Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Simple elegant approach to eliminate draw kiting, corner camping, with no unintended ill effects

eumaieseumaies Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 7,534
First, the goals: Games should be time limited (you can pick the time amount, but for QB lets assume 20 minutes) and there should be no incentive to make them as long as possible; draw kiting should not be a thing, corner camping against white lines should not be a thing, and players should not have disagreements about where they are "supposed" to fight (e.g. in a forest or not) that result in standoffs or arguments about whether to fight at all.

Aside from those goals the game's tactics should be not affected; wide open and sandbox.

The approach:
1) There are two possible game ending win conditions - destroy the enemy army, or accrue XX cumulative minutes (assume 20 min for QB but customizable for custom battles) of flag presence before your opponent does.
2) There is a flag and small box in the center of the field, too small to evade enemies inside. In almost all maps this will be on open ground (and it can't be on impassable ground).
3) Any player with any ground unit in the box at any time for more than 5 seconds starts accruing time on their flag presence clock. Both players can accrue time on their clock at the same time if they both have units there.

What does this do? It solves any argument about how to win if neither player is otherwise motivated to engage the other, while being very unlikely to be triggered in the vast majority of games before the enemy army is destroyed.

FAQ:

Q: But what about all treekin or zombie armies designed specifically to exploit this to last 20 minutes and be unkillable in a normal game length?
A: Even if such armies exist and are lucky enough to go against an army that can't kill them in 20 minutes, such armies are still slow. In this worst case scenario, you could simply move to the flag first when you see the build they brought, and they would likely be unable to fully dislodge you with their slow grinding defensive army. At a minimum you'd have head start.

Q: But what if I want to play a kiting game and I might need more than 20 minutes to win the way I like to play?
A: Whatever time limit you set on your games, or whatever CA sets for QB, that's the intended max time limit for the match. You should take armies that can accomplish the goal of winning the game within the game's maximum time frame. Using ammo supra optimally for longer than the maximum time for the game you've chosen to play simply isn't polite to your opponent. Agree on a longer game with someone if you want the option to play longer games.

Q: But what if I take a defensive box with artillery inside and then they snipe my artillery and i have to advance on the enemy or the center to win?
A: Yup. You lost the ability to win simply by standing there and shooting after they killed your ranged units. So now it's clear what you will need to do if you want to win (engage your enemy or contest the center).

Q: Won't this encourage certain army types? Aren't melee heavy armies disadvantaged? Aren't ranged armies disadvantaged?
A: The only army type that is discouraged is one that takes more than the maximum allotted game time to kill the enemy army, some of which would be out in the middle of the open field the entire time. The only army type that is encouraged is a non-existent one that is somehow fast enough to claim the center first and also tough enough to reliably last longer than the maximum game time.

Q: Will this make games take longer or play around the center of the map only?
A: Nope. in fact wins by timer runout will be exceedingly rare and it will rarely be of any real value to pay attention to the center of the map at all. it will largely just avoid disagreements about "where to fight". Any units standing in an open center will die faster than they would otherwise anywhere else on the map.

Q: What about good games that legitimately last longer than XX minutes?
A: This happens sometimes and currently results in draws in QB. Under this new system, games will still often last longer than 20 minutes, simply because most players won't be focusing on the center the whole time, if at all. if both players are actively engaged in fighting elsewhere, they can fight for as long as they like. But if one player wants to start the clock to avoid an excessively long game, they have the option to return to the center with a unit.
«1

Comments

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,597
    1 - Issue is that the fight will than revolve around centre of the map always so might aswell not have big or maps with terrain, i could see solution being multiple "boxes"

    Q: But what if I take a defensive box with artillery inside and then they snipe my artillery and i have to advance on the enemy or the center to win?
    A: Yup. You lost the ability to win simply by standing there and shooting after they killed your ranged units. So now it's clear what you will need to do if you want to win (engage your enemy or contest the center).


    You're missing the point that people will have a clear incentive to arty box and it be a very strong strategy as they can stay camping.

    Biggest issue i have is my point 1, making games revolve around centre of the map thus making terrain way less relevant, also i think this impacts army building, it does favour melee armies especially dwarfs, where now you dont need to bring ranged to forced opponents to you, you can simply do that by standing in the middle.

    Rite now at least dwarfs need to bring some arty or ranged to force those engagement, chaos also, with this they can simply pick an elite army with shields and camp middle and opponent goes at them or looses.
  • hanenhanen Registered Users Posts: 591
    I think you need multiple capture points to promote moving and spreading out your army.

    With just one capture point you risk promoting builds built around blobbing around it.

    Not to mention builds with artillery shooting anyone approaching the middle whilst its captured by a unit with stalk.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    hanen said:

    I think you need multiple capture points to promote moving and spreading out your army.

    With just one capture point you risk promoting builds built around blobbing around it.

    Not to mention builds with artillery shooting anyone approaching the middle whilst its captured by a unit with stalk.

    I mean if you played a practice game assuming this ruleset you’d quickly find there isn’t some blobby army that able to win by playing/camping around the middle. What army do you have in mind that has any reasonable chance of lasting 20 mins blabbing that wasn’t a good army before?

    The incentive to pay attention to the center is incredibly small and I can’t see why anyone would expect to be able to rely on it. I could take a tanky chaos army right now in any game f I wanted to try to outlast my opponent, but it’s not a ticket to win (such armies often lose to ranged and kite) and it won’t last 20+ minutes by a long shot.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534

    1 - Issue is that the fight will than revolve around centre of the map always so might aswell not have big or maps with terrain, i could see solution being multiple "boxes"

    Q: But what if I take a defensive box with artillery inside and then they snipe my artillery and i have to advance on the enemy or the center to win?
    A: Yup. You lost the ability to win simply by standing there and shooting after they killed your ranged units. So now it's clear what you will need to do if you want to win (engage your enemy or contest the center).


    You're missing the point that people will have a clear incentive to arty box and it be a very strong strategy as they can stay camping.

    Biggest issue i have is my point 1, making games revolve around centre of the map thus making terrain way less relevant, also i think this impacts army building, it does favour melee armies especially dwarfs, where now you dont need to bring ranged to forced opponents to you, you can simply do that by standing in the middle.

    Rite now at least dwarfs need to bring some arty or ranged to force those engagement, chaos also, with this they can simply pick an elite army with shields and camp middle and opponent goes at them or looses.
    Dwarfs or anyone can already bring an all Melee army and waddle slowly around the map in formation. Neither the tournament attacking rule not anything else prevents that right now. But people rarely do it because it’s usually a losing army Vs anyone with ranged. Such armies also don’t last close to 20 minutes no matter who wins.

    Dwarfs don’t bring artillery in tourneys to “sit still”. They bring artillery because sitting still *without* competitive firepower is suicidal. And if they sit still in the middle of the map it will be just as suicidal.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    stalked unit in center of map is simply a unit you would (eventually) have to scout and kill. Again it’s all just a forcing mechanism to engage if you weren’t already inclined to do so. Once armies engage unless someone draw kites games going 20+ minutes are an anomoly. And that’s assuming anyone sits in the center the whole time (which they can’t even start to do til they arrive there).
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    If there were armies that lasted >20 minutes reliably while standing still draw kiters and corner campers in qb would already be using them. They don’t mind wasting your time and it would be their chance to either win or reliably get a draw in the worst case.

    But they don’t exist. Instead draw kiters have to run away for 20 minutes to have a chance at a draw when they’d otherwise lose. Corner campers sit with campy armies in the corner because they think it will help them win the fight, and they know their army won’t last 20 minutes at all, much less in the open field.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,597
    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    I think you need multiple capture points to promote moving and spreading out your army.

    With just one capture point you risk promoting builds built around blobbing around it.

    Not to mention builds with artillery shooting anyone approaching the middle whilst its captured by a unit with stalk.

    I mean if you played a practice game assuming this ruleset you’d quickly find there isn’t some blobby army that able to win by playing/camping around the middle. What army do you have in mind that has any reasonable chance of lasting 20 mins blabbing that wasn’t a good army before?

    The incentive to pay attention to the center is incredibly small and I can’t see why anyone would expect to be able to rely on it. I could take a tanky chaos army right now in any game f I wanted to try to outlast my opponent, but it’s not a ticket to win (such armies often lose to ranged and kite) and it won’t last 20+ minutes by a long shot.
    practice games and QB are much different, i have Never even once been draw kitted or someone corner camping in a practice game.

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,597
    edited May 4
    I dont see why u think tis a good idea to put 1 at the centre, im not even against this idea totally, it has its flaws which you think you give anwser to in Q&A but you dont but thats not even the point, point is that a capture point thats more random would be more beneficial and less abusable.

    I really got to say you Q&A is very wrong, your explanation to your questions are not accurate its just you expressing your feeling as NO to the quesiton proposed.

    I mean look at this

    Q: Will this make games take longer or play around the center of the map only?
    A: Nope. in fact wins by timer runout will be exceedingly rare and it will rarely be of any real value to pay attention to the center of the map at all. it will largely just avoid disagreements about "where to fight". Any units standing in an open center will die faster than they would otherwise anywhere else on the map.


    What you mean nope? what do you base your awnser on? its pure your opinion that this be the case, how you know it be rare? Have you had a significant portion of games witht his system vs variable oppoennts that you can come out and say nope (id say around 10 games vs 20 different players would be a good data sample), 2nd part of your anwser is a pure assumption. what if the centre is a in middle of a forest or near impossible terrain? Or do you plant to make all maps have open clear centre?
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534

    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    I think you need multiple capture points to promote moving and spreading out your army.

    With just one capture point you risk promoting builds built around blobbing around it.

    Not to mention builds with artillery shooting anyone approaching the middle whilst its captured by a unit with stalk.

    I mean if you played a practice game assuming this ruleset you’d quickly find there isn’t some blobby army that able to win by playing/camping around the middle. What army do you have in mind that has any reasonable chance of lasting 20 mins blabbing that wasn’t a good army before?

    The incentive to pay attention to the center is incredibly small and I can’t see why anyone would expect to be able to rely on it. I could take a tanky chaos army right now in any game f I wanted to try to outlast my opponent, but it’s not a ticket to win (such armies often lose to ranged and kite) and it won’t last 20+ minutes by a long shot.
    practice games and QB are much different, i have Never even once been draw kitted or someone corner camping in a practice game.

    No I’m saying play a game pretending this rule set is in place. See how you actually behave and model your assumptions. You won’t bring a tanky center camping dwarf or chaos army in this modeling scenario and if you do you won’t win.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534

    I dont see why u think tis a good idea to put 1 at the centre, im not even against this idea totally, it has its flaws which you think you give anwser to in Q&A but you dont but thats not even the point, point is that a capture point thats more random would be more beneficial and less abusable.

    I really got to say you Q&A is very wrong, your explanation to your questions are not accurate its just you expressing your feeling as NO to the quesiton proposed.

    I mean look at this

    Q: Will this make games take longer or play around the center of the map only?
    A: Nope. in fact wins by timer runout will be exceedingly rare and it will rarely be of any real value to pay attention to the center of the map at all. it will largely just avoid disagreements about "where to fight". Any units standing in an open center will die faster than they would otherwise anywhere else on the map.


    What you mean nope? what do you base your awnser on? its pure your opinion that this be the case, how you know it be rare? Have you had a significant portion of games witht his system vs variable oppoennts that you can come out and say nope (id say around 10 games vs 20 different players would be a good data sample), 2nd part of your anwser is a pure assumption. what if the centre is a in middle of a forest or near impossible terrain? Or do you plant to make all maps have open clear centre?
    On the maps front you’d have to make some calls either to allow the flag to not be centered if terrain is there or to just let some maps “suck”. But very few have such terrain in the middle and many maps already “suck” and people dodge them. So yes improve some maps if needed but it’s a minor side point.

    On the games point I think it would be great to test and model my assumptions absolutely. But I’m also explaining my logic that a win condition that is almost never triggered would have minimal impact on in game behavior, other than avoiding standoff’s , draw kiters, and corner/terrain camping.

    Any Armies that last >20 mins of sustained combat without kiting are also generally armies that would win after 20+ minutes. If they existed, we would very likely have seen them in either tourneys or qb systems already and they would tend to win games. And even if they do exist they would only be advantaged if they were also better at claiming ground faster than the enemy army. I don’t think armies exist that would otherwise lose but instead win under this win condition.
  • hanenhanen Registered Users Posts: 591
    eumaies said:

    hanen said:

    I think you need multiple capture points to promote moving and spreading out your army.

    With just one capture point you risk promoting builds built around blobbing around it.

    Not to mention builds with artillery shooting anyone approaching the middle whilst its captured by a unit with stalk.

    I mean if you played a practice game assuming this ruleset you’d quickly find there isn’t some blobby army that able to win by playing/camping around the middle. What army do you have in mind that has any reasonable chance of lasting 20 mins blabbing that wasn’t a good army before?

    The incentive to pay attention to the center is incredibly small and I can’t see why anyone would expect to be able to rely on it. I could take a tanky chaos army right now in any game f I wanted to try to outlast my opponent, but it’s not a ticket to win (such armies often lose to ranged and kite) and it won’t last 20+ minutes by a long shot.
    You dont need to blob on top of it, just in its general area. Put a unit inside from time to time to up your score. If it got stalk it even better as you dont have to sacrifice anything. As an avid 3 Waywatchers and protecc player, who most of the time use the waystalker in front of my army, I can see myself gaining victory points with a stalked unit forcing the enemy to come to me. Dont get me wrong tho, Its a better mechanic than one we have currently.

    And the incentive to pay attention to the center is changed dramatically if you add a reason to do so. The reason I want multiple capture points is because you would need to spread out your army. With, lets say, one the middle and one in each players deployment zone you can either get victory points from defending and holding the centre or go on the offensive and try and capture your opponents victory point. To me it would discourage draw kiting/corner camping but also encourage more tactical plays.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    While I’m not intrinsically opposed to approaches with more points they do add other complications.

    But hanen I first need to understand your reasoning of why you pay even an iota of attention to this in your waywatcher build and strategy. Or why your opponent would. Does your strategy generally require more than 22 minutes to kill the enemy? If not, all that you and he should be focusing on is survival and killing each other. Whatever units you or he waste accruing time won’t matter when you the game is decided by killing the enemy army.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    I guess you’re saying you would essentially be encouraged to try to draw kite a win by using your actual unit pressure to make him chase you across the field while sneakily (but not covertly since the timer is public) putting a stalked or fast unit in the map center to accrue time. And then meanwhile your kiting would be done in a less forceful way so that the game also lasts greater than twenty minutes and then also the opponent if he notices what’s up 15 minutes in and having failed to engage your army decides to just camp in the center and stop chasing... them he will be st a disadvantage because he can’t continue to chase pointlessly across the map? Just doesn’t seem to add up.
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 2,546
    Draw kiting and corner camping is part of quick battle (though a small and rare part), no matter what kind of system you come up with people will still find a way to do it.

    I dont really see a point in trying to stop it.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 465
    edited May 4
    I mean it’s not just dwarves GS or Chaos could also reasonably abuse a similar strategy.

    Dwarves in particular would have an easy time being able to leave rangers center because of stalk.

    It very much favors infantry with high durability. I should take a video of my goto WE vs BM build it rarely even stays in one place yet it wins fairly consistently.

    I know people want ladder to be some really fair competitive mode but without a referee it’ll never happen. I honestly wish more people would just play multiplayer lobbies and enjoy building different armies. Ladder has to much focus on knowledge matchups. Or better yet join a community tournament Turin hosts them pretty frequently AND PEOPLE ARE WAY MORE RESPECTFUL.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534

    I mean it’s not just dwarves GS or Chaos could also reasonably abuse a similar strategy.

    Dwarves in particular would have an easy time being able to leave rangers center because of stalk.

    It very much favors infantry with high durability. I should take a video of my goto WE vs BM build it rarely even stays in one place yet it wins fairly consistently.

    I know people want ladder to be some really fair competitive mode but without a referee it’ll never happen. I honestly wish more people would just play multiplayer lobbies and enjoy building different armies. Ladder has to much focus on knowledge matchups. Or better yet join a community tournament Turin hosts them pretty frequently AND PEOPLE ARE WAY MORE RESPECTFUL.

    there is no infantry in the game that lasts 20+ minutes. if these armies existed draw kiters in qb would already have a strong incentive to use them.

    if youre already winning with treekin armies, you'll win or lose in exactly the same way as before - were lots of your WE vs BM battles ending in draws because they can't kill you? or if you modify your army so that it could theoretically last 20 minutes in one place all your opponent has to do to stop you is get in your way.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    Loupi_ said:

    Draw kiting and corner camping is part of quick battle (though a small and rare part), no matter what kind of system you come up with people will still find a way to do it.

    I dont really see a point in trying to stop it.

    this isn't getting a man on mars. It's very basic logic. You can't draw kite when there is no way to get a draw under this ruleset. You either win by destroying the enemy or win by accruing a full 20 minutes of time in the center cumulatively. At least read the post first.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534

    I mean it’s not just dwarves GS or Chaos could also reasonably abuse a similar strategy.

    Dwarves in particular would have an easy time being able to leave rangers center because of stalk.

    It very much favors infantry with high durability. I should take a video of my goto WE vs BM build it rarely even stays in one place yet it wins fairly consistently.

    I know people want ladder to be some really fair competitive mode but without a referee it’ll never happen. I honestly wish more people would just play multiplayer lobbies and enjoy building different armies. Ladder has to much focus on knowledge matchups. Or better yet join a community tournament Turin hosts them pretty frequently AND PEOPLE ARE WAY MORE RESPECTFUL.

    also this isn't just about QB. it's also eliminating all need for super convoluted attacking rules in tournaments. Just set a maximum time limit and then see who wins in that time.
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 2,546
    edited May 5
    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    Draw kiting and corner camping is part of quick battle (though a small and rare part), no matter what kind of system you come up with people will still find a way to do it.

    I dont really see a point in trying to stop it.

    this isn't getting a man on mars. It's very basic logic. You can't draw kite when there is no way to get a draw under this ruleset. You either win by destroying the enemy or win by accruing a full 20 minutes of time in the center cumulatively. At least read the post first.
    previous TW games had capture points and draw kiting still happened. There's no point working on such a system. If you dont want to get drawkited then either make your army so it cant get drawkited or just leave the battle, its not like the ladder points mean anything.

    And corner camping is not an issue, most corner campers are terrible players and actually facing such things can be quite fun from time to time. Either that or just camp the opposite corner, or once again leave the battle.

    Im just being pragmatic and realistic, Id rather CA spend their time making a good game 3 than waste their time trying to get rid of the toxic 5% of QB players.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    Loupi_ said:

    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    Draw kiting and corner camping is part of quick battle (though a small and rare part), no matter what kind of system you come up with people will still find a way to do it.

    I dont really see a point in trying to stop it.

    this isn't getting a man on mars. It's very basic logic. You can't draw kite when there is no way to get a draw under this ruleset. You either win by destroying the enemy or win by accruing a full 20 minutes of time in the center cumulatively. At least read the post first.
    previous TW games had capture points and draw kiting still happened. There's no point working on such a system. If you dont want to get drawkited then either make your army so it cant get drawkited or just leave the battle, its not like the ladder points mean anything.

    And corner camping is not an issue, most corner campers are terrible players and actually facing such things can be quite fun from time to time. Either that or just camp the opposite corner, or once again leave the battle.
    i do appreciate that you can't be bothered to read the post.

    and what you are trying to say is you don't care about the issue, and apparently also don't care about the need for silly tournament attacking rules that people spend hundreds of hours tweaking.

    But no you can not draw kite in a game setting where there are no draws.
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 2,546
    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    Draw kiting and corner camping is part of quick battle (though a small and rare part), no matter what kind of system you come up with people will still find a way to do it.

    I dont really see a point in trying to stop it.

    this isn't getting a man on mars. It's very basic logic. You can't draw kite when there is no way to get a draw under this ruleset. You either win by destroying the enemy or win by accruing a full 20 minutes of time in the center cumulatively. At least read the post first.
    previous TW games had capture points and draw kiting still happened. There's no point working on such a system. If you dont want to get drawkited then either make your army so it cant get drawkited or just leave the battle, its not like the ladder points mean anything.

    And corner camping is not an issue, most corner campers are terrible players and actually facing such things can be quite fun from time to time. Either that or just camp the opposite corner, or once again leave the battle.
    i do appreciate that you can't be bothered to read the post.

    and what you are trying to say is you don't care about the issue, and apparently also don't care about the need for silly tournament attacking rules that people spend hundreds of hours tweaking.

    But no you can not draw kite in a game setting where there are no draws.
    yeah i read the post, just think its not very good idea
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 465
    edited May 5
    eumaies said:



    there is no infantry in the game that lasts 20+ minutes. if these armies existed draw kiters in qb would already have a strong incentive to use them.

    if youre already winning with treekin armies, you'll win or lose in exactly the same way as before - were lots of your WE vs BM battles ending in draws because they can't kill you? or if you modify your army so that it could theoretically last 20 minutes in one place all your opponent has to do to stop you is get in your way.

    Nah build just glady stag with net, a caster either a regrowth or pendulum, 3 glade riders hag bane, zoat and wildrider ror. Infantry is wardens of cythral, bladesinger and than a mix of eternal guard. It’s just kind of has to stay kind of spread out so antilarge cavalry can pick fights vs minos. I don’t think it’s ever resulted in a draw.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534

    eumaies said:



    there is no infantry in the game that lasts 20+ minutes. if these armies existed draw kiters in qb would already have a strong incentive to use them.

    if youre already winning with treekin armies, you'll win or lose in exactly the same way as before - were lots of your WE vs BM battles ending in draws because they can't kill you? or if you modify your army so that it could theoretically last 20 minutes in one place all your opponent has to do to stop you is get in your way.

    Nah build just glady stag with net, a caster either a regrowth or pendulum, 3 glade riders hag bane, zoat and wildrider ror. Infantry is wardens of cythral, bladesinger and than a mix of eternal guard. It’s just kind of has to stay kind of spread out so antilarge cavalry can pick fights vs minos. I don’t think it’s ever resulted in a draw.
    ok, well seems like a cool build. I think it woudl still perform the same under this new system i'm proposing. as in current games (other than tournaments where people have to attack) opponents will still have to engage you or else get shot up. or like in current games if they have more ranged units and spell-power than you you'd still have to engage them to kill those ranged assets.
  • littlenukelittlenuke Registered Users Posts: 552
    So you want a capture point that only activates after the match time limit to decide the winner.... ok
    Karaz-A-Karak discord: https://discord.gg/UZV6F5N
  • hanenhanen Registered Users Posts: 591
    eumaies said:

    While I’m not intrinsically opposed to approaches with more points they do add other complications.

    But hanen I first need to understand your reasoning of why you pay even an iota of attention to this in your waywatcher build and strategy. Or why your opponent would. Does your strategy generally require more than 22 minutes to kill the enemy? If not, all that you and he should be focusing on is survival and killing each other. Whatever units you or he waste accruing time won’t matter when you the game is decided by killing the enemy army.

    The problem isnt one for me. Im in a great spot, controlling the capture point with a stalked unit and protecting it with more stalked units. With the rest of my army close enough to support.

    This means I dont have to do anything unless the opponent comes to me. Which to me the problem with a single capture point. It forces action but it doesnt promote spreading out your army.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    hanen said:

    eumaies said:

    While I’m not intrinsically opposed to approaches with more points they do add other complications.

    But hanen I first need to understand your reasoning of why you pay even an iota of attention to this in your waywatcher build and strategy. Or why your opponent would. Does your strategy generally require more than 22 minutes to kill the enemy? If not, all that you and he should be focusing on is survival and killing each other. Whatever units you or he waste accruing time won’t matter when you the game is decided by killing the enemy army.

    The problem isnt one for me. Im in a great spot, controlling the capture point with a stalked unit and protecting it with more stalked units. With the rest of my army close enough to support.

    This means I dont have to do anything unless the opponent comes to me. Which to me the problem with a single capture point. It forces action but it doesnt promote spreading out your army.
    So why is the stalked units important? If you put your army on and/or near the center I would come fight with you and given that army design you would start to kite and shoot. Most likely since those waywatchers are serious business I would chase you around the map trying to shut them down just like we do right now. If while we’re doing this you want to divert a stalked or cav unit to contest the center there would be nothing stopping me from also diverting a unit to contest that.

    But stepping back you’re assuming we each have this strong incentive to be fighting around the center but really Vs your army my incentive remains mostly just to kill you. Maybe if you managed to get 10-15 minutes of time accrued somehow then I might consider stopping chasing you and defending the center if for some reason I found I didn’t have a realistic way of catching your kiting units. But that’s just like any game Vs a faster kite. And if your army takes more than 20 minutes to kill me and can’t survive a slug fest in the center then I’d win sitting in the center.

    You’re kind of assuming the point of the game design is to force people to go to one place or to multiple places. Instead the point of the design is to be largely irrelevant unless for some reason we’re having a standoff of some kind or I’m just being kited hopelessly around the map unable to engage.
  • ThisIsREMThisIsREM Registered Users Posts: 125
    "No side effects" - proceeds to suggest what is literally a different game. Classic.

    Can we focus on realistic suggestions please? CA is obviously not going to break the format of ALL total war games in history with some gimmicky flags that would also require insane effort to be introduced in a balanced way to every single map in the game.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    ThisIsREM said:

    "No side effects" - proceeds to suggest what is literally a different game. Classic.

    Can we focus on realistic suggestions please? CA is obviously not going to break the format of ALL total war games in history with some gimmicky flags that would also require insane effort to be introduced in a balanced way to every single map in the game.

    No unintended side effects.

    This is very easy to implement. They have the graphics already and just would tweak the timing for the capture point mechanic. All maps in wh3 are new and would not require much treatment at all to plop a CP in the center.

  • ThisIsREMThisIsREM Registered Users Posts: 125
    eumaies said:

    ThisIsREM said:

    "No side effects" - proceeds to suggest what is literally a different game. Classic.

    Can we focus on realistic suggestions please? CA is obviously not going to break the format of ALL total war games in history with some gimmicky flags that would also require insane effort to be introduced in a balanced way to every single map in the game.

    No unintended side effects.

    This is very easy to implement. They have the graphics already and just would tweak the timing for the capture point mechanic. All maps in wh3 are new and would not require much treatment at all to plop a CP in the center.

    Well, I would bet my house that CA will not even consider this.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,534
    ThisIsREM said:

    eumaies said:

    ThisIsREM said:

    "No side effects" - proceeds to suggest what is literally a different game. Classic.

    Can we focus on realistic suggestions please? CA is obviously not going to break the format of ALL total war games in history with some gimmicky flags that would also require insane effort to be introduced in a balanced way to every single map in the game.

    No unintended side effects.

    This is very easy to implement. They have the graphics already and just would tweak the timing for the capture point mechanic. All maps in wh3 are new and would not require much treatment at all to plop a CP in the center.

    Well, I would bet my house that CA will not even consider this.
    Well then we can continue to have ridiculously convoluted rules about attacking rules and forest camping in tourneys and draw kiting and corner camping in qb. I’m suggesting probably the easiest solution that would actually work. Take an existing graphic and adjust the timer on it. But of course CA can do nothing if they like.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file