Jump to content
PolishKruk

Remove objective capture zones

Recommended Posts

From the very beginning I have been asking for a change in the mechanics of how objectives work. I do not approve of the "majority rules" system we currently have. I do not think that a strategic objective should be won or lost solely based on the number of people within its "radius". It detracts from good gameplay in my opinion. It does not favor good positioning. It does not favor proactive patrolling. It does not enhance a small but well coordinated defence.

 

There is a youtube video in that link. Please watch it and explain to me exactly what those guys are guarding. Sure, within the current mechanics they have secured the objective. But do we really want gameplay to devolve to that? Abusing mechanics to win? I'm not saying that what they did is impossible to counter. In fact, as others have pointed out the tactics with an organized squad would be quite simple and net many kills and a huge ticket loss on the enemy. 

 

My point is, what if instead of having to just "be in the zone" they actually had to defend a physical, tangible, interact-able object such as a flag pole in the middle of that compound? I get it, someone's going to say, "but then can't a marksman just stand off at 600 meters and keep shooting people as they try to raise their flag?" Sure they can, but isn't the point of capturing an objective to secure the area? If there are still threats in the vicinity then capping should be dangerous. At the same time, smokes and suppressing fire can be employed to allow that soldier to raise his team's flag.

 

On the flip side, should objectives not be able to be held with smaller forces? Why should we lose our objective in the rear because we left five guys to defend it but you snuck up with nine and capped it from them without firing a shot? What if instead your nine guys had to get to that flag in the middle of a compound? Slowly creep up and clear it room by room, corner by corner to make sure its clear and you can cap it safely.

 

This is all my personal opinion and feelings. Too many times on Chora I have led grunts against Russians to take market place and they have held the police station south of the road and we have taken the village north of the road and captured the point because we stacked up more guys in the village than they could bring up.

 

Also, not hating on Karm or anyone. I just see egregious abuse of what is in my mind a horrible mechanic.

 

TL:DR change the objective capture radius to instead be a single interact-able object to dictate ownership of the objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a great idea... FOBs on flags!

 

I don't like "majority rules" too, but there is one more frustrating thing... Why do we need to capture flags (except for points)? Why do we need to fight for these areas, what benefits are they giving?

 

In one hand we have FOBs: we try to set them on valuable positions, fortify them, FOBs give us ammo, respawn, cover, technical and weaponry assets in future...

 

But most of players prefer to put a little radio somewhere in bushes, because FOB is nothing compared to flags, which give us nothing except of tickets. We fight not for real control through reinforcements, easy defense and firepower advance, but for tickets...

 

Control point could be captured through Radio building. Team sets up Radio and starts to transform this point into real base with various assets, make it really valuable. And use the whole potential of building system. To capture enemy point you need to deconstruct their Radio.

 

Team can have only two CP FOBs to prevent BF style spawn on flags and expand the choice of defending/attacking tactics.

 

FOBs still could be placed everywhere on the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a disclaimer: I did not build the FOB in that video. :)

Also, my post was at least partially playing the devil's advocate, or just trying to be just a tiny bit provocative. ;)

 

I think that this whole issue will instantly dissolve when supply lines make their entry.

 

As for your suggestion: why couldn't "holding a compound" be an objective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, smokyhook said:

I find Zigreen's post interesting.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

 

It's funny because that's exactly how my team played on Chora the other night with success. Advancing fobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want this game to be a knock-off of BF, of course, but attacking\defending those gold boxes or caches or whatever they were in BF and Bad Company was really exciting, much more exciting than taking an objective with sheer numbers in Squad. This flagpole idea is similar except that you'll be able to take the flagpoles back, right? Anyway, I think it would also add more strategy (sniper watching pole, IED on pole, etc. so you'd have to clear the area a bit first) and is definitely worth considering. But I think there would have to be a "no build" radius around the flags or else ppl would just completely surround them in layers or sandbags and whatnot.

 

Definitely a +1 from me (and I read Unfrail's thread, also, which is nearly identical to this)

 

Edited by fatalsushi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this too individual oriented? This encourages lone wolf sneaky tactics up to the flag. It could be reworked but I think the flag idea could be a bit cheesy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't have to be a sniper who ruins your squads day when they see their flag going down. One well placed rocket from 300m away is all that's needed.

 

This isn't too say I don't like the idea of changing from our weight of numbers capping system we have now. There is always a tactic you can use to troll the enemy though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AAS with capture zone is somtheing what bring fight to you if you are in zone/you are comming to zone. 

Remove all capture zone and well for players it will be very frustrating. No reason to fight. Or just slaughters team deatchmach like Unreal tournament. 

 

But there is variations. C&C in PR. place FOB as close to center as possible. effend it and destroy enemy FOB. Honestly its hardcore. You cant play this mod every night. I remember games when i sit 1 hour at FOB and just have a patrol. Well no problem with that. But half of squad was super extra bored. It need good commander and if good Squad leaders are rare. Good Commanders are something like pink unicorns. 

 

But yeah AAS mod is something what is going to be outdated too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Load your men into APCs, troll around in the capture zone, profit. 

Can't cap a flag from inside a vehicle (assuming pr consistency)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psyrus said:

Can't cap a flag from inside a vehicle (assuming pr consistency)

 

I know, just shit posting. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bilsantu said:

Load your men into APCs, troll around in the capture zone, profit. 

 

Whiiiizzz, BOOOOM. Nah, nah, na, na, nah. Eat one suckers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bilsantu said:

Load your men into APCs, troll around in the capture zone, profit. 

Errrrrrr.... Ummmmmm.... Ok, you do you.

 

But I have a real idea that would actually solve the problem!

 

Whenever players from both teams are within the flag cap radius, it is simply "locked" and this lock is unaffected by numbers, you could have 1 Russian and 32 Americans and it would still be locked. Then what you do is you also lock tickets while this has happened, and make it so that tickets do not bleed until that zone is unlocked again, for either team. Then this allows for upset victories where a late game comeback can actually happen through ticket freezes and the flag capture reward. The great thing about that is if a team takes all game to get their shit together they can still win if they work their asses off in the last few minutes to retake the initiative. This would also require another mechanic that I think would completely re-balance the game; the ticket losses are only applied once a team actually captures the flag. Which could be paired with another very controversial mechanic, that the team who captures the point afterwards incurs no ticket loss from deaths during the locked period.

 

TL;DR

  • If both teams are within flag radius, tickets don't bleed for either team
  • Tickets remain locked until the flag is captured by one team or the other
  • Flag remains locked until only one team is within radius
  • Tickets lost during defense or attack by the team that caps the point are returned (optional)
  • Tickets are not locked if there is no resistance on a flag(ie back-capping)

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you posted while i was typing UnBrad, luckily my idea is better :) 

 

The points / capture zone combination is certainly not currently (alpha 5.3) a true representation of the input of a player/squad.

eg my squad defended Packers Estate on the new Chora layout for a whole game last night, we were barely ever inside the cap zone. We constantly moved in a large region around the area and were very effectively denying the enemy access to the area. Our kills were high  but our score was low but in reality we held a point against greater odds while 3 other squads attacked market. If we had sat in the zone we would have got a lot of points but would not have been as effective. Winning is everything obviously.

 

I like the idea of changing the cap zones to a tangible asset. Rather than a single flag perhaps it could be a scattering of objects within an area, like mini flags with room size cap areas which need greater numbers to start capping but only ever 1 player if uncontested but will automatically go back to the main owner if the majority is not held. You need to hold a higher number of the mini-flags than the enemy eg 3/5. Sounds complicated but its not...read example.

 

Example

"District Centre" has 5 mini-flags and a team needs a majority to take the larger objective.

The enemy has 5 players in the area holding each of those mini-flags.

Your team pushes in and kills the enemy on 2 of the mini-flags. They leave 1 man on each of these, they move to the 3rd mini-flag and while they cannot kill the enemy they outnumber them so slowly take the 3rd flag as well.

Your team have secured 3 out of the 5 mini-flags so the larger (regular) flag begins to cap in your favour.

 

In this way a larger force should still take the objective but they need to spread through the area and clear it. For a 5 mini-flag area it will still take 3 players to cap an undefended flag. It also favours the team who is not trapped in a single compound eg in a fob.

 

With this method there is the aspect which could allow a hero player (such as myself :) ) to prevent the capture of a mini-flag and with the help of 2 other sub-heros (such as ZXD_Lee and The Mahoud ) thus preventing a large group of players from capping an objective because they are holding a smaller number of mini-flags. 

eg 5 mini-flags. Myself and my 2 sidekicks are on one mini-flag each while the ENTIRE ENEMY TEAM (we are heros remember) are holding the other 2 mini-flags. They come to one of our mini-flags, perhaps a single room, and we take them down repeatedly, preventing them from holding the 3rd mini-flag and the majority. We can leave our mini-flag while it is not contested and assist our fellow heros.

 

The mini flags would become new smaller objectives, they could be intel, radios, packages of beans, it doesnt really matter. Perhaps the mini-flag locations could vary within an objective adding even more replay value to a map.

Maybe the number of mini-flags per objective could vary based on ServerPopulation, eg 20 players on a server would only need 2 players to cap an undefended flag rather than 3 as the mini-flag number for a point was 3 rather than 5. This could be dynamic to alter the mini-flags as the server filled/emptied.

More important flags could have higher numbers of mini-flags so only a large force could capture it. eg final flag or middle flag or a particularly valuable flag.

A mini-flag could be linked to an asset regeneration. eg a control tower to enable a helicopter or a storeroom to speed up resupply of the logi truck.

Maybe this mini-flag has a gate control in it as well, but to enable the controls you need to have controlled the room for a period, thus allowing your team-mates to access the other areas of the objective. eg a long submarine base with large doors, to open a door to access the next objective you have to control the door control room. This creates one critical mini-flag within a larger objective.

 

Yes I will accept praise.

Edited by suds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, fatalsushi said:

Snip

Yes, flags would be able to be captured back. Everything would stay the same as AAS except instead of being in the "zone" to cap you must be right on the flag.

13 hours ago, Sierra1Golf said:

Isn't this too individual oriented? This encourages lone wolf sneaky tactics up to the flag. It could be reworked but I think the flag idea could be a bit cheesy 

If one or two guys can sneak around and take out the five or six guys you have defending the flag then they deserve it. This method at least makes that option possible where as currently now it isn't. On the flip side, one or two guys in an entrenched position can hold back an entire squad from taking a flag which is something that cannot be currently done.

11 hours ago, Major Trouble said:

Doesn't have to be a sniper who ruins your squads day when they see their flag going down. One well placed rocket from 300m away is all that's needed.

 

This isn't too say I don't like the idea of changing from our weight of numbers capping system we have now. There is always a tactic you can use to troll the enemy though.

Agreed there will always be a tactic. But this method requires that defenders use tactically advantageous positions to actually defend. That sniper, grenadier, LAT trooper must be in a good position with LOS of the target in order to defend it. But at least he can defend it. This also highlights the usefulness of feints and manuevers to confuse and hold the enemy's attention away from your objective.

10 hours ago, elerik said:

AAS with capture zone is somtheing what bring fight to you if you are in zone/you are comming to zone. 

Remove all capture zone and well for players it will be very frustrating. No reason to fight. Or just slaughters team deatchmach like Unreal tournament. 

This still has objectives to fight over. It just enables players and teams to utilize good ground to hold those positions. Which is something that cannot be done currently. 

4 hours ago, NotBrad said:

Snip

This was an alternative I like and would greatly accept as well. Not too fond of the "winners don't lose tickets" idea though. That, in my opinion, would just encourage rushing the enemy and trying to overpower with sheer numbers. Offensive actions are deadly and require careful thought and good coordination to be successful. But losses sustained while making an assault should still be penalized.

4 hours ago, suds said:

Snip

Hmm... This to me does not solve the problem. You are still requiring more people. Yes, this does reward skillful play but this still does not alleviate the two big issues I have with the current system and those are:

1. A team is able to capture an objective solely through weight of numbers.

2. The current system penalizes using good terrain for observation posts and firing positions to cover objectives and instead favors everyone clustering up inside buildings and compounds so they stay within the "capzone". 

 

Thanks so much everyone for your input! This was mainly a reaction thread by me after seeing that video. I know we have a long way to go still and things will change which will effect so many mechanics but I wanted to see what others thought. Appreciate it so much! If I missed anything feel free to bring it up and I'll try to explain my position more thoroughly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the current system makes completely sense and I hope it doesnt get changed.

 

If you are defending and the enemy can outnumber you, you are not in control of that area. If you are attacking and you cant cap that area, you are not in control of that area. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

In PR i always thought about it that way. North City on Muttrah is a good example. You could cap it if you stand at the border of the "area" with a full squad. Why? Because the enemy wasn't a full squad and wasnt paying attention that a FULL squad was able to get there without them noticing. Clearly a fault of the enemy squad not of the game mechanics.

 

EDIT: You have to move to not let the enemy outnumber you, and you have to move to outnumber the enemy. Simple as that. No camping and teamplay required.

Edited by Elirah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@PolishKruk 

1. is sorted, if 3 out of 5 points are required to start the main capture then numbers only matter on each of the 5 mini-flags, the other team can have far more players on only 2 of the 5 points and still not be able to cap.

 

Not sure how to reward point 2. If the 5 mini-flags were spread over a larger area than the typical cap zone then it would enable this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2016 at 1:42 AM, Elirah said:

For me the current system makes completely sense and I hope it doesnt get changed.

 

If you are defending and the enemy can outnumber you, you are not in control of that area. If you are attacking and you cant cap that area, you are not in control of that area. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

In PR i always thought about it that way. North City on Muttrah is a good example. You could cap it if you stand at the border of the "area" with a full squad. Why? Because the enemy wasn't a full squad and wasnt paying attention that a FULL squad was able to get there without them noticing. Clearly a fault of the enemy squad not of the game mechanics.

 

EDIT: You have to move to not let the enemy outnumber you, and you have to move to outnumber the enemy. Simple as that. No camping and teamplay required.

How does it make sense? One group shows up with more people so the smaller group leaves? I'm sorry but that's not how combat works.

 

To turn your own example around on you: if you are attacking an area with a larger force but the enemy still maintains a presence in the area then you are not in control of that area. Likewise if I attack an objective with a numerically inferior force against a numerically superior force, the fact that my forces are in the area means they no longer control the entire area.

 

My point is the only metric that is used to determine control of an objective should not be which side has more people there.

On 5/14/2016 at 6:01 PM, suds said:

@PolishKruk 

1. is sorted, if 3 out of 5 points are required to start the main capture then numbers only matter on each of the 5 mini-flags, the other team can have far more players on only 2 of the 5 points and still not be able to cap.

 

Not sure how to reward point 2. If the 5 mini-flags were spread over a larger area than the typical cap zone then it would enable this

Interesting, I did not look at it that way. A larger force still provides an advantage(as it should) but is not a guarantee of success. I think keeping them spread out and not solely located in/around compounds would help utilize terrain better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, PolishKruk said:

How does it make sense? One group shows up with more people so the smaller group leaves? I'm sorry but that's not how combat works.

 

It's called a strategic withdrawal and it most definitely happens in real combat. We only tend to hear about engagements where a small force holds out against overwhelming odds but running away, sorry, strategic withdrawals are often a sensible tactic.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Major Trouble said:

 

It's called a strategic withdrawal and it most definitely happens in real combat. We only tend to hear about engagements where a small force holds out against overwhelming odds but running away, sorry, strategic withdrawals are often a sensible tactic.    

Seriously? We are talking about while taking/holding an objective. Not a meeting engagement or a delaying action against a superior foe so troops and positions in the rear can be set up.

 

If your orders are to take and hold the crossroads or a bridge you do it. You don't just leave because the enemy shows up in greater numbers. The Orne river bridges, St. Mere Eglise, the bridges in the Eindhoven sector including over the Son river, the bridges in the Nijmegen sector, numerous sectors across the front in the Korean peninsula during the Korean War, Khe Sanh and numerous other firebases during Tet 1968 in the Vietnam War. All of these were objectives that were either taken by an inferior numerical force or held in defense by an inferior numerical force. Many were both taken and held against numerous larger attacks.

 

I can find even more examples if you fail to understand what I'm saying. But if your orders are to hold your position because it is tactically or strategically important to do so then you do it against whatever you may face. You certainly don't turn around and leave just because there are more of them than there are of you.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PolishKruk said:

Seriously? We are talking about while taking/holding an objective. Not a meeting engagement or a delaying action against a superior foe so troops and positions in the rear can be set up.

 

If your orders are to take and hold the crossroads or a bridge you do it. You don't just leave because the enemy shows up in greater numbers. The Orne river bridges, St. Mere Eglise, the bridges in the Eindhoven sector including over the Son river, the bridges in the Nijmegen sector, numerous sectors across the front in the Korean peninsula during the Korean War, Khe Sanh and numerous other firebases during Tet 1968 in the Vietnam War. All of these were objectives that were either taken by an inferior numerical force or held in defense by an inferior numerical force. Many were both taken and held against numerous larger attacks.

 

I can find even more examples if you fail to understand what I'm saying. But if your orders are to hold your position because it is tactically or strategically important to do so then you do it against whatever you may face. You certainly don't turn around and leave just because there are more of them than there are of you.

 

 

 

 

Dunkirk

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

×