Proposal for a new & improved Conquest mode.

[Harn]

Index
------------------------
I.    Intro & Game Mode Synopsis
II.  How does this work?
III.  What is needed to make this happen?
IV.  Possible Additions
V.    Summary for the lazy
VI.  End
------------------------

Just want to start this off by saying MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT INC.

Also available as a pastebin file, it might be easier to view.
http://pastebin.com/TqxcAaX5

Let's get started.


I. Intro & Game Mode Synopsis
---------------------

隐藏

Battle mode:
Shoot at each other until a flag appears. Kill the bad guys, don't die. Stand on flag and win.

This is what our game has devolved into. I've been brainstorming over the past few days trying to figure out a way to give Warband a more active & competitive game mode. Something more involved than our current game with less waiting around.

After writing up a basic outline of my plans, I showed it to my clan mates and got the thumbs up from them. It draws on some very (very very) basic inspiration from MOBA game formulas in the concept of gear progression & map control.

I'm proposing a . . .

Hybrid: Combine aspects of Conquest with the Fight and Destroy game mode. Maybe a sprinkle of Siege thrown in for attacking the enemy goal (very basic, nothing elaborate.). Teams can fight vs each other for control of 2-4+ Conquest flags, depending on the design of the map. Each team's spawn has a destructible asset such as a trebuchet that they must defend. Destroying this trebuchet gives a large amount of points; basically a killing blow to the enemy team. Pretty straightforward and easy to explain. This should be easy for stream viewers to pick up on with a decent shout caster explaining the goals of the game.

II. How does this work?
-----------------------

隐藏

Rules:
Spawn times - 15 seconds (to be cumulative w/ code addition, details further down)
Team points gained for flags - 200% (Default 100, Max 400)
Starting gold amount: - 50% (Def. 100)
Combat gold bonus - 50% (Def. 100)

These settings make for a slower, more gradual & thoughtful game style. With respawning, there is a steadier influx of gold coming in, which should help make up for the lower gold amount. It should be all kinds of amazing, and have great depth of play. 500 gold also prevents teams spawning a wave of coursers from the start and flag grabbing. I would like to promote infantry combat, with bursts of cav & archery coming into the foreground on occasion.

Maps:
Optimally, maps should be mirrored, presenting a balanced playing field for both teams. Do they need to be? No, but it promotes fighting the enemy, not the map. The only advantages lying in the gear available.  Maps should be built and sized for 5v5 or 6v6 combat. Each half of the map can be differentiated by banners (Ex: Red team, Blue team). Maps should avoid having high, easily defensible perch points for archers in order to promote group team play. Multiple access points with broad access routes. This is very important with small teams; Archery shouldn't control the whole fight, just be a part of it. I'd prefer to provide obstacles for cavalry, but avoid making areas where they can't reach. Hopefully, infantry are the hinge on which the rest of the team rotates around.

This game mode has a lot of potential to open up new strategy and tactics in fighting for control of the map. Pubbing will possibly require smaller (and more) servers. This helps in a way because it will build an image of the community being more active. Multiple, full, servers make us look bustling. Smaller servers are also much cheaper for people to host. We could probably do 12v12, maybe 16v16 with these maps for pub play, but it probably won't be anything close to 50 man servers anymore. I could be wrong though!

Larger maps can also be designed for special event style ~50v50 shindigs. Picture a barren no man's land, dotted with flags, separating two teams facing off on opposing cliff sides. This game mode has lots of potential & versatility.

Team Sizes:
So why 5v5/6v6? eSports. In the interest of designing a system to promote competitive play it should go hand in hand with the size of sponsored teams that has become the standard over the years across many games. Sponsors for teams need to pay for plane flights, hotel rooms, computers, etc. They can only afford to do that for a certain number of players. Obviously that doesn't happen in Warband but this is building for the future. I'm being optimistic here.

Larger team sizes (8v8, 10v10) will be able to play on these maps without feeling crowded, but smaller rather than larger should be the game plan. I'll build a couple maps to better showcase what I'm picturing. There can be a lot of variety to these maps without rendering any of the classes useless.

All the rules such as number of rounds (if necessary), number of points to win and such will need to be ironed out later with testing.

III. What is needed to make this happen?
----------------------------------------

隐藏

I require a coder; I can read it, but I can't speak it very well (Python's no exception).

I might be able to create a monstrosity of code if I spent a month on this, but someone more familiar with Warband's inner workings could hopefully do most of this in less time. I'd like to make this available to the community sooner than later.

ENL mod integration would be great.

I'm looking to make all changes server side only to avoid clients needing to download anything besides maps. If something can't be done then it'll need to be left out/adjusted.

Changes will likely be easiest to add on to Conquest (called headquarters in the code). Most of the framework is already built there.

a. Need to assign Conquest style points for destroying an object. Ex: Teams need 400 points to win. Destroying the trebuchet gives 100-200 points.

b. Might need an option in-game to adjust the health scaling of destructible objects.

c. Need code to disable flags from being captured while on horseback. Battle MotF code should have this? Appears to be in MotF code in module_mission_templates.py.


Section of code, Line 11759:
          (agent_get_horse, ":agent_horse", ":agent_id"),
          (eq, ":agent_horse", -1), #horseman cannot move flag


d. Need to disable sound that play when flags are being captured or (preferably) lower their volume. They're cool, but they can become overly chaotic. If there's a way server side to lower the sound output for clients without a download that would be great.

e. Code for cumulative respawn timers. (suggested by Vanidar)
If a player dies within a certain amount of time, increase time before their next spawn.
Ex: Player dies at his base, spawns 15 seconds later, spawns & dies again. His next respawn timer is increased from 10 seconds to 25 seconds. If he dies again then he gets another 10 seconds added on. Resets every ~60 seconds that go by without dying. Note that these numbers are very rough. Requires a lot of testing and fine-tuning but it should cause players to place more value on their lives instead of human wave tactics.

f. Code for individual class based flag capture toggles.
Ex: Infantry can capture a flag 20% faster than an archer. Cav capture 40% slower than an archer.
^Note: Optional, but might be necessary for balancing out cav's mobility. Reward slower infantry with faster capture speeds.


module_scripts.py
These might be relevant sections of code to the project in general. Just don't assume these are what/all you need.

Conquest faction flag assignment
Line: 07442

Conquest flag speed
Line: 07542

Conquest capture calcs
Line: 07597

Flag capture calcs
Line: 07474

Conquest score record system
Line: 08737


g. Spawn locations should use the same system as Battle, not the random distribution of Team_Deathmatch that Conquest uses.

h. People with ENL mod streamer status can have GUI health bars for destructible objects.

i. A global announcement to indicate a destructible object is being attacked.

j. Unsure if individual flags can be given titles.


Current system says "Kingdom of Swadia is capturing flag 1!"
Would be nice to be able to have it say "Kingdom of Swadia is capturing the Sarranid gate flag!"

IV. Possible Additions
----------------------

隐藏

Flag captures - A single player captures a flag in ~35 seconds, two in ~22 seconds. Should flags be captured in circuit (Flag A is locked in until Flags B&C are captured) or free for all? FFA flags open opportunities for teams to be creative, but it might be too powerful. Game could devolve into cav groups chasing each other around flags with FFA. Class cap speed options might balance that.

Classes:
Archers - The beta patch's reduction of archer movement could tie in nicely with this game play. I plan for maps to be small enough and provide decent cover to advance. It would be nice to disable archers ability to carry shields to require smart positioning and map control. Can move with inf shielding them to promote team work. Disable their ability to ride any horses.

Disclaimer: I can & do play archer. Archers have a lot of battlefield control. Having them depend on the rest of the team and not be as self sufficient isn't all that bad.

V. Summary for the lazy
---------------

This is a proposal for a series of small but important improvements to the Conquest game mode to make the game easier to learn & watch for people on Twitch while also making it more engaging for pubbers & competitive players alike. The goal is to replace Battle with Conquest for the competitive & casual standard.


VI. End
------

The most important thing in making this work will be backing from you, the community, and an open mind to try something new. I wrote all of this because of what the NA scene has been proposing to renew interest in Warband. A new, more engaging game mode might be just the thing to renew interest for old veterans and new players alike.

Thanks for reading, I know there's a lot here. I tried to cover all the details so we can get straight to the gritty details of killing things.

 

[Mr.X]

Looks awesome.

I would assume the scoring works like the counter in conquest mode, but it counts up? So when you control a flag your counter counts up, more flags means faster counting, killing trebuchet gives extra points. Sounds like a lot more strategy could evolve around timing. When to focus the trebuchet, when to leave your trebuchet and go for flags. Very Cool.

The only thing I'm not sure about right now are the team sizes. I think that might impede some community backing just because people seem to be in favor of larger scrims right now. I don't know if eSports is a compelling enough reason for me, and I'm a big fan of eSports. It makes sense and I understand how smaller matches are more geared toward eSports, but I'm not really convinced that Warband is geared toward smaller matches, at least with the current community. Smaller matches has a negative effect on clans. Clans tend to have more people than a "team", but this mode feels more like you have a "team". I don't know, maybe I'm over-thinking it. It's also possible that it could work like baseball, where you have a large team, and certain people go in and play certain positions, and then sub out for other players, and things like that.

Overall though:
/support.

I'm not much of a coder, but maybe with some support you could start posting in the modding section of the forum to look. I know there are some good coders in this section as well though, so maybe they'll show up

 

[Harn]

Looks awesome.

I would assume the scoring works like the counter in conquest mode, but it counts up? So when you control a flag your counter counts up, more flags means faster counting, killing trebuchet gives extra points. Sounds like a lot more strategy could evolve around timing. When to focus the trebuchet, when to leave your trebuchet and go for flags. Very Cool.

I would like to use the default Conquest system where each team starts out with 300 (or whatever) points and flag captures and kills make this score decrease. Easier for people to catch on when they see points for the teams going down to 0, rather than them wondering when the game ends at an invisible, arbitrary number.

I'm hoping the trebuchet adds a lot to the game. It provides a goal for teams to aim for and push to achieve while not being an instant win for a team if it is destroyed. Flags alone make for stale game play.

The only thing I'm not sure about right now are the team sizes. I think that might impede some community backing just because people seem to be in favor of larger scrims right now. I don't know if eSports is a compelling enough reason for me, and I'm a big fan of eSports. It makes sense and I understand how smaller matches are more geared toward eSports, but I'm not really convinced that Warband is geared toward smaller matches, at least with the current community. Smaller matches has a negative effect on clans. Clans tend to have more people than a "team", but this mode feels more like you have a "team". I don't know, maybe I'm over-thinking it. It's also possible that it could work like baseball, where you have a large team, and certain people go in and play certain positions, and then sub out for other players, and things like that.

Overall though:
/support.

Yeah, I had mixed feelings about team sizes as well. We have enough active people in BkS to usually have 6-8 for a scrim/match. We're built to be small along the lines of competitive gaming though so we're definitely an exception. Even so, we'd have active people sitting if we used a 5-6 man format which definitely sucks.

This is something I can't claim to (or a lot of other things) decide for everyone, it's just my attempt to give some oompf to what Lust seems to have been pushing for competition. Like I said, the maps should work just fine for 8v8, 10v10, but if nothing else, this should make people think ahead to the future of what we can do with Bannerlords.

I'm not much of a coder, but maybe with some support you could start posting in the modding section of the forum to look. I know there are some good coders in this section as well though, so maybe they'll show up

I'm honestly hoping someone will hop in the thread here & give me a referral to an active coder that understands the inner workings of the multiplayer code. No offense to anyone, but I want to avoid having this project get stuck in limbo because someone volunteers without enough knowledge and gets in over their heads. If multiple people can work together on it & get it running, that'd be cool too. I just want to get it in a working state as soon as possible.

Thanks for the support X.

 

[Rhade]

Harn's been busting ass on this the last few days, and I really like the sound of trying a new dynamic and engaging mode.

X, your concerns over team size make some sense. However, Team Liquid and EG also have large rosters and only certain players play in the pro league or team leagues, and they do from time to time change the roster or line-up for differing reasons: HerO's PvP is weak, the other team has a strong Protoss, etc. You could also feasibly have teams fielding multiple teams, but I know that this is definitely worth a shot and Harn's barking up the right tree here.

 

[Mok the International]

Wow this looks amazing. Definitely support it, I feel like this could be very, very entertaining.

 

[Cradoc]

Sounds interesting. +1

I still think 7v7 is just optimal though.

 

[Lord Rich]

Not exactly what you proposed but I worked on it along the same lines of combining battle and conquest. I have ceased development on it now since I lost the source code when my HD died, but flag positions and additions of new maps etc... are still possible.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,248973.msg5952642.html#msg5952642

 

[Reapy]

Was going to say I thought there were some conquest improvement threads/attempts that happened and whatever was done there would help.

Sounds like a really cool idea and game mode, I always thought conquest/fight and destroy should have been the direction, though conquest in my head was more battlefield style.

Anyway, this is pretty cool and personally would enjoy something like this as personally I'm pretty spazy and mess up a lot so the 'no ****ups' of battle were always unappealing to me, despite liking the format.

For some reason this makes me think a bit about playig myth, the fallen lords, on the tactical mode, which I forget the name, but it was somewhat similar, moving infantry/archers etc around the map holding control points, and I remember it being really intersesting figuring out how to divide your forces and who should go where etc.

I can see also how the treb destruction offeres a real nice way for a team to come back into the match too. The thing with control points to watch for (which im sure you guys know more than me) is one team getting a slight advantage then digging in, though again this can be nice if a team sees early on they have to do something or lose, lots of narrative drama for streamers too, everyone can see they need to takea  point, now lets see how they do it etc.

From the brief few populated warband CTF games I played, I can see how it'll be hard to neutralize the cav advantage, and like you said it will probaby have to come down to clever map design. If there is a narrow entrance or two into a 'flag room' for example it might be pretty easy to defend with spears. You could also set up a few points so one might be cav friendly, 2 infantry friendly and one archer friendly, though I like the idea of having infantry be the backbone. It might be cheap but if it gets too hard to flavor it that way do the vikingr thing and limit class selection maybe.

I don't know that you have to worry too much about people constantly chasing each other all over the maps on FFA points. I would argue for them too just because of how ****tly they worked out in WOTR, one of the many problems with that game was all the maps were tug of rope style, which one or two isn't bad, but to have them all like that removes a lot of the decisions a team has to make and removes the need to predict and counter what a team is doing.  You wouldn't have things like overload right/center etc.

I also think that at first you may be wildly running around but as people learn maps and the game format there will be some well defined movements, at one point you will need to also just buckle down and defend. Possibly it might be nice to have some 'overwatch' areas that aren't archer perches but you can spend time to get up there to see what the other team is doing (like SC2's nuetral towers).

While 5v5 makes probably less exciting team composition / strategy situations, it makes it easier to follow and allows for more individual glory, eg you have one person capturing and 3 opponents come round the corner and you take them all out, stuff like that would be harder to notice in larger matches.

If the mod is popular enough in the pub space, you can probably get away with making it a download, which means you can add in a lot more cool things, but probably to start safest as native, with lots of announcements for whats going on in the games.

Anyway sounds really cool, will definitly try out the mode, could be the breath of fresh air the game needs while we wait for bannerlord as you said.

*ps* I always thought having 'themed' lines on the ground around the cap point in siege would improve the game for players and spectators and think it would apply here as well. Having a good negative time fight on the flag at the end is awesome, but sucks when a player backs away too far and the game just ends. I know competitive players can figure it out but it would let them do some more precise maneuvering and but spectators could use the help too.

 

[Mad_Dawg]

Not exactly what you proposed but I worked on it along the same lines of combining battle and conquest. I have ceased development on it now since I lost the source code when my HD died, but flag positions and additions of new maps etc... are still possible.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,248973.msg5952642.html#msg5952642

Bad backup procedures?  Shame, shame. 

 

[Mr.X]

X, your concerns over team size make some sense. However, Team Liquid and EG also have large rosters and only certain players play in the pro league or team leagues, and they do from time to time change the roster or line-up for differing reasons: HerO's PvP is weak, the other team has a strong Protoss, etc. You could also feasibly have teams fielding multiple teams, but I know that this is definitely worth a shot and Harn's barking up the right tree here.

Yea, thats what I was thinking about with like the people going in for special roles. I don't know how you would have the ruling on substituting players work, because if subs were allowed during the match, teams could like put in 3 good cav and try to get a rush to a flag, then sub them out for 3 good archers and to try and hold things, or stuff like that. I don't know, I'm not thinking it through. I'd imagine you would need something like "the team must stay the same for the whole map except for unexpected disconnects" or something.

Looks awesome.

I would assume the scoring works like the counter in conquest mode, but it counts up? So when you control a flag your counter counts up, more flags means faster counting, killing trebuchet gives extra points. Sounds like a lot more strategy could evolve around timing. When to focus the trebuchet, when to leave your trebuchet and go for flags. Very Cool.

I would like to use the default Conquest system where each team starts out with 300 (or whatever) points and flag captures and kills make this score decrease. Easier for people to catch on when they see points for the teams going down to 0, rather than them wondering when the game ends at an invisible, arbitrary number.

I'm hoping the trebuchet adds a lot to the game. It provides a goal for teams to aim for and push to achieve while not being an instant win for a team if it is destroyed. Flags alone make for stale game play.

Its true it's easier to catch on with counting down, and there's a clear stop point. I've always thought it was a little odd, but maybe that's just me.



The trebuchet I think makes the gamemode work. It adds a lot more gameplay and depth I think. Of course it really has to be tested.



One thing I've always found stupid with Conquest was the way the flags were numbered. I never had any idea which number referred to which flag.


Things to note with conquest mode atm:

With the scoring, but if you die, your team loses a point. idk if we'd want that or not, but worth noting.

"Total money will be shared after a flag capturing is (0.50 * seconds * number_of_players)       
example: if 15 players is playing and 120 seconds past before flag captured, award is 900 golds."

 

[Harn]

Whew, had stuff to do today, sorry for the late replies.

Thanks Mok.

Not exactly what you proposed but I worked on it along the same lines of combining battle and conquest. I have ceased development on it now since I lost the source code when my HD died, but flag positions and additions of new maps etc... are still possible.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,248973.msg5952642.html#msg5952642

Azan, wish you still had the code.

I would have loved to work with you on a lot of that if I had known. Still would if you are feeling up to the task. I think people are ready for something new, maybe they weren't a year ago?

I had considered sticking with the Battle 1 life per round system, but I see quite a few people come into the game asking about why they aren't spawning. My train of thought is that if new players are able to get more face time in the game then they might stick around longer. It's probably a part of why Siege servers seem to have more new players.


Reapy, I had the same experiences with Cav in CTF. I'll try to keep it all in mind, and I'll do something about having a flag border area, I really like that.

X, It'd probably be best to remove the flag cap gold like Azan did so people don't feel obligated to always stand on the flag for money at the expense of the team push. I just spent the past hour thinking it over but this sounds like the most straight-forward solution.

An alternative would be to pull another play from the MOBA book and give a global gold reward to the team, such as 100g.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

 

[Orion]

I think the ideal solution to flag cap gold would be to only award the players who participated in capping the flag, even if they aren't in the zone at the moment of the cap. Have players on each team "checked" if they stay in the cap zone for a few seconds, and once the flag is capped by their team they get a flat rate reward, something like 100 or 200 gold per flag. You don't get anything if you briefly pass through the zone, and you don't get anything if you show up at the last second, but you do get rewarded if you started fighting in the zone and pushed your opponent out of it and your mates capped it behind you. You also get gold if you stayed there and mostly capped the thing by yourself and died, and your team shows up 5 seconds later and finishes the cap. Basically, reward people for significantly contributing to the cap. Don't reward players on the team who weren't in the cap zone for capping a flag they never even approached.

If you go for smaller team sizes, I think you should go with serial flag caps rather than free-for-all. Free-for-all works for Battlefield's Conquest because it has larger maps, larger amounts of players, and higher mobility among players overall. In Warband you're limited by how fast your infantry can run from one point to another, and if you keep it serial then your progression is known in advance and your opponent doesn't have to chase you from point to point. They can properly contest you, which is what the game mode should be focusing on. If you have people running willynilly about the map, then you'll likely end up where we are now: archer skirmishes until one team gets an advantage, then a quick mop-up. Serial flag caps would have to be paced with respawns, though. You don't want a team to kill their opponents on a middle flag, then push out and cap the next flag uncontested because the other team can't run fast enough from their base.

The big problem I see is having teams spawn at a single, fixed location all the time. If my team has pushed your team all the way to your last flag and one of us dies, we have to cross the entire map to get back there. You tried to balance a defender's advantage by having cumulative respawn penalties, but teams will have a very hard time trying to sustain a push with a long respawn timer and a long walk back from base.

Idea: I know from Robo's old dueling server, using the Nditions maps and whatnot, that you can teleport players around the map by having them step on a scene object. Perhaps there's a way to make protected, walled-in spawn areas with a teleporter that will take you to your furthest secured flag? All you'd have to do is check if the flag is being capped by the enemy, and if they are then you spawn one flag back. That solves the problem of teams having long travel times from base, both attacking and defending, because they're effectively only a single flag's distance away. Then you just need mirrored map design to ensure equal travel times. I say to have a teleporter rather than spawning directly on a flag, because I assume the trebuchets will be far back at an opponent's base because of their value. A team should have the option of running onto their teleporter to get taken to the front lines, or running over a ramp to get out of their spawn zone and dropping near their trebuchet. That way they can react to a trebuchet attack without having to spawn on the other side of the map.

Oh, and I forgot to add that I love the idea as a whole. I would play competitively again if such a mode were made.

 

[Lord Rich]

Not really sure what the purpose of giving gold is for capturing the flags, but from watching pubbers play on the server we were testing on, people cap them anyway gold or not. I removed the gold addition because it meant a team could easily use the flags as a means of tanking up, you end up with tons of extra gold.

Also I would question whether having respawning would be a good idea for a competitive game mode. The permanence of death in battle is the best part, it makes it tense and exciting, it makes actions you take in the game mean more. I think game types that have respawns can certainly be fun and accessible for players but I can't say I like them as much for a competitive option. When we tried pushing CTF a while back it became clear to me that game types like that miss out quite a lot of elements that are currently important and interesting in battle.

You lose a lot of coordination, prior planning and other stuff like equipment drops and class configuration. With respawning it becomes a game of responding to what your opponent is doing and pushing when you have an opportunity. The detailed positions and dance of tactical maneuvering would likely be lost.

Generally battle is perfectly fine as a gametype, its simple, two teams fight each other and the stronger one wins. The flags are there simply as a way to discourage camping (I mean really camping, not the map control we have now, back in the day teams used to sit in the villages on FBTR) and force teams into a combat situation. Likewise with my conquest mod the flags themselves are secondary, they are simply there as a mechanic to force the other team into a fight. You can take more map control than the other team, control the flags and force them to come and fight you. It makes teams take risks in order to get that map control but theyre rewarded by being able to force their opponents to fight on their terms.

Battle right now has a similar mechanic but because of the random element, teams can still be rewarded for camping and teams that take risks for map control can get nothing. The more you move to these complex systems of victory and away from single respawns, the less it becomes about just beating the other team. It will become more about who is more agile and capable of avoiding a fight in order to win via flags, or destroying a trebuchet or whatever. That's what happened with CTF, it wasn't the people who were killing lots of enemies who were successful, it was the sneaky bugger who would get in and steal the flag then jump on his horse and escape. I don't think that is suitable as a mechanic for a competitive gametype because you are no longer comparing two teams combat strengths, you are comparing them on other merits and abilities.

------------------------------

As for developing it I am afraid I would not be able to contribute, I have a job now so my time is a lot more constricted and I already have a couple of projects on my plate. I would be happy to point whoever ends up working on it in the right direction though if you need some assistance in regards to code.

 

[Orion]

First and foremost, I think if you took away respawns entirely in a conquest-style game mode then you just have battle with a timer that ends in a win for one team instead of a draw. As soon as one team gains an advantage, be it in flags or kills, then victory is pretty much assured. A team with more players can cover more territory and capture more flags and drain more points, and a team with more points can turtle up and sustain. The team that loses even a couple of players is now at a disadvantage in points and manpower, so their chances of making a comeback are vastly diminished because their hand is now forced into attacking a specific area where the enemy is concentrated with greater numbers.

With respawns, a team needs to be able to sustain their push all the way to the end, not just to a slight advantage, because their opponents only temporarily lose their manpower. If you can't cohesively coordinate your team constantly, then your opponents will eventually whittle you down and drive you back to neutral territory (which, as a side note, should always consist of at least 2 flags that must both be capped before a team can progress in a serial fashion, IMO).

The better team should still come out on top, but being the better team would involve being more than just strong individuals. A team of excellent individual players might not be well-coordinated, and so would fall apart if they were faced with organized pushes and defense. Of course, the best organized team in the world wouldn't be able to execute properly if their players were garden-variety pubbers. You'd need a balance of player skill and team cohesion to effectively play in a game mode like this.

You also seem to have missed the idea of serial flags. That could be my wording. You can't win by being more agile and avoiding a fight when flags progress in a serial fashion. I drew up a quick diagram to show this, just in case:

隐藏

In this image, you see the map at the start of a match. Both teams have their respective starting positions (red and green), and there are neutral, uncapped flags in the middle. You must first capture the neutral flags before you can move to your opponent's initial flags. The lines between flags indicate who can advance where. Red lines mean red can advance to that flag (left to right) and green lines mean green can advance to that flag (right to left). Teams can only advance along lines of their color, so they can't "skip" flags. Consider these as tiers, so you can't cap one neutral flag and advance into enemy territory. You need both.

In this image, red has captured both of the neutral flags. Now they can attack green's first flag (G1). Green has the option of attacking both neutral flags still.

If green doesn't capture the neutral flags, then they will be pushed back to their last flag, G2.

At least, that's how a tug-of-war style conquest mode would work, with a linear, serial progression of flags. You have to capture one to "unlock" the one after it. It doesn't have to be single flags per tier, either. This can be scaled fairly well, but you'd obviously want more players for larger maps.

How it could work with the trebuchet concept is to have flank routes along the sides of the maps. These can also serve as alternative routes to flags, giving them more utility and a higher likelihood of being trafficked. Teams that lose the neutral flags could set up a screen at their first initial flag, and send a small group of players along one of these routes to attack the enemy's trebuchet (which is worth a lot of points), drawing attention from the flag battle so that the team can advance back towards the neutral flags.

Personally, I would be more interested in this sort of mode than in a free-for-all conquest, at least with teams of 5 to 8. Once you get into double digits for players on both sides, free-for-all becomes more feasible because you're not just running from point to point. If you've ever played on a Battlefield conquest server that was sparsely populated, you'll understand what I mean. More time should be spent fighting, not running around.

 

[Lord Rich]

First and foremost, I think if you took away respawns entirely in a conquest-style game mode then you just have battle with a timer that ends in a win for one team instead of a draw. As soon as one team gains an advantage, be it in flags or kills, then victory is pretty much assured. A team with more players can cover more territory and capture more flags and drain more points, and a team with more points can turtle up and sustain. The team that loses even a couple of players is now at a disadvantage in points and manpower, so their chances of making a comeback are vastly diminished because their hand is now forced into attacking a specific area where the enemy is concentrated with greater numbers.

The same mechanics will apply to a linear progression style approach as well, even with respawns. You will have to have an end game mechanic in there somewhere, whether it is in the form of cumulative respawn time, limited lives for the team or individuals or a timer. In any of those cases where you have a team gain an initial lead there is the possibility for them to either snowball easily or sit back and win without taking risks.

In a good game I think that you should have severe risks involved, that's what makes it exciting. It means every kill is important. In warband 8v8 it's true that you can be snowballed easily, but I have also seen teams come back from seemingly impossible odds. Players do end up winning 3v1's every now and then and teams do come back from being 5-8 down in players.

With respawns, a team needs to be able to sustain their push all the way to the end, not just to a slight advantage, because their opponents only temporarily lose their manpower. If you can't cohesively coordinate your team constantly, then your opponents will eventually whittle you down and drive you back to neutral territory (which, as a side note, should always consist of at least 2 flags that must both be capped before a team can progress in a serial fashion, IMO).

The better team should still come out on top, but being the better team would involve being more than just strong individuals. A team of excellent individual players might not be well-coordinated, and so would fall apart if they were faced with organized pushes and defense. Of course, the best organized team in the world wouldn't be able to execute properly if their players were garden-variety pubbers. You'd need a balance of player skill and team cohesion to effectively play in a game mode like this.

I think the possibilities for organisation and coordination are inherently less with this system, a team losing players will be having them respawn in a fragmented way and the addition of players onto the field brings more unknowns in terms of what information teams are working off. This is what I mean by reacting to the other team, you wont be able to do good scouting, find out your opponents composition and positions and then get your team working on a plan to win based on that. That's what happens now in matches, with this everything will be in constant flux so detailed and coordinated ways of winning will go out of the window. There will be little chance that an individual could coordinate a team effectively with players constantly dying/respawning and even changing class. Not when they have to also keep track of what the other team is doing with the same issues.

What I think will happen (and what I have seen from the CTF stuff) is that teams will be a lot looser and there would be overall goals or very loose objectives set since a tight coordination and detailed plans, tactics or actions will be impractical. Personally I think that's a step back from what competitive warband has now, but obviously that's just an opinion.

I do however think that this type of mode could be better for a 5v5 style match. 5v5 is even more open to snowballing than 8v8 and I have to say I have never liked the format. It might work with this type of system though and the lower player count would help make managing the constantly changing situation a little more bearable.

 

[Mad_Dawg]

While I agree respawn dilutes competitive, I feel it would be necessary for this to be successful.  Take it away, and as Marnid said (yeah, I read them both...the things I do for you Harn) you get a bad battle mode.  Perhaps a life limiter to keep some seriousness to the gameplay and keep people making good decisions.  I've played around with that coding and got a simple one that limits both teams. 

This is pretty much the biggest issue with Fight & Destroy.  The treb has so many hit points you cannot sneakily take it down.  So you either kill enough of them so that they can no longer put up a defense and by which render destroying the trebuchet unnecessary, or lose too many yourself hacking away at it for a minute or two.

While teleportation seems a little hokey, it does solve the problem of time + distance.  It would have to be to a safe location though, or camping the teleport-to location would be an issue.  Unless the mode focuses more on the neutral flags than capping the enemy flag, or the maps are just that small, something like this would need to be implemented. 

I think the possibilities for organisation and coordination are inherently less with this system, a team losing players will be having them respawn in a fragmented way and the addition of players onto the field brings more unknowns in terms of what information teams are working off. This is what I mean by reacting to the other team, you wont be able to do good scouting, find out your opponents composition and positions and then get your team working on a plan to win based on that.

I don't forsee huge issues with this for the simple reason that the proposed spawns would be static.  If it were like Siege or TDM where people spawn behind you for no apparent reason then yes, this would be a problem.  With set spawns you know the direction of attack as well as can monitor kill count and troop class.  Potentially troop limiters would improve this, so people cannot constantly change classes to nullify that process. (meaning monitoring kill count and troop class)



I'll be honest, I have limited experience with Conquest and really do not understand the points and scoring currently.  I postulate how it probably works, but if someone could enlighten me it would be appreciated.

 

[Lord Rich]

I'll be honest, I have limited experience with Conquest and really do not understand the points and scoring currently.  I postulate how it probably works, but if someone could enlighten me it would be appreciated.

To be honest its not well designed and a bit of a mess a bit like the original MotF rules. I will explain as best as I can remember though.

Both teams start at Y points (usually several hundred) and try to reduce as fast as possible, points are reduced in the following ways:

x per second per flag
2x per second per base flag
1 per kill

x varies according to the number of players currently on the server, can't remember the particular equation for this off the top of my head.

Base flags are placed on the same entry points as the CTF flags, they are pre captured for a particular team. Other flags can be placed either neutral or already captured for either team, no native maps have these other flags start captured though, they're always neutral.

The whole score system is unpredictable and obtuse in general. Just having spectators changes how fast you gain points I think. The real problem however was the spawn system which would spawn you according to TDM rules I think. In any case it was also extremely unpredictable and random.

For my mod I completely redid the points system so that there was a set amount of points to be gained overall per second (this was configurable) and each flag you owned gave you an equal share.

 

[Mad_Dawg]

I'll be honest, I have limited experience with Conquest and really do not understand the points and scoring currently.  I postulate how it probably works, but if someone could enlighten me it would be appreciated.

To be honest its not well designed and a bit of a mess a bit like the original MotF rules. I will explain as best as I can remember though.

Both teams start at Y points (usually several hundred) and try to reduce as fast as possible, points are reduced in the following ways:

x per second per flag
2x per second per base flag
1 per kill

x varies according to the number of players currently on the server, can't remember the particular equation for this off the top of my head.

Base flags are placed on the same entry points as the CTF flags, they are pre captured for a particular team. Other flags can be placed either neutral or already captured for either team, no native maps have these other flags start captured though, they're always neutral.

The whole score system is unpredictable and obtuse in general. Just having spectators changes how fast you gain points I think. The real problem however was the spawn system which would spawn you according to TDM rules I think. In any case it was also extremely unpredictable and random.

For my mod I completely redid the points system so that there was a set amount of points to be gained overall per second (this was configurable) and each flag you owned gave you an equal share.

Appreciate that.

I already have coding that provides static spawns as opposed to TDM style if needed. (Provided by Patta) It was utilized in ROCK.

 

[Orion]

as Marnid said (yeah, I read them both.. )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs

[quote author=Lord Rich]You will have to have an end game mechanic in there somewhere, whether it is in the form of cumulative respawn time, limited lives for the team or individuals or a timer. In any of those cases where you have a team gain an initial lead there is the possibility for them to either snowball easily or sit back and win without taking risks.[/quote]

I do believe that's where the trebuchet concept comes in. You can't defend your trebuchet if your whole team is huddled around a forward position. Alternatively, you'll lose your forward position if you dedicate people to defending your trebuchet way back at your base. There are just too many things for a small team to handle all at once unless they're constantly pushing, engaging the enemy, and threatening them with an imminent victory. Easing up on the pressure with respawns means you're giving your enemy a chance to come back. Without respawns, you have teams playing it safe until the first headshot is made.

Anyways, you are right that there must be some sort of way to end the game. I figured since we were talking about conquest that it would simply be points running out. If points are lost by way of flag ownership, then the team with the most flags will win if they can hold onto the majority. If the trebuchet takes a significant chunk out of a team's points, then they have to cover that as well, because it can undermine a moderate lead. The reason respawns are necessary is because respawns validate the existence of these victory conditions. There's no point in capturing flags if there are no respawns, because you're risking your neck and losing any positioning advantage you might have had by moving into a kill-zone. You'll sit back and wait for kills so you can move in with a hard numbers advantage.

I've been looking at this concept like it's a match in a moba, which can range from 20 minutes to over an hour, and it's one continuous fight the whole time. In that case, there is no downtime in the whole match, and you don't have multiple rounds. It's all fighting, pushing, defending, maneuvering, etc. until the points are down to zero for one side, and that ends either the map or the match. The system doesn't reward passive play because passive play loses flags, and losing flags loses points. You won't get the drawn out campfests I remember from the little CTF tournament we had in NA a while back, where you couldn't whittle away your opponents enough to make a reliable push for the flag because they all respawned on the flag, and once they had a single cap they could just sit on it all game. Losing people in this kind of mode, with the decently long respawn timer and with players spawning at least one flag away, will still be meaningful and have a direct impact on the outcome of a flag cap attempt. The respawns, if timed properly, will be able to put up a solid fight at the next flag if they die at the first, but the fight on the first flag should already be decided by the time they get back after respawning. The only way to make sure of that is by tweaking respawn times and clever map design.

I think the possibilities for organisation and coordination are inherently less with this system, a team losing players will be having them respawn in a fragmented way and the addition of players onto the field brings more unknowns in terms of what information teams are working off. This is what I mean by reacting to the other team, you wont be able to do good scouting, find out your opponents composition and positions and then get your team working on a plan to win based on that. That's what happens now in matches, with this everything will be in constant flux so detailed and coordinated ways of winning will go out of the window. There will be little chance that an individual could coordinate a team effectively with players constantly dying/respawning and even changing class. Not when they have to also keep track of what the other team is doing with the same issues.

There are a couple of assumptions being made here. The first is that players respawn in "a fragmented way," which I take to mean at different times. They could respawn in waves, actually, and you could vary the wave respawn delay by how many people are in it. There are other possible solutions to this problem which should be considered. The second assumption is that you won't be able to reliably figure out your opponent's composition. Who says class restrictions aren't a consideration? Obviously, cavalry dominance is a big concern, and was directly mentioned in Harn's initial concept. Might it be a good idea to impose a limit on how many cavalry a team can field at once? I don't think it would have to be like the 5-a-side, with its fixed 2-2-1 setup, but maybe allow teams to have an unlimited number of infantry, a max of 3 archers, and a max of 2 cav, in a team of 7? These are just examples and I haven't exactly considered the implications of these numbers, but I hope you can see my point. There are ways to influence composition by ruling out some of the cheesier/cornier ones. Plus, player knowledge plays a big part in it. If I'm playing against wK and I see that Calamity isn't doing well as infantry, and their team only has one other cav at the moment, then it's safe for me to assume that Calamity might respawn as cavalry. This is something we already consider in battle matches now, it's just that our respawns come all at once and are punctuated by a few seconds of downtime at the end of a round (and obviously without the class restrictions in mind, but the effectiveness of their current composition is still taken into account).

As for snowballing, it's actually not as much of an issue in a respawning game mode, IMO. Since a single, long "round" will be the entirety of the map, you don't have the regular influx of gold from a round bonus. It's purely combat and cap bonuses, both of which can be tweaked. Also, the only way for a player to spend their gold and upgrade in a respawning game mode with a single round is to die. A player that kills 2 enemies but loses a cap and dies can respawn with better equipment than their opponents. The game would be a constant back-and-forth unless one team was significantly better than the other.

 

[Mr.X]

In regards to the spawn teleporter and serial/free flags and lives:

Spawn thingy:
I'm not much of a coder, but I'm fairly certain it could be made so that you spawn to your newest captured flag (which would work well with serial flags). There's something in the fight and destroy mode code called a "spawn effector", which is commented with something along the lines of "teams spawn near their scene prop".

Serial/Free Flags:
I prefer free flags, although I think I would enjoy both. I prefer free because I think it's much more strategically interesting to have to hold more than 1 flag at a time. With serial flags, there's only ever 1 flag being contested for each team. I think it would just be more difficult to try and defend 2 flags and try and take a third, rather than just defend your flag and take their flag. I would also imagine there's just more movement and action, and general positioning of the whole team would be a little more important.
Serial flags does solve the problem of those stupid flag numbers that pop up though.

Lives:
I pretty much agree with Orion and Mad. Without respawns, there's not much difference from battle mode. Like Mad said, right now, Fight and Destroy mode is just battle mode because the trebs just have a ridiculous amount of health. If there are no respawns, then killing the whole enemy team will always be the easiest win condition.

There are a couple of assumptions being made here. The first is that players respawn in "a fragmented way," which I take to mean at different times. They could respawn in waves, actually, and you could vary the wave respawn delay by how many people are in it. There are other possible solutions to this problem which should be considered. The second assumption is that you won't be able to reliably figure out your opponent's composition. Who says class restrictions aren't a consideration? Obviously, cavalry dominance is a big concern, and was directly mentioned in Harn's initial concept. Might it be a good idea to impose a limit on how many cavalry a team can field at once? I don't think it would have to be like the 5-a-side, with its fixed 2-2-1 setup, but maybe allow teams to have an unlimited number of infantry, a max of 3 archers, and a max of 2 cav, in a team of 7? These are just examples and I haven't exactly considered the implications of these numbers, but I hope you can see my point. There are ways to influence composition by ruling out some of the cheesier/cornier ones. Plus, player knowledge plays a big part in it. If I'm playing against wK and I see that Calamity isn't doing well as infantry, and their team only has one other cav at the moment, then it's safe for me to assume that Calamity might respawn as cavalry. This is something we already consider in battle matches now, it's just that our respawns come all at once and are punctuated by a few seconds of downtime at the end of a round (and obviously without the class restrictions in mind, but the effectiveness of their current composition is still taken into account).

As for snowballing, it's actually not as much of an issue in a respawning game mode, IMO. Since a single, long "round" will be the entirety of the map, you don't have the regular influx of gold from a round bonus. It's purely combat and cap bonuses, both of which can be tweaked. Also, the only way for a player to spend their gold and upgrade in a respawning game mode with a single round is to die. A player that kills 2 enemies but loses a cap and dies can respawn with better equipment than their opponents. The game would be a constant back-and-forth unless one team was significantly better than the other.

I'm not sure fragmented respawns would be that much of a problem with the gamemode, as much as something new that teams have to figure out how to deal with.

I do think class restrictions are a good idea. IG Battlegrounds has it so that you can't have over 50% of a team cavalry, and you can't have over 40% archer (or something like that). That would probably be the best way to do it. If it was actually limited in the code.

I agree with the snowballing idea though. Don't think it would be an issue.



A lot of these things could be tested if we had a working gamemode.