know how many reinforcements we have. We shouldn't be thinking "Oh, I can die x more times and be fine" or "we have 6 more tanks left". Instead we should all be thinking, "These are the assets we have on the field now, how do we use them to maximum effect and keep them in the field?" Preserving what you have is the name of the game. Thats why everything is tied together.

 

If you separate them out you cheapen the teamplay and put less emphasis on working together, which is what the whole damn game is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add if you look at your HUD and it says your team has 3 lives left and your team has got all the objectives but one. How would your team and squads react to knowing that info? They should react by going into all out attack on last objective for the win but be very careful not to lose any life at all, your last 3 lives are precious. If you lose them that could mean match. And your team needs that last objective to win. Your commander should tell squads to put the medics as high priority at the front of that battle to get last CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that scenario the team that controls most of the map and has taken more objectives is going to lose because when three guys get shot your ticket count goes to zero and game over, you just lost even though you beat the enemy at every facet yet were unable to take that final point needed for the win. Because you were constantly on the offensive you lost more tickets than the enemy because they now did not lose tickets for losing flags which is what makes taking flags a worthwhile exercise.

 

This is assuming that going dead = 1 ticket lost and giving up or going "dead-dead" = 1 more ticket lost for a total of 2 tickets lost if you get shot and respawn as opposed to waiting for a medic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system I have proposed still has minor flaws to work out but shouldnt be dismissed outright, it has some merit I feel and would change dynamics of game and how its played. But I think keeping assets and captures separate from kills and deaths is vital for making lives matter more than the objectives and assets in game. You want to keep your mates alive while taking those objectives not just throw everything at it to get the others teams tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem at this stage is that when you attack you lose more tickets then you earn with that attack. So even if you have all the flags. attacked more, took more fobs... you still lose and that feels badly balanced.

 

Now of course you can say that 'the team just sucked attacking" but it's always 10x harder to attack then to defend a hard point and basic rule of thumb is you need 10x more attackers for a defensive position.

 

Every team should start with a lot more tickets. I think 650-850. That is number one. Games last too short or just feel empty cause of it I tend to compare it to long PR games when you'd have a solid game for 2hrs. At the moment in Squad that is hard to do, kills seem too important as well.

 

Secondly giving up should maybe cost half a ticket! :)

 

Thirdly capping free flags should give you a 35 ticket bonus if you cap it for first time. Every other time you get another 15 tickets added something like this. This will encourage team based flag capping and also make it more organized in the game.

 

Taking flags from enemy should cost the enemy at least 25 tickets. and gain you say 35.

Taking down FOB's should give you at least 15 tickets with the enemy losing 10.

 

In short, add way more more incentive to play strategically and coordinate there has to be balanced rewards for a capture of a enemy flag/fob.

Edited by MDInteractive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system I have proposed still has minor flaws to work out but shouldnt be dismissed outright, it has some merit I feel and would change dynamics of game and how its played. But I think keeping assets and captures separate from kills and deaths is vital for making lives matter more than the objectives and assets in game. You want to keep your mates alive while taking those objectives not just throw everything at it to get the others teams tickets.

 

Fair enough. I just think the current system highlights the importance of everything because everything is important. The biggest issue most of us see are people giving up and not waiting for medics, even if medics are 5 meters away and heading towards them. I don't think your system would address that.

 

Primarily I think its a bit too simple for what SQUAD is going to be. I suggest you take a look at Unfrail's topic about logistics and reinforcements and see if that helps you evolve the system you are suggesting. Something dealing with requisitions wouldn't be out of place and would stress the importance of valuable kits and roles.

 

Again, understand where we are currently. With such a long way to go many things will change, for the better and the worse. I for one would not get hung up on disliking mechanics as they stand now because they will be completely different with vehicles and logistics without actually changing at all.

The problem at this stage is that when you attack you lose more tickets then you earn with that attack. So even if you have all the flags. attacked more, took more fobs... you still lose and that feels badly balanced.

 

Now of course you can say that 'the team just sucked attacking" but it's always 10x harder to attack then to defend a hard point and basic rule of thumb is you need 10x more attackers for a defensive position.

 

Every team should start with a lot more tickets. I think 650-850. That is number one. Games last too short or just feel empty cause of it I tend to compare it to long PR games when you'd have a solid game for 2hrs. At the moment in Squad that is hard to do, kills seem too important as well.

 

Secondly giving up should maybe cost half a ticket! :)

 

Thirdly capping free flags should give you a 35 ticket bonus if you cap it for first time. Every other time you get another 15 tickets added something like this. This will encourage team based flag capping and also make it more organized in the game.

 

Taking flags from enemy should cost the enemy at least 25 tickets. and gain you say 35.

Taking down FOB's should give you at least 15 tickets with the enemy losing 10.

 

In short, add way more more incentive to play strategically and coordinate there has to be balanced rewards for a capture of a enemy flag/fob.

That is simply not true. Sure poorly planned and orchestrated attacks against defensive positions are doomed to fail but plenty of offensive and aggressive action is being rewarded with wins.

 

Just last night while leading a squad on Chora we worked with another squad to rush and take Riverside Farm from the russians. My 9 man squad attacked from the north and west while the five members of Squad 3 hit it from the east. We eliminated the 9 man squad that was defending and capped the flag only having lost 7 men of our 14 total. 

 

So we lost 7 and the russians lost 9 plus the 20 for the flag for a total of 29. That's over a 4 to 1 ratio in the advantage of the attackers. Assaults can be done cheaply but they must be done intelligently.

 

Currently I have witnessed the more aggressive teams winning the majority of the games. Whats even more telling is that these teams have fewer kills than the losing team. I don't know how much more clearly that point can be made. Kills mean nothing, its all about objectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking from the scenario I explained above when 3 lives or reinforcements are left; once you lose those 3 lives you are still in the game, the lives still alive in game are the last lives of match; once they die in game there are no more respawns, so when reinforcements run out its sudden death to last guy to get remaining objective. Or last 3 guys because you need atleast 3 to capture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLUS on top of that i think 200 tickets (instead of 150) and i would like it to be standardize for every map and AAS game mode, not a PAAS with 700, then a AAS with 500 and so on... 

 

+ maybe when the time is there optimization for the maps with an eye on the competitive scene of this game. to make the maps really feel special and well-thought. i think u cant do it for every player amount size but maybe lets say logar (or any other ma) one version inf for 9v9-15v15, one for 15v15-24v24, .. u get the idea

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive never liked or agreed with any "ticket" system ideas in games, generally (Battlefield was the worst). reading in here kinda confims why. Ticket Bleed seems to add nothing really tangable (worthy?) to the game or gameplay. Ticket Bleed seems to artificially sway the game and can cause stalemates. timed rounds would negate the need for Tickets completely. not sure why games require Tickets when they have Team Points Scores to judge a match on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/9/2016 at 3:06 AM, LaughingJack said:

not sure why games require Tickets when they have Team Points Scores to judge a match on.

 

Really interesting question. 

 

Has it ever been tested, like 25 rounds of Squad or PR, where the winning team has been picked from Team Points instead of tickets?

 

Hm, that question make me wonder, I mean, what if Squad could offer both a winning team in terms of Tickets remaining and a winning team in terms of Team Points.

 

Would such a system affect the gaming style of the player base? Would it encourage team work, more than the traditional Ticket system?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/1/2016 at 10:58 PM, PolishKruk said:

Currently I have witnessed the more aggressive teams winning the majority of the games.

 

Generally speaking, the aggressive team has always won more rounds than the passive teams. Only when the passive team, or perhaps least aggressive team, figure out how to defend its flanks and rear properly, the aggressive team ends up losing the battle.

 

Have you witnessed any phases, or distinct changes, during this phenomenon? For instance like the aggressive teams tend to overwhelm the other team after a certain type of situation, during the battle?

 

On 27/1/2016 at 10:58 PM, PolishKruk said:

Whats even more telling is that these teams have fewer kills than the losing team. I don't know how much more clearly that point can be made. Kills mean nothing, its all about objectives.

 

With the risk of sounding ridiculous, did you notice whether the speed created by those aggressive teams, made a difference, like the losing teams not being able to put up a solid defense, due to the speed of the attacks from the aggressive teams?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×