What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
To my understanding territory capture rate during war is determined by the absolute number of non-afk players on a team. A multiplier is applied so that the team with fewer players captures territory faster. This looks to be intended to help balance out the effects of being outnumbered, yet sometimes it can produce very unbalanced results.
Important jobs are currently gated behind Mastery levels (plus rank, to some extent). The ability to employ these jobs dramatically influences the combat effectiveness of a team. Just taking infantry for example, a low level player typically only gets a rifle and a grenade, whereas higher level players are able to use launchers, C4, LMGs and other assets. This makes the latter group far more effective at destroying enemy vehicles and structures, and by extension helps to capture a point. The same goes for other regiments even moreso - 6 air reg recruits can do little against a single skilled pilot, and often they don't even have licenses to fly aircraft. Looking only at player numbers does not really reflect the balance of power.
There's also the fact that newer, inexperienced players typically struggle in ground combat against MRP veterans. It's part of learning the game but especially comes into play in smaller wars. If you have 5x lvl 20 players on one team against 10 players with Mastery <5, the former side consistently steamrolls the latter. This is currently made worse by the cap rate multipliers, which view the more numerous team as having an advantage even though in reality they're unable to mount an effective defence. The end result is typically entire lanes of territory being lost in one late war and newer players quickly quitting the server as the odds feel stacked against them.
To address this I'd suggest that a team's total mastery level sum be given some influence over the capture rate, to better reflect the balance of power in a war. Alternatively you might have the existing calculator give less weight to people with low Mastery, below something like lvl 5 (0.8 of a player?).
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Better game balance during small wars.
- More stable territory movement during wars involving large numbers of new recruits.
- Less dull gameplay caused by extremely slow cap rates.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Slower territory capture when one side has a small 'crack' team online.
- Finding an appropriate multiplier will take some effort in testing.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I'm not sure if this is a perfect solution so I won't pretend otherwise. The idea is to help avoid wars where one team feels absolutely helpless and effectively gives up. The common sentiment in late wars is "They have helis, tanks, a jugg and a higher cap rate, all of which we can't use... what are we even supposed to do here?", I figured I'd start putting forward ideas to help solve this. Perhaps it's worth consideration within the broader war system rework.
To my understanding territory capture rate during war is determined by the absolute number of non-afk players on a team. A multiplier is applied so that the team with fewer players captures territory faster. This looks to be intended to help balance out the effects of being outnumbered, yet sometimes it can produce very unbalanced results.
Important jobs are currently gated behind Mastery levels (plus rank, to some extent). The ability to employ these jobs dramatically influences the combat effectiveness of a team. Just taking infantry for example, a low level player typically only gets a rifle and a grenade, whereas higher level players are able to use launchers, C4, LMGs and other assets. This makes the latter group far more effective at destroying enemy vehicles and structures, and by extension helps to capture a point. The same goes for other regiments even moreso - 6 air reg recruits can do little against a single skilled pilot, and often they don't even have licenses to fly aircraft. Looking only at player numbers does not really reflect the balance of power.
There's also the fact that newer, inexperienced players typically struggle in ground combat against MRP veterans. It's part of learning the game but especially comes into play in smaller wars. If you have 5x lvl 20 players on one team against 10 players with Mastery <5, the former side consistently steamrolls the latter. This is currently made worse by the cap rate multipliers, which view the more numerous team as having an advantage even though in reality they're unable to mount an effective defence. The end result is typically entire lanes of territory being lost in one late war and newer players quickly quitting the server as the odds feel stacked against them.
To address this I'd suggest that a team's total mastery level sum be given some influence over the capture rate, to better reflect the balance of power in a war. Alternatively you might have the existing calculator give less weight to people with low Mastery, below something like lvl 5 (0.8 of a player?).
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Better game balance during small wars.
- More stable territory movement during wars involving large numbers of new recruits.
- Less dull gameplay caused by extremely slow cap rates.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Slower territory capture when one side has a small 'crack' team online.
- Finding an appropriate multiplier will take some effort in testing.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I'm not sure if this is a perfect solution so I won't pretend otherwise. The idea is to help avoid wars where one team feels absolutely helpless and effectively gives up. The common sentiment in late wars is "They have helis, tanks, a jugg and a higher cap rate, all of which we can't use... what are we even supposed to do here?", I figured I'd start putting forward ideas to help solve this. Perhaps it's worth consideration within the broader war system rework.
Upvote
0
Donator
