Rework: Stats overview and winning conditions

[Kakashi]

I actually wanted to reinstall RenX and have a few plays before suggesting this, but I feel like I'll forget half of it before I find the time. Please excuse me if any of my assumptions about current RenX mp gameplay are wrong.

While I did not play that much Ren I played lots of APB in the past and realized that one (actually two slightly related) thing(s) was(were) extremely annoying about Renegade and it's mods, which are the information displayed in the stats overlay (the one you can see and expand in the top rightern corner of the HUD) and the badly designed "winning conditions".

I assume that vanilla Renegade suffers from similar problems thanks to those two features so I figured I could suggest about improving them for RenX, too. I had played 0.55 some time when it came out, but I cannot exactly recall what information the stats overlay displayed. Thus I just assume that it is money, k/d and points just like it is in Ren.

First off, being sorted in a ranking having your stats and k/d constantly shown in front of you promotes the general player to pointwhore. This is not in the least helpful, neither are points, rank or k/d really needed to be seen in the game. If I recall correctly you can also open a menu that shows the infantry class and vehicle of you friendly teammates. My suggestion would be to "swap" those informations with those currently shown in the overlay.

In clean sentences: The overlay information should show your teammates, their current cash value, their character, their vehicle type (if they ride any), information about players seated in the same vehicle as you (i.e. so APC drivers can see who rides along as passenger) and maybe even their respective health stats (maybe by highlighting their character/vehicle status with a background color or by adding a small health bar). This is the kind of information that is actually helpful in combat, and as such would fit better as something directly on the screen. STats and k/d could still be acessed by pushig a button.

Then, considering winning conditions: I do know that there are two ways to play standard C&C mode, them being with or without timelimit. As far as I remember this has not been changed in RenX. A game without timelimit is obviously determined by base destruction. A game with timelimit, however, is only determined by base destruction if either team is quick on their feet or if the difference in strenght is big enough. Otherwise the win is determined solely by points. A scenario where boh teams have a more or less intact base is a lot more common.

Points, however are not quite reliable as way to choose a winning team. Thus, I would suggest that if there is no definite winner by base destruction the game decides the victor by how many structures have been destroyed. Each structure would have an assigned "value" for this, i.e. base defenses are worth .5 points, support structures are worth 1 point, production structures are worth 2 points etc (note that those values are just an example). If one team managed to destroy more enemy buildings than the other it is deided to be the winner. If both teams destroyed the same number of buildings it is a draw. Additionaly, if both teams ONLY destroyed base defenses and no "core buildings" it is also a draw, even if one team has destroyed more base defenses than the other.

The game resulting in a draw is a lot less satisfactory than a clean win. Putting in this kind of logic for C&C mode games gives regular players an incentive to "risk their neck" going into the enemy base to kill a structure. Without changing the weapons and units themselves, fights might become faster and more exciting.

I hope I make sense, kinda in a hurry. Class starting in two minuts .

[Demigan]

The information could be swapped, I agree with you there, but points should still be visible. Points are relevant to the game, they give you an idea of how much use you have been so far. It's usually fairly easy to spot the pointwhores, and they don't get that much 'status' from having lots of points that way. In fact, people usually know which people are the best, they have high stats in both points, kills and, this is important to identify the real base-killers, deaths.

I would in fact place both these information bars in the same stats at the top right of the corner. By pressing tab a few times, you can swap between them, so you can keep up-to-date about your points, kills, money and your teammates possessions.

The points system works incredibly well. It gives incentive to use the LESS expencive characters and tanks, it also makes tactical descisions about how many points you will be giving your enemy available.

Timed games are a lot more about quick tactical thinking and choosing the right character at the right time. Having your vehicle production destroyed can actually be a good thing, as your enemy then tries to pound their way in. A team that manages to destroy dozens of tanks, while losing little themselves, should be rewarded. The points system does that exactly. In fact, if you use something less powerfull, you will earn more points! One-hit killing a basic soldier earns you 2 points, while killing him with a shitload of bullets earns you 3 points. Killing a havoc with a One-hit kill earns you around 80 points I believe, killing them with a basic earns you 100+ points.

Edit: For some reason, timed games end a lot by base-destruction, people are much quicker, take far more risks and reap the benefits, or the punishment that comes with it. In marathon games, people just muck about a lot until some kind of status quo forms, then they try to find ways to break it.

Yours sincerely

Demigan.

[Kakashi]

I do not need to see my points or k/d all the time while playing, not having to open another screen to see what your tank rush mates hide inside their tanks is something I would feel more comfortable with. I do not judge players by their points or kills/deaths at all. It usually doesn't take long to determine their capabilites. Judging by those values is pretty vague anyways as those cannot reflect everything that happens in a game. It only shows that a player gained those points/kills/deaths, but not how it actually happened.

I like your idea of being able to swap between stats and units composition information. If we can have both that's alright, too. By no means I want to pry stats away from the screen.

Being able to epically push back lots of enemies with only a few of your own units is indeed quite rewarding, but assuming neither side managed to obliberate the enemy base it would still be a stalemate. Should the team that had fewer losses and made more points be awarded or the one that actually managed to sneak into the enemy base and kill their refinery? Personally, since C&C mode is about base destruction I would prefer the building kill to decide the winner.

I do not mean to insult the achievements of the defending team by this, I just want the goal to match the gamemode a bit better.

I'll try to pry open some time the next weekend and catch some actual gameplay. If you say that there are not many stalemates in timed games that makes me happy. There is nothing more boring than not being able to finish your job just cause nobody wants to lose their tank till the timer runs out. I do think that the playerbase has a lot influence on that matter as well, though.

[Demigan]

Being able to epically push back lots of enemies with only a few of your own units is indeed quite rewarding, but assuming neither side managed to obliberate the enemy base it would still be a stalemate. Should the team that had fewer losses and made more points be awarded or the one that actually managed to sneak into the enemy base and kill their refinery? Personally, since C&C mode is about base destruction I would prefer the building kill to decide the winner.

I understand perfectly what you mean, and either way it goes, it would promote more teamplay. people would be more bent upon killing a base if the most buildings destroyed would count highest. But it would also promote people giving up the moment a building goes up in flames and their team loses almost all chance of destroying another building.

Points promote pointwhoring, and the game does currently suffer from people who sit somewhere all game simply shooting at a building without any chance of destroying it. On the other hand, people will be more determined to keep fighting even if they have one building left vs all of the enemy, and tactical choices about which unit to take to earn the most points without giving away more then you earn is also a good feat.

Perhaps it would benefit the game if buildings would earn you more points when they are destroyed. At the moment you get around 750 points for total destruction of a building (including dealing damage and assuming no-one repairs). That's already enough points and credits for one player. Destroying a building is always a teameffort, even if a lonewolf destroys a building then the rest of the team still kept the enemy busy enough to allow him to get in. So instead of giving any player more points, the teampoints could be boosted a bunch, think 1000 to 3000 extra points for the team, so from one building the teampoints are increased with 1750 to 3750 points (including the points from the player that destroyed it). That way, building destruction counts a lot more, but a dedicated team can still win by points even if the enemy rips your buildings to shreds

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[Kakashi]

I also know about people that leave a game when the point rift between the teams becomes "too big" for their tastes.

The situation you are describing is going pretty much into an extreme. If one team is left with one building while the other team has a complete base winning is usually just a matter of time. Even if we consider your points system where the team that destroyed a building gets extra "team points" the rift between the two teams would have gotten so big that the defenders could not prevent their defeat.

If the current points system still permits the defending team to win this kind of situation they reward the team that managed to make less progress for "dying less". After all the many deaths of the attacking players that gave the enemy those points are what made the building destructions possible in the first place. It is not very rewarding for a player to have helped kill multiple structures and be decided a loser just because the enemy managed to bust hist tank a few dozen times when he was assaulting those buildings or distracting the enemy.

[Demigan]

There are many timed games I've played where one team won with only 1 or 2 buildings left with a huge gap between points, simply because they banded together and crushed anything that came near.

I've never actually seen anyone quit do to a 'too big' rift in the teampoints, it only happens in the last 10 or 5 minutes, when they think they have no chance at all at winning through building destruction. Most people keep playing, however.

You are right that it is unrewarding for players to lose 'just because' they busted their tank in the process, even though they were instrumental in destroying some buildings. But for any building you destroy, you gain an advantage over your enemy. If you bungle it despite that advantage and give too many points to your enemy, you deserve to lose. Nod would gladly lose his HON if they can destroy an armada of GDI tanks in return.

It might be tough, the moment you destroy an enemy building they suddenly band together inside their base. But they could do that before their building was destroyed, and you could in fact do the same even if you destroyed more buildings. This is a game about teamplay and tactics, your enemy is allowed to dig in and work together to make a perfect bastion. You are allowed to use teamplay to crush such a bastion, and with good teamwork you can! Use tactics, lure them out before you rush, or just do some inspecting about what they got and create a perfect counter.

Most games the winning team by points is also the team that destroyed the most buildings (the last time I played timed games at least), but points keep you wary about what you use and when.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[Kakashi]

"Nod would also gladly sacifice a few dozen of their best men if it would destroy the enemies ion cannon control."

I put this into quotation marks because they are beside the point. The whole point of winning conditions is trying to define what a player or team has to achieve in order to win. c&c mode is derivated from rts gameplay, thus we can assume that its goal is to either destroy the base or cripple the opponent economically to the point where he has to give up. In Ren there is no way to actually dry up the unit flow, seeing how there are plenty of useful free characters, which is why I suggest making the buildings the counting factor. Making the points the deciding factor splits the goal of the gamemode into as many subgoals as there are ways to earn points, also splitting the attention of the team. I think this goal would fit better with team deathmatch styled maps.

As for players banding together for epic team defenses, I am not entirely sure you can account that towards teamplay alone. The game does give pretty powerful defender boni, after all. Besides the usual defenders advantage of being able to wait for the enemy to come to them, being able to prepare in the meantime you have the fact that you spawn close to the objective you have to defend and are able to easily refill, change class or buy a new vehicle there. Also, the more buildings you lose the more you can concentrate your forces around the buildings left. Not to mention many classic Renegade maps support defenders by only providing few, easy to overlook passages into the bases.

[Demigan]

Making the points the deciding factor splits the goal of the gamemode into as many subgoals as there are ways to earn points, also splitting the attention of the team. I think this goal would fit better with team deathmatch styled maps.

Isn't that wonderful? instead of mindelessly grinding that one goal you see in so many games (killing, killing and killing some more, although it's a bit more complex then that with only base destruction as a goal), you can choose your goal. With points, anything you do matters! Repair guys, plain tank driving, infantry support etc are all useful, even if your team lost more buildings then the other team they still matter. If you take that away, then repair crews for tanks and buildings don't get anything out of the game. Repairing tanks is a lousy job, with lots of danger and rarely any tense or difficult moments.

The game does offer great defenders bonusses. All the more reason to make points the determining factor. If defenders can keep their buildings in tact anyway, then an attacking team should focus on killing enemies, earning more points, thus forcing the defenders to act and get out of their defencive position to earn points back. The attacking team has the best options to earn points: hitting buildings can quickly earn you more points then the enemy can from destroying your vehicle! Med: around 20 points each hit? 5 shots against a building and you nearly got more points then they can get from that tank!

I think the current system works, and works great. It has a flaw (pointwhores), but if you create extras to make building destruction more important then building damage, this system works better (at least, I think it will) then having solely building destruction as a determining factor.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[Kakashi]

Points draw C&C mode closer to be a killing and some more killing gamemode, though. Having to worry about making so and so many points with your unit until it redeems its worth can be pretty distracting, too.

[Demigan]

Points draw C&C mode closer to be a killing and some more killing gamemode, though. Having to worry about making so and so many points with your unit until it redeems its worth can be pretty distracting, too.

True that. Still, I think that distractions from base destruction can be a good thing. Renegade always sparkled for me because you had so many options, so many things to keep track off that still went almost naturally.

I have always played the original points system, and I enjoyed it. I might just be a fanboy who is screaming 'don't touch 'my' features!'. There is something to say to determine who wins by base destruction only, so perhaps a compromise? Have a serverside option to allow win by points or building destruction (with points only being a measure during draws).

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[Kakashi]

Hmm... I am a fan of having different variants of gametypes, and this could possibly change the way a map is played a lot without doing anything to gameplay itself.

[Demigan]

Hmm... I am a fan of having different variants of gametypes, and this could possibly change the way a map is played a lot without doing anything to gameplay itself.

All the more reason to ask for a server side option, and not deleting the entire points system altogether! (you could see it any way you like, the points system could be the server-side option or the building destruction thing could be the option).

Anyways, what would determine the winner during a draw? points? most building damage dealed? had buildings on low % of health for the longest duration? (means they had the most chance of destroying a building). Placed most C4 on terminals? (allright, now I'm just mucking about)

[Kakashi]

I would not mind having an actual draw situation be considered a draw, no matter if building kills or points do count. Just a little incentive for both teams to try and get the upper hand. By draw I mean situations where both teams are really close to each other points/destruction-wise. The line at which it is still considered a draw could/should be dependant on the team size, too, so smaller teams don't have to cover as big a rift as bigger ones (this mainly goes for the points system, though).

[Demigan]

I would not mind having an actual draw situation be considered a draw, no matter if building kills or points do count. Just a little incentive for both teams to try and get the upper hand. By draw I mean situations where both teams are really close to each other points/destruction-wise. The line at which it is still considered a draw could/should be dependant on the team size, too, so smaller teams don't have to cover as big a rift as bigger ones (this mainly goes for the points system, though).

Actually, having a draw option at all is a good idea, and adding a shifting border where it is constituted a draw could help. Ladder points would be determined simply by the top half players with the most points and the bottom half players with the least points, not by team.

The border could shift by adding a feature that the losing team has to earn at least 95% or more of the points that the enemy has earned. So if the winning team has 10.000 points, it is a draw the moment the losing team is within 9.500 points or more.

This margin could then be altered, for each 4 players less then your enemy within the last 10 minutes of the game, you get 1% less on this margin.

In a game where one team has 30 players and the losing team has 22 left in the last 10 minutes, the losing team will need only 93% or more of the points that the enemy has earned.

Players that enter and leave within these 10 minutes are not counted as being on the team. Anyone who enters in the last 5 minutes will not be counted either as they have too little time to accumulate any points.

Yours sincerely,

Demigan.

[Kakashi]

If more overall points are earned the losing team gets more of an error margin, huh? Sounds intriguing...