Beta 2 feedback topic

[MuNgLo]

If you do maps and try to find good options for the game, of course we would be happy to see how to adapt the CP timings.
I would suggest to hardcore it on first update, and if it does not suit you, we would see how to open it.

would you be happy with
0.5 seconds if all CP taken
1.5 seconds if all but one
2.5 seconds if all but two
3.5 seconds if all but three

With 3 poles, it would require the attacker to take two CP to be back to normal, and a third to become really dangerous.

For your side note, we are thinking on how to adapt the ping+nametags possibilities. We feel it is too powerful at the moment and wish to balance it more in order to diminish the occurrence of situations where it can be used. It is not specific about your feedback, but just to say.

Well I would be happier
But it's hard to say what would be optimal without the opportunity to test different settings. But the main gripe of instant captures would be fixed. That is something that needs to be avoided I feel, due to the pure cheesiness of loosing that way.
I would say that 0.75 if all is taken might be a better match. Sure its just 0.25 but its also 50% more then 0.5 so there is a big difference there. Also, at least the way I see checkpoint gameplay to behave you will probably have way more occasions where attacker dives to goal while defenders come in from side and not already are positioned on pole. But that also depend on maplayout.

Also you might want to consider to let people place more checkpoints and somehow support that in the time calculations to. This would open up options in mapmaking like splitting attackerroute in ways that goes over checkpoints and by some clever mapping add a tactical element.
Problem with that would be to not have extra checkpoints that are placed on map as optional checkpoints mess up the timing.
Maybe have an optimal time for capture and a maximum, then divide the difference between the checkpoints.

Like:
0.75 on all CP taken
5 CP on map in total
4s is maximum when no Cp is taken (4s is insanely long to try cap )
then 4s-0.75s= 3.25s/5CP = 0.65s is what each CP is worth.


One thing that really is a problem with checkpoints is that it needs to be worth going for the checkpoints. Mapmakers need to really be careful so they don't make maps where the attacker has it to easy to just hunt down defenders instead of going for checkpoints. But that's not really Nadeos problem

[Hylis]

I agree that 0.75 is better against 1 defender, but it seems quite long against 3. If the attacker must shoot 2 defenders and take 3 poles to have this advantage, I would rather offer him 0.5.

If pole capture is not really powerful with CP, then attacker would rather go for 3 eliminations. Defenders would quickly see if the attacker is taking this option and would hide if so. If there are checkpoints, I believe it is more important the the choice is more based on which to take than take them or not. But if in the end, the attacker took the 3 poles, he should be in great advantage to have the pole. And should not be invincible either by rushing to it. But with blow area and 4 rockets, there is still a defense.

And maybe the round time can be higher when there are checkpoints: 45 secondes + 5 secondes per checkpoint, tell me what you think.

If we set 0.5 by default instead of custom, it is mainly to go faster. Otherwise, I would rather wait another version, looking at priorities.

[MuNgLo]

To increase the time is the wrong way to go I think. It messes up the foundation of what is Elite. It should be intense from start, working its way up to a real intense finish of each round. Increasing the time opens up for just boring moments of non-action.

To be honest it's really hard to try to decide if 0.5 or 0.75 is better or worse. All I can say with certainty is that 0 is bad, real bad.
But to really know I think it's just a matter of trying it out.

Lets say you manage to push the time table you proposed above with a best cap time of 0.5 to next update, then it would be a big step in the right direction. If it is enough or needs further tweaking after that is a whole other matter I guess.

I agree that 0.75 is better against 1 defender, but it seems quite long against 3. If the attacker must shoot 2 defenders and take 3 poles to have this advantage, I would rather offer him 0.5.

My take on how most gameplay would be on checkpoint maps is that the attackers should always pay for each checkpoint with risktaking and/or loosing speed. Then it's the defenders job to deny or at least shave of ap's from the attacker as he goes for a CP cap.
So then mostly you would end up with in the actual goalfight might be more often an attacker that has 1 or maybe 2 ap and defenders falling in on the goal to defend it.
While you want to let both attacker and defenders to be mobile you don't want to punish them for taking that extra risk of rotating position on a checkpoint map. With all the rotation I see happening on a checkpoint map the attacker has a clear advantage since he can be able to pick of defenders. So maybe it really is to low with 0.5, or not.
It really depends on how the gameplay turns out.

I would gladly see a change to 0.5 as soon as possible so I can get a bit more testing done to ponder over.

[sandel]

start managing a server arround map-end, dont escape that window and let the new map load, now you have the perfect screenlock, alt+f4 next...

[upsilon]

I like Royal mode a lot and dislike the Royal exp, I dont need new RPG part to have fun, and i dont understand how new players who dont know this game yet are supposed to play with only one rocket and long recharge time, 50% of them will just uninstall the game before they understand how to hit an enemy.
Anyway there are some things i personally would like to see in Royal and the whole game:
- more servers and strong players for a great challenge
-do something about "spawncamping" and "teaming" in Royal;
-make some optimizations may be, i experience lags in-game( well, may be i need new pc, but anyway)
- if it was possible to watch some tournaments in-game like specator mode and announcments about this tournaments it would be very very nice
-something i forgot to mention
p.s. im playing since summer so i'm not freshman

[sadzealot]

I agree that 0.75 is better against 1 defender, but it seems quite long against 3. If the attacker must shoot 2 defenders and take 3 poles to have this advantage, I would rather offer him 0.5.

The thing is, an attacker will very often have to fight with one or several defenders for checkpoints on maps, and most of the time he'll either get a kill (and the CP) or he'll get the CP while defender lives. Then it's off to the next CP or pole, either way.

And if a team stacks all 3 defenders on one CP while attacker is there, attacker will more than likely get atleat 1 kill while dancing around + he can easily rotate around to what is then 1 or 2 free checkpoints for the capture.

It's not like CP maps work in a way that the attacker will either go for kills or CPs. The way I see CP maps work it's another mechanic to Elite (that I personally think could be great) that most of all, forces defenders out to hold more points on the map than just guarding the pole for the last 15 seconds. And the fact defenders can't camp behind pole like they can in normal Elite also makes them an easier target for attacker when he's going for CPs.

Did any of this make sense? I hope so

[Hylis]

It's not like CP maps work in a way that the attacker will either go for kills or CPs. The way I see CP maps work it's another mechanic to Elite (that I personally think could be great) that most of all, forces defenders out to hold more points on the map than just guarding the pole for the last 15 seconds. And the fact defenders can't camp behind pole like they can in normal Elite also makes them an easier target for attacker when he's going for CPs.

Did any of this make sense? I hope so

yes, and I agree. This is why it should not become a decision of going for the CP or the kills. And in order to do this, it should be really profitable to capture checkpoints.

Maybe each checkpoints can provide a 10 seconds bonus time, and just do not change the pole capture time in the end. It gives the attacker more windows to eliminate safely defenders, even more if they stick to the pole. Leaving to the quality of the map to make this balance.

[sadzealot]

It's not like CP maps work in a way that the attacker will either go for kills or CPs. The way I see CP maps work it's another mechanic to Elite (that I personally think could be great) that most of all, forces defenders out to hold more points on the map than just guarding the pole for the last 15 seconds. And the fact defenders can't camp behind pole like they can in normal Elite also makes them an easier target for attacker when he's going for CPs.

Did any of this make sense? I hope so

yes, and I agree. This is why it should not become a decision of going for the CP or the kills. And in order to do this, it should be really profitable to capture checkpoints.

Maybe each checkpoints can provide a 10 seconds bonus time, and just do not change the pole capture time in the end. It gives the attacker more windows to eliminate safely defenders, even more if they stick to the pole. Leaving to the quality of the map to make this balance.

Yeah, something like that can work. Or even a combination of the two. Like X number of seconds added to the time allocated to capture the pole + a reduction of the cap-time of pole.

Testing different modes might be a bit tricky the way things are set up right now, so maybe make Elite CP it's own script so you can change settings for default cap-time for pole, how much each CP reduces cap-time with and maybe increase the time you can capture pole with. Anyways, come up with some suggestion and changes, and we'll give them a go sometime

[MuNgLo]

I don't think CP maps should have different times for the turn. The flow of an Elite turn is great as it is without it be any useless nonaction time. Only way to eat up the extra time would be to build bigger maps and making it harder for defenders to rotate and help eachother against the attacker.

I would take any update that gets rid of the instacaps as an improvement to the way it is today.

How about letting each CP lower the capturetime with a % value aswell as add an 1s to goaltime.


3CP map with a -30% on CP cap (just * .7 for these numbers)
0CP capped = 3s
1CP capped = 2.1s
2CP capped = 1.47s
3CP capped = 1.029s

2CP map with a -30% on CP cap (just * .7 for these numbers)
0CP capped = 2s
1CP capped = 1.4s
2CP capped = 0.98s

This would let 1CP be most important due to it giving biggest value. Might wanna do some calculations of what % to use. Might be better with a little bit higher.

[Hylis]

I think that if the attacker took 3 checkpoints, he should be really dangerous on capturing the last pole, even against 3 defenders. I don't feel that 1 second is dangerous enough. I don't think that under 0.5 it could be good. I hesitate between 0.5 and 0.75, so maybe a 0.625 is a good way to start.

If taking the three checkpoints does not make the attacker so dangerous, than the story of the checkpoint capture would be not enough interesting to follow. I would add 5 seconds on each checkpoint, just to test the feeling of having extra time.