Originally Posted by Climhazzard
I'm not sure I see the difference between the current system and your proposal. Both systems allow for a deadlock if each faction holds one point. Both systems allow for one faction taking another control point in order to break that deadlock.

The difference is if are there points A B C and the attacker has held the A point for, say, 5 minutes, then it's theirs. The defenders have to retake the A point for 5 minutes as well.
Right now it takes about 5 seconds to flip and there is requirement to hold 2 at a time. An attacker can hold the point for 1 hour and it still takes 5 seconds for it to flip. My contention is, if the attacker has held that point for so long, the defender has forfeited it, and it's up to the defender to attack it to recapture it at the extended timer. If it's a 3way, the requirement becomes 4x the numbers.
This will give the attacker to concentrate on flipping the second node rather than camping both. Example, cap point A for 5 minutes. Then hold point b for 5 minutes. If the defender didn't contest A while B is being attacked, then the pressure is switched to the defender because it takes 5 minutes each to flip A and B and the attacker is holding it.
The difference is in the current system, in a 48 vs 48 with 3 nodes
24 has to hold A and 24 has to hold B, While 48 defenders can simply stackwipe B or A.
Under my proposal, 48 can cap A first while not worrying about B since the node flip timer is extended. Hence, the battle will be better with 48 vs 48 on one point. If the attacker attacke 2 nodes with 24 each, the pressure is only attacker to divider their forces too.
In a 48 vs 48 vs 48 with 3 nodes, the requirement becomes 4x the number
24 to take node A while fighting 48 + 48 from other factions, which is ridiculous. I noticed this on the MLG previews on Youtube. It's deadlock after deadlock after deadlock.