Need a Surrender Option for CTF!

[Baby_Sam 614]

Flag capture is irrelevant to who gets the highest score in CTF.

I think each capture of the flag amounts to killing everyone on the other team, so the capturer of the flag gets a lot of score. Granted, it is not the only way to score, but it makes a big difference. However, I am talking about how winning (defined by how many flags or control points, etc. you cature) destroys the losing team even if they scored ten times the winning team. They are just donating their crystals to the other team and getting a small tax write off for it.

[Dirtfloor1 37]

this is a good idea. 

[wild001 786]

No............

 

How about those 999 flags and 999 min battle,

 

if the fund is like 10k and there is still like 300 flags left and 600 min left,

 

they other team can use mult to end the battle early and taking all the fund. that is bad idea,

 

since there is big taking over happening all the time in super big battle.

 

--------------------------

 

if you dont like to wait, then dont play long battle.s

[Baby_Sam 614]

No............

 

How about those 999 flags and 999 min battle,

 

if the fund is like 10k and there is still like 300 flags left and 600 min left,

 

they other team can use mult to end the battle early and taking all the fund. that is bad idea,

 

since there is big taking over happening all the time in super big battle.

 

--------------------------

 

if you dont like to wait, then dont play long battle.s

Actually long battles are restricted to PRO battles now, so you can have your own laws. You can force the players to play for 100 hours nonstop to get any reward if that is what you all want. We are talking about normal battles here.

[Para_CW 19]

Flag capture is irrelevant to who gets the highest score in CTF.

That doesn't seem to be true.  I've learned that if I want the highest score I have to both capture flags and get a lot of kills.  Hard to do in my favorite Viking hull.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

I think each capture of the flag amounts to killing everyone on the other team, so the capturer of the flag gets a lot of score. Granted, it is not the only way to score, but it makes a big difference. However, I am talking about how winning (defined by how many flags or control points, etc. you cature) destroys the losing team even if they scored ten times the winning team. They are just donating their crystals to the other team and getting a small tax write off for it.

It depends. I end up getting the top score sometimes without a single capture because I use Isida.

I have also seen shafts parked picking off other players and getting in the top 3 without a single capture.

I also tend to be a flag hunter looking for the opposing player with the flag - since I can self heal often times I get enough health back to take back the flag and the further away the flag is from my base the bigger score I get for returning it.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

This is why there needs to be a surrender option because this is way beyond stupid (and is exacerbated by the recent changes and updates):

 

[Opex-Rah 5,389]

So, this is what we plan to do...

 

In normal battles (not pro) system will constantly check for imbalance. What is imbalance is subject to discuss but lets concentrate on two major points:

- Team A got more players then team B

- Team A battle score is 50% bigger then team B

 

Is any or both (again, subject to discuss) of this points are true then we are going to check if:

- There is less then 50% of time left

 

If we pass with true, then we start hidden domination timer. If certain time is passed and all above points are still true then domination timer becomes visible and there is a siren goes off (different from gold siren) and information line is shown "Team A dominating!"

 

Battle timer is changed to domination timer. At this point team B will have around 3 minutes to push their score up. If they succeed domination will be resolved, timer will be changed back to normal battle timer and game continues. If they fail after 3 minutes the battle will be finished under dominatin conditions and will be restarted.

 

 

 

Something like that. This is an early prototype, I would like to hear some thoughts.

[RustyNail 1,538]

So, this is what we plan to do...

 

In normal battles (not pro) system will constantly check for imbalance. What is imbalance is subject to discuss but lets concentrate on two major points:

- Team A got more players then team B

- Team A battle score is 50% bigger then team B

 

Is any or both (again, subject to discuss) of this points are true then we are going to check if:

- There is less then 50% of time left

 

If we pass with true, then we start hidden domination timer. If certain time is passed and all above points are still true then domination timer becomes visible and there is a siren goes off (different from gold siren) and information line is shown "Team A dominating!"

 

Battle timer is changed to domination timer. At this point team B will have around 3 minutes to push their score up. If they succeed domination will be resolved, timer will be changed back to normal battle timer and game continues. If they fail after 3 minutes the battle will be finished under dominatin conditions and will be restarted.

 

 

 

Something like that. This is an early prototype, I would like to hear some thoughts.

That sounds like a good start.

 

(although I would personaly prefer / propose that while domination timer starts, team B respawn gets an aditional X% armor for a few seconds and this is valid as long as domination timer counts, as an additional meter for blocking the domination and continuining the battle) - see http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=234711&hl=

 

I guess the important thing is that one team is left with very few players (that is 1-3, in battles of 8-10 per team).

All the rest are more than enough to confirm an irrevocable domination and thus the end of battle.

[Para_CW 19]

So, this is what we plan to do...

 

In normal battles (not pro) system will constantly check for imbalance. What is imbalance is subject to discuss but lets concentrate on two major points:

- Team A got more players then team B

- Team A battle score is 50% bigger then team B

 

Is any or both (again, subject to discuss) of this points are true then we are going to check if:

- There is less then 50% of time left

 

If we pass with true, then we start hidden domination timer. If certain time is passed and all above points are still true then domination timer becomes visible and there is a siren goes off (different from gold siren) and information line is shown "Team A dominating!"

 

Battle timer is changed to domination timer. At this point team B will have around 3 minutes to push their score up. If they succeed domination will be resolved, timer will be changed back to normal battle timer and game continues. If they fail after 3 minutes the battle will be finished under dominatin conditions and will be restarted.

 

 

 

Something like that. This is an early prototype, I would like to hear some thoughts.

I've looked this over and thought about it.  I can't find anything wrong with this method.  My experience is that a losing team will continue to lose and giving them an extra three minutes is just more time for the winning team to run up its score.  But I will accept any solution that will end hopelessly unbalanced battles early.  I personally don't think that I have enough time playing this particular game to understand the more subtle problems that can occur, but I trust the dev's to know this and what they're doing, what they want to accomplish and why.

[persia.x 240]

very interesting

i hope to see this update in action very soon

:wub:

An error occurred

You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

:mellow:

[Lord-of-the-Snipers 1,620]

So, this is what we plan to do...

 

In normal battles (not pro) system will constantly check for imbalance. What is imbalance is subject to discuss but lets concentrate on two major points:

- Team A got more players then team B

- Team A battle score is 50% bigger then team B

 

Is any or both (again, subject to discuss) of this points are true then we are going to check if:

- There is less then 50% of time left

 

If we pass with true, then we start hidden domination timer. If certain time is passed and all above points are still true then domination timer becomes visible and there is a siren goes off (different from gold siren) and information line is shown "Team A dominating!"

 

Battle timer is changed to domination timer. At this point team B will have around 3 minutes to push their score up. If they succeed domination will be resolved, timer will be changed back to normal battle timer and game continues. If they fail after 3 minutes the battle will be finished under dominatin conditions and will be restarted.

 

 

 

Something like that. This is an early prototype, I would like to hear some thoughts.

Sounds good! :)

 

Being a prototype I would suggest that the more players team A in relation to team B has the faster the domination timer will start.

The higher the difference percantage, the faster the time towards the domination timer counts down.

 

The domination timer could even start with equal teams if teams A battle score is 50% higher than team B 's score.

It would just take more time for the domination timer to start.

There are for example 10-0 flag battles were on the loosing team players leave but immediately got replaced by new "victims"

during the whole battle.

And these battles also end with both teams in balanced numbers.

Personally I wouldn 't have a problem with such battles also ending prematurely.

 

And what to do if team A has a score less than 50%, but team B is already completely gone?

(or team B has just for example only one or two fighters left, who simply want their share of the battlefund)

Surely the battle should IMO be stopped than also.

 

edit: I didn 't read "any or both" in: "Is any or both (again, subject to discuss) of this points are true then we are going to check if"

        so yeah in that case I would clearly vote for "any".

[racer22_online 206]

Before the recent updates we could set the flag limit AND the time limit.

By having a flag limit, then if all the losing team leave then we can end the game quickly with a few Wasps / Hornets on Nitro.

I suggest the standard games have the following settings:

5 mins and 5 flags

10 mins and 10 flags

15 mins and 15 flags

20 mins and 20 flags

etc.

This way unbalanced games can be finished sooner.

[RustyNail 1,538]

Before the recent updates we could set the flag limit AND the time limit.

By having a flag limit, then if all the losing team leave then we can end the game quickly with a few Wasps / Hornets on Nitro.

I suggest the standard games have the following settings:

5 mins and 5 flags

10 mins and 10 flags

15 mins and 15 flags

20 mins and 20 flags

etc.

This way unbalanced games can be finished sooner.

Sorry dude, what if I want to play a 15 minutes / 10 flags battle?

No need to connect the time and the number of flags. Let it be free to each one's wish.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

So, this is what we plan to do...

 

In normal battles (not pro) system will constantly check for imbalance. What is imbalance is subject to discuss but lets concentrate on two major points:

- Team A got more players then team B

- Team A battle score is 50% bigger then team B

 

Is any or both (again, subject to discuss) of this points are true then we are going to check if:

- There is less then 50% of time left

 

If we pass with true, then we start hidden domination timer. If certain time is passed and all above points are still true then domination timer becomes visible and there is a siren goes off (different from gold siren) and information line is shown "Team A dominating!"

 

Battle timer is changed to domination timer. At this point team B will have around 3 minutes to push their score up. If they succeed domination will be resolved, timer will be changed back to normal battle timer and game continues. If they fail after 3 minutes the battle will be finished under dominatin conditions and will be restarted.

 

 

 

Something like that. This is an early prototype, I would like to hear some thoughts.

Does that mean in CTF if the score is 2-1 or 3-1 the round would end?

 

Sometimes even when it is 4-2 or 5-1 the round can turn around quickly.

 

I still like the option for the losing team to surrender manually being the best rather than the "system" deciding.

[Opex-Rah 5,389]

I still like the option for the losing team to surrender manually being the best rather than the "system" deciding.

It creates wierd situations.

If your team disagree to surrender what should you do?

And if only certain number of players left in the team can trigger surrender does it mean that nobody will leave the team, waiting for other to leave so they can surrender and get crystals?

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Well, let's say you made it so that it only could happen in some situations.

 

Say, for example: a team of 10 against 3. It would only take two votes to surrender.

 

If it was 10-4 then 3 of 4 would have to vote to surrender. Basically a simply majority.

 

The problem with domination is as I mentioned: if the winning team is up by 50% you really have to exclude some parameters such as 2:1 or 3:1 and so on. At what point would a 50% lead in CTF be impossible to overcome? Sometimes even a 10-5 match turns around in the last few minutes (for example a losing team with no Isida suddenly turns into a winning team when one joins).

 

But it will never turn around when one team has a substantial number of players over another. I've never seen a team of 3 beat a team of 10.

 

Furthermore by using the "domination" method the winning team could in fact call friends to join the losing team to keep it from ending the round because the longer the round goes on the more crystals for the winning team.

 

There is less incentive to invite friends to the losing team if the option is to vote to surrender.

[Opex-Rah 5,389]

Lets go with less than 50% and we are fine, aren't we?

[racer22_online 206]

An idea to help solve the problem of the losing side quitting early (obviously only needed in team modes).

The most recent updates have reduced this problem a bit and I have had many good battles - but we can do more.

I believe the problem is caused by the experienced players choosing to join the winning team because that's the logical thing to do, we all need crystals!

However, the inexperienced players often join the losing team because, I presume, they just see a slot open up and hope for the best - sadly this action just makes the weak side weaker!

To help the losing team the system can automatically take away the right to use all drugs from the leading team - not even battle field drugs!

This immediately gives the losing team a huge advantage and will allow them to catch up.

This can kick in say at over 2 flags down (could be 1 flag or 3 flags down etc. - please experiment).

Once the score is back level to say only 2 flags down - then all drugging goes back to normal.

This will make many of the games much closer and worth staying to the end for the losing side.

It will also mean there will be less motivation for experienced players to only join the winning team - this in its-self will help level out the teams and make many battles closer.

I would also make this optional per map - so players can choose if they like this or not.

The downside is the leading side will end up with a lower share of crystals - but on balance this is better than having the losing side quit so often and helps the losing side feel better so they can carry on losing a few more times! :0)

[RustyNail 1,538]

I'am afraid that if a mechanism is established there will be many circumstanses that this mechanism will rather create than solve problems.

 

Lets go with less than 50% and we are fine, aren't we?

The real problem here is a situation of an outcome of 10 vs 2 or 3 players (at the most, if more then all possibilities are open) rather than 10-1 flags. In 10-1 flags when all slots are occupied (more or less) then the game is on and will end eventually, maybe with huge funds for the winners.

In regard to player's numbers;

An outcome of 5 vs 2 is still playable (in some occasions) and 5 vs1 becomes the real dead end.

An X2 case (10 vs 4) is more difficult to endure, while an X3 case (15 vs 6) is really impossible to fight back.

 

So, it's not just a matter of percentage, it's a matter of scale as well. I think this should be taken into consideration... The fewer the players (total, both teams) the more the chances for a come back...

[creeperskelly 1,281]

I'am afraid that if a mechanism is established there will be many circumstanses that this mechanism will rather create than solve problems.

In the example I posted on page 3 it is absurd to have to wait 5 minutes in a 15 minute battle just for 30 crystals.

 

If there is 5 minutes left I can just pause and walk away - but if there is more than 5 minutes remaining it just seems silly to keep the round going.

 

In the image I posted I even told the other team I would not attempt to fight back but they still sat there like jerks pounding away.

 

So, why not just let me press a button and surrender?

 

The only way to solve this is the following:

 

1. Have a surrender option (whether voted upon or if certain criteria are automatically met).

2. Bring back crystals drops so there is some reason to keep playing; or

3. Bring back flag cap limits (without flag limits it makes the problem worse).

 

Also I have seen many rounds lately with teams of 8 or 9 on one and ZERO players on the other team - in an instance like this the system should automatically end the round if no players join the other team in a certain length of time.

[RustyNail 1,538]

In the example I posted on page 3 it is absurd to have to wait 5 minutes in a 15 minute battle just for 30 crystals.

 

If there is 5 minutes left I can just pause and walk away - but if there is more than 5 minutes remaining it just seems silly to keep the round going.

 

In the image I posted I even told the other team I would not attempt to fight back but they still sat there like jerks pounding away.

 

So, why not just let me press a button and surrender?

 

The only way to solve this is the following:

 

1. Have a surrender option (whether voted upon or if certain criteria are automatically met).

2. Bring back crystals drops so there is some reason to keep playing; or

3. Bring back flag cap limits (without flag limits it makes the problem worse).

 

Also I have seen many rounds lately with teams of 8 or 9 on one and ZERO players on the other team - in an instance like this the system should automatically end the round if no players join the other team in a certain length of time.

Hey dude, why are you quoting me and then say things I mostly agree with? Did I say I disagree with the idea of a mechanism to cut vain batles? I just said that on occasion this mechanism may create a problem instead of solving it, meaning that it should be well thought before implemented.

Wasn't obvious what I meant?

[creeperskelly 1,281]

You said "many circumstances" so it took that to mean you were more opposed to this than supportive.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

Perhaps a better way of approaching the problem instead of the CTF score of Team A >=50% of Team B would be to check to see if the number of flag captures of Team A exceeds some parameter in addition to the difference in team sizes being >=50%.

 

For example:

 

Team A has 10 players.

Team B has 5 or fewer players.

 

Team A has 10 flags.

Team B has 2 flags.

 

If Team A's score is higher than Team B and Team A is capturing flags at a rate substantially higher than B then the "domination" or surrender feature kicks in (by having a larger number of players Team A can simply keep capturing flags - thus raising the cap score quickly).

 

If Team B is unable to capture any flags or increase their score simply due to being heavily outnumbered it makes little sense for Team A to keep being allowed to capture flags (since there scores aren't going to increase) and by ending the round early it also keeps them from simply running up the battle fund by attacking a fairly weak Team B.

 

The "domination" feature would not kick in if the capture difference is less than 5 (this prevents it from being enabled in matches where the score is 5-1 or 10-5, for example).

[creeperskelly 1,281]

These present two situations for surrender:

 

 

In this instance red went on to win by 19-2 because they were drugging and blue was not despite the teams being overall identical in terms of number of players (just look at the kill/death ratio for proof of this). In 2 minutes red got 9 more flags.

 

Second instance:

 

 

In this case blue team should have had the option to surrender. It was a massacre (I believe red team was 10 strong prior to this screenshot). Red was not drugging and blue just simply gave up and waited it out.

 

The match was over long before this.