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

Proposed Solution for Draw Kiting and Indefinate Camping

2

Comments

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 8,287
    eumaies said:

    Only way capture point could work is if they were randomly spawned and changed location during the game to discurage camping and build 100% defensive armies that revolve around CP camping. In order to avoid mobile armies having an advantage, the cupture rate should be based on units speed, with slower units having a significantly higher capture speed.

    You really have to game out these sort of statements with logic. In rare maps the cap will be on a somewhat more defensible position like a hill or forest, not a big deal both players can once in a blue moon take terrain into account.

    That aside, there is no incentive to have a defensive army. The only incentive would be to have armies that a) are unkillable for 20 mins of defensive fighting; and also b) somehow retain more models than their opponent so their control is retained against opponents army.

    A and B work in opposition so it won’t be an issue. Literally all this type of cp does is ensure the two armies fight to the death.

    There is a massive incentive to take a camping army and sit on the objective...because it would give you a win.

    Like i said im not against objective points just im against them being in predictable position where a player can build his army around that win condition.

    Mainly an unfair advantage to Dwarfs and Coast.

    Ironbreaker box suddenly has ways to win the game by camping on top on the objective, YES ironbrekaer box is beatable sure but its much harder if you dont expect it and now it has a ways to win because you cant just avoid it.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 8,287
    2twoto said:

    @The_real_FAUST Your assessment of my proposal is correct.

    Only way capture point could work is if they were randomly spawned and changed location during the game to discurage camping and build 100% defensive armies that revolve around CP camping. In order to avoid mobile armies having an advantage, the cupture rate should be based on units speed, with slower units having a significantly higher capture speed.

    I don’t understand where your sentiment arises from: how does the proposed solution lend itself to CP camping armies? The CP will always be in or near the dead center of the map, meaning getting there for most bunkers will be slow (as bunkers rely on infantry, the slowest of the unit types), and sitting on the CP the whole game will result in ceding all battlefield control and initiative, leaving the opponent able to dictate the engagement and do as he pleases.

    Moreover, what army do you imagine can withstand a well-balanced enemy army for 20 minutes? All Ironbreakers/defensive infantry? Empty your ammo on them then grind through them with the rest of the army (maybe also toss in an AoE spell here and there). Some disgusting VC heal and summon blob? Sounds perfect for a vortex spell and they cede any chance of compromising your ranged assets, which could then eliminate things like the leadership and Mortis Engine with impunity before you engage. Tree blob? Ideally the CP shouldn’t be in a forest, but even on the off-chance it is they would still be allowing the opponent to empty all of their ranged assets out onto the blob while keeping their melee asset back (and again, AoE spells will punish this severely). Some other blob with a few disrupters to threaten your ranged assets? Ignore the blob sitting on the point twiddling their thumbs, kill the disrupters, then empty your ammo and grind through whatever remains. Long story short, there is literally no multiplayer-legal army that can move to and solely blob/bunker on the point for 20 full minutes without losing to army losses first.

    Also, as others have stated, your proposed alternative is flawed: the advantage would always be with the more mobile army, as they could get to any point fast enough to cap it long before their opponent arrives. This might even encourage draw kiting, as you could just wait till the game is nearing the end then wait for the point to pop up in who knows where, rush to the point faster than your opponent can (the draw-kiting army will be faster overall), cap it, then delay the opponent from getting to the point for a minute or so to win the game.

    See my second response to yst, paragraph 4 for a description of how CP work in campaign: it seems to base capture rate on models, which is still advantageous for infantry as they have the highest model counts. Admittedly, we could do with a more thorough explanation of how the capture point system works (please @CA_Duck if possible), but what is observable is enough to make the proposed solution viable.
    By walking your army at start of the game onto the objective and sitting there for 20min, there is no incentive to move, just build a camping army walk there and sit.

    If you want speicific armies, than Avelorn treeblob, LZM TG and life slann blob, Coast camping army, VC 3x summon armis, DWarf boxes are just some examples.


    Well there could be ways to limit ways fast armies have an advantage for example instead of capping a point you sit on it and gain points for duration u are there, with faster units getting points much slower.

    Capture points are flowed currently and can be abused so are definetly not the solution, but there are ways to include the idea of cupture points and FFA point system that would greatly limit abuse.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 6,626
    edited February 16
    Forced to fight may or may not be good thats the thing. I mean u can now easily camp phoenix guards there and ppl MUST fight them.

    U now must fight them at where they want. Theres no other place, no flanking, no rear, u must fight them on that spot or they win the game, thats the problem, otherwise they simply camp the flag and win
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 8,287
    yst said:

    Forced to fight may or may not be good thats the thing. I mean u can now easily camp phoenix guards there and ppl MUST fight them.

    U now must fight them at where they want. Theres no other place, no flanking, no rear, u must fight them on that spot or they win the game, thats the problem, otherwise they simply camp the flag and win

    Yep exactly, there is no incentive to use most of the map either, just camp in the middile or you lose, why even have terrain around the map.
  • 2twoto2twoto Registered Users Posts: 68

    2twoto said:

    @The_real_FAUST Your assessment of my proposal is correct.

    Only way capture point could work is if they were randomly spawned and changed location during the game to discurage camping and build 100% defensive armies that revolve around CP camping. In order to avoid mobile armies having an advantage, the cupture rate should be based on units speed, with slower units having a significantly higher capture speed.

    I don’t understand where your sentiment arises from: how does the proposed solution lend itself to CP camping armies? The CP will always be in or near the dead center of the map, meaning getting there for most bunkers will be slow (as bunkers rely on infantry, the slowest of the unit types), and sitting on the CP the whole game will result in ceding all battlefield control and initiative, leaving the opponent able to dictate the engagement and do as he pleases.

    Moreover, what army do you imagine can withstand a well-balanced enemy army for 20 minutes? All Ironbreakers/defensive infantry? Empty your ammo on them then grind through them with the rest of the army (maybe also toss in an AoE spell here and there). Some disgusting VC heal and summon blob? Sounds perfect for a vortex spell and they cede any chance of compromising your ranged assets, which could then eliminate things like the leadership and Mortis Engine with impunity before you engage. Tree blob? Ideally the CP shouldn’t be in a forest, but even on the off-chance it is they would still be allowing the opponent to empty all of their ranged assets out onto the blob while keeping their melee asset back (and again, AoE spells will punish this severely). Some other blob with a few disrupters to threaten your ranged assets? Ignore the blob sitting on the point twiddling their thumbs, kill the disrupters, then empty your ammo and grind through whatever remains. Long story short, there is literally no multiplayer-legal army that can move to and solely blob/bunker on the point for 20 full minutes without losing to army losses first.

    Also, as others have stated, your proposed alternative is flawed: the advantage would always be with the more mobile army, as they could get to any point fast enough to cap it long before their opponent arrives. This might even encourage draw kiting, as you could just wait till the game is nearing the end then wait for the point to pop up in who knows where, rush to the point faster than your opponent can (the draw-kiting army will be faster overall), cap it, then delay the opponent from getting to the point for a minute or so to win the game.

    See my second response to yst, paragraph 4 for a description of how CP work in campaign: it seems to base capture rate on models, which is still advantageous for infantry as they have the highest model counts. Admittedly, we could do with a more thorough explanation of how the capture point system works (please @CA_Duck if possible), but what is observable is enough to make the proposed solution viable.
    By walking your army at start of the game onto the objective and sitting there for 20min, there is no incentive to move, just build a camping army walk there and sit.

    If you want speicific armies, than Avelorn treeblob, LZM TG and life slann blob, Coast camping army, VC 3x summon armis, DWarf boxes are just some examples.


    Well there could be ways to limit ways fast armies have an advantage for example instead of capping a point you sit on it and gain points for duration u are there, with faster units getting points much slower.

    Capture points are flowed currently and can be abused so are definetly not the solution, but there are ways to include the idea of cupture points and FFA point system that would greatly limit abuse.
    Ok, let me see if I understand you: you are saying that any given opponent will be utterly helpless to punish a player just moving their whole army onto the point and refusing to leave? That they can't spend the first 2-3 minutes (this assuming they don't bring artillery: if they come with artillery it will take significantly more time) those armies you listed are advancing to harass and compromise parts of the army? That once the army is there, the opponent cannot completely empty all of their ammo into the box and inflict enough damage to then take care of what remains with their melee units? That they cannot use the fact that the opponent is camping in the center of the map to completely surround the opponent and employ normal bunker-busting tactics (getting literally every flank and rear possible)? That the opponent cannot use any AoE spells they have (including Vortexes, wind spells, and all the AoE's like Final Trans) to get massive damage in on this blob, or else use such to force the opponent to move parts of his box and thus create a break that can be exploited? And finally, are you saying that an opponent cannot employ every single one of these solutions against their opponent over the course of 20 minutes and thus win against the potato who literally moved his army to the dead-center of the map and refused to leave it?

    Unless you are making the claim that the armies you listed are currently unbeatable, then your assertion here is false. If that is what you are asserting, then the problem is irrelevant: those units/armies are problematic regardless of the implementation of this system or not and should be addressed with Unit Caps or re-balancing. If not, then the incentive for the camper to move is to not loose the game.

    Capture points, while they might have flaws, are not easily abused: the AI in campaign is a potato in sieges, so it's easy to cheese the AI into being stupid and win via CP. This is not an accurate representation of how balanced CP points are; see my previous points on it, both in the first post (more focused on their resilience to abuse) and in my second response to yst, paragraph 4 (explaining more the observable mechanics already present in game). Overall, there is significantly less abuse in a system that is simply "whomever owns the CP (which system is already ready in the game and needs minimal tampering to work for this purpose) in the center of the map (where there is no advantageous terrain to camp on) at the end wins" then one where "There is a point system like FFA but sitting on CP's also gives you points [which is not a system currently in the game] and the CP's change every x minute [which will almost always grant mobile armies the advantage unless it literally only changes once] and where the point moves will be random [again, favoring armies that re position fast] and whomever has the most points wins at the end."

    Again, the single CP in the center of the map is not easily abused by moving a blob onto there and refusing to leave. Your proposed alternative still grants mobile armies a massive advantage, and could be abused by draw-kiting while grabbing the points (unless the point only moves once, in which case it's not much different from a Single CP). Like, give me some credit: do you really think I proposed this system without an valid argument that blobs/bunkers would not be able to cheese it? The first paragraph of this response lists (in rhetorical questions) the majority of claims backing this argument. If you think they are flawed, feel free to illustrate why.
  • 2twoto2twoto Registered Users Posts: 68
    edited February 16
    yst said:

    Forced to fight may or may not be good thats the thing. I mean u can now easily camp phoenix guards there and ppl MUST fight them.

    U now must fight them at where they want. Theres no other place, no flanking, no rear, u must fight them on that spot or they win the game, thats the problem, otherwise they simply camp the flag and win

    If an opponent camps in the center of the map with phoenix guards, then you have free reign to dictate the engagement: you can just wait and empty your ranged into them before engaging. They'll be more vulnerable to AoE spells/abilties. Heck, you'll have every flank and rear possible, as they have literally ceded everything but the center of the map. You can also choose to engage them early before the reach the center. Basically, you would dictate the entire match if they only move to mid and camp there.

    Unless you are claiming that a phoenix box is unbeatable currently, then you are fully capable of beating said army if they move to the middle and refuse to budge. If your claim is that Phoenix box is OP, then we should be discussing either nerfs or caps for the units involved, as such builds are problematic regardless of this solution or no.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 8,287
    edited February 16
    2twoto said:

    2twoto said:

    @The_real_FAUST Your assessment of my proposal is correct.

    Only way capture point could work is if they were randomly spawned and changed location during the game to discurage camping and build 100% defensive armies that revolve around CP camping. In order to avoid mobile armies having an advantage, the cupture rate should be based on units speed, with slower units having a significantly higher capture speed.

    I don’t understand where your sentiment arises from: how does the proposed solution lend itself to CP camping armies? The CP will always be in or near the dead center of the map, meaning getting there for most bunkers will be slow (as bunkers rely on infantry, the slowest of the unit types), and sitting on the CP the whole game will result in ceding all battlefield control and initiative, leaving the opponent able to dictate the engagement and do as he pleases.

    Moreover, what army do you imagine can withstand a well-balanced enemy army for 20 minutes? All Ironbreakers/defensive infantry? Empty your ammo on them then grind through them with the rest of the army (maybe also toss in an AoE spell here and there). Some disgusting VC heal and summon blob? Sounds perfect for a vortex spell and they cede any chance of compromising your ranged assets, which could then eliminate things like the leadership and Mortis Engine with impunity before you engage. Tree blob? Ideally the CP shouldn’t be in a forest, but even on the off-chance it is they would still be allowing the opponent to empty all of their ranged assets out onto the blob while keeping their melee asset back (and again, AoE spells will punish this severely). Some other blob with a few disrupters to threaten your ranged assets? Ignore the blob sitting on the point twiddling their thumbs, kill the disrupters, then empty your ammo and grind through whatever remains. Long story short, there is literally no multiplayer-legal army that can move to and solely blob/bunker on the point for 20 full minutes without losing to army losses first.

    Also, as others have stated, your proposed alternative is flawed: the advantage would always be with the more mobile army, as they could get to any point fast enough to cap it long before their opponent arrives. This might even encourage draw kiting, as you could just wait till the game is nearing the end then wait for the point to pop up in who knows where, rush to the point faster than your opponent can (the draw-kiting army will be faster overall), cap it, then delay the opponent from getting to the point for a minute or so to win the game.

    See my second response to yst, paragraph 4 for a description of how CP work in campaign: it seems to base capture rate on models, which is still advantageous for infantry as they have the highest model counts. Admittedly, we could do with a more thorough explanation of how the capture point system works (please @CA_Duck if possible), but what is observable is enough to make the proposed solution viable.
    By walking your army at start of the game onto the objective and sitting there for 20min, there is no incentive to move, just build a camping army walk there and sit.

    If you want speicific armies, than Avelorn treeblob, LZM TG and life slann blob, Coast camping army, VC 3x summon armis, DWarf boxes are just some examples.


    Well there could be ways to limit ways fast armies have an advantage for example instead of capping a point you sit on it and gain points for duration u are there, with faster units getting points much slower.

    Capture points are flowed currently and can be abused so are definetly not the solution, but there are ways to include the idea of cupture points and FFA point system that would greatly limit abuse.
    Ok, let me see if I understand you: you are saying that any given opponent will be utterly helpless to punish a player just moving their whole army onto the point and refusing to leave? That they can't spend the first 2-3 minutes (this assuming they don't bring artillery: if they come with artillery it will take significantly more time) those armies you listed are advancing to harass and compromise parts of the army? That once the army is there, the opponent cannot completely empty all of their ammo into the box and inflict enough damage to then take care of what remains with their melee units? That they cannot use the fact that the opponent is camping in the center of the map to completely surround the opponent and employ normal bunker-busting tactics (getting literally every flank and rear possible)? That the opponent cannot use any AoE spells they have (including Vortexes, wind spells, and all the AoE's like Final Trans) to get massive damage in on this blob, or else use such to force the opponent to move parts of his box and thus create a break that can be exploited? And finally, are you saying that an opponent cannot employ every single one of these solutions against their opponent over the course of 20 minutes and thus win against the potato who literally moved his army to the dead-center of the map and refused to leave it?

    Unless you are making the claim that the armies you listed are currently unbeatable, then your assertion here is false. If that is what you are asserting, then the problem is irrelevant: those units/armies are problematic regardless of the implementation of this system or not and should be addressed with Unit Caps or re-balancing. If not, then the incentive for the camper to move is to not loose the game.

    Capture points, while they might have flaws, are not easily abused: the AI in campaign is a potato in sieges, so it's easy to cheese the AI into being stupid and win via CP. This is not an accurate representation of how balanced CP points are; see my previous points on it, both in the first post (more focused on their resilience to abuse) and in my second response to yst, paragraph 4 (explaining more the observable mechanics already present in game). Overall, there is significantly less abuse in a system that is simply "whomever owns the CP (which system is already ready in the game and needs minimal tampering to work for this purpose) in the center of the map (where there is no advantageous terrain to camp on) at the end wins" then one where "There is a point system like FFA but sitting on CP's also gives you points [which is not a system currently in the game] and the CP's change every x minute [which will almost always grant mobile armies the advantage unless it literally only changes once] and where the point moves will be random [again, favoring armies that re position fast] and whomever has the most points wins at the end."

    Again, the single CP in the center of the map is not easily abused by moving a blob onto there and refusing to leave. Your proposed alternative still grants mobile armies a massive advantage, and could be abused by draw-kiting while grabbing the points (unless the point only moves once, in which case it's not much different from a Single CP). Like, give me some credit: do you really think I proposed this system without an valid argument that blobs/bunkers would not be able to cheese it? The first paragraph of this response lists (in rhetorical questions) the majority of claims backing this argument. If you think they are flawed, feel free to illustrate why.
    The statements you're making are on assumption that you KNOW before hand that you are playing against such army and strategy which would not be the case at all, so now you need to bring final transmutation and other vortexes each game because of possiblity of such boxes so the CP idea is already impacting army selction.

    You're describing moving into middle of the map and camping there as a hard things that would get punished....i fully disagree, its quite easy to move there with a defensive army and sit there in a box whilte forcing your opponent to crack it or loosing the game.

    Another massive thing against capture points is that they make large portion of the map irrelevant pretty much all play would revolve around the CP or if not than the game is lost, might aswell make all the maps glacial lake.





  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 8,287
    edited February 16
    2twoto said:

    yst said:

    Forced to fight may or may not be good thats the thing. I mean u can now easily camp phoenix guards there and ppl MUST fight them.

    U now must fight them at where they want. Theres no other place, no flanking, no rear, u must fight them on that spot or they win the game, thats the problem, otherwise they simply camp the flag and win

    If an opponent camps in the center of the map with phoenix guards, then you have free reign to dictate the engagement: you can just wait and empty your ranged into them before engaging. They'll be more vulnerable to AoE spells/abilties. Heck, you'll have every flank and rear possible, as they have literally ceded everything but the center of the map. You can also choose to engage them early before the reach the center. Basically, you would dictate the entire match if they only move to mid and camp there.

    Unless you are claiming that a phoenix box is unbeatable currently, then you are fully capable of beating said army if they move to the middle and refuse to budge. If your claim is that Phoenix box is OP, then we should be discussing either nerfs or caps for the units involved, as such builds are problematic regardless of this solution or no.
    yes and than you realise that VC dont have ANY range and are forced to fight PG box or losse or any other box.

    Its not about unbeatable boxes its about, giving boxes win conditions vs certain factions.


    Capture point in the middle of the map is a very bad idea.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 8,287
    Like i said im not opposed to capture points, im opposed capture points in pre determined location, i think pre determined capture point in middle of the map is a very bad idea but capture point that randomly spawns say at 15min mark or something would be fine. (just cannot spawn in either players deployment zone).
  • 2twoto2twoto Registered Users Posts: 68
    @Lotus_Moon I don't think these solutions need pre-cognizance in order for a player to employ them: getting a full surround on the enemy and emptying all your range into them are both obvious and easily accomplished strategies on the field regardless of army comp. Likewise, almost all armies will bring mobile assets, which in this situation can be used to harass the opponent's approach (especially if the opponent is bringing artillery, as they will either be forced to stop before reaching the point to deal with the harass, take significantly longer to reach the middle, or loose their artillery). Armies that don't bring much mobility generally compensate with extra artillery, in which case their extra artillery will reap massive dividends. As for spells, wind spells are almost always brought anyways (flaming head and pendulum being the most common ones) and most people bring vortexes if the enemy faction is known for blobbing. Final Trans is likewise brought often even if a blob is not expected: it's a an overall good spell. And this isn't even mentioning the other popular spells like Soul Stealer, searing doom (which can do work over time), piercing bolts, amber spear, Flock of Doom, soul quench, WoD, summons, and many others that are really good at box busting and are brought even when the player doesn't know their opponent is going to box. Likewise, there are huge numbers of abilities which are also capable of bunker busting, like Gaze of Malice, Breath weapons, and the like that are also brought regardless of boxing potential.

    As for VC, they can bunker bust via summons, WoD, breath weapons, SEM's, black coaches (common pick vs Dawi and HE from what I know), lot's of chaff/disruptors, and Mortis Engines (even though many of the blobby factions can snipe the ME, it's still worth bringing to keep your opponent honest and you can keep it alive with proper play). All of these things are brought often. The Blood dragon can also use Helm of discord to help bust up any given bunker (again, another common pick). Long story short, VC have tools to bust bunkers and generally bring those tools even when they don't expect a bunker, and if the opponent is literally only bunkering then the VC player get's free reign to use those tools to ruin their day.

    With your idea of the point spawning in at the 15 minute mark, my hesitation on that suggestion (cause I did consider it) is four fold: 1) if the spawn is truly random (even barring deployment zones), then it could end up near a border or in a position one opponent (or rarely, both) cannot get to in time. 2) There is still a chance that a draw-kiting opponent can be prevented from getting on the point by an army that's kited all game (they only need to stall their enemy 5 minutes, which is much more manageable than doing the same for 20 minutes). 3) Unlike the proposed, there is no guarantee CA can make a point spawn randomly mid-way though a battle (i.e. there are no similar in-game mechanics similar to such). 4) if problems 1 and 2 are solved for by making it spawn close enough to the middle to prevent line camping and stalling an opponent off the point, then you end up with a solution effectively the same as the proposed.

    That being said, the CP not being visible till the 10 minute mark or so might help emphasize its role as a last ditch effort to avoid a draw. Regardless, I'm off to sleep now. I'll see what becomes of this tomorrow.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 4,020
    As long as the cap point is not in a forest or on a hill I don't see a big problem, it mustn't be in a strong defensive position. The problem that can arise is that it allows a defensive build to force an engagement without bringing any of the traditional tools to do that (long range). Not sure if that actually would change too much though because there is incentive to bring your own range in case the opponent blobs center and the problem for vc is not really any different from now anyways unless you plan not to engage, but why should you as vc?

    If anything it might promote more artillery because it might be risky to go without... Maybe?
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 6,626
    2twoto said:



    If an opponent camps in the center of the map with phoenix guards, then you have free reign to dictate the engagement: you can just wait and empty your ranged into them before engaging. They'll be more vulnerable to AoE spells/abilties. Heck, you'll have every flank and rear possible, as they have literally ceded everything but the center of the map. You can also choose to engage them early before the reach the center. Basically, you would dictate the entire match if they only move to mid and camp there.

    Unless you are claiming that a phoenix box is unbeatable currently, then you are fully capable of beating said army if they move to the middle and refuse to budge. If your claim is that Phoenix box is OP, then we should be discussing either nerfs or caps for the units involved, as such builds are problematic regardless of this solution or no.

    Its not. Ure getting dictated where to fight, and that’s exactly where the guards wants u to be.

    U can have the entire valueless map whereas they have the point where they will end up being the winner.

    They became a force u must deal with, immediately. Which already mean ure being controlled from the very beginning, not the other way round
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,942

    eumaies said:

    Only way capture point could work is if they were randomly spawned and changed location during the game to discurage camping and build 100% defensive armies that revolve around CP camping. In order to avoid mobile armies having an advantage, the cupture rate should be based on units speed, with slower units having a significantly higher capture speed.

    You really have to game out these sort of statements with logic. In rare maps the cap will be on a somewhat more defensible position like a hill or forest, not a big deal both players can once in a blue moon take terrain into account.

    That aside, there is no incentive to have a defensive army. The only incentive would be to have armies that a) are unkillable for 20 mins of defensive fighting; and also b) somehow retain more models than their opponent so their control is retained against opponents army.

    A and B work in opposition so it won’t be an issue. Literally all this type of cp does is ensure the two armies fight to the death.

    There is a massive incentive to take a camping army and sit on the objective...because it would give you a win.

    Like i said im not against objective points just im against them being in predictable position where a player can build his army around that win condition.

    Mainly an unfair advantage to Dwarfs and Coast.

    Ironbreaker box suddenly has ways to win the game by camping on top on the objective, YES ironbrekaer box is beatable sure but its much harder if you dont expect it and now it has a ways to win because you cant just avoid it.
    Again, explain your logic. No ironbreakers box lasts 20 minutes without winning therefore there is zero change in the games incentives. But yes you do actually have to kill your opponent to win.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,942
    edited February 16

    2twoto said:

    @The_real_FAUST Your assessment of my proposal is correct.

    Only way capture point could work is if they were randomly spawned and changed location during the game to discurage camping and build 100% defensive armies that revolve around CP camping. In order to avoid mobile armies having an advantage, the cupture rate should be based on units speed, with slower units having a significantly higher capture speed.

    I don’t understand where your sentiment arises from: how does the proposed solution lend itself to CP camping armies? The CP will always be in or near the dead center of the map, meaning getting there for most bunkers will be slow (as bunkers rely on infantry, the slowest of the unit types), and sitting on the CP the whole game will result in ceding all battlefield control and initiative, leaving the opponent able to dictate the engagement and do as he pleases.

    Moreover, what army do you imagine can withstand a well-balanced enemy army for 20 minutes? All Ironbreakers/defensive infantry? Empty your ammo on them then grind through them with the rest of the army (maybe also toss in an AoE spell here and there). Some disgusting VC heal and summon blob? Sounds perfect for a vortex spell and they cede any chance of compromising your ranged assets, which could then eliminate things like the leadership and Mortis Engine with impunity before you engage. Tree blob? Ideally the CP shouldn’t be in a forest, but even on the off-chance it is they would still be allowing the opponent to empty all of their ranged assets out onto the blob while keeping their melee asset back (and again, AoE spells will punish this severely). Some other blob with a few disrupters to threaten your ranged assets? Ignore the blob sitting on the point twiddling their thumbs, kill the disrupters, then empty your ammo and grind through whatever remains. Long story short, there is literally no multiplayer-legal army that can move to and solely blob/bunker on the point for 20 full minutes without losing to army losses first.

    Also, as others have stated, your proposed alternative is flawed: the advantage would always be with the more mobile army, as they could get to any point fast enough to cap it long before their opponent arrives. This might even encourage draw kiting, as you could just wait till the game is nearing the end then wait for the point to pop up in who knows where, rush to the point faster than your opponent can (the draw-kiting army will be faster overall), cap it, then delay the opponent from getting to the point for a minute or so to win the game.

    See my second response to yst, paragraph 4 for a description of how CP work in campaign: it seems to base capture rate on models, which is still advantageous for infantry as they have the highest model counts. Admittedly, we could do with a more thorough explanation of how the capture point system works (please @CA_Duck if possible), but what is observable is enough to make the proposed solution viable.
    By walking your army at start of the game onto the objective and sitting there for 20min, there is no incentive to move, just build a camping army walk there and sit.

    If you want speicific armies, than Avelorn treeblob, LZM TG and life slann blob, Coast camping army, VC 3x summon armis, DWarf boxes are just some examples.


    Well there could be ways to limit ways fast armies have an advantage for example instead of capping a point you sit on it and gain points for duration u are there, with faster units getting points much slower.

    Capture points are flowed currently and can be abused so are definetly not the solution, but there are ways to include the idea of cupture points and FFA point system that would greatly limit abuse.
    Only low model count healing armies can last 20 minutes and they can’t hold a capture point control against a more numerous army due to how capturing works and the large size of the capture area. Unless they kill it in which case your point is moot.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,942
    edited February 16

    yst said:

    Forced to fight may or may not be good thats the thing. I mean u can now easily camp phoenix guards there and ppl MUST fight them.

    U now must fight them at where they want. Theres no other place, no flanking, no rear, u must fight them on that spot or they win the game, thats the problem, otherwise they simply camp the flag and win

    Yep exactly, there is no incentive to use most of the map either, just camp in the middile or you lose, why even have terrain around the map.
    The incentive to use terrain is exactly as it is right now, for 20 minutes. Terrain is actually slightly more interesting because if it is near the cp it matters in the end game as well if the game goes really long.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,942
    yst said:

    Forced to fight may or may not be good thats the thing. I mean u can now easily camp phoenix guards there and ppl MUST fight them.

    U now must fight them at where they want. Theres no other place, no flanking, no rear, u must fight them on that spot or they win the game, thats the problem, otherwise they simply camp the flag and win

    Yes you are saying draw kiting is necessary to deal with Phoenix guard blobs. That’s an idiotic way to design a game where players argue about how to give each other handicaps or refuse to engage.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,942
    edited February 16
    Vc already has to bust bunkers or draw kite. They have no ranged tools to pressure engagement. That’s just life as a vc. Removing the draw kite option and players negotiating who is being a bigger ass is just better game design.

    And this is an improvement for vc because now the opponent doesn’t pick the ideal terrain to place their bunker on.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,942

    Like i said im not opposed to capture points, im opposed capture points in pre determined location, i think pre determined capture point in middle of the map is a very bad idea but capture point that randomly spawns say at 15min mark or something would be fine. (just cannot spawn in either players deployment zone).

    This idea is hard to implement and a bit of a red herring. But let’s pretend such a point spawns in a relatively fair spot on the board each time. This literally changes nothing about your stated concerns aside from the random terrain implications. If I have a box army that was somehow unkillable and just chilling somewhere it could still move to the spot and win. Except if the spawn was unlucky and you can’t get there in five minutes. It’s an incredibly convoluted approach to basically randomly make the slow army lose 10% of the time when games go very long.

    You might as well just use a cp in center that 90% gives the owner a win at 20 mins and 10% of the time randomly gives a loss.

    Sure there’s some theoretical incentive to split your army in two but in practice five minutes is usually plenty of time to get where you want to get. And if your preferred design is to not give slow coherent armies enough time most of the time to react then your saying fast mobile armies will be incented to avoid combat for 20 mins simply for the better odds of reaching the random cp spot given limited time. Those are terrible incentives to drag out games and prevent fighting, while 222’s approach encourages fighting and shortens games by removing all incentive to draw kite.
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 804
    To solve the issue of someone building an army so that it can just move to the Capture Point and camp, why can't the capture point be variable?

    It can be a circle of radius X with it's center Y meters from the center of the map.

    This way you won't know where it spawns and you won't even know how large it will be.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,826

    To solve the issue of someone building an army so that it can just move to the Capture Point and camp, why can't the capture point be variable?

    It can be a circle of radius X with it's center Y meters from the center of the map.

    This way you won't know where it spawns and you won't even know how large it will be.

    A better question:

    Why's that even considered an issue? Right now people make armies to camp right where they effin' start the match. If they have to pack all their artillery and skirmisher there, guess what, it means they're hampered because artillery and most skirmishers can't shoot while moving.

    Saying "o no, people would rush to the center and camp there" is a total non-issue and quite obviously a red herring to mask that the real problem is that people do not want to give up on kiting as a means to avoid a loss. Just be friggin' honest, please.

  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 6,626
    edited February 16
    This cannot be frikking real, ppl r whinging about camping and yet they cant figure for the biggest elephant in the room that the exact same camping would lead to a win now. Funnily they even calls for that.

    All u need to do is camp 2 giants on the flag and uve over $9000 to stop ppl from reaching it, and thats just a stupid way of doing it lol.

    Beastman would be a boring autowin every single match, simply deploy 20 vanguards, have 1 cap the flag, just need the other 19 to delay couple of seconds, or minutes for that matter lol. Any factions that doesnt even deploy at least 10 vanguards can pretty much go elf themselves at quickmatch

    Welcome to Flaghammer Totalcap

    Or If the time hits 0 before one army is defeated, whoever has the point captured (or is closest to capturing it, if contested) wins.

    Then seriously what the zog is that, yay its 19.30 mins, lets send tyrion with 115 speed, cap flag and win. Or r ppl expecting every single stupid match they have to handicap themselves putting a unit to "guard" the cap, only to find some "ninjas" overunning the "garrison" last min and wins the game.

    Or better yet, let every single match be 2 braindead ppl smashing keyboard trying to reach the centre and never frikking move again.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,942
    edited February 16
    yst said:

    This cannot be frikking real, ppl r whinging about camping and yet they cant figure for the biggest elephant in the room that the exact same camping would lead to a win now. Funnily they even calls for that.

    All u need to do is camp 2 giants on the flag and uve over $9000 to stop ppl from reaching it, and thats just a stupid way of doing it lol.

    Beastman would be a boring autowin every single match, simply deploy 20 vanguards, have 1 cap the flag, just need the other 19 to delay couple of seconds, or minutes for that matter lol. Any factions that doesnt even deploy at least 10 vanguards can pretty much go elf themselves at quickmatch

    Welcome to Flaghammer Totalcap

    Or If the time hits 0 before one army is defeated, whoever has the point captured (or is closest to capturing it, if contested) wins.

    Then seriously what the zog is that, yay its 19.30 mins, lets send tyrion with 115 speed, cap flag and win. Or r ppl expecting every single stupid match they have to handicap themselves putting a unit to "guard" the cap, only to find some "ninjas" overunning the "garrison" last min and wins the game.

    Or better yet, let every single match be 2 braindead ppl smashing keyboard trying to reach the centre and never frikking move again.

    Friend, you need to actially read the proposal. The "flag" is a large area of ground. It is claimed faster by whichever side has more models, so giants would be terrible at trying to contest it. Claiming the flag gets you nothing until 20 minutes into the game.

    The only change to play is around 17 minutes if the game doesn't look decided people start repositioning towards the cap point. None of these scenarios you're worried about make any sense given the way control of the flag is gradually determined.
    Post edited by eumaies on
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Registered Users Posts: 1,022
    I don't know exactly how a cap or points victory will be implemented all I know is that all the issues above are marginal compared to the current situation. I'm not looking forward to another ''discuss the attack rule'' thread. And there will be more of these in the future if nothing changes.
    Karaz-a-Karak Discord server
  • TlaxtlanSoothsayerTlaxtlanSoothsayer Registered Users Posts: 2,418
    edited February 16
    The way I see it, is that anyone who manages to somehow survive a battle with 2 Giants, while standing in one spot for more than 20 minutes, to be more precise in the middle of the map, simply deserves the victory.


    I also heard that there was an excellent multiplayer strategy game with capture points. A game with samurai, with some sort of armies, it might be Total Samurai ... or Total War. Who knows? Maybe there was a shogun if I remember it correctly.
  • 2twoto2twoto Registered Users Posts: 68
    @yst the others have thoroughly explained why you are wrong, but I want to further expand on a few specific point: you keep insisting that the point can be somehow ninja-ed at the last second. If you had read paragraph 4 of my second response to you, you would know that the time to capture can be changed. It could be changed so that SEM's take more than a minute to capture the point by themselves whereas 4 units of infantry will capture it significantly faster.

    You also think it is somehow realistic to delay an opponent from getting to the center for 20 minutes. Especially with you giants example, this is insane to believe this: your forward force is going to get stomped within the first 10 minutes (if not faster, since 3000gp of your army is doing diddly squat on the point) and your opponent will easily be able to sweep your remaining, isolated units off the point within the next 10 for a win (unless you are just an outright superior player to your opponent, in which case you would've won faster just using the units normally).

    Finally, you comment that "they cant figure for the biggest elephant in the room that the exact same camping would lead to a win now," 'they' referencing me and those arguing for my proposition. Here's the thing: despite the fact that I hate fighting both army comps equally, bunker builds are not any more abusive than kiting builds. Both builds are capable of being counter-played and can be prepared for without over-committing yourself to a hard-counter build. If you are claiming that bunker builds are OP, then your point is irrelevant: nerfs or caps are needed anyways to the units involved in such builds. This solution is merely to address the extremes of both these builds: it stops bunker builds from abusing the boarders by forcing them to move away from the boarders and it stops kiting builds from descending to draw-kiting by forcing them to engage. It doesn't otherwise affect the meta (or at least not in a meaningful way).

    To conclude, your arguments that bunker builds can just march to the middle and sit there for a win via CP, or else delay the engagement while holding the CP for 20 minutes, are invalid, misinformed, or just outright false.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 4,020
    The question I guess boils down to if there exists a build so toxic that regardless of deployment (ie not corner-, forest or terrain camping) that the fair thing is to not engage it...? Is there? Otherwise I would rather engage it in the center of the map than in a corner....
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 4,020
    The only thing I could potentially think of that would be close to qualifying would be a box with 0 range and just so much hp, armour, healing, resists that it can't be killed by a normal army. That would be kind of stupid but I don't know if that is a viable way to cheese wins against better players in this system?
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 4,020
    There might be one catch, and that's an extremely tanky army camping it for 15-17 minutes in a forest and then blitzing the flag area. That shouldn't be a winning strategy frankly because it would make MP horrible... first frequent long waits, then winning with no skill requirement. It wouldn't be generally good I suppose but it could be strong vs kite-based armies.

    I have a different game mode suggestion actually that I have been thinking about for some time but I'll put that in a separate thread so I don't hijack this one.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,942

    There might be one catch, and that's an extremely tanky army camping it for 15-17 minutes in a forest and then blitzing the flag area. That shouldn't be a winning strategy frankly because it would make MP horrible... first frequent long waits, then winning with no skill requirement. It wouldn't be generally good I suppose but it could be strong vs kite-based armies.

    I have a different game mode suggestion actually that I have been thinking about for some time but I'll put that in a separate thread so I don't hijack this one.

    Even if they are good at tanking in a forest they shouldn’t be especially good at “blitzing” over an army blocking them from the cp and then swiftly retaking control by having more infantry models in the zone. Killing or pushing much of the previously unfought enemy out would not be easy or possible in a small amount of time.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 4,020
    eumaies said:

    There might be one catch, and that's an extremely tanky army camping it for 15-17 minutes in a forest and then blitzing the flag area. That shouldn't be a winning strategy frankly because it would make MP horrible... first frequent long waits, then winning with no skill requirement. It wouldn't be generally good I suppose but it could be strong vs kite-based armies.

    I have a different game mode suggestion actually that I have been thinking about for some time but I'll put that in a separate thread so I don't hijack this one.

    Even if they are good at tanking in a forest they shouldn’t be especially good at “blitzing” over an army blocking them from the cp and then swiftly retaking control by having more infantry models in the zone. Killing or pushing much of the previously unfought enemy out would not be easy or possible in a small amount of time.
    Depends, the army this would be an issue for would be bad in melee and be out of ammo at that stage. Just hypothetical, it's something for lotus to argue not me. 😉
Sign In or Register to comment.