Change scoring mechanism to discourage camping

[TigerXtrm]

A single gripe I've had about the original Renegade and Renegade X is the fact that you can win based on points alone. Camping a base for points has become a valid way of winning a match, even if the 'losing' team managed to take out part of the enemy base while their own is still standing.

Wouldn't it make much more sense to factor the number of destroyed buildings into the final win or lose scenario somehow? Maybe subtract an X number of points from the team's total score for every destroyed building in their base. At least that way camping the enemy base (like GDI does on Field pretty much every single match) isn't a guaranteed victory, even though they don't destroy a thing 99% of the time.

[Drury]

Marathon servers prevent this.

Although "Marathon" servers wouldn't be so much "marathon" if defense wasn't so cheap.

Really, all issues of this game come from endless stalemates. If most matches could be won under 30 or even 60 minutes, this wouldn't be a problem.

[OfficerMeatbeef]

Now, I'm not totally opposed to the idea you suggest, and I certainly won't make any sort of statement that the balance on this is ideal right now because I just don't have the time played or data to back it up.

However, I would still like to argue why the point system makes sense, as a point of interest. First, we should consider the idea of "subtracting points for buildings destroyed". This seems to be reasonable in theory, but it kind of forgets the fact that a team already gets a very sizeable point bonus when they destroy a building. Essentially, what you suggest already exists, it just goes in the other way. The net result is the same, and if you implemented a point penalty you'd essentially be "double-taxing" the team who lost the building. There's no need to reduce points based on buildings destroyed, if we want to go that route the points gained for destroying a building could just be made higher still.

Second: the nature of the design is that losing any building at all is a severe setback for the team. This makes it more and more difficult for them to mount an effective attack, and thus it only makes logical sense to instead fall back to their base where they have an advantage and try to win by pure attrition. Their only other option left is more indirect, guerrilla-style tactics, because they just won't have the resources to compete unit for unit with the enemy, and in some maps (Field....) those are basically not an option, particularly in a random game which tends to have little coordination.

Since the team with the advantage in buildings (and thus, units and options) should eventually also be able to more easily overcome the enemy's defenses via sheer force and numbers and destroy the base, they should also be punished for not being able to capitalize on that extra momentum. If they're just throwing unit after unit at the enemy and still not getting anywhere, this is effectively a failure on their part and should be appropriately punished. The point system accomplishes exactly this; a team who has a substantial advantage in buildings and thus tactical options can still lose the match if they are unable to capitalize on that advantage properly.

This is all fine in theory. In practice, of course, it generally doesn't happen, mainly because of two things: lack of sufficiently skilled play, and simple failure in map design. Obviously, there is little that can be done about lack of player skill beyond waiting for them to get better or simplifying systems, and I don't think anyone who sees what this game is supposed to be wants to go down the simplifying to compensate for limited player skill road, because it would destroy much of the appeal.

Map design,of course, is definitely controllable. However, even with a map that might seem totally broken based on how it usually goes, like Field, it can be very hard to say for sure if this is the case because the map is flawed or simply because players are bad at smartly overcoming it. Field is a lot of chokepoints, sure, but it also has very little time between bases, so reinforcing a push through said chokepoints is fairly quick. Where random teams tend to falter is in not appropriately coordinating and maintaining these pushes even if they have an overwhelming material advantage, instead clogging up the chokepoints and getting the entire advance killed.

To summarize: teams who have a material advantage due to destroying a building can still eventually lose, as I would argue they should, because tactically they have failed overall. They were not able to do what they should have been able to do, given their substantial advantages. I just don't think we can judge whether the point of failure is on the map or the low skills of players, yet.

[Methanoid]

isnt airstrikes a good way to quickly end some stalemates when turtling? ive been smacked in the face by some pretty good airstrikes that left a nice clear path for the enemy, esp if followed up by more.

[R315r4z0r]

I honestly never look at my points until the final minutes of a match. If I'm camping the enemy base I'm doing it for the practical reason of trying to destroy the base... not to whore points.

Attacking the enemy base will do two things: first it will physically damage the base which is your objective. If no one is repairing then you take out the structure and you are one step closer to victory. Secondly, if people are repairing, you tie them up and force them to stay repairing. This allows other people on your team to attack something else and not have to deal with as much resistance.

I find that enemies camping your base are actually more beneficial to the defending team since repair points seem to even it out or possibly even exceed them. There are so many games I've won just defending a base from the brink of destruction even if we haven't even destroyed one of the enemy's structures. In fact, I find it happens so commonly that I thought that points were biased heavily towards defenders.

[Letty]

As far as I'm concerned if the map ends by points the map was a draw. Who cares about what the game says? We ain't playing for money, so the question who technically won or lost the map is meaningless.

It would probably be better for the game (in terms of getting players to attack properly rather than point whore) if the game officially recognized ending by time as a draw though.

I find that enemies camping your base are actually more beneficial to the defending team since repair points seem to even it out or possibly even exceed them. There are so many games I've won just defending a base from the brink of destruction even if we haven't even destroyed one of the enemy's structures. In fact, I find it happens so commonly that I thought that points were biased heavily towards defenders.

Actually repair is only worth 2/3rds of damage. What usually gets Defenders the points lead is that they disarm beacons (major points), or because the attackers keep rushing in and losing a bunch of high-credit units (which is why I dislike winning by points, as it encourages the attacker not to actually attack and instead to simply sit outside and point whore).

I honestly never look at my points until the final minutes of a match. If I'm camping the enemy base I'm doing it for the practical reason of trying to destroy the base... not to whore points.

FWIW, if the enemy still has their HoN/Barracks up, you are often doing directly the opposite. The reason is that the Hotwire/Technician repairs over 2x as fast as most vehicles can do damage (only about 50% faster than mammoths and flame tanks, but it's still faster). This means that if 2 artillery/MRLS are pounding at a building a single hotwire/technician can stalemate them indefinitely. This is trading 2 players and 2 tank spots for 1 repairing character, which is a very bad move.

Of course, this is not the case on maps where you can constantly switch targets to keep the enemy team wasting their time running from building to building. Whiteout for example. 5-6 artillery or MRLS can quite often take down a building if they focus fire before the enemy can scramble on over.

[Methanoid]

so far, if im camping its because the enemy is doing a damned good job of pressuring us at our base and leaving it largely unprotected is seen as a risk until you can cleane your base of whatever risks are lurking nearby.

Typically such risks come form the shortcuts/alternate route a fair few new players dont know exist till later, a couple of maps have paths/routes i didnt notice till i followed some1 else wondering wth they were off too, only to find yourself springing out into the enemy base on the sly.

[Letty]

so far, if im camping its because the enemy is doing a damned good job of pressuring us at our base and leaving it largely unprotected is seen as a risk until you can cleane your base of whatever risks are lurking nearby.

Typically such risks come form the shortcuts/alternate route a fair few new players dont know exist till later, a couple of maps have paths/routes i didnt notice till i followed some1 else wondering wth they were off too, only to find yourself springing out into the enemy base on the sly.

By camping I believe everyone in this thread is taking the term to mean camping just outside the enemy base (usually with vehicles like Artillery or Mammoths) and pummeling buildings for an hour to get loadsapoints while not really accomplishing any thing else or providing meaningful gameplay.

Defending the base is entirely smart and I doubt anyone has issue with that.

[Soldieroffate]

I've read a topic similar to this on an older forum and the issue is in the other team if they cannot dislodge the campers. I've played various games where I entered the game as Nod and GDI was camped right outside our entrance and a planned rush of arties/airstrikes took care of the problem quickly.

[Letty]

I've read a topic similar to this on an older forum and the issue is in the other team if they cannot dislodge the campers. I've played various games where I entered the game as Nod and GDI was camped right outside our entrance and a planned rush of arties/airstrikes took care of the problem quickly.

Good luck doing that if you've lost buildings. Unfortunately once you've gotten a building kill or two there is no incentive for to actually finish the job vs. simply point whoring to victory.

I agree that in an even situation there is no reason you can't eventually push out. But at the same time there shouldn't be an incentive to point whore over attacking for the purpose of killing buildings.

[Soldieroffate]

I've read a topic similar to this on an older forum and the issue is in the other team if they cannot dislodge the campers. I've played various games where I entered the game as Nod and GDI was camped right outside our entrance and a planned rush of arties/airstrikes took care of the problem quickly.

Good luck doing that if you've lost buildings. Unfortunately once you've gotten a building kill or two there is no incentive for to actually finish the job vs. simply point whoring to victory.

I agree that in an even situation there is no reason you can't eventually push out. But at the same time there shouldn't be an incentive to point whore over attacking for the purpose of killing buildings.

It really depends on which building you've lost, though if you lose any in the early game, chances are you've already been defeated.

Nah, I sort of disagree with you on the first point. At least from the games I've played, the majority of teams finish the job just so we can move on to the next map. The only time I've seen that happen is probably when I was on Walls and we got their ref early; we had to point whore to an extent since they just decided to camp all day. At least until they were starved of credits.

For your second point, tell that to most players on both sides when it comes to Field. Maybe they want to up their status on the ladder?

[Terekhov]

The ladder issue can be overcome by incorporating a weighted scoring mechanism that takes different states (points, k/d, overall win%, perhaps others) into account and uses that as the ranking stat.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Nah, I sort of disagree with you on the first point. At least from the games I've played, the majority of teams finish the job just so we can move on to the next map. The only time I've seen that happen is probably when I was on Walls and we got their ref early; we had to point whore to an extent since they just decided to camp all day. At least until they were starved of credits.

doesn't pointwhoring give the enemy credits when the refinery is down? i would repair buildings all day or grab a shotgunner and harass an arty for some easy credits.

[Methanoid]

I've read a topic similar to this on an older forum and the issue is in the other team if they cannot dislodge the campers. I've played various games where I entered the game as Nod and GDI was camped right outside our entrance and a planned rush of arties/airstrikes took care of the problem quickly.

saw a clever nod team do something similar yesterday, we were stalemate for q a while, then they held back at our base as a lrg grp, sprang inside, got their troops to drop beacons on top of our vehicle factory then blocked the ramp up to the roof with apc's/stealth tanks when we tried to walk up the ramp or jump near the apc we died as if run over even tho it was pretty much stationary just blocking the ramp up.

was clever and worked, i suppose it was a clever way to break the stalemate, we were pretty much on a downhill spiral after that.