Give Multiple Capture Nodes Long Separate Timers

Mordelicius · 2013-06-25, 04:26 AM

Right now, the 3-way fight of a 3-4 point base is very inconclusive (can't find the right word; hard to resolve, unresolveable, blechhh). If faction A is defending. All it has to do is hold one single point while the other two camp the other two. What if each capture node is given a long capture timer?

Node A Long Timer
Node B Long Timer
Node C Long Timer
Master Timer

For example, if NC defender is holding A, TR is attacking B, and Vanu is attacking C, under this new system,

NC will keep A node
TR will eventually take B node and
Vanu will eventually take C node

But the Master Timer still won't move. What this does is give TR or Vanu a chance to go for the other nodes since they've already captured the B and C nodes.
In this situation,TR can put minimal defense on B and attack C. Vanu can put minimal defense on C and attack A etc etc. Suppose TR successfully defended B and still captured C from the Vanu, then the Master timer will countdown. The NC then can't simply turtle in A and will be forced to counterattack both B and C! Under the current system, there would be a deadlock and both attackers and defender will be bored to death. Right now, it's brute force numbers or go home in these types of fights.

I watched some MLG fights on Youtube and it's deadlock after deadlock after deadlock. It's the same on live servers. Imo, this will make 3-way fights more diverse and interesting with attacking and counterattacking scenarios. The current mechanics is poor when it comes to 3-way fights with multiple nodes.

What's everyone's thoughts on this?

Climhazzard · 2013-06-25, 06:37 PM

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.

Mordelicius · 2013-06-26, 01:42 AM

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 3-way, 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 stack-wipe 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.

Figment · 2013-06-25, 06:49 PM

I'd rather see just one node in the first place.

Figment · 2013-06-26, 04:56 AM

Yet Mordelicus, you completely ignore that the defender won't always have even population.

Defenders cannot be tasked with holding a point for an indefinite amount of time and should be expected to get overrun regularly with only short periods of regaining their point, especially given the current layouts of bases with points far outside of the relatively protected spawn area and so open to attackers.