PDA

View Full Version : Player's turtling



Blobster5
05-31-2011, 07:23 AM
When I play multiplayer land battles, I noticed something about all the players with high win to loss ratios; they all do the same thing to win. They set themselves up on a hill or a forest and then they don't move, forcing me to either lose the game or just see who can stand still the longest. This is really annoying and, without a time limit, no reason for anybody not to employ this tactic. Something needs to be done like introducing a timelimit with an attacking and defending player, where the attacking player loses if time runs out. This would put the attacking player at a disadvantage, so maybe give the attacking player some sort of bonus morale or more money at the beginning or something.

blenta
05-31-2011, 07:38 AM
Something needs to be done
We all agree on that.


like introducing a timelimit
And on that
BUT not on this

with an attacking and defending player, where the attacking player loses if time runs out. This would put the attacking player at a disadvantage, so maybe give the attacking player some sort of bonus morale or more money at the beginning or something.
No way, for Land 1vs1, there are no attacking and defending players in 1vs1 Land battles. All we need is a time limit of lets say 30minutes and max at 60 min. After which BOTH players get a lost battle. Now try camping!

daniu
05-31-2011, 07:44 AM
I'm still in favor of an increasing morale debuff for troops standing still for a long time, and one for being too near to the red line.

Skurkanas
05-31-2011, 07:58 AM
All we need is a time limit of lets say 30minutes and max at 60 min. After which BOTH players get a lost battle.
Somehow i believe there are people who'd still camp.

icamefromouterspace
05-31-2011, 08:03 AM
Camping isn't really THAT big of an advantage. You shoudln't fear it so much.

Just take the key buildings, decide the best path to your opponents camp grounds (usually walking through trees and picking the side of his army with the the least amount of "slope" in the terrain), spend all the time you need checking out the terrain and navigating your troops. then bring your missile units into range of his units and skirmish some, eventually hell attack you (coming off his high ground position) or you'll run out of ammo then attack him (in which case he'll have a big numbers disadvantage)... either way you win.

People who camp and turtle up have a very defensive mentality, they weren't going to try and do anything like flank your troops, theyre going to try and form a circle of matchlocks and yaris around their general. The only thing you need to be careful of is if the camper has hidden cav. But you should just run your cav around the surrounding trees and scout for his hidden cav during the skirmish phase of the battle, it takes like 20 seconds.

Nite
05-31-2011, 08:12 AM
When I see someone doing that I just outcamp them. I walk back to my own hilled forest and wait. The few campers that I came across eventually gave up.

Campers are actually at a disadvantage when it comes to camping. Camping only works when the other guy attacks your fortified position. If the other guy camps back, then you both end up waiting for a long time. If you have to wait a long time for each battle, then you won't have much patience left. For a camper, everyone battle would take an hour. For someone who only camps when the other guy also camps, only one in 50 battles takes an hour.

So I know I can wait longer than he can. This strengthens my resolve. I will outcamp them, no matter how long it takes and maybe next time they'll think twice before playing so lame.

Holy.Death
05-31-2011, 09:10 AM
A battle timer, if you start speaking of it, should grant defeat to both players when the time runs out. Then the both won't camp - or they shouldn't - they'd play more aggressive and still there would be a plenty of time to maneuver (this part of the battle I really like).


No way, for Land 1vs1, there are no attacking and defending players in 1vs1 Land battles.
Oh, I have to say that there are. At least formally.

daniu
05-31-2011, 09:16 AM
A battle timer, if you start speaking of it, should grant defeat to both players when the time runs out. Then the both won't camp - or they shouldn't
They shouldn't camp in the first place, and I doubt they won't with a timer.


Oh, I have to say that there are. At least formally.
No, there aren't.
The factions on the battle screen are not "Attacker" and "Defender", they are "Your Alliance" and "Enemy Alliance".

hewhoraidsthewind
05-31-2011, 10:04 AM
OMG i wonder when people will stop crying about campers and actually start to bring armies with a strong missile component on the field and actually learn to play with them.

Yeah if you bring 6 cav units + 6 katana units you wont beat that guy on the forest. His matchloks will shoot you to death. So bring bows of your own and matchloks of your own and start shooting at one side of his noob box. He is in the woods but he has limmited space so he has to blob his range units in order to respond. Use fire arrows, whistling arrows and a matchlok monk inspired, rapid fire, increased range + general in stand and fight and you will obliterate one side of his box with all the hill and all the wood he has.

Or bring katanas only + some cav than come open like 7 topics of this type per day to cry about campers.

Kiyosk
05-31-2011, 10:05 AM
ok CA me and my friend is playing a 2v2 right now, now we are faced with 2 turtles in a popular spots for campers. what now CA? what are we supposed to do with this? should we concede and let them win? if we charge this im sure we're going to lose.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/9a6620f7836509465a7415e33fb04f7a2daf3f9e25089c38ec 208b34b0afaad76g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/fea421e0112517e05157fa6d26ac83773a01a9b35596c92047 0a43b6a26461776g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/387f76545bb290bc770d4297ef4aba2f4df1ff796d79f46fe0 f48b05f9f5839f6g.jpg

hewhoraidsthewind
05-31-2011, 10:14 AM
Thats actually an easy one since you can aproach through the forest from both sides, therefore they loose their missile advantage. That position is a death trap for the campers.

Kiyosk
05-31-2011, 10:18 AM
nope the other side has an open field, the guy is in the edge of the forest. only one side is covered with trees which is im in positioned right now. my friend still thinking where to hit

Holy.Death
05-31-2011, 10:37 AM
They shouldn't camp in the first place, and I doubt they won't with a timer.
The people use such tactics in order to win the game. Mostly. If camping can result only in defeat then they won't camp. They'll do something else.


No, there aren't. The factions on the battle screen are not "Attacker" and "Defender", they are "Your Alliance" and "Enemy Alliance".
You're right, there is no clear attacker and defender. But - as I already said in different topic - you can find out who should attack and who defend. It's purely formal and optional, yes. Not completly unexistent though. We, however, need something to solve camping (like a battle timer) or to define both sides more clearly.

Kiyosk
05-31-2011, 10:38 AM
our game just finished, and of course we lose. our plan didn't work. it's hard to beat a bunch of lvl 9 units all camping in the trees. here's the replay

nederhash
05-31-2011, 10:39 AM
@kiyosk

u have 2 bow monks and a bow hero, also 2 matchlocks, thats all u need to beat the camper or to make him come out of his forest.
instead of asking CA what to do, work on ur skills and dont whine when someone dont play like u want it to ;)

Kiyosk
05-31-2011, 10:42 AM
@kiyosk

u have 2 bow monks and a bow hero, also 2 matchlocks, thats all u need to beat the camper or to make him come out of his forest.
instead of asking CA what to do, work on ur skills and dont whine when someone dont play like u want it to ;)

wow talking like a pro huh? he also had 3 lvl 9 monks and matchlocks. which have more advantage since they have tree cover. so stand down nooblet. watch the replay 1st.

PHAN~TOM
05-31-2011, 10:48 AM
No way, for Land 1vs1, there are no attacking and defending players in 1vs1 Land battles. All we need is a time limit of lets say 30minutes and max at 60 min. After which BOTH players get a lost battle. Now try camping!

Good opinion on that but how about if someone who losted approximately 90% of his entire army on the battle and then start running with general or yari cav that he left to wait for the time end.

How can you solve this problem if you have time limit ?

nederhash
05-31-2011, 10:51 AM
u just lost because u werent good enough to counter or develope a tactic which beat him, accept it.
btw if i loose, its also because i werent good enough, not because my opponent camped or spammed or what ever.
everyone can play like he want, no matter if we like it or not. the advantage is to beat him!
but whining and saying: i lost because my opponent.... is just embarassing, thats my view on that.

Blobster5
05-31-2011, 10:52 AM
OMG i wonder when people will stop crying about campers and actually start to bring armies with a strong missile component on the field and actually learn to play with them.


The only problem with having enough missile units to beat a turtler is that everything else will be so weak that any other type of semi- balanced army will easily run you over because you have such weak melee. Sure katanas only will work but katanas only against a balanced army will get wrecked. It's not like I know when I'm up against a turtler and when i'm not. Plus I said explicitly he was on a hill, so I'll be shooting uphill and charging uphill, which isn't exactly a good spot for me in, especially since there is a building in the center of said hill and mountains protecting him on the sides. Furthermore, Even if I could attack him from the side, he could just rotate his formation or move his missile troops to face mine. And he sure as hell can do that faster then I can move my units since he just has to turn while I have to go around the entire parameter. Next time this happens I'll just do some turtling of my own, as some people have suggested. Seems like the best option to me. Seriously hew, I promise you if we ever play and you let me camp, I promise that you stand absolutely no chance in hell of winning.

On the topic about there not being attackers and defenders,
in battles there are always an attacker and defender. One side is trying to take what another side has. It's not like armies just go and fight over and empty patch of grass. After reading these comments I realize a timer might not be the best option. Instead, I think a capture point (king of the hill style) should be placed in the center of the map. That way, if you don't attack you lose. And it makes it more realistic, since, like I said, armies don't fight over empty patches of land.

Kiyosk
05-31-2011, 10:53 AM
u just lost because u werent good enough to counter or develope a tactic which beat him, accept it.
btw if i loose, its also because i werent good enough, not because my opponent camped or spammed or what ever.
everyone can play like he want, no matter if we like it or not. the advantage is to beat him!
but whining and saying: i lost because my opponent.... is just embarassing, thats my view on that.
i don't need your view, you're just a nooblet acting like you know everything. LOL.

nederhash
05-31-2011, 10:56 AM
i don't need your view, you're just a nooblet acting like you know everything. LOL.

that just shows who is actually the noob....

MakeNine
05-31-2011, 10:56 AM
Just learn to deal with it. In battle all tactics are valid, and if their tactics are so n00by then you should be able to beat them. Sure some are annoying but it's only a game. Making people run around to capture some point reminds me of Call of Duty.

blenta
05-31-2011, 11:01 AM
u just lost because u werent good enough to counter or develope a tactic which beat him, accept it.
btw if i loose, its also because i werent good enough, not because my opponent camped or spammed or what ever.
everyone can play like he want, no matter if we like it or not. the advantage is to beat him!
but whining and saying: i lost because my opponent.... is just embarassing, thats my view on that.

Man you need an attitude adjustment... you acting like a @%#^#

Blobster5
05-31-2011, 11:08 AM
Just learn to deal with it. In battle all tactics are valid, and if their tactics are so n00by then you should be able to beat them. Sure some are annoying but it's only a game. Making people run around to capture some point reminds me of Call of Duty.

The the point is that if you attack a camper who camps properly, you lose, that's the end of it. How are you supposed to attack and enemy that's uphill, guarded on either side by impassible mountains, and has 3 bow monks? Normally I would agree with you, if someone beats you they're just better than you and crying about it just means you're a baby (like those people calling crying for no artillery)but the problem with campers is that I'm not willing to wait for 6 hours for my opponent to come down his hill. Usually I don't have a problem with campers, as there are usually ways around their formations. It's just on that one level with the hill with impassible mountains on either side and a really narrow path to the center of it.

Kiyosk
05-31-2011, 11:16 AM
The the point is that if you attack a camper who camps properly, you lose, that's the end of it. How are you supposed to attack and enemy that's uphill, guarded on either side by impassible mountains, and has 3 bow monks? Normally I would agree with you, if someone beats you they're just better than you and crying about it just means you're a baby (like those people calling crying for no artillery)but the problem with campers is that I'm not willing to wait for 6 hours for my opponent to come down his hill. Usually I don't have a problem with campers, as there are usually ways around their formations. It's just on that one level with the hill with impassible mountains on either side and a really narrow path to the center of it.

Indeed. also add a vet matchlock hiding. even if you have a good amount of bow monk archers, he will still have the tree advantage and my opponent had a last stand also.

Blobster5
05-31-2011, 11:17 AM
In battle all tactics are valid, this is true. But in a real life against a camper, I would just let the enemy have the useless piece of forest or empty hill that he is protecting and starve him out, or move on and try and capture something that has value. The point of a real life battle is that one side is trying to take over what another side has, and one side is trying to stop the other from reaching a certain point that has strategic value. Hence, in real battles there is always an attack and a defender. The reason behind having a capture point is to have a goal for both sides to go after. In a real battle, there would be no reason for be to attack a turtler, I would just let him be and move on. But these aren't real battles. Like you said, it's only a game.

Blobster5
05-31-2011, 11:18 AM
Also the rate at which people reply to these posts is astounding.

Crazy Steve
05-31-2011, 11:22 AM
Camping shouldn't be a problem if there are bonusbuildings on the map.

blenta
05-31-2011, 11:48 AM
I can supply you with at least 3 replays of people camping and letting the enemy take 2 or all 3 key buildings... so its not the final answer to the problem...

daniu
05-31-2011, 11:53 AM
I can supply you with at least 3 replays of people camping and letting the enemy take 2 or all 3 key buildings... so its not the final answer to the problem...
So what, if they don't win.
You can never force people to play in a certain way, only give disincentives. There will always be campers.

| GoV | PiNe
05-31-2011, 12:37 PM
When i brought all katana samurai and won the bow spammer, my opponent said " Katana noob".
When i brought all katana samurai and lost to all Katana calvary spammer, i said " You are lucky that i am not yari monk spammer..."

hewhoraidsthewind
05-31-2011, 01:05 PM
The the point is that if you attack a camper who camps properly, you lose, that's the end of it. How are you supposed to attack and enemy that's uphill, guarded on either side by impassible mountains, and has 3 bow monks? Normally I would agree with you, if someone beats you they're just better than you and crying about it just means you're a baby (like those people calling crying for no artillery)but the problem with campers is that I'm not willing to wait for 6 hours for my opponent to come down his hill. Usually I don't have a problem with campers, as there are usually ways around their formations. It's just on that one level with the hill with impassible mountains on either side and a really narrow path to the center of it.

On what map is this position? I don't remember it

blenta
05-31-2011, 01:10 PM
Bay of many faces, shrine is always spawned in between the moutanins.

Hays
05-31-2011, 02:26 PM
Perhaps remove those Camping Maps from matchmade pool of maps. Daizuzan without Buildings is so inviting for camping. Beer, Sake and girls seem to be on the wooded Hills at both Edges of Map.
Or include 30 Minute timer.

Hannibal Barca
05-31-2011, 04:58 PM
I don't think adding the capture point is such a bad idea. I believe the way it could work is it takes very long to actually capture it( say 5 minites?) we could also make it so that the timer resets if the enemies troops engage in melee combat(melee only so a unit of bow cavalry couldn't repeadatly disrupt it then retreat), so people can't just camp the point to win the game.

what this will do is it won't be a viable stradegy to just take it normally, however if your opponent refuses to move this might give him some insentive.

AnjinSan
05-31-2011, 05:20 PM
Had someone turtle up in a forest against me yesterday... Unfortunately for him it was pretty **** close to an archery dojo and I killed all his archers... So I just sat there forever shooting into the tree's/run back reload arrows/shooting into the trees/run back reload arrows/etc... It was pretty lol amusing...

KillerMonkeyBob
05-31-2011, 05:36 PM
I think CA have done a decent job with the maps, I always find a good approach/counter camping spot. Kiyosk, that map for example there is tree cover approaching his army by his left, you will have cover from his missile and the forest will hide your troops long enough for you to get in close. Whats more annoying than these campers are those of you that expect both armies to just run dead into each other because thats what your armies designed for.

I have seen campers fall apart when my army ruches out of nowhere straight into one of there flanks.

KillerMonkeyBob
05-31-2011, 05:40 PM
Blenta bay of many faces is dead center. Both of you spawn an equal distance from the morale shrine, rush it and use the open field/forest for getting to his rear. Just because people don't read the map doesn't mean its unbalanced.

BoatsanHoze
05-31-2011, 05:40 PM
When I play multiplayer land battles, I noticed something about all the players with high win to loss ratios; they all do the same thing to win. They set themselves up on a hill or a forest and then they don't move, forcing me to either lose the game or just see who can stand still the longest. This is really annoying and, without a time limit, no reason for anybody not to employ this tactic. Something needs to be done like introducing a timelimit with an attacking and defending player, where the attacking player loses if time runs out. This would put the attacking player at a disadvantage, so maybe give the attacking player some sort of bonus morale or more money at the beginning or something.

Well do you bring canons or mangonels? Just curious.

KillerMonkeyBob
05-31-2011, 05:45 PM
Perhaps remove those Camping Maps from matchmade pool of maps. Daizuzan without Buildings is so inviting for camping. Beer, Sake and girls seem to be on the wooded Hills at both Edges of Map.
Or include 30 Minute timer.
You mean have only 1 flat map to play on? no thanks.
Also a timer will just give them another thing to exploit for wins, If CA add a timer you would see the forums light up complaining about how people are camping out the timer or using hit and run tactics with very bassic set ups.

Myrmidon.
05-31-2011, 06:12 PM
When you host games just enable key buildings, your opponent should regret camping as soon as you capture them. Otherwise, get fire rockets. They're expensive but if your opponent is all clogged up in one small little corner they should kill hundreds easily.

icamefromouterspace
05-31-2011, 06:43 PM
our game just finished, and of course we lose. our plan didn't work. it's hard to beat a bunch of lvl 9 units all camping in the trees. here's the replay

I started to watch your replay to give you some pointers, but even in triple speed I got bored and closed out before anyone even MOVED.

Here's my gut feeling of what you did wrong

1- You didn't use your bow monks. Your bow monks have great range, and your enemy's general can't hide. Even though the woods still protect them from arrow fire, between the 5 or 6 bow monk units between you and your friend you could have killed both of their generals

2- You didn't move your cavalary at all, from the beginning you should have been moving your great guard around the map using the trees to conceal their location.

If you had done both of these things this is what would have happened

first your opponents would be forced to attack you realizing you can just sit there all day shooting them with arrows, then you will be fighting them in the open, then your great guard will come out of the woods and sandwhich them against your units. With their generals dead and the flanking cav charge they would route instantly

Despite not watching the whole replay, I'm thinking you did something like this:

You sat there for half an hour, finally charged head on with all of your units all at once in no organized fashion and got destroyed.

Holy.Death
05-31-2011, 08:04 PM
Also a timer will just give them another thing to exploit for wins, If CA add a timer you would see the forums light up complaining about how people are camping out the timer or using hit and run tactics with very bassic set ups.
If you award both players with defeat then they won't waste their time on camping or running around with their all cavalry armies because the people cheat, exploit, use chessy tactics, change names of their units in order to win or at least to avoid defeat (like alt + F4 issue).

eXistenZ
05-31-2011, 08:56 PM
just beat a camper (level8) with level 9 mangonel in match making. Was so happy i had to post here :D (mind you i lose most of my battles). It was on that river map, because of the river and the forests, he barely hit anything. :p

although he will et an angry letter from greenpeace for setting fire to a lot of trees :D

johnikins
05-31-2011, 09:46 PM
Right do I find it annoying when I find out that the player I have went against started with the entire strategy of camp boxing, yes. But if they want to play the game this way, let them, it upon both sides to come up with a way to win.

If they have started the battle based on playing defensive box, then you seek to find a tactic to disrupt the defense. I've found that ill prepared boxes fall apart in under a minute of assualt.

It the well prepared ones that become a challenge, to unpick and unravel.

The thing that gets me about a lot of people who I have come across you complain about camping, are complaining about me or a team member who will use terrain as a defensive feature against certain things like a massive bow force (or matchlock), fire rockets etc that they have brought with them until the advantage is either negated by being destroyed or we believe we can make our assualt and have a good chance of winning.

Sometimes these games last from little as 15 minutes to even as long as 1 hour. This is where the game becomes interesting, to some of us it like a game of chess getting the opponent to think we will play defensively all the time so that when we attack it surprises them.

I know that shogun is just a game, but I still like to win the occasional game, and if I lose I want it to be due to him pulling some brilliant plan that I didn't forsee happening instead of me rushing an army forward to get destroyed by combined archer and matchlock fire before it even get a 100 paces of the enemy.

I know that full on turtlers are a pain in the butt, but I don't want to see time limit introduced as it will make those rare games of patience and constant baiting from both sides disappear of become even rarer, as these battles are something different from the typical rush forward and fight in the middle of the map while ignoring every other map feature that a lot of battles are devolving into right now.

Magyar Khan
05-31-2011, 10:49 PM
very well spoken john....

MakeNine
05-31-2011, 10:57 PM
In battle all tactics are valid, this is true. But in a real life against a camper, I would just let the enemy have the useless piece of forest or empty hill that he is protecting and starve him out, or move on and try and capture something that has value. The point of a real life battle is that one side is trying to take over what another side has, and one side is trying to stop the other from reaching a certain point that has strategic value. Hence, in real battles there is always an attack and a defender. The reason behind having a capture point is to have a goal for both sides to go after. In a real battle, there would be no reason for be to attack a turtler, I would just let him be and move on. But these aren't real battles. Like you said, it's only a game.

Good point. but as long as this impregnable spot is away from both spawn locations, I think it's okay. I prefer that it be possible for one army to reach a tough fortified spot, than some kind of mechanism that encourages rush armies and quick battles.

BigG123
05-31-2011, 11:06 PM
Well the key building were put in so people wouldn't camp, so your army would go out and capture the and fight over the points, but I agree without the key buildings its sort of a camp fest and is much needed for a time limit.

Magyar Khan
05-31-2011, 11:12 PM
time limits destroy the games do it maybe like amp suggested make a dojo where units slowly replenish men

Magyar Khan
05-31-2011, 11:31 PM
on certain maps the dojos are really needed, but lets agree some maps are not suited for MM also i like my own old idea of mapratings..... assign a attacker and defender and based on a maprating which is based on teh outcomes of all battles on that certain map a defender gets just teh maprating % * total gold attacker


hasty explained if needed i will redo it better

AnjinSan
06-01-2011, 12:04 AM
All you got to do is use 10 moral loan swords with sword instructer and blademaster, with a cohort of cav to rush their main body and disrupt them. Then surround with loan sword cheese minions and gg... Things are getting lame as ****... You don't even need to micro, just point 6 units of cav, rush, point loan swords in stretched out lines, rush

icamefromouterspace
06-01-2011, 01:09 AM
All you got to do is use 10 moral loan swords with sword instructer and blademaster, with a cohort of cav to rush their main body and disrupt them. Then surround with loan sword cheese minions and gg... Things are getting lame as ****... You don't even need to micro, just point 6 units of cav, rush, point loan swords in stretched out lines, rush


If they spend all their upgrade points on morale then you can destroy them with cav charges and arrows.

AnjinSan
06-01-2011, 01:45 AM
Not when they bum rush you right at the start of the match with 3-4 katana cav and 2 GG backing them up. You don't need to spend any points in morale either with the right retainers. *cough cough* renyo's teachings... This retainer alone with a leadership gen gives +4 morale +4 melee def. You can recoup the -2 attack easily with sword instructor and blademaster. 2 points in melee attack and you have a cheap cheap unit with high morale (loan swords former major weakness). You can easily afford 6+ cav and a ton of loan swords with a couple yari to protect your gen. I think it's about a 2k man build at 15k funds.

Note: Works better on small - med sized maps, but preferably small. I hope they nerf this cheese **** bs. Everyone go ahead and start abusing it.

Mercadal
06-01-2011, 03:35 AM
In battle all tactics are valid, this is true. But in a real life against a camper, I would just let the enemy have the useless piece of forest or empty hill that he is protecting and starve him out, or move on and try and capture something that has value. The point of a real life battle is that one side is trying to take over what another side has, and one side is trying to stop the other from reaching a certain point that has strategic value. Hence, in real battles there is always an attack and a defender. The reason behind having a capture point is to have a goal for both sides to go after. In a real battle, there would be no reason for be to attack a turtler, I would just let him be and move on. But these aren't real battles. Like you said, it's only a game.

In real life id use Napalm.

Holy.Death
06-01-2011, 08:24 AM
Maybe that is an answer? Bring in frie bomb throwers, unit or two, and order them to drop their grenades in the biggest fight there.

Skurkanas
06-01-2011, 08:28 AM
Maybe that is an answer? Bring in frie bomb throwers, unit or two, and order them to drop their grenades in the biggest fight there.
It's funny how devastating they can be in a big melee blob

Toranaga Sama
06-01-2011, 08:51 AM
If you award both players with defeat then they won't waste their time on camping .

Not true in my opinion; the only thing a timer would achieve, is that the non-camper might rush in and make mistakes while attacking the camper

So, although I used to be in favour of a timer, now I'm convinced that it actually would be favourable for the camper !!

Holy.Death
06-01-2011, 09:00 AM
Why should camper camp and non-camper rush in recklessly? Their situation in the same.

Toranaga Sama
06-01-2011, 09:22 AM
Why should camper camp and non-camper rush in recklessly? Their situation in the same.

Human nature!
The camper has the homefield advantage..
They both get a loss when the timer runs out yes? If you read the posts here on the forums, and you do because I see your name everywhere lol, you know a lot of people are frustated with campers. Because they have only a few things they can do
1)attack the camper
2) camp too and wait till the camper grows tired of waiting
3) quit

A timer wouldn't change these options and the camper knows that. The only difference is that there is pressure on the attacker. He has to succeed in a limited amout of time.
A lesser player (like me perhaps) would make mistakes...

A camper would know this and use it to his advantage
I know I would if I were him (which I am not !!!, don't have the patience for it)

Toranaga Sama
06-01-2011, 09:25 AM
One more thing : Don't forget that most likely, a camper knows no other way to win a battle
Therefore, even with a timer, he would use the only thing he knows which is camping....

hewhoraidsthewind
06-01-2011, 09:56 AM
Check the victory system in Company of Heroes. It is the best i ever met and lol, it camed out back in 2007.

It goes something like this, there are 3 victory points (VP) on the map (on larger maps can be 4 or 5). These VP's are somehow comparable to the Dojo's we have here in Shogun2. Each player/team starts with 500 points. If one player/team holds all 3 VP's the opponent will start loosing from those 500 points at a steady rate. In some 15 minutes he will be bye bye if he doesnt make any effort to take a VP of it's own. If he takes a VP he will still lose points because you have 2 VP's, but at a slower rate. So you will win the game in about 30 minutes or so but he gains more time to prepare his attack. The fun games are when the teams are both holding one VP are continuously contesting the middle one, that switches from one side to another. These can be games 1 hour +.

This system would bring a huge strategical dimension to the game. Normaly these victory points are distributed evenly, each team has a point close to its deployment area and one is in the midle. In most matches skirmishing will have a major importance because each team will be tempted to camp their own point while skirmishing the midle. However they have to come out since the team that hold the mid victory point will eventually win when the time runs out. This doesnt mean that rush tactics will not be viable anymore. Heavy campers will be at a disadvantage because they can effectivelly camp one VP but they need to split their forces if they want to camp 2 VP's, which is a condition to win.

daniu
06-01-2011, 10:01 AM
The victory system in CoH only works properly if you can produce troops and have the other strategical (resource) points required to do that.

hewhoraidsthewind
06-01-2011, 10:08 AM
Why it wouldnt work in Shogun 2?

Forget about resources, just think at Shogun 2 with the VP's implemented, what goes wrong?

bushranger
06-01-2011, 10:11 AM
The victory system in CoH only works properly if you can produce troops and have the other strategical (resource) points required to do that.

Now if the dojos gave points to get reinforcements or speacial abilitys that would be awesome.avatar mode is just a bit fluff anyway why not make it more fun.

daniu
06-01-2011, 10:23 AM
just think at Shogun 2 with the VP's implemented, what goes wrong?
It would definitely not necessarily result into the two armies clashing, but armies running around the map trying to avoid each other on the way to the next victory point, splitting up in fast and/or hidden detachments to sneak themselves a few victory points.
Not all the time, but it's not like camping really is a huge problem now. Having your opponent running away is much more annoying.

It may "work" technically, but it will change the core gameplay far too much. TW is about battles, not capture the flag.


Now if the dojos gave points to get reinforcements or speacial abilitys that would be awesome.
Yeah, I would love to try out a mode allowing reinforcements :D
Sudden Strike had it, now this could work great for TW imho.

hewhoraidsthewind
06-01-2011, 10:55 AM
It would definitely not necessarily result into the two armies clashing, but armies running around the map trying to avoid each other on the way to the next victory point, splitting up in fast and/or hidden detachments to sneak themselves a few victory points.
Not all the time, but it's not like camping really is a huge problem now. Having your opponent running away is much more annoying.

It may "work" technically, but it will change the core gameplay far too much. TW is about battles, not capture the flag.


You clearly have no strong counter argument. Above is just blabling with no serious logical line. Why would players run away? If you run away you loose your VP. How exactly would you see two armies running away from eachother when they are positioned like this on the map

[Player 1 army] [VP] [VP] [VP] [Player 2 Army]

Where exactly do you see them running arround?

I think you are clearly confusing Victory Points with strategic points. These are two different things in Company of Heroes. Strategic points are giving you resources while VP's are giving you the win. Strategic Points are all over the place and you have to chase for them. But i was not talking about these. These can not be implemented here because this game is not based on resources. But Victory Points (VP's) can be implemented and wont lead to any army running away and avoiding battles. And would eliminate campers.

blenta
06-01-2011, 11:17 AM
Victory points will change the game to much. It will shift the importance from defeating enemy's army to capturing victory points.

A battle timer with a lost game to both players is far better choice as player that camp are the ones trying to get a cheap win and avoid losing. And their hole idea of camping will not work anymore.

daniu
06-01-2011, 11:21 AM
Above is just blabling with no serious logical line.
Well if you don't understand "it would change the core gameplay too much", there really isn't much I can do to help you.

And no, I don't confuse Strategic and Victory points, I did say they're both needed for the system to work properly. And production capability. And btw if you think you're the first one to come up with the idea of introducing victory points into TW, you probably haven't been around for long.
Actually, I also did say Strategic points alone would be a good thing to try out if they provided reinforcements; this way they would prevent camping too because the non-camper would just have more units as the game goes on.

Sachaztan
06-01-2011, 12:21 PM
Victory points will change the game to much. It will shift the importance from defeating enemy's army to capturing victory points.

A battle timer with a lost game to both players is far better choice as player that camp are the ones trying to get a cheap win and avoid losing. And their hole idea of camping will not work anymore.

Terrible, absolutely terrible idea.

One player loses his entire army except a cavalry unit. Run around and attach trollface.

Makes all cavalry spam armies unbeatable.

Holy.Death
06-01-2011, 12:31 PM
Beatable. Both players will lose.

Sachaztan
06-01-2011, 12:47 PM
Beatable. Both players will lose.

Yeah that's the point, with that system you would never ever get a win vs cavalry spam even if you "win"

Holy.Death
06-01-2011, 02:18 PM
Cavalry spam won't win either, making all cavalry armies worthless to field. People play to win, not to lose. They'll try to adapt - maybe by making all melee armies - but it is way easier to counter than attack matchlock spammer camping in the woods.

Magyar Khan
06-01-2011, 02:26 PM
For me the problem are the maps

use dojos or a system of mapratings or better suited maps for mm

Sachaztan
06-01-2011, 02:35 PM
Cavalry spam won't win either, making all cavalry armies worthless to field. People play to win, not to lose. They'll try to adapt - maybe by making all melee armies - but it is way easier to counter than attack matchlock spammer camping in the woods.

It seems like you never encountered a type of players called "griefers".

Why do you think there are people that pick light cavalry only and run around without fighting?

Holy.Death
06-01-2011, 02:55 PM
I've heard about cavalry armies - they want you to run around and tire out your men so they can charge you from all directions and rout. I haven't encountered a griefer yet. So far every man I met did things to win, not to grief.

hewhoraidsthewind
06-01-2011, 02:58 PM
Well if you don't understand "it would change the core gameplay too much", there really isn't much I can do to help you.

And no, I don't confuse Strategic and Victory points, I did say they're both needed for the system to work properly. And production capability. And btw if you think you're the first one to come up with the idea of introducing victory points into TW, you probably haven't been around for long.
Actually, I also did say Strategic points alone would be a good thing to try out if they provided reinforcements; this way they would prevent camping too because the non-camper would just have more units as the game goes on.

First, you're just blabling again w/o presenting any arguments and explanations for your statements. "It will change the core game too much" ... yeah right, i can randomly produce words like that too. Explain why the core will change and that will transform into an argument. I might be new around here but i'm old in gaming (dating back since Age of Empires 1) and that gives me the right to speak.

Secondly i do not see why change is something bad as you present it. What i do know is ... in a 2011 game people complain about campers that are waiting on a hill for hours. **** some people said they spent the night waiting for the camper to come out. And we have grieffers that run arround with cavalry until you decide to quit the game. And people playing as offensive in sieges and they actually camp outside waiting for the defender that has crippled fund available to come out and attack him. In a 2011 game! Dude. theres so much collective gaming experience out there and we still have here these problems in a 2011 game. Problems that never existed in Company of Heroes, a 2007 game, because they were smart enough to introduce some Victory Points so no game can go longer than a certain amount of time.

@blenta - a simple timer is a very stupid ideea. It will only favour the camper, the other guy will have to attack the camper on the camper very own terms. The camper because he is the weaker player he will not care that both get a lose if the other guy doesnt attack. He knows he gets a lose anyway if he comes out.

Drasp
06-01-2011, 03:17 PM
I would say a battle timer, after it's expired a building spawns in the middle of the map whoever captures it first (lets say 1 min capturing time) wins the battle.

blenta
06-01-2011, 05:20 PM
It seems like you never encountered a type of players called "griefers".

Why do you think there are people that pick light cavalry only and run around without fighting?

350 battles in, 0 "griefers", 350 battles in 50+ campers. Math tells the whole story.

blenta
06-01-2011, 05:23 PM
@blenta - a simple timer is a very stupid ideea. It will only favour the camper, the other guy will have to attack the camper on the camper very own terms. The camper because he is the weaker player he will not care that both get a lose if the other guy doesnt attack. He knows he gets a lose anyway if he comes out.

A camper that gets 5 loses from player that don't attack him game after game quits playing or changes tactic.
A player that meats a camper loses that one game and then plays 10 normal games.

AMP
06-01-2011, 05:49 PM
our game just finished, and of course we lose. our plan didn't work. it's hard to beat a bunch of lvl 9 units all camping in the trees. here's the replay

If it takes you like an hour to come up with a plan to attack a camper you deserve to lose, really going at triple speed with no movement that long is a sign of weakness, someone who has no idea what to do.

1) if you have bow adv use it and trying playing with atleast 1 scout cav "light cav" with increased spotting. don't engage until you made full use of your bow adv. Try to hit guns and gens alot with fire arrows (don't go bow to bow if you don't have to) manually pick your targets if you can etc..

2) never blob with melee units like 15man deep that = fail.

3) don't charge expensive cav head on into guns if you can avoid it

I'm not that great myself, but it doesn't take me an hour to figure out where to attack someone and I know better to use a key adv if I have it - like your bows.

Also just because a unit is rank 9 doesn't mean it has 9 skills spent on it. That should be a given when people field alot of rank 9s that would go over the fund limit, that all skills weren't spent on the units. The adv of rank 9 vets is that they get max FREE fatigue reductions (SP stats deal that wasn't changed for MP), which nullifies the idea of fatigue upgrades and retainers unless playing with vanilla units for retainers. Those playing with a more vanilla build are at a slight disadvantage than someone who's using mostly vets.


If you award both players with defeat then they won't waste their time on camping or running around with their all cavalry armies because the people cheat, exploit, use chessy tactics, change names of their units in order to win or at least to avoid defeat (like alt + F4 issue).

You will still come across people who don't mind losing and will still camp it out, so that timer deal won't help. I especially don't wanna see a long game coming to a loss that I could've won but the time ran out or there just be a few mins left and my opponent sees he's gonna lose, so he runs until the time runs out so you get a loss as well. No Thanks...


time limits destroy the games do it maybe like amp suggested make a dojo where units slowly replenish men

It's nice to have key buildings against campers, just not all maps have them or they only have one.

Well that idea magy was more along the times of something to break that ice of camping plus add something different to TW. In STW with the expansion they gave new game modes like "king of hill", where it gave me that idea.

The idea was more along the lines of when you cap a building you are slowly granted funds which then can be used to bring in new units or you can change your existing ones for new ones "after you withdrew them and no refund for their cost of course". And of course maps with this mode should have at least 3 key buildings to make it fair so it's not a rush to just one building and a 3rd building would make people battle over it if they each are camping a building.

I suggested this idea to CA 10 years ago when they released the new game modes for STW (which didn't go over well), but I guess not many liked my idea of a new game mode either, it's still nice to think of new ideas for TW.

AMP
06-01-2011, 05:56 PM
A camper that gets 5 loses from player that don't attack him game after game quits playing or changes tactic.
A player that meats a camper loses that one game and then plays 10 normal games.

You still need to come to a common ground where one won't get losses from such events...

Who's to stop someone who doesn't normally camp to go ahead and camp on someone just because they know their opponent is better or has a much better record and they want to try everything to mess that up? Some people may be willing to d i c k over someone and take a loss from time to time.

Kiyosk
06-01-2011, 05:56 PM
@amp advice taken, thanks.

Holy.Death
06-01-2011, 05:57 PM
I kind of like the idea of these buildings producing funds to buy fresh troops to replace the dead ones.

blenta
06-01-2011, 06:12 PM
Never going to happen... I am not saying that just to make you wrong, but CA will never do that.

AMP
06-01-2011, 06:15 PM
Here is what some well known players that know swoosh and I by name will do...

they lose an early skirmish and use that as an excuse to camp saying "we forced them to camp"
http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/560909772445501752/FD3AD54707423B8D78C2C3E1F5A76A00CA85FB2B/

the hill climb starts
http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/560909772445505418/48819BA00EAB5CED4EA21A031B6578F57DDC563C/

they **** away a ton of arrows because shooting over the cliff makes it hard to hit targets with bows
http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/560909772445513068/407BFB3FFF96EC5B810316CBEAEE746DCF0EB055/

the clash starts - wish swoosh would pan out a tad more, but she tends to do this from time to time
http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/560909772445520880/534AE56C4BEA46DFD1B233EB55AD65A6590DEBF1/

game is about over - they left many easy missile kills for my cav :)
http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/560909772445536396/0FD666592796EDA0976CED3D61050D5C4743EE88/

If you add a timer some people will be willing to take a loss and play like this and sit it out in the spot they think is the best to defend. Against better players it would've been much closer or we would've lost. Key buildings would've been nice to have... I was never against them, just them not being totally OP.

AMP
06-01-2011, 06:27 PM
Never going to happen... I am not saying that just to make you wrong, but CA will never do that.

They already attempted different game modes in the first STW and they didn't go over well because they weren't well thought out. So I way back then proposed something which I thought was a better idea for a game mode, but it didn't get much attention.

It seems CA won't do alot of things... like for starters releasing a finished product or at least close to it.

dark as silver
06-01-2011, 06:53 PM
demanding morale boost for 'attacking' armies really gets on my nerves, that is the whole purpose of the key buildings. a timer or option for players to agree to draws is whats needed.