McVade Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Hey all, So I was doing my dailies today and I noticed something about Alderaan today. Played it twice, had the good fortune to win both times... but neither match was particularly good. We capped West and Center both times. West was uncontested, but we had a big epic battle in the Center for it. We won. And that was it. The rest of the 15 minutes was spent staring at the wall more or less. Some Imperials just left the game. About 4 just sat on the one node they had, waiting for the game to end. Only 2 seemed to actually try to attack a node, which was a joke. That made me realize something. Probably 90% of all Alderaan games I play are determined in the opening push. Why? Compared to how long it takes to kill the average player, there's just too much time to respond and reinforce. The only real way to win after you've lost the opening push is... well... the other team screws up. Either they don't communicate incomings or a stealth cap gets off when the guards chase a decoy off the node. There's almost nothing the team that 1 capped can do to force the game out of the other teams hands, assuming the other team does basic 101 stuff like fight on the node and reinforce. I think that's what people are starting to figure out. It's becoming more and more a trend to just give up very early on and either leave or AFK at your one controlled node. I think if the canons flipped a little more often in Alderaan, it would be a more interesting warzone. Also, when Rated WZ comes out, you might as well just award 300 damage to the enemy ship when a turret gets flipped... because 99% of the time, the first flip will be the last flip vs. 2 coordinated teams. The rest of the game is just redundant. Edited February 10, 2012 by McVade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kunari Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 There is some truth to the OP's post, Civil War is usually decided in the first 120seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astarica Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Defending in Alderran is very easy. The team that's defending generally is doing so because they've two turrets, which usually means they're stronger to begin with. Therefore most games aren't really that interesting. That said, attacking only one cannon almost never works because you've to be way stronger than the defend, and if you're that strong you should've have had two turrets to start. There are definitely interesting ways to attack two positions if the teams are reasonably matched. You don't see it often because teams are rarely evenly matched, and even when they are, most people don't realize that you almost never overcome a deficit by doing predictable stuff. One time my side had two side turrets and the enemy actually used all 8 guys to attack one of them to retake it. Risky? Sure, but if you just send like 6 guys, the 4 defending the side turret will pretty much never lose due to their respawn rate. 8 on 4, though, gives the attackers a good chance to win before the reinforcements from the other side gets there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kunari Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 ... One time my side had two side turrets and the enemy actually used all 8 guys to attack one of them to retake it. Risky? Sure, but if you just send like 6 guys, the 4 defending the side turret will pretty much never lose due to their respawn rate. 8 on 4, though, gives the attackers a good chance to win before the reinforcements from the other side gets there. That's when you take mid while all 8 of their guys are East/West. I've seen teams exploit the /stuck mechanic too so they can get to the speeder quicker when they're loosing a node. I don't know if it's fixed yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErrantMercenary Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 There are two issues you're describing at play here First: The side nodes reinforce too quickly. Having a direct speeder that places you three steps from being able to interrupt a capper makes them favor the defense rather heavily. I've played several games of Civil War where one side begins assaulting one of the side nodes, and proceeds to dominate it with six people, but still can't cap it for the entire game because it's so easy to send a constant stream of 1-2 people in to reinforce the node, interrupt the cappers, and then die, lasting just long enough for 1-2 more people to show up and do the exact same thing. Ideally these landing points would be placed a little further away from the node, or the cap times sped up. Second: Cap and Hold becomes a very uninteresting game mode with only three nodes. The problem here is that because a majority of points constitutes TWO points, it becomes overly simplistic for defenders to overwhelm attackers with numbers. Attackers pushing west? No decisionmaking necessary, just dump overwhelming numbers west. Respawners pushing mid? Easy peasy, walk back the same way you came. Rabbiting between two points is uninteresting because it never forces the defenders to make any real value judgment. I know citing WoW is unpopular around these parts, but since their Cap and Hold model has five points, it demonstrates why it works better. When the majority is three points, it becomes much more complex to protect. You can simultaneously assault two points, and it's much easier to trick defenders into overcommitting in one direction. In the current model, you can leave one defender on a node, and even they will survive long enough to call for reinforcement in the face of two people. This leaves attackers without a viable window to "sneak points out from under you" so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiaRB Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 the only reason its often decided in the first 120 seconds is because people quit or stop trying once one side gets and early lead. ive played many matches when my side was losing for the first half of the WZ only to actually turn the tide and win the game. its all about the players. its the same thing in the other two WZs by the way. on voidstar, if a team gets by the first doors in the first minute then you will find that people give up and its over quick because people quit. its even worse in huttball, go up 2-0 and you can count on the losing team to stop trying. all they do from that point on is try to get medals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shendaar Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Part of the issue is that turrets take too long to cap, but at the same time, you don't want them to be too easy to cap either. What I would suggest would be to make capturing a taken turret a two step process. Instead the turret going from Hostile to Friendly, the turret would go from Hostile to Neutral and then Friendly. They could make it so it takes only 2-3 seconds to return a turret to neutral position, kind of like how it takes a lot less time to defuse a bomb in Void Star than it does to plant it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schmak Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 too complicated you want it to switch easier? remove the speeders that go instantly to the east and west turrets. done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kunari Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) There are two issues you're describing at play here First: The side nodes reinforce too quickly. Having a direct speeder that places you three steps from being able to interrupt a capper makes them favor the defense rather heavily. I've played several games of Civil War where one side begins assaulting one of the side nodes, and proceeds to dominate it with six people, but still can't cap it for the entire game because it's so easy to send a constant stream of 1-2 people in to reinforce the node, interrupt the cappers, and then die, lasting just long enough for 1-2 more people to show up and do the exact same thing. Ideally these landing points would be placed a little further away from the node, or the cap times sped up. Second: Cap and Hold becomes a very uninteresting game mode with only three nodes. The problem here is that because a majority of points constitutes TWO points, it becomes overly simplistic for defenders to overwhelm attackers with numbers. Attackers pushing west? No decisionmaking necessary, just dump overwhelming numbers west. Respawners pushing mid? Easy peasy, walk back the same way you came. Rabbiting between two points is uninteresting because it never forces the defenders to make any real value judgment. I know citing WoW is unpopular around these parts, but since their Cap and Hold model has five points, it demonstrates why it works better. When the majority is three points, it becomes much more complex to protect. You can simultaneously assault two points, and it's much easier to trick defenders into overcommitting in one direction. In the current model, you can leave one defender on a node, and even they will survive long enough to call for reinforcement in the face of two people. This leaves attackers without a viable window to "sneak points out from under you" so to speak. ^^ All of that. Well said and +1 to you sir! Edited February 10, 2012 by Kunari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriarChuggs Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Put the drop-off point for defenders speeders about 30-50 yards farther away. Problem = solved. Seriously, that's all it would take. You could also put the drop off point at the top of the hill above the cap point, so you have to move to get LOS on the cap. That would also work. A five-point map would have been cooler, but the speeder arrival switch would fix the stalemate problem to some extent, and make /stuck less effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilCanuck Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 the only reason its often decided in the first 120 seconds is because people quit or stop trying once one side gets and early lead. ive played many matches when my side was losing for the first half of the WZ only to actually turn the tide and win the game. its all about the players. its the same thing in the other two WZs by the way. on voidstar, if a team gets by the first doors in the first minute then you will find that people give up and its over quick because people quit. its even worse in huttball, go up 2-0 and you can count on the losing team to stop trying. all they do from that point on is try to get medals. I'd agree that I've enjoyed some of the closest, comeback-y WZ matches ever in Alderaan. Usually a couple kids rage quit because "you guys all suck", then they get replaced with good players and we retake. Just reinforces my theory that most rage quitters are selfish brats, and are usually a big part of the reason their team is losing in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepilk Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Itd be cool if players had the option in Alderaan to have their capitol ships incorporated for tactical use. Have how they are now be "neutral" position, and give an option to have the ship fly closer to a specific position, allowing it to rain down cover fire on a specifci turret, but due to closer proximity make it take more damage per tick, or have turrets tick it faster and the ability to have it fall back when its taking too much pressure, but makes players take longer to get back to the field from it. Would an interesting aspect to add to the overall strategy to manuver the ships positions throughout the fight. Edited February 10, 2012 by thepilk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McVade Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) I'd agree that I've enjoyed some of the closest, comeback-y WZ matches ever in Alderaan. Usually a couple kids rage quit because "you guys all suck", then they get replaced with good players and we retake. Just reinforces my theory that most rage quitters are selfish brats, and are usually a big part of the reason their team is losing in the first place. I'd agree with you, but the issue is, very few people who quit actually do so out of rage in this game. It's just practical. Most are doing their dailies and losses don't do a thing for them. What's the point of staying in a game for 13 more minutes that you're 90% likely to lose, especially if there's no penalty to quitting. To put it another way, it's like winning gives you honor/progression while losing gives you absolutely nothing. So why would anyone stay, especially since, 1 minute later, they can be playing another game where there's a 50/50 chance of winning again? Edited February 10, 2012 by McVade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khremlin Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Increase cannon damage over time until they overheat (maybe cutting damage to 50%.. or 25%), requiring a swap to a new cannon to keep burning down the enemy ship. You still have a reason to defend a 'dead' cannon from attackers... but you buy a window of time for the side thats down 2:1 and you force tactical play. Suddenly the tunnel under the center is more than just a dumb place to fight. Actual game doesn't get longer because the cannon damage is scaling, but the objectives aren't so static and the fight gets more active. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkfreudHC Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Make the side that doesn't control center have their center speeder go directly to the landing pad instead of flying in circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malice_Nihilim Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So you are saying that you want the WZ to be more like an American Presidential Nominee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McVade Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 So you are saying that you want the WZ to be more like an American Presidential Nominee? House Romney for Alderaan senate seat plz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patatt Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 There are two issues you're describing at play here First: The side nodes reinforce too quickly. Having a direct speeder that places you three steps from being able to interrupt a capper makes them favor the defense rather heavily. I've played several games of Civil War where one side begins assaulting one of the side nodes, and proceeds to dominate it with six people, but still can't cap it for the entire game because it's so easy to send a constant stream of 1-2 people in to reinforce the node, interrupt the cappers, and then die, lasting just long enough for 1-2 more people to show up and do the exact same thing. Ideally these landing points would be placed a little further away from the node, or the cap times sped up. Second: Cap and Hold becomes a very uninteresting game mode with only three nodes. The problem here is that because a majority of points constitutes TWO points, it becomes overly simplistic for defenders to overwhelm attackers with numbers. Attackers pushing west? No decisionmaking necessary, just dump overwhelming numbers west. Respawners pushing mid? Easy peasy, walk back the same way you came. Rabbiting between two points is uninteresting because it never forces the defenders to make any real value judgment. I know citing WoW is unpopular around these parts, but since their Cap and Hold model has five points, it demonstrates why it works better. When the majority is three points, it becomes much more complex to protect. You can simultaneously assault two points, and it's much easier to trick defenders into overcommitting in one direction. In the current model, you can leave one defender on a node, and even they will survive long enough to call for reinforcement in the face of two people. This leaves attackers without a viable window to "sneak points out from under you" so to speak. This. +1 at MMOPVP. And to respond to the OP about making it more flip floppy, the 8 second cap time could be lowered effectively to make this different. Hell, I'd be fine with a 5 second cap time. It would probably make things a lot more fun, but then again, it would require smarter pvpers. This could be an issue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainInsano Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The problem with Alderaan is there are only 3 nodes. It's way too easy to reinforce 2 nodes with 8 players and stop caps, then when you add the speeder right into the mix it becomes ridiculous. Most of you are probably familiar with Arathi Basin in WoW which is the same thing essentially. That battleground had 5 nodes and even then the best strategy was to defend 3, but there was much more fluidity of capping and losing nodes. You need at least 5 nodes imo to make it possible for the losing team to come back from a down cap. Otherwise everyone is grouped too close together to make it possible against competent players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealAeiouy Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 My experience node flipping is the norm. Static from beginning rarely happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealAeiouy Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 By the way it is actually hard to defend two nodes against a team who knows what they are doing. Send 3-4 to one node and when reinforcements come the other 3-4 take other node with reinforcements going there. With pugs it would be very hard to get people to move when they need to move. They peel too soon on first node and that goes down, they peel too late and the second node goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McVade Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) By the way it is actually hard to defend two nodes against a team who knows what they are doing. Send 3-4 to one node and when reinforcements come the other 3-4 take other node with reinforcements going there. With pugs it would be very hard to get people to move when they need to move. They peel too soon on first node and that goes down, they peel too late and the second node goes. Well yeah, a pug might have issues stopping that... but you're also asking a pug to work together as well as a premade to pull it off. "6-8 people need to coordinate" ... not going to happen in a pug. And even then, your expectation is that you'll win because the other team "acts like a pug". What if they are just as coordinated as your assuming your team will be? If they match you pound for pound on each node they have, you aren't going to take one. Edited February 11, 2012 by McVade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jalal Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 DOTs preventing caps isn't helping either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee-Jay Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 too complicated you want it to switch easier? remove the speeders that go instantly to the east and west turrets. done. This is true. Now some people may point and LOL but it wasn't until last week that I realized those other speeders took you directly to the corresponding turrets. That makes a HUGE difference and I'm not convinced it's for the better. I too would like to see them removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts