Victory Conditions

[ClaytoniousRex]

Objective games need to be more complex in their goals. Defensive positions should be constructed and utilized and several areas should have value (sometimes sequentially, sometimes altogether).

This comment by bjarmson deserves its own thread, so here it is.

The system for victory conditions in DropTeam is already far more flexible than any of the current scenarios are making use of. For example, we can already place more than one objective location in a scenario, so that teams could be vying for control of more than a single point. Also, these types of victory conditions can be mixed with others - such as those from the Territory and even CTF game types. By combining multiple victory conditions together in this way, you can define whole new goals for either or both teams.

So from a technical perspective we're ready to roll out some new "more complex" goals for some scenarios. Would anyone like to post some thoughts on exactly what you would like to see?

[aittam]

i said a couple of times that sequential objectives could help in bringing in some more coord and tactical manouver; what's on my mind is something like spawn point in some forgotten hope maps: capture n°1, this allow to capture n°2 etc

my feeling here is that after the softening phase, get rid of mortars etc, we always end up (2/3) with a close range shooting like "ok korral" may be more time should be given to dig in but then who's willing to wait?

[poesel]

Conquerable reinforcment zones - should get you points and be an award by itself.

Conquer certain exit points for connected campaigns.

Conquer a territory and get resources for it. That could be a one time cache or a self replenishing source which creates certain units over time or a combination of both.

The cache thing probably needs a defender which then would be a third party hostile to both red and green.

[Dark_au]

I think the first thing is getting other Zone types. The one unit is all it takes types aren't believable. The zone should be based on the amount / strength of forces in the zone.

[mcoyote]

Given the pace of play in the current scenarios, sequential objects will probably be prohibative. However, multiple objectives-scenarios sounds attractive, particuarlly in larger games.

In those cases, however, you may wish to thik of a larger mission area and have a minimum number of players to play to ensure that people have to commit to one front or another.

OTOH, more platoon-type controls over bot behavior would help that along.

[Jalinth]

Some more detail on how each type of victory condition works now would be nice. Also some fiddling with how each vic condition works may be in order.

With my Salvage Op scenario, I have to objective points at occupying the same space. Each team scores points for having units in the centre.

The problems are two fold. Problem one is that you can score points for having a crippled Shrike in a hidden corner of the area while there are half a dozen Thors nearby.

The other problem is that if say you score 60 points, then get pushed off the objective, those points will fade away and be added to the other teams score.

I would like a option to have a game where you have to be the sole controller of the zone to score points and that these points do not go down.

Finally I am interested in having a scenario option that lets infantry score flag captures or hold objectives. One of the new scenarios has a number of infantry, but only one or two vehicles. it is almost impossiable to score points, and if your two mortar carriers get destroyed the attacker can not score at all.

[konstantine]

I agree. Having a unit collect points by achieving an objective makes sense, but it's too much like Combat Mission, where a depleted squad hiding with no ammo can contest a flag when there are multiple AFVs adjacent. Maybe it could be based on ratios of units present, or a minimum of three units or something.

Also, it would be cool to see points allocated differently. On point to kill infantry is ok I guess, but one point to kill a turret = one point to kill a Thor...? How about 3 points for Thors and Hurricanes, 2 for all other AFVs, and one for everything else. And maybe 1 point for killing the turret of an enemy AFV. This could make Shrikes a more viable option.

I was thinking this because last night I dropped in on a game about half way in and I killed two bot Thors with two amazing shots (leading shots at a great distance, both one shot kills). But the game ended and I only had two points.

[bjarmson]

Eagerly awaiting this development.

[Chilibird]

Adding new things in isn't too hard if you think about it. It took some thinking on my part, but I managed to get King of the Hill into my scenario. All ya need to do is set the victory conditions up to match what you're looking for.

I personally like the way some are now. Granted, a LITTLE variety would be nice, but it's nice to not have to think about what you are trying to do. (I.E- "Oh, this map. Now what exactly is a good idea here?)

[Dark_au]

King of the hill is all you can get with objective. Did it on WED first.

[Neutrino 123]

What we need to balance current scenarios are more balance between the conditions in which the attacker and defender get control of the objective.

In fact, both the attacker and defender should get points for the objective in the same way. This means that if the attacker has one unit near the objective and the defender has four, the attacker should not get any points, but rather, the defender should be gaining points (if it needs any).

Basically, there should be some well-chosen radius of control of the objective. If one side has about twice as many or more units near the objective compared to the other side, then the side with twice as many units should count as controlling the objective, and thus get points rapidly (the new patch already increases the rapidity, thgouh, so this point is probably fine now).

Of course, this would unbalance all maps in favor of the defender. The situation could easily be remedied by giving the attacker more resources then the defender. For example, the defender's current number of each unit type and/or dropships could be cut by 1/3.

[Nick06]

I was thinking of a smart objective. Let me explain. Okay, neither team is allowed to drop anything in base in the deployment phase, but both teams will be able to drop tanks (only tanks) in the deployment phase. The objective will consist of antimatter production facilities, this factory objective will start to operate once there is only one team in the base. So that means that none of the other teams tanks can be in the base. Also there would be automated turrets that neither team can destroy or capture. the purpose of the antimatter production is so that once it starts operating, the antimatter produced can be picked up by tanks and installed into bullets. The idea of the bullets came from this post,

From :IcemanUSA

Howdy all,

I'm sure we all agree that the HE rounds don't exactly have much use right now. That's why I decided to do something about it. I went in and started to mess with the 120MMHE.physicalobjectgroup file. And here's what I've come up with..

Alrighty.. instead of a High Explosive round, we have Antimatter Slugs. These babies have a very small amount of antimatter loaded in their tips, which, upon crushing into a target, ahhnialate. This causes armor burn, and, in the case of a penetrating shot, will almost certainly wipe out everything inside. I've tested it on ATGM's (usually 1 shot kills) and Hurricanes (No internal damage, though the armor was weakened). The round also shows up as "120 MM Antimatter Slug" when it kills something, though it still shows "HE" in the weapons bar. I only did this to the 120 MM shell, since smaller ones seemed too insignificant to warrent the use of Antimatter.

Anywho, It's only some minor changes. Feel free to check it out, just don't overwrite your existing 120mmHE file.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4JGRXNFY

Thoughts? Comments? Anything I should change?

Now lets see did i leave anything out?

Oh depending on how long the base is active for a team they will get different amounts of antimatter. Not all tanks will be able to take these bullets.

Well?

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

Oh depending on how long the base is active for a team they will get different amounts of antimatter. Not all tanks will be able to take these bullets.

Backstory already has the HE rounds used by all elements as packing anti-matter in the round. Miligram masses thereof, obviously, but AM nonetheless.

That said ... the idea of facilities that have in-battle effects that have an offensive component is a solid one.

[Nick06]

Ohh... I didn't know that

Backstory already has the HE rounds used by all elements as packing anti-matter into the round...

And I pondered the idea a little more and, well think of all the code and complications. if your up to the task...

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

Facilities linked to sturdier defense turrets would be joyous things. Especially if said turrets are not necessarily co-located.

[poesel]

The classic escort mission: get points for getting a certain vehicle / type of vehicle to a certain place on the map.

You could get points continously for being there or get points once for leaving the map through this place. Other vehicle types wouldn't score points.

That could be a symmetric mission (both get points for getting somewhere) or asymmetric (only one sides gets the points). In the latter case one side gets points in advance or gets extra points for destroying the special vehicles.

[Nick06]

NEW IDEA!! A new building! It would reflect ion beams.It would cover a certain are like the size of an average base. I got this idea when I was playing on a demo server the other day. Well we had just captured the base in the raid, then some guy takes a paladin IC up on the hill with tower (so that it automatically shoots down our bullets) and starts sniping us out...

[ September 08, 2006, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Nick06 ]

[Neutrino 123]

Hello, I am wondering if a new set of victory conditions has been determined? Another battle just happened where the attacker won by cowering one unit in a small nook in a hill, gaining points despite the defender having several units stationed on the objective!

[ClaytoniousRex]

I've spawned a new thread about scoring for the Objective victory condition. It's an important topic, but let's keep this thread on new victory conditions and game types.

[ClaytoniousRex]

The situation could easily be remedied by giving the attacker more resources then the defender. For example, the defender's current number of each unit type and/or dropships could be cut by 1/3.

Yes, I think we need to get the enhanced tools for defense (real digging, more and better turrets, etc. as discussed elsewhere) out first so that we're sure the defender really has a defender's advantage (not only on those scenarios where this already happens to be true). Then, it's full steam ahead on giving the attacker a superior force size. The two would probably need to be released together.

Facilities linked to sturdier defense turrets would be joyous things. Especially if said turrets are not necessarily co-located.

That would be really excellent, along with the "orbital defense battery" kind of installation mentioned in adz's thread. Do you have any more ideas for perks that could be granted for building capture? Anything that smells like a "power-up" is anathema, but feasible advantages gained by control of facilities would benefit all game types across the board.

The classic escort mission: get points for getting a certain vehicle / type of vehicle to a certain place on the map.

Great idea, and I think already doable with the current XML. Will look...

I would like a option to have a game where you have to be the sole controller of the zone to score points and that these points do not go down.

You should have this option in your scenario's GameType tag with the system described in the Objective Scoring thread.

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

Yes, I think we need to get the enhanced tools for defense (real digging, more and better turrets, etc. as discussed elsewhere) out first so that we're sure the defender really has a defender's advantage (not only on those scenarios where this already happens to be true). Then, it's full steam ahead on giving the attacker a superior force size. The two would probably need to be released together.

Defense since the removal of pod-dropped mines is more than mildly tough. I've been playing a lot of the demo with a few of my friends, selling them on the evil, and its tough even with the ability to refresh minefields on the fly and with the Purple Death Balls of Doom of My Grandfather(tm, Munchkin-Fu). By the last 5min of the assault, the attackers have switched to their lighter vehicles, the turret fields are diminished or destroyed, the minefields have been destroyed by taking out units, and its all about the slugging, with little hidey-niches for attackers being brutal to hunt (especially along the north edge of Hopewell's tarmac).

I don't want to see defense become impenetrable, but its hard, even in 1.1.5.

That would be really excellent, along with the "orbital defense battery" kind of installation mentioned in adz's thread. Do you have any more ideas for perks that could be granted for building capture? Anything that smells like a "power-up" is anathema, but feasible advantages gained by control of facilities would benefit all game types across the board.

Oh, I think there are a fairly obvious set that could be ennumerated:

</font>

• Defense turrets which automate against the non-facility-owning team.</font>
• Deployment zones added to the team that owns a facility (representing more control of a given area; most useful in the particularly large maps).</font>
• Elements added to the overall inventory, possibly linked with the above DZ addition (ie. vehicles / infantry driven out of a facility / underground base).</font>
• Trickle-resupply of elements for the facility holder of a given kind of element (ie. every three minutes the site is held, an Apollo 120mm is added to the inventory).</font>
• Wide-scale terrain restructuring, possibly linked with massive devestation (ie. "hold this power plant for five minutes and this 4km radius sphere becomes a huge crater with everything within the area taking ungodly damage, including your element").</font>
• Decision-point links for next scenario choice, in linked scenarios.</font>

I think that covers the ones that come to mind.

[emodin-]

Another posibility would be to have some kind of building that provides some kind of intelligence on the enemy's movements (like listening posts). You'd probably want to limit the availability of that information (like how often the information updates, and how large of an area is covered).