It should be %buildings destroyed THEN points for victory.

[epicelite]

You shouldn't lose by points when all the other team has is a refinery.

[A-Rodge]

People here will justify the broken points system until their last breath. Be prepared.

[RoundShades]

You should get a larger score for a building death, and slightly less for damage compared to repair.

That would marginalize the gap by a few thousand less. To be honest, that then worries the trouble of excessive beacon disarm feeding points. Which should also be adjusted.

Base premise is though, that a building kill should be rewarded a few thousand point gap so it equals the score of 10 minutes of tank siege. Tank siege should give you a few thousand score advantage. Killing a building should give you the same amount all at once. That way, a total siege compared to a building kill would be a close score which could evenly be decided the rest of the match.

[SFJake]

Do away with points as a win condition. When a base isn't destroyed by time limit, its a draw.

There. Screw the rest. I never even considered a game ending by a time limit a win. Its a draw. Deal with it. Otherwise might as well just end the game instantly when 1 building is destroyed. Why not, right. It seems people think you shouldn't have the ability to win anymore at that point, so why bother.

[boxes]

Let's say in TmX (40 minutes) on Islands:

Nod Arty spams for 30 minutes of the game with tech and flame support. GDI is running around in the tunnels or repairing stuff. Only 2-3 tanks are bought to counter the Artys.

Then finally, by infiltration and an Ion Cannon, Nod loses both HoN and Strip, but obviously that's little compared to 30 minutes of arty spamming.

GDI finally builds tanks and start their offensive. But in the end, Nod wins. Why? Because they had map control for three fourths of the game compared to GDI's last small effort. Nod deserves the win, because they had GDI under siege a lot longer.

Basically, relying too much on one production structure can cost a team the game by points, and this Islands example shows it. It's important to integrate both infantry+vehicles properly, to get the best results. In this case, GDI relied too much on their barracks, and got their buildings spammed to hell, which gave the game away. They were lucky that nobody on Nod was defending at the time of Hon/Strip destruction.

Think of it in another way -- if GDI use the WF too much and nobody is in the front lines repairing, they'll get flattened by airstrikes and Vehicle+Techs, again losing the point war.

Now obviously the point system is "broken" by pancake crushes, but that's just a bug that needs to be fixed. Long story short, if a team is complaining that they lost with more buildings, it's their fault for not playing efficiently for most of the game. If you dick around for 30 minutes and finally play for real in the last 10, of course you deserve the loss. As frustrating as it can be sometimes, the biggest reason for having such a large point difference is by how long a team attacks structures and occupied vehicles. And if you're not going to do anything about it and go lone wolf, guess what? You lose.

[yosh56]

Topic's been discussed before, and while I've still never been on an actually good team that lost by points when the enemy team had only a few buildings left. They were always teams that got in one or two lucky rushes, then just kept trying the exact same tactic over and over like the other team wouldn't just be sitting there with the same weapons in the same spot to negate whatever they were doing.

On the contrary however, I do believe there should be more reward for destroying a structure point-wise. One system I thought of was giving a point-tick per second for every building destroyed. This simulates momentum and attrition. For instance, after one building is destroyed, the team that destroyed the structure would get 1 point per second thereafter. If another structure went down that would up to 2 and so on and so forth. This would help offset the issue that arises from free infantry giving virtually no points, while the vehicles they kill give a comparatively massive amount away.

Not everyone on the team mind you, just the actual team score.

[vlatkozelka]

Topic's been discussed before, and while I've still never been on an actually good team that lost by points when the enemy team had only a few buildings left. They were always teams that got in one or two lucky rushes, then just kept trying the exact same tactic over and over like the other team wouldn't just be sitting there with the same weapons in the same spot to negate whatever they were doing.

On the contrary however, I do believe there should be more reward for destroying a structure point-wise. One system I thought of was giving a point-tick per second for every building destroyed. This simulates momentum and attrition. For instance, after one building is destroyed, the team that destroyed the structure would get 1 point per second thereafter. If another structure went down that would up to 2 and so on and so forth. This would help offset the issue that arises from free infantry giving virtually no points, while the vehicles they kill give a comparatively massive amount away.

Not everyone on the team mind you, just the actual team score.

interesting .... 2 buildings for 20 minutes would be 2400 points .But it would make losing team not camp and the winning one do ...and well lets face it the only chance a team w/o WF has is to camp (in general).Still is a good idea if we can figure out the right points/s ratio .

[yosh56]

interesting .... 2 buildings for 20 minutes would be 2400 points .But it would make losing team not camp and the winning one do ...and well lets face it the only chance a team w/o WF has is to camp (in general).Still is a good idea if we can figure out the right points/s ratio .

Exactly. Most of these scenarios are won by just 1 or 2000 points difference. Having a small point creep just aids in letting the attacking team continue to try and actually win, but still punishes them for just THROWING themselves at an enemy. The constant flow of points to the enemy also makes it much more difficult for the defenders to just get away with camping it out as well.

[Handepsilon]

Blizzard-styled 'Survive until 30 minutes'. That'll give the attackers motivation to strategize and at some point, push the campers to attack to avoid losing.

I kinda like that