Won by timelimit...

[xen32]

Ugggh, this is frustrating. We had two games in a row where we destroyed 3 out of 4 enemy buildings and had all of our standing, enemy started turtling heavily, killing anything that even got even remotely close to their last building. Then, when timelimit hits, they win by points gained.

I think timelimit winning condition should be whoever owns more buildings wins. And only if number of buildings is the same, take score into account.

[RoundShades]

Might I solicit "marathon" to you good sir? Be thou interested?

Jelly had one up. I met the forum celebrity, _ERROR_, there. Pretty cool games.

[Valor]

Did you try mass APC and nuke/ion rush? Why didn't that work?

[Noodlesocks]

I would recommend marathon servers if you can find them. Only populated ones I've found are in US though.

[Sgt_Jack]

Fiberoptic connection FTW!

[Letty]

Marathon just screws you the other way and makes a game drag out for both sides in circumstances where both teams have very little offensive capability.

Just suck it up and ignore what the game says about winning by score. It's a stupid mechanic any way, time running out should give a draw.

[Sgt_Jack]

On marathon win's a team with better co-operation mostly. Or looses the team that gave up.

[Valor]

Marathon on Islands or Walls is a nightmare if you're on GDI. You're pretty much on a nuke response team the whole game. And Nod doesn't have to worry about wasting credits or giving you points for disarmed nukes. It's no fun having to defend for an indefinite amount of time.

[ABJECT_SELF]

I think timelimit winning condition should be whoever owns more buildings wins. And only if number of buildings is the same, take score into account.

I couldn't disagree more. The other team won that game because they got smart, dug in and played defensively. Meanwhile your team got overconfident, probably used a lot of high-cost units and beacons, and bashed their heads against the enemy defenses. The enemy probably only used basic infantry or did all they could to preserve their existing assets, so they're not giving away mere handfuls of points per attack, while you're giving them hundreds per failed tank rush or disarmed beacon.

It may be frustrating, but the enemy team did earn that point victory with smart tactics and resource management. Taking away point victories would make any David vs Goliath scenario hopeless, since the team with the most resources mid-game would almost always win.

[iovandrake]

Winning by score is stupid. All it takes is decent point whoring to win. In fact in that scenario your team would have won easily if you had intentionally point whored like the "pros". Play on marathon where real men game.

The only way to win should be by defeating the enemy completely or more by the time runs out. Artificial points never really belonged in Ren. Points are just used as a crutch by those who can't achieve final victory.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[Letty]

I couldn't disagree more. The other team won that game because they got smart, dug in and played defensively. Meanwhile your team got overconfident, probably used a lot of high-cost units and beacons, and bashed their heads against the enemy defenses. The enemy probably only used basic infantry or did all they could to preserve their existing assets, so they're not giving away mere handfuls of points per attack, while you're giving them hundreds per failed tank rush or disarmed beacon.

It may be frustrating, but the enemy team did earn that point victory with smart tactics and resource management. Taking away point victories would make any David vs Goliath scenario hopeless, since the team with the most resources mid-game would almost always win.

They didn't win though. The objective is to destroy the opponent's base. They survived, but both teams failed in their objective. It should be a tie. Ties are perfectly acceptable and give a team something to work for over losing.

Any time a defender wins by points it's because the attacker was actually trying to accomplish the objective (killing the enemy base) rather than point whoring, which would always bring success. A secondary win objective that encourages degenerate point whoring over accomplishing the primary win objective is a shit mechanic, period.

[ABJECT_SELF]

They didn't win though. The objective is to destroy the opponent's base. They survived, but both teams failed in their objective. It should be a tie.

This isn't soccer. A tie should only happen if both teams survive the game and happen to have the exact same points.

[Letty]

They didn't win though. The objective is to destroy the opponent's base. They survived, but both teams failed in their objective. It should be a tie.

This isn't soccer. A tie should only happen if both teams survive the game and happen to have the exact same points.

You give no reason this should be the case and it leads to degenerate, stupid, unfun gameplay. Therefore a tie is the correct outcome if both teams fail to win.

Ties exist in RTS too, and Renegade is modeled after an RTS. I know of no RTS that decides wins or losses based on an obscure and stupid point mechanic.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[iovandrake]

You should never win JUST because you managed to get more arbitrary numbers earned than the other side. You should win by destroying the opposing force. You know like in Command and Conquer? Winning because you happened to have more points after an arbitrary time limit expires yet while having fewer buildings is stupid and noncompetitive. This is why I've chosen to play marathon more often both on old ren and RenX. The only time I play a timed match is if the marathons servers are full or (more rarely) empty. I would however prefer an alternative to marathon. I like 3 hours games occasionaly, but sometimes a match should end in an hour or less. It shouldn't end with the losing team winning simply by points though. If you have less buildings you should lose regardless of points. Points should only matter if both teams have the same number of buildings.

Winning simply by points is winning without trying to achieve victory.

[SFJake]

I personally agree with the mentality that Marathon is the way to go, and otherwise points should stay as they are. I actually like the intensity of being on the defense with very low building (say, islands, you're GDI and only have a barrack against full Nod base) and you win against them by point, its quite satisfying.

It could be just an additional option, though, for servers to choose from.

[Letty]

I personally agree with the mentality that Marathon is the way to go, and otherwise points should stay as they are. I actually like the intensity of being on the defense with very low building (say, islands, you're GDI and only have a barrack against full Nod base) and you win against them by point, its quite satisfying.

There's no reason that being down by buildings and surviving to the end to tie can't be just as fun, and it will encourage your enemies to actually attack rather than sit outside your base and point whore to win.

I've been in exactly the same situation and it's quite unfun for the enemy to just sit around with artillery spamming away rather than have them attempt rushes and beacon plants because they are afraid doing so will give GDI too many points. Yet the most boring, simplistic and unfun strategy is the winning one if points is a valid victory method.

[SFJake]

But why would they rush if they WILL win just keeping them at 1 building? That isn't any more incentive, thats less.

[OfficerMeatbeef]

They didn't win though. The objective is to destroy the opponent's base. They survived, but both teams failed in their objective. It should be a tie.

This isn't soccer. A tie should only happen if both teams survive the game and happen to have the exact same points.

Yep. You've covered this pretty well, but just to add a bit I said in a similar topic:

The objective is to win according to the victory conditions laid out. In Marathon, the only victory condition is "destroy the enemy base", and it will go until this happens. In All Out War, the victory conditions are "destroy the enemy base in the time allotted. If you fail to do that in time, the team that has the most points (the team who, in other words, was the most effective) wins instead".

Like the fellow I quoted explained, a team that destroyed a building or two was NOT necessarily the most effective team. The enemy being down even a single building puts them at an extremely significant disadvantage, and their offensive options become very limited. It therefore only makes sense to bunker down where they still hold a slight advantage (their own base), wear down the enemy via attrition, and attempt to send out occasional smaller-scale raids to try and level the field again.

In a game of the RTS, it's true you wouldn't win until the base was dead. However, after you lose enough base components and resources, you'll reach the point where you basically can't even produce the simplest unit anymore. The game does not work with a reinforcement pool or require credits to spawn as a basic soldier, because it's (arguably, I suppose) more fun for everyone to still be able to play even if you have limited options and the chips are down. So instead, it deals with this situation via points.

This is important, because it's one of the few things in the game that helps counter the snowball effect that destroying even a single building on the enemy side provides. A team that is down resources can still win by digging in and managing to damage & destroy more of the enemy's resources (units, vehicles, etc) in total than than the enemy was able to inflict on them, even though the buildings are worth a tooooon of points all by themselves, because this makes them the overall more effective team. They may have made a mistake that cost them a building, but in the end they played smartly.

Similarly, a team who holds the substantial advantage of being up a building (or two, or three) yet is still unable to properly capitalize on that advantage, throwing more and more of their superior units and resources and not making any substantial gain, is STILL the the less effective team overall. Thus, they lose.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[Letty]

But why would they rush if they WILL win just keeping them at 1 building? That isn't any more incentive, thats less.

Because if they don't rush and destroy the last building the game will be a tie. That's the incentive.

Yep. You've covered this pretty well, but just to add a bit I said in a similar topic:

OK, you've clearly put a lot of thought into this post so I'll try and make a similarly detailed response.

The objective is to win according to the victory conditions laid out. In Marathon, the only victory condition is "destroy the enemy base", and it will go until this happens. In All Out War, the victory conditions are "destroy the enemy base in the time allotted. If you fail to do that in time, the team that has the most points (the team who, in other words, was the most effective) wins instead".

This is the objective as it is now. The issue is that the 2nd part rewards teams who play in unfun ways (point whoring against a disadvantaged team) rather than fun ways (attacking).

Like the fellow I quoted explained, a team that destroyed a building or two was NOT necessarily the most effective team. The enemy being down even a single building puts them at an extremely significant disadvantage, and their offensive options become very limited. It therefore only makes sense to bunker down where they still hold a slight advantage (their own base), wear down the enemy via attrition, and attempt to send out occasional smaller-scale raids to try and level the field again.

Similarly, a team who holds the substantial advantage of being up a building (or two, or three) yet is still unable to properly capitalize on that advantage, throwing more and more of their superior units and resources and not making any substantial gain, is STILL the the less effective team overall. Thus, they lose.

Except, well, they were. The game is based around buildings with the primary objective being to destroy them. If one runner in a Marathon gets 20 miles and the other gets 10 miles, it's pretty clear who did better, and we don't need a second system of points based on how they arrived at their position to judge them. You can't say that because a team was less effective later in the game that they are suddenly a worse team when they were far more effective earlier.

In a game of the RTS, it's true you wouldn't win until the base was dead. However, after you lose enough resources that you basically can't produce units anymore. The game does not work with a reinforcement pool or require credits to spawn as a basic soldier, because it's (arguably) more fun to still be able to play even if you have limited options and the chips are down. So instead, it deals with this situation via points.

This is important, because it's one of the few things in the game that helps counter the snowball effect that destroying even a single building on the enemy side provides. A team that is down resources can still win by digging in and managing to damage & destroy more of the enemy's resources (units, vehicles, etc) in total than than the enemy was able to inflict on them, even though the buildings are worth a tooooon of points all by themselves, because this makes them the overall more effective team.

Here's the problem: They can't. It is impossible for the Defending team to win by points if the Attackers point whore. This means that if the Attackers want to be 100% assured of winning, they need to point whore. This is a bad thing, because point whoring is lame and unfun for both sides. The only reason you see Defenders winning by points is because the Attackers choose not to point whore (because they want to actually have fun), but that doesn't excuse winning by points of promoting point whoring in the first place.

Now, here's the flip side with points removed and ties put in place: The Attackers have to actually attack. Attackers can't point whore and auto-win the map. This actually helps Defenders, because before Attackers had a 100% guaranteed strategy to win by points. Now Defenders can actually defend their base and have the chance to score a tie against a team with the upper hand against them, which given the situation is still a win.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[SFJake]

Right, you're going at this from the concept of ties if a base is not destroyed.

Well, I don't know. I'm not a big fan of ties. It could be an incentive to attack. I don't have much to add to that, though. Would probably not be against it, but I'm never that concerned with a win or lose in this game anyway (unlike many other games).

[OfficerMeatbeef]

Because if they don't rush and destroy the last building the game will be a tie. That's the incentive.

I don't think ties are a thing that is ever desirable in a competitive game, they're generally an undesirable outcome that you use because you don't have a good way to deal with them otherwise and indicate a flaw in the game design itself. Nobody ever designs TOWARDS ties, you specifically design to avoid them as best you can because they are unsatisfying for both participants.

Just because it was already mentioned... in, say, a soccer match, ties only happen because it is impractical and unrealistic to extend a match indefinitely until someone scores a point. You can only extend overtime so long.

The game already has a very robust, considered system that tracks many, many different values for each team in order to arrive at an overall evaluation of team effectiveness: the points system, which ensures that the possibility of a true tie (that is, both teams doing exactly the same equivalent damage to one another such that they have exactly the same point count) is extremely low.

[Letty]

Right, you're going at this from the concept of ties if a base is not destroyed.

Well, I don't know. I'm not a big fan of ties. It could be an incentive to attack. I don't have much to add to that, though. Would probably not be against it, but I'm never that concerned with a win or lose in this game anyway (unlike many other games).

Right, I don't care much about whether we win or losing in most matches either. The problem is when I see other players who DO care about winning or losing, and to do so they engage in unfun point whoring which ruins the game for those who care about what the game should be about (destroying buildings). And unfortunately I can't even ask them to join in and help us on our flame tank rush (we might have won if we had 6 flame tanks instead of 4), because sitting in artillery pounding away for an hour is technically the "right" strategy and I'm playing "wrong" by organizing rushes and beacons.

I don't think ties are a thing that is ever desirable in a competitive game, they're generally an undesirable outcome that you use because you don't have a good way to deal with them otherwise and indicate a flaw in the game design itself. Nobody ever designs TOWARDS ties, you specifically design to avoid them as best you can because they are unsatisfying for both participants.

Just because it was already mentioned... in, say, a soccer match, ties only happen because it is impractical and unrealistic to extend a match indefinitely until someone scores a point. You can only extend overtime so long.

The game already has a very robust, considered system that tracks many, many different values for each team in order to arrive at an overall evaluation of team effectiveness: the points system, which ensures that the possibility of a true tie (that is, both teams doing exactly the same equivalent damage to one another such that they have exactly the same point count) is extremely low.

If ties happen too often then you are right, that indicates a flaw in the game design. The solution is to fix the flaw in the game design, not design a second arbitrary mechanic to select winners. And especially not to make that second mechanic run counter to the primary method of winning. One could easily think up several ideas for a sort of "overtime" that would swiftly resolve stalemates if needed, but points as a winner-decider should absolutely go.

To draw a comparison, resolving a win by points in Renegade would be the equivalent of resolving a tied score in Football by number of Yards covered. Which sounds... kind of OK. Except then some wise-ass figures that if they simply run in circles for a few minutes rather than running in for the touchdown, they magically win the tie breaker. This is what Points is in Renegade, running in circles rather than pursuing the goal.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[GatsuFox]

Fuck this thread. Marathon is complete shit.

Points are a valid way of winning because points = work done in this game. Everything that gives points is logical POSITIVE work. Damage dealing and healing.

Point whoring is not a valid term because you can stop point whoring. It's another aspect of the game you must be aware of at all times while you're shooting, dodging, peeking, driving, healing, defending, attacking, controlling, etc.

If you notice, the teams with the most points are the one's who are usually "winning" all game in terms of control.

If you are playing 4 buildings vs 1 (or any situation where you have more buildings vs your opponents) and you lose from points its because your team didn't play as well throughout the rest of the game.

[Letty]

Points are a valid way of winning because points = work done in this game. Everything that gives points is logical POSITIVE work. Damage dealing and healing.

Except it isn't. There is in fact a very easy way to show that it isn't. Killing the WF and Refinery vs. farming the Harvester. Obviously killing the WF and Refinery should be a good thing, but you can get vastly more points by killing the harvester over and over as it comes out. So more points obviously != more progress in winning.

Further more, we again have to go into opportunity costs. Farming points takes away from killing buildings, which is what the game is supposed to be about.

Point whoring is not a valid term because you can stop point whoring. It's another aspect of the game you must be aware of at all times while you're shooting, dodging, peeking, driving, healing, defending, attacking, controlling, etc.

Except you can't necessarily when you are down in buildings, which is the crux of the issue.

If you notice, the teams with the most points are the one's who are usually "winning" all game in terms of control.

I'm pretty sure everyone has noticed this. The issue is that they maintain their point lead by not attempting to destroy the enemy buildings, because each time they make a rush and fail, the enemy gains more points than they do. Anything that encourages players to not attempt to destroy buildings is a bad thing, because destroying buildings should always remain the primary goal.

If you are playing 4 buildings vs 1 (or any situation where you have more buildings vs your opponents) and you lose from points its because your team didn't play as well throughout the rest of the game.

No, it's because your team tried to win by building kills rather than point whore, because in such a situation point whoring is a literally effortless win. Effortless wins are bad, right? Why promote them then?

[iovandrake]

Fuck this thread. Marathon is complete shit.

Why? Is it because you have to try and defeat the enemy team instead of just accumulate points?

Points are a valid way of winning because points = work done in this game. Everything that gives points is logical POSITIVE work. Damage dealing and healing.

So thousands of points racked up from my Arty pelting a barracks (the last remaining building) on Whiteout is a valid way to win the game? Even when both I and the defending team know I can't kill the building with their repairing, but that my team will still win because of my easy pointwhoring? Really?

Point whoring is not a valid term because you can stop point whoring. It's another aspect of the game you must be aware of at all times while you're shooting, dodging, peeking, driving, healing, defending, attacking, controlling, etc.

You "can" stop point whoring. You "can" theoretically do a lot of things. That doesn't mean easy pointwhoring isn't possible. I guess in my Whiteout example the other team could have rushed my arty. Which would have resulted in most of them dying, me retreating and repairing, or spending another 450 credits, and the pointwhoring continuing shortly after and hardly being interrupted.

If you notice, the teams with the most points are the one's who are usually "winning" all game in terms of control.

Pfft, what a load of bs.

If you are playing 4 buildings vs 1 (or any situation where you have more buildings vs your opponents) and you lose from points its because your team didn't play as well throughout the rest of the game.

This is illogical. When you start winning and destroying the enemy base only to lose because time ran out and the other team has more magical score points that is stupid. The problem with score is that it's all the same. Whether I get thousands of points whoring a building with long range weaponry or get thousands of points from repairing or get thousands of points from killing expensive units/tanks. Some of those take more effort and skill to accumulate the same amount of points, but the most points still wins. So the logical choice would be to earn the most points and not to try and actually achieve victory.

I've said it many times on old Renegade chat and a few times on this forum, but I'll say it again: Winning by score is stupid and only those who rely on it as a crutch would argue that it's a good thing. Marathon isn't perfect with 6 hour Field matches or whatever, but it's at least keeping the core gameplay in perspective. That you should try to destroy the enemy base and achieve victory. Not just rack up points and kills without a thought toward actually defeating the enemy.

[OfficerMeatbeef]

This is the objective as it is now. The issue is that the 2nd part rewards teams who play in unfun ways (point whoring against a disadvantaged team) rather than fun ways (attacking).

I don't quite get this, I'm afraid. Guess I should ask for clarification? How are you defining "point-whoring"? Eliminating the enemy's resources while they can't mount an effective attack? If I'm understanding your use of the term correctly, a team that is "point-whoring" is still outplaying the enemy team: they have the advantage and are utilizing it to destroy the enemy. A team who is being "point-whored" is not putting up an effective defense.

Except, well, they were. The game is based around buildings with the primary objective being to destroy them. If one runner in a Marathon gets 20 miles and the other gets 10 miles, it's pretty clear who did better, and we don't need a second system of points based on how they arrived at their position to judge them. You can't say that because a team was less effective later in the game that they are suddenly a worse team when they were far more effective earlier.

I'm afraid your marathon example is rather flawed, for a simple reason: a marathon winner generally isn't determined by how far the opponent ran, it's by how quickly they managed to finish. And you absolutely can say that the person who crosses the finish line in the least amount of time is the overall better/more effective runner.

Even if they start at different times, whoever finishes in the least amount of time for their run is the winner. You can chart at which points they were each most effective, but it's unnecessary; obviously, the person who finished fastest is most effective overall.

But the marathon example isn't well-suited here, because it's not something that's generally a one-on-one thing and it's very unlikely that there will be either no or a single person who crosses the finish line. Marathons aren't designed to be something that only one person can finish. So, let's go back to the soccer example.

In soccer, I think we could agree that the most effective team is indeed the one that scores the most points. But there is no objective in soccer like "score all the points", it is simply who scores the most points. There is no "break point" at which a team will have scored enough points to automatically win. So that's not very helpful, either.

Honestly, I'm having trouble coming up with a game played by teams of multiple people that has a point value that straight-up ends the game, so forget any of these analogies. They don't work. And one of the biggest reasons is:

In any of those competitions, getting scored on/another person finishing the race does not put the players on the opposite team at any disadvantage beyond their point deficit. I doubt teams would continue playing on in a game of soccer, if they immediately lost a player permanently the moment they were scored on! The game would effectively be over.

Which leads me to:

Here's the problem: They can't. It is impossible for the Defending team to win by points if the Attackers point whore. This means that if the Attackers want to be 100% assured of winning, they need to point whore. This is a bad thing, because point whoring is lame and unfun for both sides. The only reason you see Defenders winning by points is because the Attackers choose not to point whore (because they want to actually have fun), but that doesn't excuse winning by points of promoting point whoring in the first place.

Whoa, ok, so I'm immediately very, very suspicious of any argument that states something is "impossible". You'll have to explain why this is so. Because if it IS true, why doesn't the game just end in victory for a team the minute they destroy the first enemy building? There's no point in continuing the game at all in this case, since the attackers have a guaranteed 100% win strategy.

And again, may not fully get your idea on "point-whoring", so I will avoid getting into this too deeply, but I will clarify that, to me, the points in the game do not seem "arbitrary" (as iovandrake put it earlier) in the least. They are quite clearly carefully considered, weighted, and awarded based on inflicted material loses to the enemy, with a portion awarded based on preventing said losses via healing. They are very much measures of team effectiveness.

Now, here's the flip side with points removed and ties put in place: The Attackers have to actually attack. Attackers can't point whore and auto-win the map. This actually helps Defenders, because before Attackers had a 100% guaranteed strategy to win by points. Now Defenders can actually defend their base and have the chance to score a tie against a team with the upper hand against them, which given the situation is still a win.

Again, if it is truly as you say, there's no need for the tie option at all. The game should just immediately end when either team loses a building, because the attackers are guaranteed to win at this point if they play smartly.

I would suggest that no, this is not accurate and there certainly are ways for a defender to win at this point, but probably pointless to go into that much until we're on the same page re: point-whoring.

[GatsuFox]

These responses are too large and just seem like arguing for the sake of arguing. First the argument is "Can't win against a camping team who are down on buildings but have more points" then it goes to "can't stop this team from point whoring because they have more resources". Which is it? I don't even understand what's going on anymore.

For the arty on whiteout example you are RIGHT. This is a good way to win and a good way to get points. You're WINNING because you control the midfield against the enemy and they have not controlled it back. There's a reason why free infantry is worth almost no points its because they're meant to ZERG you so you stop. It's obvious you have the advantage in this game, and you worked to get it (3 buildings down). The points will show it.

A few days ago I had an amazing game on islands in the eu matrix.com server or something. 20vs20 on islands. All buildings up all game. Nearly every player had a good understanding of the game with healing, dodging, aiming, mining, beacon defense, airstrikes, vehicle placement, flanking, all that jazz. The mid field pushes went back and forth maybe 11 times during the game. I played mendoza all game (bought him 11 times) and did a massive amount of work in the tunnels and midfield and got top score with 3.6k points. I wish I had this game recorded, but let me tell you brother it was incredible. Point is, the game was almost perfectly balanced but we ended up winning.

Final scores in the game were around 32k each... but we had 200 more points in the end. We did slightly more work and we got the win. Once our team saw the time limit about to hit we all did what we could to get the point lead before the end.

After that game I said "this is how this game is played, 40 people who aren't clueless with pushing going back and forward.

I don't even know what's happening in this story anymore or why its even relevant. But the point is you CAN push back and forward to obtain more points. The best thing to do is ALWAYS try to kill a building if you can because that gives you a TACTICAL advantage. If you try to "point whore" a building then you may get pushed back to your base eventually and they can take out one of YOUR buildings, which would help secure them a road to victory.

The point system is pretty good. All that needs to be fixed is points for beacon/c4 defusing. It should be % wise and not all the points to one person.

[OfficerMeatbeef]

Except it isn't. There is in fact a very easy way to show that it isn't. Killing the WF and Refinery vs. farming the Harvester. Obviously killing the WF and Refinery should be a good thing, but you can get vastly more points by killing the harvester over and over as it comes out. So more points obviously != more progress in winning.

Oooooh, ok. Think I got your "point-whoring" idea now. So for this example, I think I can sufficiently explain why I believe you are wrong:

A team who is killing the enemy harvester over and over again may be getting more points than the enemy, this is true. They are also denying the enemy credits. They are certainly putting the enemy at a disadvantage! They are therefore getting points for it. If they are able to continue doing it long-term, they will probably win.How can the enemy possibly come back from this?

Well, they defend (smartly, to minimize the point deficit) for a while, capitalize on the fact that a portion of the enemy team is busy spending time killing their harvester, let their slow but steady income trickle in, and then push back and regain ground, that's how.

You say it yourself:

Further more, we again have to go into opportunity costs. Farming points takes away from killing buildings, which is what the game is supposed to be about.

Correct! The opportunity cost! The team is getting points for killing that harvester over and over, but the opportunity cost doing is not pressing your advantage and destroying more structures, giving them the opportunity to mount a counterattack. A counterattack that, if successful, has the potential to let them do the VERY SAME THING. Maybe even destroy a building and turn things around!

Killing the harvester is an immediate loss of a fixed number of credits for the enemy team, so you get a fixed number of points. Killing the WF/Refinery gives you a fixed number of points too, but the enemy team is down either their entire source of income or the ability to ever have a weapon for the rest of the match. Surely the greatly increased chance to destroy the remaining buildings is almost always a better investment in time than a few hundred points killing a harvester over and over?

Put another way: the opportunity cost of "point-whoring" is that it gives the enemy a reprieve from being directly chance to regroup and fight back from a losing situation.

Except you can't necessarily when you are down in buildings, which is the crux of the issue.

Again, then the game should end when you are down a building. What's the point? You've already lost. Why even have multiple types of buildings, for that matter? This seems like much more of an issue than simple wins by points.

I'm pretty sure everyone has noticed this. The issue is that they maintain their point lead by not attempting to destroy the enemy buildings, because each time they make a rush and fail, the enemy gains more points than they do.

Nope, the issue is that coordinating an effective defense is more straightforward than coordinating an effective attack.

You'd have a point if being down a building did not effect the enemy team, but it does. A team who can't effectively mount an attack against a significantly disadvantaged opponent is not playing well, and does not deserve to win. If anything, it suggest their initial building kills were simple luck, certainly not smart play.

Anything that encourages players to not attempt to destroy buildings is a bad thing, because destroying buildings should always remain the primary goal.

I don't see how anything does this, because even in non-Marathon, you are always encouraged to destroy buildings because it significantly & permanently weakens the enemy and lets you decisively win the game.

So thousands of points racked up from my Arty pelting a barracks (the last remaining building) on Whiteout is a valid way to win the game? Even when both I and the defending team know I can't kill the building with their repairing, but that my team will still win because of my easy pointwhoring? Really?

How is this a problem? If you were able to tie up the enemy so badly and had such an advantage that they are forced to continually repair the building and couldn't even hope to take you out, yes, why SHOULDN'T you win? That team is not mounting an effective defense! More importantly: why couldn't your team just finish the enemy off?

This is illogical. When you start winning and destroying the enemy base only to lose because time ran out and the other team has more magical score points that is stupid. The problem with score is that it's all the same. Whether I get thousands of points whoring a building with long range weaponry or get thousands of points from repairing or get thousands of points from killing expensive units/tanks. Some of those take more effort and skill to accumulate the same amount of points, but the most points still wins. So the logical choice would be to earn the most points and not to try and actually achieve victory.

You start this paragraph with the statement that the points system is "illogical". But I'm afraid the rest of your argument is then completely illogical.

Score points are not "magical", and they are not "all the same", and you should know that if you know this game as well as you claim. Points gained are commensurate with the value of the unit killed/building damaged/amount healed. How much "effort or skill" is needed is immaterial, which is why points are entirely separate from kills/deaths. That is the whole "point" of points.

It is purely a measure of how effectively a player (and in aggregate, the team) has been in damaging and destroying valuable enemy materials. More expensive units aren't just arbitrarily more expensive "just because", they are more expensive because when properly used, they have a much greater potential to effectively damage the enemy.

Most importantly: all other things being equal, more points are granted for successfully attacking than successfully defending. How? Simple: unless I am grossly mistaken, healing a structure gives less points than the equivalent value the attacker gained for damaging the structure.

I've just finally thought of an example of a competitive activity that's decently comparable to this game: MMA/boxing. In this activity, your main objective is to win decisively by knockout (and in MMA,submission). Either of these things will provide an immediate victory for the competitor who pulls it off.

But many (most?) fights don't run out of time/rounds before either competitor can be knocked out or submission. Does the match then immediately end in a draw? It's possible, but unlikely. It only happens in one case: when the judges cannot come to a sufficient decision. And how do they make that decision?

By scoring each participant, granting them points based on how effectively they manage to land blows, maintain control, and defend themselves from attack.

[iovandrake]

It's funny seeing some of you try hard to defend winning with points after an arbitrary time limit as being skillful instead of teamplay to bring an enemy completely down. Even if you keep points they should only ever be considered if both teams have the same buildings left. If you have one building while the other team has all theirs and yet you have more points it is stupid for you to "win". No matter how you try and make it about skill it isn't. It takes absolutely zero skill to drive up to a vantage point and shoot a building that isn't going anywhere to accumulate points. On the other hand if the goal is the destruction of the building (which it would be if score meant nothing) then it actually means something because your single pointwhoring attacks would be worthless in regards to the team winning.

The only way winning by score would effectively matter skill wise is if destroying buildings gave a huge score boost instead of the mediocre one it does give. You can make more points whoring a building for five minutes than you can by sneaking around or using strategic rushes to actually bring it down.

Don't let me ruin the illusion you've created for yourselves though. If winning by points makes you feel like you've accomplished something then have at it. I'll be having fun on marathon (unless it's a 6 hour match...)

[iovandrake]

Score points are not "magical", and they are not "all the same", and you should know that if you know this game as well as you claim. Points gained are commensurate with the value of the unit killed/building damaged/amount healed. How much "effort or skill" is needed is immaterial, which is why points are entirely separate from kills/deaths. That is the whole "point" of points.

I'm only going to directly respond to this part because it's the only part even worth replying to. Points are all the same. They are just a number. It doesn't matter if it takes me four shots to earn the same points it took you one shot to earn, because unless you continue to do that one shot I can earn them regardless. The big earners are slow and harder to pull off than just pelting a building from range with an arty or mlrs. That means my points for successfully destroying a building with a hotty/techie, or a group of people destroying a building in like manner mean nothing to someone shooting a constantly repaired building for five minutes (which is easy to do). Thus to anyone with half a brain points are all the same. Some ways just take longer to rack points up with, but ultimately points are all the same. I could unskillfully earn lots of points and yet those points are EQUAL to someone who worked hard and skillfully to earn their own points. Unless they put in enough effort to overcome my point gaining they will lose out. Thus the fastest way to earn points (whoring) wins out.

My experience with the game gave birth to my position on points. Only pointwhores think that playing on a timed server for points takes skill. It only takes skill as milking points though and not actually defeating the other team.

[OfficerMeatbeef]

I'm only going to directly respond to this part because it's the only part even worth replying to.

Alright, I see, you clearly don't want to have a discussion here, you don't want to explain anything in terms of why it does or does not make sense for the game. You just want to pick a point that you think you can argue (and very poorly, I might add) and ignore everything else as "not worth replying to". So after this, yeah, you're not worth the time.

Points are all the same. They are just a number. It doesn't matter if it takes me four shots to earn the same points it took you one shot to earn, because unless you continue to do that one shot I can earn them regardless. The big earners are slow and harder to pull off than just pelting a building from range with an arty or mlrs. That means my points for successfully destroying a building with a hotty/techie, or a group of people destroying a building in like manner mean nothing to someone shooting a constantly repaired building for five minutes (which is easy to do).

I don't even have any clue what that first part is supposed to mean, so whatever. But I can't tell if you really aren't getting it or what, so one last try: Points are a number that indicate potential unit value. It is harder to kill a higher-value unit, and they have a higher potential to kill you. Thus, they are worth more points.

I don't know how this point can be made any more clear. Skill does not matter, except so far as a more skilled player is able to more effectively kill/damage/repair things and thus gain their team points, while avoiding death/preventing the enemy from damaging things and thus denying them points. So yes, it absolutely matters. At an equal level of skill, a person with a more valuable unit will be able to earn more points by correctly employing a more valuable unit, thus being more effective for the team.

Furthermore, you cannot talk about these things in a vacuum. Points are an exchange. Points gained for one team represent potential points lost by the other. A person constantly repairing a building is not making as many points as the person doing the damage that allows them to maintain that repairing. Therefore, an attacking team is always able to obtain more points than the defending team for effectively attacking their target, and they are encouraged to attack, but attacking poorly (ineffectively) will lose them the game in points.

You earn less points for destroying a building than you would from just hitting it and letting it be repaired. This is absolutely true. But you still earn more points than the people who are repairing it. And if you destroy it, you are one building closer to winning decisively, they are even less effectively able to defend, and you always come out ahead in the exchange because you got more points for the damage and destruction than they got for whatever repairing they were doing, and they can never get those points again.

Only pointwhores think that playing on a timed server for points takes skill. It only takes skill as milking points though and not actually defeating the other team.

Ugh. Yep, done here.

[GatsuFox]

It's funny seeing some of you try hard to defend winning with points after an arbitrary time limit as being skillful instead of teamplay to bring an enemy completely down. Even if you keep points they should only ever be considered if both teams have the same buildings left. If you have one building while the other team has all theirs and yet you have more points it is stupid for you to "win". No matter how you try and make it about skill it isn't. It takes absolutely zero skill to drive up to a vantage point and shoot a building that isn't going anywhere to accumulate points. On the other hand if the goal is the destruction of the building (which it would be if score meant nothing) then it actually means something because your single pointwhoring attacks would be worthless in regards to the team winning.

The only way winning by score would effectively matter skill wise is if destroying buildings gave a huge score boost instead of the mediocre one it does give. You can make more points whoring a building for five minutes than you can by sneaking around or using strategic rushes to actually bring it down.

Don't let me ruin the illusion you've created for yourselves though. If winning by points makes you feel like you've accomplished something then have at it. I'll be having fun on marathon (unless it's a 6 hour match...)

It's funny seeing some of you try hard to defend winning with points after an arbitrary time limit as being skillful instead of teamplay to bring an enemy completely down. Even if you keep points they should only ever be considered if both teams have the same buildings left. If you have one building while the other team has all theirs and yet you have more points it is stupid for you to "win". No matter how you try and make it about skill it isn't. It takes absolutely zero skill to drive up to a vantage point and shoot a building that isn't going anywhere to accumulate points. On the other hand if the goal is the destruction of the building (which it would be if score meant nothing) then it actually means something because your single pointwhoring attacks would be worthless in regards to the team winning.

The only way winning by score would effectively matter skill wise is if destroying buildings gave a huge score boost instead of the mediocre one it does give. You can make more points whoring a building for five minutes than you can by sneaking around or using strategic rushes to actually bring it down.

Don't let me ruin the illusion you've created for yourselves though. If winning by points makes you feel like you've accomplished something then have at it. I'll be having fun on marathon (unless it's a 6 hour match...)

You just disregarded his entire and extremely well thought arguments and ideas just because you're incredibly stubborn? You're an ass hole dude. We gave you good reasons why points WORK in this game and why it is valid to win by points. The point system right now PROMOTES offense.

And please don't talk about skill as if you know what it means. Skill isn't just about technical ability to do actions, it's also about strategy, and using points as a strategy for winning is perfectly acceptable in this game since it rewards actions (mostly) correct. Just because I hit 40% Lightning gun and 55% railgun in Quakelive means I'm a top level player? Haha, not even close.

[iovandrake]

Alright, I see, you clearly don't want to have a discussion here, you don't want to explain anything in terms of why it does or does not make sense for the game. You just want to pick a point that you think you can argue (and very poorly, I might add) and ignore everything else as "not worth replying to". So after this, yeah, you're not worth the time.

Ha.. Expect you're leaving out where this was already explained. Points do nothing skillwise. The point of the game is to destroy the enemy. Like in C&C you are part of an army trying to destroy the enemy base. How do you achieve victory because you managed to rack up more points than the side that has pummeled your base into a useless mess? It's ridiculous.

I don't even have any clue what that first part is supposed to mean, so whatever. But I can't tell if you really aren't getting it or what, so one last try: Points are a number that indicate potential unit value. It is harder to kill a higher-value unit, and they have a higher potential to kill you. Thus, they are worth more points.

Points are a number that is meaningless. I can get thousands of points by sitting back and hitting the WF on field with an arty while my team keeps Havocs and pics from killing me. When I do eventually die I've earned far more points than anyone got for killing me. How can I explain this so you can understand or are you purposefully pretending not to understand because as a pointwhore you benefit from it?

I don't know how this point can be made any more clear. Skill does not matter, except so far as a more skilled player is able to more effectively kill/damage/repair things and thus gain their team points, while avoiding death/preventing the enemy from damaging things and thus denying them points. So yes, it absolutely matters. At an equal level of skill, a person with a more valuable unit will be able to earn more points by correctly employing a more valuable unit, thus being more effective for the team.

You are living in a fantasy world where everything measures up based on value. Your fantasy world crumbles when you spend 1k+ credits to accumalate a fraction of the points 450 credits can get you. How is there skill involved in that?

Furthermore, you cannot talk about these things in a vacuum. Points are an exchange. Points gained for one team represent potential points lost by the other. A person constantly repairing a building is not making as many points as the person doing the damage that allows them to maintain that repairing. Therefore, an attacking team is always able to obtain more points than the defending team for effectively attacking their target, and they are encouraged to attack, but attacking poorly (ineffectively) will lose them the game in points.

This is more lala land bullshit that pointwhores on pointwhore servers tell themselves. It creates stupid gameplay like "don't try and nuke their buildings without fifty people supporting you, that's points to them!" and encourages stupid whoring gameplay instead of any worthwhile tactics to win. Winning takes risk. Sometimes it pays off to throw away units to kill a building. When you make it about points the defending team doesn't have to worry about suicide tactics. They only have to watch for dumbed down pointwhoring activities. Pointwhoring is a dumbed down game that removes aspects of skill and daring from the equation.

You earn less points for destroying a building than you would from just hitting it and letting it be repaired. This is absolutely true. But you still earn more points than the people who are repairing it. And if you destroy it, you are one building closer to winning decisively, they are even less effectively able to defend, and you always come out ahead in the exchange because you got more points for the damage and destruction than they got for whatever repairing they were doing, and they can never get those points again.

You aren't one building closer because all they have to do is hold out on their last building until time runs out. Most timed servers have a limit of 30 minutes. It can take a long time to bring down even one building if the teams are good enough and you make it out like taking out a building will guarantee a decisive victory. Lol...

So pointwhore for 20 minutes, lose some buildings, and then win because the other team (which was trying to actually defeat you) can't earn more points in the time frame available. Oh, but you'll argue that the skill to earn those points was paramount. I'm saying that it clearly isn't when there are several cheap ways to rack up nigh endless points (ala arty whoring). Point games remove the part of the game that actually takes skill (defeating the opposing team) and replace it with earning the most points. It's an arbitrary measurement that removes skill.

Ugh. Yep, done here.

Yes, go back to whoring points and thinking you have skill. Whenever you want to man up and actually defeat your enemies feel free to. Maybe I'll say hi if I see you.

[iovandrake]

You just disregarded his entire and extremely well thought arguments and ideas just because you're incredibly stubborn? You're an ass hole dude. We gave you good reasons why points WORK in this game and why it is valid to win by points. The point system right now PROMOTES offense.

No I disregarded his entirely stupid excuses for pointwhoring. I am an asshole though, I'll admit that. Points do not promote offense. They promote milking a point sponge (like a building) as much as possible. It's entirely possible for an evenly matched team to lose out because they didn't focus on whoring points via cheap tactics. That's not an increase in skill or gameplay that is a decrease. That is rewarding degenerate behavior and trying to label it as skill to make yourself feel better for it.

Any argument that it takes skill to earn points is meaningless because it takes more skill (generally) to destroy the enemy completely.

And please don't talk about skill as if you know what it means. Skill isn't just about technical ability to do actions, it's also about strategy, and using points as a strategy for winning is perfectly acceptable in this game since it rewards actions (mostly) correct. Just because I hit 40% Lightning gun and 55% railgun in Quakelive means I'm a top level player? Haha, not even close.

Strategy is good. Pointwhoring removes strategy and it is tragic that you are so blinded by your own need for points to see this. Strategy is organizing an effective plan and moving it forward. In this case that would be trying to destroy the other team. There isn't strategy in shooting a static structure enough times to guarantee your victory regardless of the other team's efforts. The only viable strategy in a pointwhore server is to pointwhore. Base destruction is rare and only happens if the opposing team is sloppy.

Point victory is absurdly easy to pull off (skillwise) and it takes very little planning. You're bias won't let you look at this objectively though. You're too caught up with feeling good about winning after whoring up a ton of points. Why not play on a server where the opposing team must actually be overcome? Where the opposing team can come back and win after you've exhausted your own team on bringing them down? No you'd rather win by accumulating enough points than to actually defeat the enemy.

Also note: When I talk about skill I'm not trying to be elitist. I'm not the best player or even in the top 50 of players i've met (let alone players who ever played Renegade ever ala those like Got2bRoni). I'm a mediocre marksman. I make up for that often with ingenuity and daring. I've crippled teams with tactics that would be stupid on a pointwhore server. Points remove a lot of tactics and skill from the game and dumb it down. Points become paramount because the clock never stops ticking on a timed server. Whereas on a marathon server my sacrificing expensive units and causing attrition at the right times can help my team win (or save comrades). Relying on points removes this and I've never played a points match that deviated from point whoring. Removing attrition as a viable tactic, expensive distractions, and suicide as a viable tactic.

Point whoring removes aspects of skill from the game. Face it.

Edited March 10, 2014 by Guest

[Dellta_34]

1)I agree having more buildings should give you victory,when the timer runs out,no matter what the score says.

2)The real problem here is turtling,aka spam a building for 20 mins while inside 10 engineers hold mouse 1 to repair it and have a very boring round.

If the repair mechanic is changed,so that you cant repair a building for 5 seconds after it's taken dmg,boring stalemates like that would be a thing of the past and games would be much faster,fluid,more skillbased and enjoyable in my opinion.

[NodCommander]

I think the possibility of winning by points the way Renegade does it is a very interesting one. If you dont like it, play Marathon.

If the repair mechanic is changed,so that you cant repair a building for 5 seconds after it's taken dmg,boring stalemates like that would be a thing of the past and games would be much faster,fluid,more skillbased and enjoyable in my opinion.

That is a downright terrible, gamebreaking idea.

[omega79]

That is how renegade works ... simple as that

if you lose by points you are not the better team, does not matter if you killed 4 out of 5 buildings of the enemy ...

no the opposite is the case!

A team making enough points for winning with only 1 building left is a good team and deserves the victory!

[Letty]

1)I agree having more buildings should give you victory,when the timer runs out,no matter what the score says.

The issue here is that it removes any incentive for the defender to continue fighting when it is clear that they can't come back to destroy the enemy base. We *don't* want one side to immediately rage quit when they lose a vital building. Which is why a graduated system of "you can't win by destroying the enemy base but you can still tie by staying alive" is better, as it maintains the incentive for the Defender to Defend while adding the incentive for the Attacker to Attack.

As of now the Attacker need not attack at all, merely point whore. And the Defender may as well rage quit as soon as the Attackers begin point whoring, because in most situations it's impossible to prevent and guarantees a win for the Attacker.

I think the possibility of winning by points the way Renegade does it is a very interesting one. If you dont like it, play Marathon.

But again, the issue is that the defender can't win by points if the attacker point whores. This is bad for the game. Marathon just screws up the game far worse in a different way.

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Might I solicit "marathon" to you good sir? Be thou interested?

Jelly had one up. I met the forum celebrity, _ERROR_, there. Pretty cool games.

hahaha, a forum celebrity...

i just post here to give my opinion on certain subjects, be helpful to others and just have fun, that's all

anyhow... back on-topic...

right now, as things are going, AOW is more favourable to newer players then it used to be in C&C Renegade. people just don't have the skills to end a game once a building gets destroyed. they just go all alone and die trying, most of the time. this is why marathon can be a great learning experience if you want to practice on valid tactics without the ticking clock. you basically have to, or the game won't end.

talking about valid tactics... opportunities have been decreased when it comes to infantry paths. AGT and Obelisk (legit of course) walking in Field are no longer possible. Refinery walking on Mesa II as Nod is no longer possible (GDI can airstrip walk though now). and if both teams lose important structures the game can go on forever. even though such tactics on maps with base defences are only for the more skilled people, very nitpicky things like the size of a rock or the exact position of where the obelisk charges makes this impossible.

to clarify this, the obelisk no longer charges when only the 'tip of the red tip' sees you. once you can see a tiny fragment of the red tip, it already starts shooting at you and once it hits it does fire from the 'tip of the tip', which causes a weird warp of the beam once it hits you, or plain shoots in a diffrent direction while still dying.

the GDI entrance to the tunnel next to the refinery in Field has smaller rocks, and a higher entrance. the AGT will now inevitably hit (and kill) you before you reach the rock.

I yet have to see about Under. PP and HoN-walking as GDI used to be possible, but i don't know if it still will be.

PP walking as Nod was also possible, but very luck-based if the AGT is not distracted (you could jump on the thicker bottom of the lantern, giving you a high enough altitude to jump a rock which gave you enough altitude to jump the wall, but you were fully exposed to the AGT though. but your distance to the AGT was relatively large which gave you slightly more time).

There are multiple ways to circument pointwhores, by ways of destroying some of their key structures. Sometimes you just have to man up and lead your team towards some kickass tactics, if no-one else is doing it. you're not going to win otherwise. an engineer rush through the tunnels while the enemy still has the field can be surprisingly effective. having no cash is not an excuse to do nothing.

[OfficerMeatbeef]

The issue here is that it removes any incentive for the defender to continue fighting when it is clear that they can't come back to destroy the enemy base. We *don't* want one side to immediately rage quit when they lose a vital building. Which is why a graduated system of "you can't win by destroying the enemy base but you can still tie by staying alive" is better, as it maintains the incentive for the Defender to Defend while adding the incentive for the Attacker to Attack.

But again, what you're saying here is the game is effectively over once a building is destroyed. If this is true, there's no argument anymore. The game is over, and should simply end. "Playing to tie" is not an incentive, it's not satisfying for either team. The objective is not to destroy all the enemy buildings; it is a means to an end. It is the most effective way to win, but the objective is to win. If a team has a 100% guaranteed chance to win at any point in the match, they have already won and the basic design fails.

You really can't have this both ways. Either a team who has lost a building has a chance to win through smart play, or it's pointless to continue the match. This is a big problem if it's true, but it's a different discussion. This discussion is about "does the point system do what it is intended to do". I argue that it does.

We cannot really reasonably argue this point without assuming your statement of "impossible" is inaccurate, so we will make that assumption going forward.

Again, ties are not satisfying for anyone and must be designed against. Like I said in my MMA example (which I still believe is completely and totally a match for this situation beyond being 1v1 and not team), most matches end in decision, so if you went with the system you've described here, most all matches would end in ties. And this is simply not acceptable.

The point system is designed to incentivize people to attack already because given a competent attack vs. a equally competent defense, the attackers will still come out ahead on points and win. This is because even if they cannot destroy them, damaging the enemy buildings and effectively destroying other defender assets compared to what the attackers lose in the attack always gives the attackers more points than the defenders. It's really simple math, when it comes down to it, and it works.

I think the possibility of winning by points the way Renegade does it is a very interesting one. If you dont like it, play Marathon.

Yes. This isn't an argument about "Time-limited is better from Marathon"or vice-versa, that would be rather silly and pointless because it's entirely a matter of personal preference and realities that unlimited-time matches are not practical for everyone.

If you prefer Marathon, great! That's fine! That's why it exists! But that doesn't mean the time-limit system outright doesn't work.

The point system is pretty good. All that needs to be fixed is points for beacon/c4 defusing. It should be % wise and not all the points to one person.

That sounds totally sensible. However, it'd only be for personal ranking purposes; the total points granted to the team remain the same, which is the important part. That's a part that maybe some people are getting tripped up on: points do not exist purely for each person to go "I did better", they exist specifically to give an overall valuation of team effectiveness.

Oh hell, ok, now I see where me and Iovan is running into problems on this, so I'll give it another shot.

Any argument that it takes skill to earn points is meaningless because it takes more skill (generally) to destroy the enemy completely.

Iovan, you need to understand me here: time-limit servers do not exist because they are "the right way to play", and I'm not trying to argue that! They exist because it is impractical to expect everyone to be able to play matches that could potentially last hours at a time. Just as it would be impractical for a soccer team to play for days on end until someone scores a point, or an MMA fight to go on indefinitely until someone is knocked out or submits, so too it is impractical to expect everyone to be able to devote the time to a Marathon match.

Thus, in a time-limited match, we have a system to determine how effectively a team has fought in a match, given the time they had that did not end in a decisive victory, just like an MMA fight. This system is the points system! And just like in an MMA fight, certain actions (such as knocking an opponent down, but not out) are worth many points such that, all other things being equal, the one who is knocked down will end up losing the decision, but they will NOT lose if they sufficiently outperformed their opponent IN GENERAL beyond taking a particularly strong hit.

If your problem with it is that players are able to see their own individual points, I can totally understand and get behind that. It's a matter worthy of consideration, though again something that comes down to personal preference. I generally don't really care how many points I'm getting, so it wouldn't bother me. This bares repeating, so we're on the same page: I really do not care specifically how many points I have, or anyone else has gotten. Just put it all in under the team total, and forget the individual scores. That's fine.

But we still need a way to determine a winner, and "a building destroyed means a team won" is not sufficient because if you can destroy a building and STILL not defeat the enemy in time alloted AND still lose on points, you haven't proven you are the more effective attacker, because you got a TON of points for killing that building in addition to weakening the team and you've still been unable to come out ahead. As I've said, if "more buildings destroyed=wins" is sufficient, then not just the point system but the entire design of the game has to change accordingly, or there is no point for a losing team to even try anymore.

Point victory is absurdly easy to pull off (skillwise) and it takes very little planning. You're bias won't let you look at this objectively though.

I don't see how this is so, though? Your examples have been "I can get a lot of points artying a base or killing a bunch of people and not getting killed, so it's skilless and broken", but that is precisely how it supposed to work. It's the entire point. You've been MORE EFFECTIVE than the enemy at the job of eliminating and damaging them, so all other things being equal your team should win on points when the time is up! But if there's no time limit, of course points do not matter because the entire point of the mode is to enforce that a team does not win until an undeniable, decisive victory via total base destruction is complete.

[iovandrake]

Iovan, you need to understand me here: time-limit servers do not exist because they are "the right way to play", and I'm not trying to argue that! They exist because it is impractical to expect everyone to be able to play matches that could potentially last hours at a time. Just as it would be impractical for a soccer team to play for days on end until someone scores a point, or an MMA fight to go on indefinitely until someone is knocked out or submits, so too it is impractical to expect everyone to be able to devote the time to a Marathon match.

I understand it is impractical and I've quit a lot of marathon matches because they dragged on way too long. People have things to do and watching two teams without refineries grind against each other can be quite lacking in the fun department. I know it was probably lost in my ranting about pointwhores, but I did suggest that you could have it timed and win by building destruction count when time runs out. If you have the same buildings only then would points be taken into consideration.

Thus, in a time-limited match, we have a system to determine how effectively a team has fought in a match, given the time they had that did not end in a decisive victory, just like an MMA fight. This system is the points system! And just like in an MMA fight, certain actions (such as knocking an opponent down, but not out) are worth many points such that, all other things being equal, the one who is knocked down will end up losing the decision, but they will NOT lose if they sufficiently outperformed their opponent IN GENERAL beyond taking a particularly strong hit.

If your problem with it is that players are able to see their own individual points, I can totally understand and get behind that. It's a matter worthy of consideration, though again something that comes down to personal preference. I generally don't really care how many points I'm getting, so it wouldn't bother me. This bares repeating, so we're on the same page: I really do not care specifically how many points I have, or anyone else has gotten. Just put it all in under the team total, and forget the individual scores. That's fine.

But we still need a way to determine a winner, and "a building destroyed means a team won" is not sufficient because if you can destroy a building and STILL not defeat the enemy in time alloted AND still lose on points, you haven't proven you are the more effective attacker, because you got a TON of points for killing that building in addition to weakening the team and you've still been unable to come out ahead. As I've said, if "more buildings destroyed=wins" is sufficient, then not just the point system but the entire design of the game has to change accordingly, or there is no point for a losing team to even try anymore.

No. What I mean is that if GDI has 3 buildings left and Nod has 2 when time runs out then GDI wins. They did more to destroy the enemy base. If they both have 3 buildings (or 2) then the one with the most points wins. This would be far more accurate and fair than "GDI wins because they could hit your refinery from safety early in the match with an MLRS for 10 minutes." That's a crude analogy but it is entirely possible scenario. It doesn't boil down to team skill either because that team could have been busy doing a number of legitimate things to defeat the enemy and just not been focused on a MLRS that retreats and comes back every five seconds. Sure you could put a lot of effort into killing it and at the same time lose a lot of points in the attempt while getting few back.

I don't see how this is so, though? Your examples have been "I can get a lot of points artying a base or killing a bunch of people and not getting killed, so it's skilless and broken", but that is precisely how it supposed to work. It's the entire point. You've been MORE EFFECTIVE than the enemy at the job of eliminating and damaging them, so all other things being equal your team should win on points when the time is up! But if there's no time limit, of course points do not matter because the entire point of the mode is to enforce that a team does not win until an undeniable, decisive victory via total base destruction is complete.

How have you been more effective at eliminating them? If I'm shooting a building I know won't die and they know it won't die then there is no threat of elimination. Just my accumulating numbers that only mean anything because of a stupid victory condition involving points. My problem with points isn't that they are an unlegitimate way to win (obviously they are legit in a timed server as it is now). My problem with them is that they are an undesirable win for me. I don't feel satisfied winning with points and I don't really respect those who are satisfied with those wins. I've had a lot of grindy marathon games sure, but even those games involved more strategy and daring than a by the numbers points game. Credits have a lot more meaning in games without a timelimit. Reducing a team's resources by sacrificing my surplus resources is a valid tactic in a marathon game. In a points game it's me giving them points. So it is true that managing your team's point count in relation to the other team takes some skill and care, but it removes a lot of other strategy. Too much for my tastes.

I do apologize for my ranting. I've just bottled up most of my thoughts about timed servers for years.

[R315r4z0r]

I haven't read a single post in this thread... so if I'm repeating something already said, just ignore me. I just wanted to chime my opinion on earning points in general... so if this isn't on topic it's because it's not meant to be lol.

I personally think that defenders get way too many points. It's way too common in this game for "losing" teams to win because of the defensive points they earned. This is stupid. In the original Renegade it was amazing fun to pull together a great defense to win by points in the end. Here.. it's just a run of the mill game. It's not fun, it's just boring.

Defenders get points for repairing structures, killing enemy rushes and disarming enemy C4 and beacons. That should, at most, even out the score with the attackers. Under no circumstance should it give them a points lead.

From what people have been telling me, in the original Renegade, repairs to a structure gave half the points the attacker got for doing the damage. So for every 100 points of damage the attacker gets, the defending team can get 50 points. In Renegade X, I've been told that defenders now get 2/3s the points the attacker gets for doing the damage. So for every 100 points of damage the attacker gets, the defending team can get 66.67 points. If this is true, I highly disagree with it.

Airstrikes are in the game to prevent point whoring. So defenders don't need to be given a points buff to keep up with the attackers. While I do think that the points gained by using an airstrike need to be reduced significantly. I'm talking about like you get 1 point for every enemy that is hit. That's it. You need to realize that you're stopping the enemy's point gain (or at least slowing it down) when you use an airstrike. So giving the defending team MORE points on top of that gives them a tremendous advantage.

[OfficerMeatbeef]

I understand it is impractical and I've quit a lot of marathon matches because they dragged on way too long. People have things to do and watching two teams without refineries grind against each other can be quite lacking in the fun department. I know it was probably lost in my ranting about pointwhores, but I did suggest that you could have it timed and win by building destruction count when time runs out. If you have the same buildings only then would points be taken into consideration.

Alright, cool, now we're getting somewhere! We can have a real, reasonable discussion now, so let me get into why I disagree more deeply.

No. What I mean is that if GDI has 3 buildings left and Nod has 2 when time runs out then GDI wins. They did more to destroy the enemy base. If they both have 3 buildings (or 2) then the one with the most points wins. This would be far more accurate and fair than "GDI wins because they could hit your refinery from safety early in the match with an MLRS for 10 minutes." That's a crude analogy but it is entirely possible scenario. It doesn't boil down to team skill either because that team could have been busy doing a number of legitimate things to defeat the enemy and just not been focused on a MLRS that retreats and comes back every five seconds. Sure you could put a lot of effort into killing it and at the same time lose a lot of points in the attempt while getting few back.

Alright, so in your example, if you are damaging the enemy base but the enemy is able to mitigate that damage, you may not be directly able to destroy it. This is absolutely true. If this is a 1v1 match, this is a straight stalemate; the other person can't make headway, and neither can you.

But the mitigating factor is that it's a team game. You pounding the enemy base is ensuring that the only thing at least one other member of the team can do is focus on repairing that structure. This means it is impossible for them to otherwise actively defend the structure, and certainly impossible for them to go out and mount an effective attack! Hence, why you will be getting more points for damaging than they will for repairing it: you are more effectively allowing the rest of your team to continue to press the advantage in attacking and decisively finishing them off!

To put it another way: if you are able to continually pound the enemy base with arty with impunity but not make a permanent dent because everyone is repairing, this opens it up for the rest of your team to move in (smartly) and overwhelm the enemy with firepower, because they are now facing a team that is less able to actively defend by however many people are committed to repairing your damage. That's the very definition of tactical teamplay!

Now the problem, of course, is that many times, random, bad public teams will not be able to do that. But part of the appeal of this game is precisely that it doesn't make such allowances for bad random play, like many other more "modern" games do, because any such changes or adjustments automatically lower the depth and skill inherent in the design. A bad attacking team who manages to (by brief flash of genius or more likely a very risky maneuver that happens to get lucky and pay off) pull off a building destruction or two, and still gets soundly thrashed in overall material losses by a better defending team, will, and should, still lose.

How have you been more effective at eliminating them? If I'm shooting a building I know won't die and they know it won't die then there is no threat of elimination. Just my accumulating numbers that only mean anything because of a stupid victory condition involving points. My problem with points isn't that they are an unlegitimate way to win (obviously they are legit in a timed server as it is now). My problem with them is that they are an undesirable win for me.

Alright, that's totally cool. If points don't work for you, if you won't be satisfied with anything less than total decisive victory, then absolutely that's your right, and Marathon is the choice for you. I think most people would not be satisfied with the majority of timed matches ending in straight ties, of course. So let me try to explain why more buildings left than the enemy when time runs out is a less than optimal solution, and points work better, and maybe you'll be better able to enjoy a non-Marathon game if you just think about things a little differently.

First of all, I honestly believe the trouble is you're thinking of a timed match the wrong way. For point of argument: a given 30-minute timed match that ends with time-out and a point win is not an equivalent to a Marathon match that goes, say, goes exactly the same for 30 minutes as the timed match (again, just for argument's sake) and ends precisely 30 minutes later with a team reaching final destruction. It is equivalent to grading each team for the given slice of time (that first 30 minutes) that proceeds the final destruction.

Obviously, you don't think a match needs to end when a single building is destroyed in Marathon, right? A competent team who loses a building still has a chance to fight back. But the consequences of losing even a single building are so catastrophic and nearly instant (beyond the time it takes for the team to lose whatever units it had already pulled before they became no longer available) that their offensive capability is immediately weakened such that in almost all cases, it only makes tactical sense to bring the fight back to their turf where they can regroup and try to find a way to even the score.

The thing is, for all but the absolute best shit-in-order clan, reaching the point where they can realistically mount that comeback is going to take time. Very possibly, more time than they have in a timed match. That's how devastating a building loss is! This is what the point system allows. It compensates for the fact that, if a team does fail in a defense and lose a building, they aren't necessarily out because there's insufficient time left.

It provides the reasonable estimation that, 9 times out of 10, a team that performs better all around during the time period of the match, but lost a building partway through somehow, will likely, given enough time, be able to turn things around and win. Since we cannot predict a final outcome that will never happen because of the time limit, we can instead grade each time for their performance in the time allotted. This is, I argue, the only fair and reasonable way to handle this situation.

Making it so that a team just loses if they have less buildings than the other team when time runs out only makes sense if losing a building had no other impact on the team than that they were down a potential victory point when the round ends. But buildings AREN'T just "+1 Destroyed=+1 for Enemy team", they're more complex than that, and we have to treat them accordingly.

Losing a building means the team has already lost a huge portion of their offensive options, given the enemy a large advantage in points, and perhaps most importantly lost the most important resource of all: time. I'd suggest that's more than punishment enough, we don't need to punish them further and make it so they're guaranteed to be unable to win nearly every match at this point, because they just won't have the time to correct their error.

And it's important to note: at no point does losing a building ever give a team any sort of advantage. It is ALWAYS a tremendous setback in every respect. A team who is actually attacking smartly and effectively and using their substantial unit advantage, not just taking their advantage and stupidly squandering it by tossing wave after wave of their superior units into the meatgrinder, will STILL win on points no matter how effectively the enemy defends, even if they are not given sufficient time to finally overwhelm them.

I do apologize for my ranting. I've just bottled up most of my thoughts about timed servers for years.

Ok! I can't make you like Timed over Marathon, and I wouldn't try. But I hope maybe my arguments can at least give you a bit more appreciation for the system and why I believe it works.

[OfficerMeatbeef]

Defenders get points for repairing structures, killing enemy rushes and disarming enemy C4 and beacons. That should, at most, even out the score with the attackers. Under no circumstance should it give them a points lead.

I am not sure of the exact points myself in RX at this moment, but barring some kind of massive scoring bug or oversight (which could very well exist, of course), I see no possible way it could be the case that performing defensive actions against a smartly attacking opponent could give the defenders any kind of point lead.

If that is indeed the case, that's absolutely a tremendous failing and needs to be fixed asap. But we definitely need solid, undeniable numerical evidence, not just "my team had all the advantage but we lost whyyyyyy it's broken" even though, when you look at actual play, they actually squandered all that advantage.

To be clear, I'm not saying anyone in the thread is saying something like that, just that is something I've heard in the past and it's something we need to keep in mind.

Airstrikes are in the game to prevent point whoring. So defenders don't need to be given a points buff to keep up with the attackers. While I do think that the points gained by using an airstrike need to be reduced significantly. I'm talking about like you get 1 point for every enemy that is hit. That's it. You need to realize that you're stopping the enemy's point gain (or at least slowing it down) when you use an airstrike. So giving the defending team MORE points on top of that gives them a tremendous advantage.

Well-reasoned, but not entirely sure I entirely agree here at the moment. Airstrikes are pretty expensive (between a tier-2 and tier-3 character) for a one-time use.

Coupled with the fact that it's not like they're some unavoidable superweapon; an enemy is given warning when one is coming in, and it's very possible for the entire thing to whiff if the attacking target is properly aware. I virtually never die to airstrikes unless I allow myself to get tunnel vision in a siege, for example, in which case absolutely I think the defenders deserves the full points.

As they are now? Yeah, they're probably a little strong. But as the devs have said they're a priority as far as making them more visible and more reasonable to defend against (cover in the strike zone providing some reasonable protection, for example) I wouldn't necessarily want to make a claim they're too strong yet. Maaaaybe make it so a single strike can't quite completely destroy the heaviest (and thus slowest) enemy armor, but still too early to say I believe.

[ABJECT_SELF]

A few days ago I had an amazing game on islands in the eu matrix.com server or something. 20vs20 on islands. All buildings up all game. Nearly every player had a good understanding of the game with healing, dodging, aiming, mining, beacon defense, airstrikes, vehicle placement, flanking, all that jazz. The mid field pushes went back and forth maybe 11 times during the game. I played mendoza all game (bought him 11 times) and did a massive amount of work in the tunnels and midfield and got top score with 3.6k points. I wish I had this game recorded, but let me tell you brother it was incredible. Point is, the game was almost perfectly balanced but we ended up winning.

Ah, those are the best games. I don't even feel bad losing those kind of matches because the whole game was such a clenched match of wits.

The game is based around buildings with the primary objective being to destroy them. If one runner in a Marathon gets 20 miles and the other gets 10 miles, it's pretty clear who did better, and we don't need a second system of points based on how they arrived at their position to judge them. You can't say that because a team was less effective later in the game that they are suddenly a worse team when they were far more effective earlier.

I'm not sure nuclear war and running a marathon is a fair comparison.

Let's think of this in terms of actual warfare then. Let's say Country A launches a surprise attack on Country B. A number of B's critical facilities, like a refinery and a power plant, are destroyed and much of their resources are cut off. Now Country A has the upper hand and Country B is in a dire situation. But B reorganizes, digs in and uses guerrilla tactics. A launches wave after wave of overwhelming force, but they suffer heavy losses because B anticipates their moves and counters with advanced tactics using disposable weapons. Over time, B doesn't inflict any major damage on A's territory, but A's forces are getting weary and losing morale. After a long war, A loses the will to fight even though they still have more weapons and funds. Country A fought a better war at the start, but they got overconfident, lost their footing and made no real gains against B despite mounting losses. The end result is that Country B was more effective than Country A.

This has actually happened a few times in world history. You can win the early battles but still lose the war if you can't keep your momentum up.

These responses are too large and just seem like arguing for the sake of arguing. First the argument is "Can't win against a camping team who are down on buildings but have more points" then it goes to "can't stop this team from point whoring because they have more resources". Which is it? I don't even understand what's going on anymore.

Yeah, the only reason I'm coming back to this thread is for fear that a dev actually takes this as a referendum on whether points should be removed from RenX. Sounds silly, but then again this kind of thing led to them putting infinite ammo in the original Renegade (shudder).

[OfficerMeatbeef]

This has actually happened a few times in world history. You can win the early battles but still lose the war if you can't keep your momentum up.

Preeeeecisely. It can become a war of attrition, but part of the design is the enemy can never completely run out of reinforcements (units) because you can always respawn with a base kit, and a time limit game won't generally last long enough for morale to completely sap such that one team gives in completely. Hence, points.

Yeah, the only reason I'm coming back to this thread is for fear that a dev actually takes this as a referendum on whether points should be removed from RenX. Sounds silly, but then again this kind of thing led to them putting infinite ammo in the original Renegade (shudder).

I mean, like you say, these are big, important parts of the game design. We kinda need to discuss them in long, detailed ways, because they're more complex than "Team A should always win if they have more buildings than Team B", and not doing so is precisely what leads to unconstructive arguments and generalizations like "I think points are fine, play marathon you jerk" vs. "you just want points, you are a pointwhore, marathon is a real mode for real players".

[DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr]

time running out should give a draw.

I like this. Alot. I'm gonna propose a toast. To THIS! *Chugs*

[omega79]

I hope they never change this ...

this is one thing that actually would make me leave, because it is essential renegade gameplay ...

a team that manages to do more damage with less buildings is clearly the better team!

changing that would mean your team could win just because of 2or 3 teamplayers while in the other team 16 players act like a team to defende the rest of the base while still making points ...

even worse, it would favour nod a lot, 1 single sbh nuke on the roof of the wf could win them the game in the last second just because gdi lost 1 building and nod did not lose one ...

maybe the pedastal beacon could change that!

it is a way to win with 1 beacon, but that one beacon is not hidden sneaky somewehere ... it is on a pedestal somewhere in the base (used to be in the bar and hon)

i liked to use it and won quiet a couple of matches where the dominating team left their base completely alone

[iovandrake]

If they're the better team then why did they lose those buildings? Clearly they lacked the ability to destroy the enemy's buildings or else it would be the enemy with fewer buildings. It's this kind of backward logic that makes arguments in favor of points based timelimit wins look sad. You are arguing that losing more means you are winning. Why make part of the core gameplay have it not matter if you lose buildings as long as you accumulate points?

Even accepting points (which aren't a horrible idea in and of themselves) I can never accept that a team with one building left that was getting crushed towards the end as the other team gets the upperhand (through skill or planning) somehow manages to win merely because they accumulated more points (with those points were earned potentially being from cheap stupidly easy tactics). To me the team with only one building left lost regardless of how many points they had. "Most of my base is rubble because we sucked too much to defend it, but we managed to get enough points for it not to matter!"

[Trev-MUN]

I was going to suggest replacing time limits in favor of making tiberium a finite resource as it is for the RTS series, which would still add a "clock" to beat of sorts. I'm not sure how that would work out though ...