Is 2-capping a more efficient way to win than 3-capping?

[Nemarus]

I've noticed lately that I get more requisition from a match in which my team controls 2 nodes for the duration than from a match in which my team dominates and chooses to 3-cap. Now, naturally this makes sense, since if the match is longer, you get more requisition for match length, more requisition for time spent defending, and (assuming there is plenty of combat) more requisition for kills/assists.

 

The argument, of course, is that by 3-capping, you finish a match earlier, allowing you to enter into another match more quickly. But honestly I wonder if that math really checks out.

 

The requisition bonus for winning a match is only 150. So assuming you 3-cap two matches in a row (and there is no time spent waiting for a pop between the first match and the second), that extra 150 requisition from the second victory would have to make up for the extra requisition you would've gotten if you'd instead just played one longer match in which you won by 2-capping.

 

And of course, that scenario makes 2 big assumptions to begin with:

 

1) That the second match will pop instantly after the first ends (which doesn't happen often)

2) That you will win the second match

 

The more I thought about it, the more it seems to me like you'd get more dependable requisition and stat gain by refraining from 3-capping and instead winning a match just by 2-capping, even if you could easily 3-cap your opponents.

 

For example, let's say my team has capped 2 nodes and split up to defend them. We're all getting the same amount of requisition by defending... we'll get additional requisition if the enemy actually attacks the node we're at and we get kills and assists.

 

So let's say my team is holding A and B, but we let the enemy keep C. I choose to defend A. For any given period of time, there's a 50% chance the enemy will choose to attack A. So I have a 50% chance of being able to get kill/assist req in addition to my defense req. The defenders at B have the same chance.

 

Now let's consider if my team had 3-capped all three nodes. Now we're split between guarding A, B, and C. Again, I stick around A to defend it. But now, for any given period of time, there's only a 33% chance the enemy will choose to attack A. And honestly, because they are being 3-capped, a lot of the opposition will give up and may not attack any node at all, further reducing my opportunity to gain kill/assist req.

 

Now you may say, "Why wait for them to attack? Why not just go hunt them down?" You can do that, but then you are ONLY getting kill/assist req, and you aren't getting defense req. And anyway, you can go hunting regardless of whether your team is 2-capping or 3-capping--the amount of req you get will be the same.

 

Finally, if you allow the enemy team to hold a node and generate turrets, those turrets can also be occasionally farmed for additional requisition.

 

So in summary, assuming a 2-capped match takes 500 seconds to complete and a 3-capped match takes 333 seconds to complete. A 2-capped match is 50% longer than a 3-capped match. Let's consider the 3-capped match the base case.

 

If you 3-cap to win, you get:

100% requisition from base match length

100% requisition from base time spent defending

100% requisition from base time spent killing/assisting (multiplied by 33% chance your node is under attack) = 33% requisition from base time spent killing/assisting at one of 3 nodes

+ any requisition you get from a second match, if you can fit one in and be victorious

 

If you 2-cap to win, you get:

150% requisition from longer match length

150% requisition from more time spent defending

150% requisition from time spent fighting (multiplied by the 50% chance your node is under attack) = 75% requisition from extended time spent killing/assisting at one of 2 nodes

 

I'm not absolutely certain, but it seems to me like 2-capping to win is just a better deal as far as requisition is concerned.

 

And personally, when I get a pop, I like for it to last as long as possible. Not only so that I get more requisition, but because I want to spend more time flying and less time waiting in the queue. So I'm in no hurry to make a match end, especially if my team is winning.

 

Finally, I think 2-capping (when one team is dominant over the other) is just more healthy for the community, especially right now when so many new players are trying GSF for the first time. Letting new players keep a node gives them room to experiment with flight controls and abilities, and it gives them a chance to earn more defensive requisition. They'll feel better about their performance and will be more likely to queue in the future. And that's good for everyone who loves GSF

 

I'm curious what others think. Am I missing something?

[Zharik]

The scoreboard has 3 tabs on the top.. click the right one to see how you earn requisition.

[Lyet]

I haven't done the math, but regardless of how it checks out, I agree with one point in particular: letting the losing team have a node is healthier for the community! Several of my wingmen and I've been pointing this out for several weeks in my matches. If it's clear early on that were going to win, I prefer to let them cap a satellite. They'll get req, they'll stay interested longer, and they may even be able to coordinate enough to make things somewhat competitive layer in the match

 

Where's the fun in 3 - capping your enemy?

[Sadishist]

If you 3 cap, you can start the next match faster right?

[Lyet]

If you 3 cap, you can start the next match faster right?

 

The entire OP was discussing whether it is more profitable to 3 cap and get into a new match (Assuming queue times are excellent) or if it is more profitable to farm as many reqs as possible each match by letting the other team have a node, extending the match and therefore not hurt as badly if you get a long break between matches.

 

That was a really long sentence. TLDR: you didn't read the OP

[Elly_Dawn]

i've been saying for the longest time that just holding 2, especially in an 8v8, is the better way in the long run, on top of securing your victory by not spreading too thin... but unfortunately a lot and i mean a LOT of people don't get it or don't want to...

almost everyone wants to go for that 3 Cap right from the start, at least the team i Que up with has the sense to stay close... it's sad to see the other 4 we get teamed up with split apart and go for 2 different nodes after we say top to A, bottom to B, for example... team B never works together, they usually split off and make themselves easy targets instead of focusing on the goal and working together to achieve it... we often send 2 of our team to backup, once our Sat has all 3 Turrets up only to see a Chicken-run-blast-o-rama going on with Team B on our side being the hapless targets, by that point it's usually too late, unless a miracle happens and they suddenly get it...

oh and all the reasons you did the math for, lol, should be enough to understand a 2 Cap is better in the long run...

[Armonddd]

stop posting so many threads I want to read when I'm late for class

[Wainamoinen]

I'm curious what others think. Am I missing something?

 

Possibly. As someone else said, if you finish quick then you're in the next match quicker.

 

Assume a match that ends 1000-999 takes twice as long as a 1000-0. You can fit two of the 1000-0 matches in the time it takes to do one 1000-999.

 

So you'd have to earn twice as much req from the close match to make it a more efficient use of your time (from a purely req-earning standpoint). This ignores the wait for queueing twice, which would make queueing twice less valuable, but also that a 1000-999 likely had periods of node trading where neither controlled one or more, so it will actually last substantially longer than just twice the duration of a 3-cap whitewash.

 

Then there's the remote possibility that you may have other criteria too, like "Having Fun" or "Maintaining healthy numbers on both factions" that mean you aren't simply trying to get the maximum reqs as quick as possible.

 

Remember a dev post where it was stated you earned bonus reqs for finishing quick. Think I've only been in one match which timed out before anyone had hit 1000.

 

My thought: close games are more fun and you get decent reqs for them win or lose. Much prefer to whitewashes.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Wainamoinen

[Nemarus]

Possibly. As someone else said, if you finish quick then you're in the next match quicker.

 

Assume a match that ends 1000-999 takes twice as long as a 1000-0. You can fit two of the 1000-0 matches in the time it takes to do one 1000-999.

 

So you'd have to earn twice as much req from the close match to make it a more efficient use of your time (from a purely req-earning standpoint). This ignores the wait for queueing twice, which would make queueing twice less valuable, but also that a 1000-999 likely had periods of node trading where neither controlled one or more, so it will actually last substantially longer than just twice the duration of a 3-cap whitewash.

 

Then there's the remote possibility that you may have other criteria too, like "Having Fun" or "Maintaining healthy numbers on both factions" that mean you aren't simply trying to get the maximum reqs as quick as possible.

 

Remember a dev post where it was stated you earned bonus reqs for finishing quick. Think I've only been in one match which timed out before anyone had hit 1000.

 

My thought: close games are more fun and you get decent reqs for them win or lose. Much prefer to whitewashes.

 

But I'm not talking about a 1000-999 match. I'm talking about a match where one team is clearly dominant and can easily hold all three nodes, but instead chooses to hold just two. In that case, the final score will be 1000-500, since the winning team will get capture points twice as fast as the other team.

 

If you wanted to equate duration between the two types of matches (assuming zero queue waiting), then it would be three 3-cap games takes the same amount of time as two 2-cap games.

 

The two 2-cap games would generate 300 requisition (from two victories). The three 3-cap games would generate 450 requisition (from three victories). The overall time spent defending would be the same, so defense requisition would be equal. So far, three 3-caps is ahead by 150 requisition.

 

The overall time spent killing/assisting would also be the same; HOWEVER, you have a better chance of seeing action when defending one of two nodes (50% chance per unit of time) than you have when defending one of three nodes (33% chance per unit of time). So in that case, you'd earn 1.5 times as much requisition from killing/assisting in the two 2-cap games as you would in the three 3-cap games.

 

Would the extra kill/assist requisition be enough to make up the 150 requisition difference from number of victories? I don't know. But I'm pretty sure no one gets three 3-cap matches in a row with zero queue time. And betting on future victories is more risky than just milking the victory you know you have for as much requisition as possible.

 

Plus all that stuff about more flying time, more fun, encouraging more players to learn GSF, building a better community, etc.

[DanNV]

Here's my experience fwiw. Queues are currently running between 10 and 20 minutes. So, a 2 cap may well generate more comms over the time compared to 3 caps. (I haven't played with the math to see.) The big one is after 2 or 3 3 cap matches the opposing side stops queuing and queue times go up. Then we get more same faction matches where there also tend to be a lot of 3 caps (we have a couple really good premades that you see a LOT) and the people who are just solo queuing stop queuing and the queue times go up some more. So, it seems to help to let the other team have a node and earn some reqs if you want them to play another match. (The results seem to be similar with the death matches when they end 50 to very few too often)

[BrianDavion]

I find when I'm in a match that three caps it's more by accident, a matter of "well let;'s push them a bit to keep the fight on their turf to ensure we win and.... oh bother"

[okiobe]

Maybe it's just my OCD completionist attitude, but if there is a node my team doesn't hold I always try to take it. Even if it's guarded by five ships and three turrets, I'll attack it alone. The vast majority of the time I don't even look at how much req I earned at the end of the match. I forget to look. I like to capture objectives, kill the enemy and win the game. I've had games where I parked at a satellite for 8+ minutes and not had anyone come try to take it. Talk about boring. I think it is more important to practice and become proficient with a ship than to maximize req. This is from the winners perspective. The loser definitely benefits from hold at least one satellite. Edited February 6, 2014 by okiobe

[ptwonline]

I think this just shows how badly imbalanced the matches tend to be: teams are not only winning easily, but are so dominant they are trying to decide how to min-max the points they an get for winning in a certain way.

[Slivovidze]

Hey, guys, there is this thing, called FUN.

 

Games won by 3-cap are usually a horrible steamroll, only fun for those "pilots" who need to grow their e-peens by murdering excessive amount of pretty much defenseless newbies.

 

When I happen to be in a game like this, I prefer to win (usually it's win, as Republic currently has upper hand in GSF on my server) or lose by 3-cap and move to another, possibly balanced match quickly.

 

Slaughtering fresh pilots is not fun, it is not a challenge, and for them it is furstrating and doesn't really make them want to play more GSF.

 

300 req here or there, I don't care, I just want my 5 daily games to be fun and not onesided slaughter.

 

Otherwise, of course, your math is true.

[Nemarus]

Hey, guys, there is this thing, called FUN.

 

Games won by 3-cap are usually a horrible steamroll, only fun for those "pilots" who need to grow their e-peens by murdering excessive amount of pretty much defenseless newbies.

 

When I happen to be in a game like this, I prefer to win (usually it's win, as Republic currently has upper hand in GSF on my server) or lose by 3-cap and move to another, possibly balanced match quickly.

 

Slaughtering fresh pilots is not fun, it is not a challenge, and for them it is furstrating and doesn't really make them want to play more GSF.

 

300 req here or there, I don't care, I just want my 5 daily games to be fun and not onesided slaughter.

 

Otherwise, of course, your math is true.

 

I'm confused. You say that 3-cap matches are horrible steamrolls that aren't fun for anyone. Shouldn't that be precisely why you let the enemy team keep a node? It will make it more fun and less of a waste of time for them. Sure they may have no chance of winning (big deal--they miss out on 150 req), but they can get defensive requisition and can have some breathing room to learn the game and experiment.

 

Most importantly, they are more likely to queue again, which increases your chance of having a quick pop for the next match ... both in the short term and the long term.