Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: I wonder if Hamma really reads these...
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Reply
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-10, 02:50 AM   [Ignore Me] #1
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Lightbulb Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


This is a proposed model, not the current design.

For the current design model, please see this thread:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=40416

To address some concerns expressed in the current model (expressed in the thread above), I have thought through some alternative ideas for a Tug-o-war type system to wrestle control of territories gradually as opposed to initiating a capture and then having a control race.


The Idea

The core idea behind the tug-o-war model is to move a control indicator point from one faction to another by having a higher net capture strength than the opposing faction(s). One way to think of it is a metal object is between two magnets, with each magnet pulling the object. The magnet with the stronger pull will move the object towards itself until the object reaches the magnet. In the case of Planetside2 there are 3 magnets (one representing each empire), each vying for control of the metal control object. The strength of the pull of each magnet depends on how much friendly territory borders the contested territory, and how many control points each faction has.

The goal is to create the same behavior as Higby and the other PS2 designers have intended, but doing so with a tug-o-war system because it is more natural and avoids some of the quirkier problems of a race-style system (the current design).

One of the challenges in a tug-o-war design is the presence of 3 factions. Many games have a tug-of-war system in the past, Old school WoW had a tug-o-war system in Eye of the Storm (I think this has since changed). In WoW's example, the number of people indicated the strength of the capture. Then the direction the control moves is simply the difference of the two populations within the capture area. This is trivial with two factions because it's a point along a line, a 1-dimensional space. Three factions makes it a two-dimensional space, specifically a triangle. I will address this later on, but first we must work through how territory adjacency affects the strength of the capture and how capture times are calculated with a tug-o-war system. I'll start with two empire scenarios and then describe how to handle a 3-way contest.



The Tug-O-War Model

Strength of capture is proportional to friendly adjacent territory, just as the current design for capture. The main difference is that instead of adjacent territory granting starting tickets it will directly impact the rate of ticket accrual.

In order to make things simple, I have a basic "Tickets per-second" calculation, which when combined with maximum tickets gives us a time to capture. From what Higby has indicated their intended design was, I came up with the following rough constraints.

It should take 30 minutes to capture if there is zero adjacent territory.
It should take 15 minutes to capture if the adjacent territory is exactly half (50%).
It should take 4 minutes to capture if the adjacent territory is entirely friendly.

(Note on the last one - since this is a tug-of-war system, the actual re-secure time in a back-hack situation could be significantly shorter than 4 minutes, but it would be 4 minutes if the enemy succeeded in capturing and they were re-capturing. This might seem a bit off from Higby's expectations but I think it will work out well in-practice).

Since I am looking for a target 15 minutes and looking at tickets-per second, instead of using 1000 tickets, I shortened it to 900. 900 tickets is a nice number because a rate of 1 ticket/second is exactly 15 minutes to generate 900. I made this my target rate for exactly a .5 territory adjacency ratio.

If 1 ticket / second is a 15 minute capture time, then .5 tickets / second is a 30 minute capture time, which gets me the backhack-scenario rate. For the last one I played around a bit with a few formulas until I found numbers that looked right.

T = Territory Adjacency ratio (# of friendly edges / # total edges)

For a facility, the total edges is 18.

Now to for the magic formula that fits our constraints.

R = (T+.5)^(2(T+.5))

I arrived at this formula by much fiddling with the numbers until I found a growth rate that fixed expectations. Below is a table showing some territory adjacency values and the resulting maximum capture rate.

Formula Results Table

0 = .5 (30 min to cap)
.1 = .5417
.2 = .6069
.3 = .6998 (21.4 min to cap)
.4 = .8272
.5 = 1 (15 min to cap)
.6 = 1.233
.7 = 1.548 (9.7 min to cap)
.8 = 1.978
.9 = 2.565
1 = 3.375 (4.5 minutes to cap)
The number on the left is the % adjacent edges that are friendly, the number on the right is the resulting maximum tickets generated per-second that is possible (like if all control points were owned). Notice that .5 = 1, as designed earlier, and 0 = .5, also as designed. The top constraint of 3.375 worked out well to have a cap time of 4.5 minutes, which is just about right. You can see how other rates grow mostly linearly until about 70% territory ownage when it grows rapidly to fit the model where adjacent territory really matters. This encourages battle at the front and makes non-front territories more difficult to capture.

If a territory has multiple control points, then the rate per control point is determined by dividing the rate by the number of control points.

Now for some scenarios & examples to illustrate how this works.


Example 1: Near-even adjacency matchup (55-45)

Suppose the NC own 55% around the edges in a facility, and that facility has 5 control points. The VS own the other 45% and are attacking. This is a fairly close matchup territory-wise, with a small advantage to the NC.

The rate generated per control point for the NC is 1.1079 / 7 = .1582

The rate generated per control point for the VS is .9071 / 7 = .1296

If the VS were to control all 3 of the 5 points, they would generate .3888 tickets every second, but the NC would generate .3164 from the other two. The net rate for the VS is .0724, which would take the VS about 3 hours. They are winning, but not significantly enough. For the VS to really start moving the capture along they need at least 4 of the 5.

And this is the expected result - VS have control over the facility but not a strong grip. They would need a stronger grip to move that capture along faster.

If the VS controlled all 5 points they would capture the facility in about 16.5 minutes.


Example 2: Large Adjacency advantage (70-30)

Suppose the TR own a facility and 70% of the edges around that facility, and that facility has 7 control points. The NC own the other 30% of the edges.

The rate generated per control point for the TR is 1.548 / 7 = .2211 tickets per second, per control point.

The rate generated per control point for the NC is .6998 / 7 = .1000

In this example, the TR (due to adjacent territory advantage) have a little over 2:1 capture rate advantage over the NC. This means the NC will need to control more of the facility to compensate.

If the NC own 5 of the 7 capture points, they will gain tickets at a rate of .5 per second. However, the TR will be pulling against that rate directly, with a rate of .4422 because they own the other two capture points. That means the NC are slowly gaining control of the territory, but at a slow rate of .0578 tickets / second. At this rate, the NC will capture the facility in about 4.32 hours. The rate is so slow they are effectively being held off by the TR's foothold and would have to take another capture point to secure the territory in a timely manner.

If they did capture one more control point, they would be gaining control of the facility at a rate of .3789, which is way faster and will capture the facility in about 40 minutes. If they exercised complete dominance of the facility and had all 5 control points it would be captured at a rate of .6998 and be captured in 21.4 minutes (which is the maximum listed above).

The major obstacle for the NC in this instance was the territory advantage which the TR enjoyed.


Example 3: Behind-lines Capture (100-0)

Suppose the TR own a facility and 100% of the edges around that facility, and that facility has 7 control points. The VS attempt to captures this facility with a daring gal drop way behind TR-VS lines.

The rate generated per control point for the TR is 3.375 / 7 = .4821 tickets per second, per control point.

The rate generated per control point for the VS is .5 / 7 = .0714

Clearly the odds are against the VS pulling this off, and even if they capture all 7 control nodes they are looking at a long 30-minute cap. Further complicating things for them is the high cap strength of the TR. If TR do show up they will only need a few control points to thwart the VS effort.

If the VS own 6/7 points, they are effectively stopped, as their capture rate is .4285, and the TR capture rate for their one point is .4821 - a gain for the TR. The only way the VS will succeed is by holding all the points for the duration of the 30 minute cap. It is OK for them to lose control of a node for a short time, but if they lose more than one any progress made will be quickly undone in a very short time.

This does not prohibit a back-hack in completely hostile territory but it certainly makes it difficult and will likely require a lot of manpower to secure the territory. Even once it is secured it only takes 4.5 minutes for the TR to reclaim that territory, so they must continue to defend it.


Modeling Three Empires

As mentioned above a significant challenge is modeling 3 empires. The above design will work to model three empires, but the modeling becomes a little more complicated (which is why I suspect the devs may have avoided this implementation). Conceptually, a 3-way Tug-O-War is a 2-dimensional space, with the control "object" having different forces acting upon it to move it towards one empire or another. This can be represented as an equilateral triangle, with each empire in a corner of the triangle. Calculating movement of the object is a matter of assigning a vector pointing to an empire's corner. The magnitude of the vector is the capture strength of the empire.

Here's a simple example of the capture object being "tugged" in two dimensional space. The vector notation shows that in this example the object has a strong VS component and so the object is moving towards the VS.



Like any vector, in a 3-way situation the empires are all pulling on the object and the one pulling the hardest makes it move towards them. In this case the "pulling the hardest" is the effective capture rate.

In this example each "Side" of the equilateral triangle is 900 units long, which is our "ticket" size expressed earlier. So it really isn't tickets/s, its a vector magnitude, measured in distance / s, o units / s traveled.

Normally this might be fairly difficult to model, but I expect with the physics libraries available to the PS2 team they can actually model this like they would a simple physics system, with an object having vectors pointing towards each of the empire and the vector components are the result of the capture magnitude.

Also since we know the current position of the capture object and it's movement vector, we can also calculate an ETA for capture for easy representation to players. This ETA would change if control points or adjacent territories changed hands.

It's also worth noting that in this 2-dimensional representation, the "Neutral" state of a facility not owned by anyone could simply be represented as an object that starts in the center of the triangle. The rest of the capture mechanic functions like the empires. This means neutral bases would be captured about 50% faster than non-neutral territories if they are uncontested.

Most contests will likely not need the 2-dimensional model as it will be 2 empires contesting over one piece of territory. In those instances the control object will move along one of the edges of the triangle rather than through the middle of it.


UI Representation

So now that I've described the mechanic - how do we express it to players in a meaningful way?

Well there are several key things we want to convey to users:

1) Capture strength of each empire
This could be represented simply as a bar showing the adjacent territory ratio. For example, a bar 50% full would indicate that the empire has 50% adjacent territory. Since capture strength is a direct function of adjacent territory this should give a good at-a-glance indication of how strong a claim each empire could have to a territory.

2) Control point ownership status
Ideally the control points should be labeled so we know which points need to be captured/defended, but at the least we should see how many control points in the current territory a given empire has.

3) Control object status
What is the position of the control object? Is it close to being captured? Far from capture? This is a quick visual indicator showing at-a-glance how close an empire is from capturing the territory.

4) Dominant Empire
Quite simply which empire has the strongest claim to this territory right now.

5) Time-To-Capture
Based on the current situation, how long before the dominant empire will capture the territory?
I have a mock-up of the control UI that indicates all of these key piece of information below.



The triangle area itself doesn't necessarily need to be that large. It could be shrunk down a bit. The VS/TR/NC labels may be overkill but there' here for illustrative purposes. These could easily be represented as small empire icons.

As mentioned above this mockup shows the control status for each control point at the bottom. Top-center shows the dominant empire & capture ETA. The dominant empire is represented by the color of the timer. An icon next to the timer might also be warranted.

Here's a more minimalist mockup where the size of the colored corner is the representation of capture strength. I think this one is easier to read and it clearly tells me the critical information - Which empire has the strongest claim? How long before they cap? Which control points do they have?





Augments

This model can be augmented fairly easily with modifiers to capture strength.

If we wish to give an empire a handicap or a bonus to capture rates they can be applied flatly to the capture strength formula.

For example, perhaps an empire has an excessively low population and we wish to give them a 20% capture time bonus. It's a simple multiplier to the capture strength formula. That empire will now have an easier time capturing territories.

Same goes for handicaps. If we want to make it difficult to own a lot of territory we could assign a capture time penalty based on the number of hexes an empire controls. In that case the capture time could be increased by reducing capture strength, which would also make it easier for other empires to capture that empire's territory. This is one good way to help the Rich Get Richer problem by making larger empires harder to maintain and slowing their ability to capture more territory.

Another possible augment is to introduce the concept of neutrality. If control moves too far away from an empire that owns the territory it might go neutral and move to a contested state where neither empire controls it. This might have impact on other territory control struggles also but could make "neutralizing" a territory a viable tactic to deprive it from assisting neighboring territories for control purposes.



Capture/Contest/Resecure Experience

Since this model can result in contests for territories that may span into hours for a large battle at a tightly contested territory rewarding players only for a successful capture is insufficient.

One idea to combat this is periodic experience awards for those in the capture vicinity as long as they remain capturing the area. The greater the contest (i.e. the more enemy present, the more control nodes the enemy has), the greater the periodic experience awards. In this way players are being rewarded for participation AS they participate. Actual capture of course should yield a bonus proportional to the amount of time spent in the struggle, which could be substantial.

Things that might yield more experience
- Being near a control point when it is flipped to your team
- Gaining experience near a friendly control point in a contested territory might have a defense-bonus
- Gaining experience near a hostile control point might have an offensive bonus applied

Also fully capturing or fully re-securing a base should yield xp proportional to the time it was contested while the player was around it. Sort of like the time-slices from PS1.

---


I've really done it this time, reached post character limit, lol, TBC in post # 2.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-04-10 at 03:13 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-10, 02:50 AM   [Ignore Me] #2
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


lol @ reaching post char limit (Hamma can you up that for me ).


Commentary

This design like any has some pros & cons.

The Good
  • Capture strength is proportional to capture time.
    If someone captures a few capture points and tries to contest a territory but doesn't have the manpower to back it up (i.e. a ghost-hack from PS1) it will be quickly squashed and the capture will be halted. If on the other hand a serious contest for the territory is underway then the longer that contest goes the more time it will take defenders from re-securing.

  • Extensibility
    Adjustments to capture rate are easy as described above in the Augments section applying capture bonuses or penalties is easy with this model. I particularly like the neutrality prospects.

  • Capture is not arbitrary
    When capture occurs, it is because an empire has sufficiently overpowered the other empires for a reasonable period of time to establish dominance. It doesn't happen because it happened to be a certain amount of time after which the capture was started. Capture indicates you fought hard for control.

  • Minimum capture rates are upheld and predictable
    Since capture strength is the maximum capture rate we can make guarantees on how long it takes to capture a territory without any defenders.





The Bad
  • Complexity/Cost
    Implementing control vectors for the 3-empire tug of war is certainly more difficult than a ticket-count-up race-style design. This translates into a higher dev cost. The biggest cost as I see it is the vector modeling.

  • Capture Time Balancing
    Since capture time is a factor of both control points and a non-linear function of adjacent territory it is more difficult to balance this model. As more augments are added to the system it becomes more difficult. However it isn't too difficult because there's basically a single strength formula that could be tweaked. Getting the right formula is the tricky part. I think I'm close with the above formula but it might put a bit too much weight on adjacent territory. That can be fixed with tweaks to the strength formula and tone down the above-50% portion and make it almost linear instead of non-linear. Going from a .5 to a 1.5 capture rate from 0 to 100% adjacent territory may be more than sufficient and a simpler formula to work with and calculate. I'll run some numbers on that and see if a simple linear formula will work out. The simplest linear formula might be as trivial as R = T +.5.

Ease of understanding could either be good or bad depending on how well the UI represents the capture mechanic. As long as players can figure out how to increase their capture strength (by having adjacent territories), and how to see which empire is in control I think it shouldn't be all that hard to understand.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-04-10 at 02:54 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-10, 04:39 AM   [Ignore Me] #3
DviddLeff
Lieutenant Colonel
 
DviddLeff's Avatar
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


An interesting alternative - and one I prefer over what we understand about the actual one. I particularly like the UI mock up as it makes what is going to confuse some into an easy to understand system.

However as you comment on, is it still easy enough to understand, compared to the originals "Hack - Hold - Capture" mechanic? It is a lot trickier, but then so is the current dev version.

Simplifying either is no easy task, especially as we want to speed up uncontested hacks and slow down back hacks, while taking into account surrounding territory but at the same time not make the system confusing to some.

I certainly think that in a one on one fight the indicator should be made linear, rather than the triangle; only have the triangle develop if the third empire sticks its foot in the door.
__________________
DviddLeff is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-10, 04:46 AM   [Ignore Me] #4
sylphaen
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


Nice post. The pretty pictures help a lot to convey your ideas. I really like your visualization of captures status for the tug-of-war: it's very visual and speaks by itself. It makes me think about continental population stats in PS1 but at a facility level.

Anything that can help guess where the enemy is (without actually confirming where they are) can provide a nice guess exercise for command, help read the flow of battle and provide more exciting contests for locations.

If I may add something, different capture mechanics for different types of objective could also make the game feel more varied.
e.g.: hack-to-cap for a small tower-like structure would be more adapted than a full-scale tug-of-war.

Edit: Congratulations for beating the forum, btw !

Last edited by sylphaen; 2012-04-10 at 04:52 AM.
sylphaen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-10, 12:38 PM   [Ignore Me] #5
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


Originally Posted by sylphaen View Post
If I may add something, different capture mechanics for different types of objective could also make the game feel more varied.
e.g.: hack-to-cap for a small tower-like structure would be more adapted than a full-scale tug-of-war.
At its simplest a territory might only have a single control point, in which case it is still tug-o-war but effectively functions like a hack & hold. You cap it and you sit on that one point while you wait for the timer, which in the 50% territory case would be exactly 15 minutes. Unlike PS1 however, if you lose control the other faction still needs to pull the capture object back into their control, which may take more or less time depending on surrounding territory control. It wouldn't be an instant resecure and all your hard work vanishes.

Another possibility is to get flat out awards or bursts of capture strength. For example, a specific territory might have a special modifier to its capture mechanic that slows it or stops it beyond a certain point as an attacker, but you can do special tasks that create a burst of capture strength, like taking an object from one location to another. In this way we could get simulate the LLU-like behavior from PS1 where attackers can move the capture point away a certain point but in order to capture the territory they must run the LLU. Meanwhile you still have the hack & hold going on back at the territory so defenders can foil the attempt.

So its extensible and can offer up different capture mechanics.

Also the actual control nodes themselves might have different requirements. They might be triggered by proximity of a tank rather than infantry, creating capture nodes that must be captured by a special unit type. That isn't unique to this concept though - any capture model could feature that, just as the burst-tickets/LLU concept above could apply to multiple capture systems.


Originally Posted by DviddLeff View Post
An interesting alternative - and one I prefer over what we understand about the actual one. I particularly like the UI mock up as it makes what is going to confuse some into an easy to understand system.

However as you comment on, is it still easy enough to understand, compared to the originals "Hack - Hold - Capture" mechanic? It is a lot trickier, but then so is the current dev version.

Simplifying either is no easy task, especially as we want to speed up uncontested hacks and slow down back hacks, while taking into account surrounding territory but at the same time not make the system confusing to some.
Thanks, I think the UI can be as simple or as complex as we want to make it. I also believe people will easily understand a Tug-o-war concept as it has existed in many games before to wrestle control of something from another team.

The race system I think would be a little less easy to read since the user has to look a control bar for each faction and try to figure out which one will cap first. They could estimate this and put up a timer like I describe above for this model. Seems like it requires more information and isn't as easy to represent visually as a triangle with an object moving between each empire. Maybe not but we'll have to see what they come up with there.

The thing I like most about the tug-o-war model vs the race model is that in the tug-o-war model everything a player does to capture a territory is permanent until someone undoes it. It fits naturally into the persistent world. If we're at a tough fight over an evenly contested territory and my team spends 20 minutes on a capture, that effort is not wasted if we lose control for a short time. The enemy still has to overcome the control we gained over those 20 minutes. It might not take them the same amount of time but they still have to deal with it. Likewise if I only spent 30 seconds trying to cap something the enemy doesn't need to sit around for 15 minutes waiting for the cap to be completed as I believe would happen in the race system.

Originally Posted by DviddLeff View Post
I certainly think that in a one on one fight the indicator should be made linear, rather than the triangle; only have the triangle develop if the third empire sticks its foot in the door.

Having the triangle collapse to just a single edge makes sense (current owner & your own faction) and having it only unfold into the full capture triangle when all three factions are contesting would certainly simplify the UI for the common case and make it easy to see how the capture is going.

The only possible issue is it may cause funkiness in the triangle's orientation, but that could be reduced by always having the player's own faction appear in the top left or right corners, that way the only sides that would potentially be swapped are the hostile factions. The act of collapse and possibility of factions switching positions might cause more confusion than simply having a static triangle always present in the same orientation. It would also add to the cost of the implementation, but could result in simplified UI in the common case.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-04-10 at 12:46 PM.
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-10, 02:12 PM   [Ignore Me] #6
Ruwyn
Corporal
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


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.

Having multiple capture points is fine, but once you take them (hack them) they should be yours. It should be used as a road to the CC. Not a "well shit we didn't take 3 pts in the first 6 min so I guess we are screwed. Bye guys....goin somewhere else"

This Model does make much more sense.


In regards to capture strength and it's display it could be very easy to do if every territory had an odd number of capture pts. As you stated before if it's one, you kind of just hack and hold, throw up a timer and you're done. Now on something more complicated like a base, let's say it has 5 capture pts. One of them being the CC. Let's use your behind enemy lines example a little bit and say it will take 30min to capture it.

Let's amend that to 30 min if we hack the CC directly. However, if we hack one of the other nodes first at let's say 20% of the total time(6min), when the CC is hacked the time would be reduced to 27min.

Prior to CC hack: 0 Time for CC: 30min
Prior to CC hack: 1 Time for CC: 27min
Prior to CC hack 2 Time for CC: 24min
Prior to CC hack: 3 Time for CC: 21min
Prior to CC hack: 4 Time for CC: 18min

Essentially, this encourages coordinated attacks. Even if you got in and hacked all 4 nodes before the CC it would still take you 24min to cap the base. Now the catch is, if the enemy comes back and recaps any of the secondary nodes(we'll say CC is primary) it would add 6min onto the CC hack time. If you then went out and recapped that node it would subtract 3min from the time.

Solving the empty base long ass cap problem would just be removing more time off the CC hack for holding ALL secondary nodes for a certain amount of time. So if you hold all nodes for 5min straight, 2min could be taken off the CC time. That's jsut an example. You can then increase the amt of time removed from the CC hack as well over the course of things.

This way, the only displays needed are times for each node/CC.

Last edited by Ruwyn; 2012-04-10 at 02:44 PM.
Ruwyn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-10, 02:44 PM   [Ignore Me] #7
Raymac
Brigadier General
 
Raymac's Avatar
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


While it's an interesting idea, I think it puts too much of an emphasis on player numbers. I may very likely be totally misunderstanding it, but the capture and hold, and llu systems both make it easier for smaller spec ops to go up against a larger force and succeed.

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.
__________________
"Before you say anything, prepare to stfu." -Kenny F-ing Powers

Raymac is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-10, 02:59 PM   [Ignore Me] #8
Rbstr
Contributor
Lieutenant General
 
Rbstr's Avatar
 
Misc Info
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


As mentioned above a significant challenge is modeling 3 empires. The above design will work to model three empires, but the modeling becomes a little more complicated (which is why I suspect the devs may have avoided this implementation).
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.

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. The whole thing can be done as "If half adjacent controlled, then 5 points per second per capture point controlled" blah blah.

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? 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.
__________________

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.

Last edited by Rbstr; 2012-04-10 at 03:02 PM.
Rbstr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-10, 02:59 PM   [Ignore Me] #9
Ruwyn
Corporal
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


Originally Posted by Raymac View Post
While it's an interesting idea, I think it puts too much of an emphasis on player numbers. I may very likely be totally misunderstanding it, but the capture and hold, and llu systems both make it easier for smaller spec ops to go up against a larger force and succeed.

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.
The way we currently understand it to work and with Malorn's suggestion, what you have described about resecures will most likely never work unless it is really close. The whole ticket thing just needs to go since right now you can theoretically capture a base while only controlling 1 capture point/node if you got a big enough jump on it. I don't see that as being fair if you are essentially pushed out of a base.

My suggestion basing it solely on time and making the CC still the primary focus allows a tug-o-war to happen at the beginning/middle of a fight for the territory and a hack and hold at the end. A win condition of holding at least 3 points/nodes (including the CC), when countdown reaches 0 would eliminate the control switch while only owning the CC during a recap attempt.
Ruwyn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-10, 03:38 PM   [Ignore Me] #10
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


Originally Posted by Raymac View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-04-10 at 03:44 PM.
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-10, 04:24 PM   [Ignore Me] #11
headcrab13
Second Lieutenant
 
headcrab13's Avatar
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


As long as the ticket advantage isn't given to the side with greater numbers in/around the capture point, I'm all for a system like this.

A squad of very skilled players should be able to hold a cap against a much larger number of unorganized players.
headcrab13 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-11, 10:38 AM   [Ignore Me] #12
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


Originally Posted by headcrab13 View Post
As long as the ticket advantage isn't given to the side with greater numbers in/around the capture point, I'm all for a system like this.

A squad of very skilled players should be able to hold a cap against a much larger number of unorganized players.
Thanks, and yes it is not based on number of players, only neighboring territory.
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-11, 12:25 PM   [Ignore Me] #13
Xyntech
Brigadier General
 
Xyntech's Avatar
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


I like it. Preventing instant resecures will drag fights out further, but only hotly contested ones. It may even prevent some fights from dragging out by stopping a small resecure team from singlehandedly destroying 14 minutes of defending a capture.

Resecuring back hacks would still be relatively quick, while actually still giving the back hackers a chance to hold on to the territory and potentially draw it out into a larger ongoing fight.

One thing that I think would be important is that whoever owns the contested territory has it count towards their number of friendly adjacent territories. In other words, home team still has an advantage in their number of tickets, but only slightly.

I also like the idea of things like LLU's being able to give a temporary boost to one of the sides tickets. This would give the devs a lot of creative freedom to make fun objectives the players would want to try to complete to help their cause, especially on hotly contested stalemates, while being relatively easy to balance and not undermining the standard capture mechanic.

Good ideas. I hope the devs take this into consideration. It seems plausibly doable since it is based on the same territory system and would essentially just be a few tweaks to the capture timers.
Xyntech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-11, 12:49 PM   [Ignore Me] #14
PredatorFour
Major
 
PredatorFour's Avatar
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


Some good ideas. Just makes me feel like i miss the old hack system already tho. Id take the old system over the new one anyday.
I know the capture times are stated with speculation but given soe want to get players into fights quicker (no sancs) how could they justify taking 30 mins to get a base when thats twice as long as it takes in PS1?
For the record i think your idea is better than the proposed one btw, was an interesting post
PredatorFour is offline  
Reply With Quote
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-04-11, 01:09 PM   [Ignore Me] #15
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Tug-o-War Territory Capture Model


Originally Posted by PredatorFour View Post
Some good ideas. Just makes me feel like i miss the old hack system already tho. Id take the old system over the new one anyday.
I know the capture times are stated with speculation but given soe want to get players into fights quicker (no sancs) how could they justify taking 30 mins to get a base when thats twice as long as it takes in PS1?
For the record i think your idea is better than the proposed one btw, was an interesting post
The 30 minute capture time is only for territory in which there is no friendly territory around it. It is being intentionally discouraged (but not prohibited). For a front-line territory along the territory borders between empires you'll see capture times around 15 min like in the PS1 system. However that is also assuming the attacker has firm control over all control nodes in the base. If they don't then the capture slows down, stops, or is reversed by defenders.

The old system had its problems too. Typically the battle was over by the time the hack went on and you sat around for 15 min doing nothing, as most of the critical fighting occurred before a capture was even attempted. In PS2 barracks (spawn rooms) can be independently captured and there may be other objectives like shield generators that can help restrict movement in the base. That should keep the fight potentially interesting for the duration of the capture. If it isn't then the capture times are still comparable to PS1. In cases where you are capturing territory that has a lot of friendly territory around it you will see capture times faster than PS1.

The resecures in PS1 were also easy to do and it was a bit lame that 25-30 minutes of hard work fighting into a base and then sitting on the hack could be undone by people getting bored and moving on or not paying attention to the very end of the capture. In the proposed mechanics above it is possible for a small group to come in and stop the capture and begin to reverse it, but they will not instantly erase all of the progress players made getting it close to capture.
__________________

Last edited by Malorn; 2012-04-11 at 01:10 PM.
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.