About the MVP System.
"Of course, it is all well and good discussing the ways that we intend to improve teamwork and communication in multiplayer, but that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a bit of healthy competition within the team either right?! With the introduction of the Most Valuable Player (MVP) system, the best performing player in each round will receive an MVP award which will be displayed for all to see and admire, giving you that extra little incentive to push yourself to try and outperform your teammates."
This is a bad idea for Captain mode; coming from a guy in the boots on the ground.
- Let me explain why:
The metaphysics of the Captain mode is 6vs6 with 3 Victory Points (VPs), featuring several maps with a varying number of choke points and tactical terrain advantages. There are 7 unit types to choose from, each with their own advantage and disadvantage, one type of unit being the counter for another type of unit.
Due to these facts; the game mode is being played as a numbers game, where the greater number win. - The more troops you have in the local fight, the more likely you are to win, regardless of what unit type both you and the enemy has.
The Ideal scenario is a 6 vs 1, because you take minimal casualties while causing maximum damage on the opponent.
Needless to say, this does not happen often. More likely; you get a 4 vs 5, or a 3 vs 4 melee scenarios.
Now, presuming a competent team; everybody will try to position their unit for the maximum amount of kills, for the least amount of losses.
But here is the problem: giving rewards for amount of kills or damage dealt; the incentives are set up to push aside tactical concerns for personal glory. - On the face of it, not a big concern.
But imagine this scenario: Team A: 4 melee infantry units, 1 archer unit, 1 cav unit. - Team B: 6 melee infantry units.
In this scenario, it is in the interest of Team B to seek a Melee engagement as soon as possible, in other words; rush B.
It is in the interest of Team A to split Team B, and fight them, ideally, 6 vs 1, because Team A is guaranteed to lose a tactical 6 vs 6 melee.
So how to set up this 6 vs 1 scenario that Team A so desperately need? - If one can't win tactically, one must go for the strategic win; meaning one must split the enemy by forcing him to be in 2 places at the same time. - This is the role of the cavalry.
Team A must capture the VPs and avoid any fight where local superiority cannot be achieved. So the job of the cavalry is to cap the VPs, and prevent Team B from moving, not by direct combat, but by maneuver. Simply by positioning to pose the threat of a charge, is enough to distract and slow down the enemy movement.
Here is an example of a map and enemy unit positions:
.................... A (VP)......................... B (VP)............................ C (VP)......................
.................... 2 enemy units............ 4 enemy units................. 0 enemy units..........
Team A's cav must prevent the 2 units at A from joining the 4 at B, while the infantry of Team A must seek an engagement at B; 5 vs 4, as soon as can be arranged.
This means the 5 infantry players on Team A will be rewarded, while the cavalry player will essentially receive nothing, even tho he facilitated the damage dealt by the infantry, and ultimately, the team's win.
This MVP System will punish the playmakers and incentives a selfish playstyle for casuals. Admittedly, clan vs clan fights will probably not care for the numbers anyway, but only on winning. So for whom are you making the rewards? As it is described, It will not show what you want it to show; which is: who did good in the battle.
I am open for questions, clarifications and criticism of this Metaphysical analysis.
Thank you.
