[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Raymac

While it's an interesting idea, I think it puts too much of an emphasis on player numbers.

How so? The system I outline above has nothing to do with player numbers. It isn't factored in at all.

The number of control points was a given based on what Higby said in the AMAA when I asked how many control points per territory (he said 5-7).

Originally Posted by Raymac

For example, I've seen a number of times where a small group saves a hack from going through by using a coordinated counter-attack (i.e. Gal drop) at the right time even though they were vastly outnumbered.

That wouldn't likely be possible in the current dev design or the above proposed one. Unless it was a territory where you had a lot of friendly adjacent territories. If it was a territory deep or mostly behind your own lines then a small group needs only hold 1-2 control nodes to delay or start overturning the capture, but it wouldn't be instantly erased like in PS1 (and I would argue it shouldn't be instantly erased, that was kinda lame).

The current dev design and this proposed one both favor easy/fast resecures for captures that have a lot of friendly territory around them. Higby's description illustrated that a defender might only need 2 out of 7 control points to stop the cap. With fewer required control points a smaller group could at least manage to stall the attackers and prevent the cap, if not completely reverse it. I listed those examples in the OP.

Originally Posted by Rbstr

I don't understand your need to talk about vectors here.
This "modelling" is actually incredibly easy if you forget the vector nonsense and just think ternary diagram and percentages. Then give the capture point rate per control point as a function of percentage adjacent controlled.

I don't find vectors all that difficult of a concept. I learned about it in high school in physics and again in college physics. Force diagrams, etc. I expect any educated computer scientist (such as a game developer) will understand the concept without too much difficulty.

Originally Posted by Rbstr

You're also forgetting that territory control is discrete and based on a hex system. So you can only hold edges in 1/6th (~17%) increments.

You are correct about it being based on a hex system, but incorrect on the number of edges. Look at the map here:
http://i.imgur.com/LPElr.jpg

The smallest a territory can be is a single hex, but they go up to as many as seven hexes. The arrangement of the hexes that compose a territory also changes the number of edges it has. They have irregular shape.

So the minimum number of adjacent edges is 6, but it easily goes up to 18, and may yet go higher.

Even still, the formula works regardless of number of edges.

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Also, if a facility is controlled, do the points need to be drained from the holding empire first and then added to the new empire, or do all empires points reset to 0 upon a capture?

The points have to be drained - that's how tug-of-war works. When you pull it over to your side you succeed in capturing it. I had talked about a neutral-state in the OP as one possibility with this model but works without.

Originally Posted by Rbstr

In which case, it's actually beneficial to let a facility be captured, rather than try to struggle to take something during a 3-way.

There is a reason I specifically added a section about capture & resecure xp, and that was to avoid the problem you discuss. You don't want a system where you only reward the end result because then it is beneficial to let something get captured so you can retake it (PS1 had this problem, and it was often beneficial to let a ghost hack come in just so you can resecure a minute later and get a CEP/XP boost).

If you get points for fighting there regardless of outcome it's always beneficial. Remember also that as long as you own something you are gaining resources passively, so sacrificing a territory so you can re-cap it would cost you in lost resources at the least. Not to mention the loss of territory would also weaken your empire's claim to others.

Originally Posted by Ruwyn

The whole problem with having multiple control points and tickets makes it all completely like many MMORPG and even some FPS things. Arathi Basin style. As soon as you know your side isn't goin to win the match, why stay? People are simply going to move off and start an attack somewhere else OR simply pull back and allow the fast "win" for the defense to occur and start the whole match over again. Not a fan of this new capture/ticket system.

This is a good expression of a criticism of the ticket-race system. There does come a point where it is highly unlikely you will ever win becuase you can't remove opponent tickets. A tug-o-war system by its design can un-do the damage and pull back from the brink without having to control 100% of the control nodes like a ticket-race demands. And if you slip up at any point you lose in that system. A tug-o-war gives you more reasonable chances to recover and fight back in most situations, even if the enemy got a huge head start you can still fight back. It'll just take you longer, but it is still very doable.

I played many matches in AB and with the similar mechanic in SWTOR's Alderaan warzone where once you reach a certain threshold its' essentially impossible to realistically win the battle and people do just give up and move on. I like the idea of victory being obtainable no matter how close it gets.