v1.8.0 Public Testing of CnC Rework

[[R-CON]​CAS_ual_TY]

first post updated. prepare for soon(tm)

[Bonvi]

Thank you for your work, this already plays much better than the old version, and feels more dynamic than other PR game modes.

At this moment my two concerns stay:
1. I really-really hope there is a way to simplify the mechanics
2. It would be helpful to have a thing that tracks your progress. Without it the outcome may seem arbitrary and undeserved, especially for the people who have not fully understood the bleed formula (which will be about everyone playing)


Obviously, I haven't thought about it as much as Casualty has, but here's my humble suggestion
1. Instead of calculating averages and comparing min-maxes, make only fobs in the center count for anything (bleed and destruction penalties). FOBs outside this area will work as supporting FOBs.
2. Bleed will depend only on ratio of fobs inside the objective, with total bleed always being the same (if there's at least 1 fob).
3. Grace period stays to avoid unstable bleed at game start


Here are the effects I expect from implementing this:
1. Simplifies the mechanics a lot
2. Makes the teams find the balance between bleed fobs and supporting fobs, which is interesting strategic dilemma
3. Inexperienced fob builders won't hurt their team by building costly immovable FOBs outside the objective, causing bitterness within the team
4. The supporting fobs work the same way fobs do in other modes, which will increase familiarity, while the center area FOBs act as objectives

[[R-COM]bad_nade]

Got an idea. Because there are no flags and no capture progress to show, could it be possible to use capture indicator to show rough summary of current bleed rates instead? Like, more blue than red on the bar means that BLUFOR has upper hand, and vice versa.

[[R-CON]​CAS_ual_TY]

Originally Posted by bad_nade

Got an idea. Because there are no flags and no capture progress to show, could it be possible to use capture indicator to show rough summary of current bleed rates instead? Like, more blue than red on the bar means that BLUFOR has upper hand, and vice versa.

Multiple ways of doing that. The question is: Is that a good idea? You dont know the status of tickets in AAS either.

[[R-COM]bad_nade]

Originally Posted by CAS_ual_TY

Multiple ways of doing that. The question is: Is that a good idea? You dont know the status of tickets in AAS either.

Some kind of indicator is required because algorithm is so complicated. On AAS and INS, teams usually have at least a hunch how they're doing compared to the other team but on CnC it's anybody's guess.

An indicator that shows current bleed rate represented as a progress bar with very big steps would provide some feedback to the teams without revealing actual remaining ticket count.

Do I remember correctly that there are also server-wide announcements of certain events in CnC? If so, they could be removed in favor of one simple indicator. It would tell all you need to know.

[[R-CON]​CAS_ual_TY]

Yes, there are server wide announcements. But these arent really telling you if you are winning or not. They happen when
- Grace period ends
- FOB destroyed
- FOB revealed

I would love more Feedback on the idea of Bonvi, what do people think about it?

Originally Posted by Bonvi

[...]

1. [...] make only fobs in the center count for anything (bleed and destruction penalties). FOBs outside this area will work as supporting FOBs.
2. Bleed will depend only on ratio of fobs inside the objective, with total bleed always being the same (if there's at least 1 fob).
3. Grace period stays to avoid unstable bleed at game start


Here are the effects I expect from implementing this:
1. Simplifies the mechanics a lot
2. Makes the teams find the balance between bleed fobs and supporting fobs, which is interesting strategic dilemma
3. Inexperienced fob builders won't hurt their team by building costly immovable FOBs outside the objective, causing bitterness within the team
4. The supporting fobs work the same way fobs do in other modes, which will increase familiarity, while the center area FOBs act as objectives

[Catmouse]

Multiple ways of doing that. The question is: Is that a good idea?

I think many things in games have very complex, context dependent second order effects e.g the game of Go. You have to try this out in practice.

You dont know the status of tickets in AAS either.

True.

Then again, you can spot tendencies with some game experience: How is the K/D of both teams? How is the score and K/D of squads? Their kit disposition? Number and position of FOBs? Active assets? Flag status?

Granted, you lack the info about composition and effectiveness of the other team. But with some experience, the ramaining data gives you quite a good grasp of overall situation. Which is very useful to make decisions.

Some kind of indicator is required because algorithm is so complicated. On AAS and INS, teams usually have at least a hunch how they're doing compared to the other team but on CnC it's anybody's guess.

An indicator that shows current bleed rate represented as a progress bar with very big steps would provide some feedback to the teams without revealing actual remaining ticket count.

I second this. While not perfect, the cap bar might perhaps a sufficient tool for that.

Can you adjust the number of bars here? With a 10:10 bar you could a sufficiently precise status of bleed power e.g. 2 BLUE and 1 RED for 2 B and 1 R in the central zone. 10 BLUE and 1 RED bar for, well, a ratio and 10:1.

Not sure how the formula works again, but I think you get the idea.

I would love more Feedback on the idea of Bonvi, what do people think about it?

This drastically reduces the active contested area and, on some maps, puts far FOBs out of the game. My feeling is to keep it as it is and work on the visualisation instead.

It is just a feeling, but I found that having the option to employ a strategy that involves FOBs on the frindge opens the gameplay considerably and offers a new dynamic (see the awesome dynamic helipter based assault mission my squad got in the first test game. Such a great dynamic. ).

Again, like above, I think we need to run a large enough number of test games here.