Winning a standoff

[Stormin']

I don't think the solution you suggest is appropriate for the game.  Removing yourself from the battle is a legitimate tactic, albeit an annoying one for the team that now has to hunt the other team down.  I remember times when we were outgunned or outmatched, and had to use hit-and-run tactics throughout the entire game to remain competitive.  It is one of the only ways to separate lighter mechs from an assault group...bait and run to draw them out.  I also remember having this done to us plenty of times, and although it usually pissed everyone off and occasionally we lost pilots due to time issues, you had to give props to the guy that managed to elude you for the remainder of the match.  Plus, maybe you'll think twice about running an assault mech after chasing around a light for an hour at 45 kph.  Forcing that light mech to now come to you completely removes any advantage he has.

Seems to me that an attrition style match is pretty much what you are wanting.  If you want the game skewed in favor of the stronger team, attrition pretty much handles that.  I can see having one team protect a map objective, i.e. attackers vs. defenders, and any attacker that cannot take control of the objective point loses...  But back on point, I think a final capture point would just mean that once a team gains the upper hand, they will hold that point until the match timer runs out.  And if all maps are designed so that this capture point is so exposed that they would be subject to attack from all sides, yet the opposition would remain under cover...well that would be a boring map, and all maps would be forced to have this generic feature.  And it's not like they will have a range advantage or anything...in fact a heavier group is typically going to have longer range weapons, so a lighter group would always be at a disadvantage if the heavy group decided to go camp the final cap point.  A better option for what you are wanting would be to start a countdown timer after any period of inactivity, then after so much time end the match with the win going to the team with the higher attrition score.

I understand what you mean by forcing a draw...sure, it's cheesy.  But strategically (for non-respawn planetary), it should remain an option simply because it is a realistic strategy (for example, chess).  I suppose some leagues do not handle this situation well, and honestly I think that is a problem with the league, not the game.  In my case (Lance Command), any remaining mechs (or other equipment) remaining at the end of a match are given the opportunity to retreat to a friendly area or they can drop with the next wave.  A battle doesn't end until all equipment has retreated or has been destroyed.  I think that is much more realistic as opposed to an all-or-nothing mindset.

In my opinion, regardless of what restraints you have placed on the game, people will find the most advantageous method of exploiting it.  I don't think forcing everyone to fight within a very narrow interpretation of purpose is the answer.  Let the game find its balance and let the leagues adapt.

[Stalker]

Removing yourself from the battle is a legitimate tactic, albeit an annoying one for the team that now has to hunt the other team down.

It isn't a legitimate tactic, as evidenced by most NR leagues banning the practice.  The teams who do it are breaking the rules and they know it.  Making lame excuses about "ambushing" and other silly stuff doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is generally not permitted.  The only reason they can get away with it is a lack of any mechanism to draw a line between actual ambushes and stealth tactics and deliberately avoiding combat.  An end of game "winner takes all" capture point makes sure that they cant camp a location and win by default.  They can sit in their hole for 59 minutes if they like, but they'll still have to fight in that last minute if they expect to win.

Plus, maybe you'll think twice about running an assault mech after chasing around a light for an hour at 45 kph.  Forcing that light mech to now come to you completely removes any advantage he has.

I'm not in any way suggesting legitimate hit and run or ambush tactics are wrong or should be squashed.  But if you get into a situation where a battle has occured and one side runs away with their last few mechs to avoid a stronger opponent then what you have done is called retreat.  When you retreat from battle, you've lost.  Now again, it is a legitimate tactic to try and finish a stronger opponent off with hit and run attacks and nothing about my suggestion prevents that.  All it prevents is one side running off to hide for the rest of the game and winning by default when they have been essentially beaten in all but name.

Seems to me that an attrition style match is pretty much what you are wanting.  If you want the game skewed in favor of the stronger team, attrition pretty much handles that.  I can see having one team protect a map objective, i.e. attackers vs. defenders, and any attacker that cannot take control of the objective point loses...  But back on point, I think a final capture point would just mean that once a team gains the upper hand, they will hold that point until the match timer runs out.

No one will be "holding" any capture points.  There is no reason to hold it and no reason to even be near it.  I tried to make clear that being at that location makes you vulnerable to specifically prevent this kind of silly behavior.  The capture point matters for only one second in the entire game, the final second.  Only idiots are going to camp a position that makes them vulnerable and gives them no advantage what so ever.  It just won't happen.  You'll have to trust me on this point.

I suppose some leagues do not handle this situation well, and honestly I think that is a problem with the league, not the game.

It is a problem with the game.  For any rule you can provide to "fix" this, I'll tell you how someone can exploit it.  Rules have no effect when everything is open to interpretation.  You say it's camping, I say it's an ambush.  There is no way to determine who is being honest.  Only combat determines who the stronger team is and the stronger team deserves the chance to prove it and win the game.

In my opinion, regardless of what restraints you have placed on the game, people will find the most advantageous method of exploiting it.

There is no way to exploit this feature if it is done properly.  Again, provide an example of how you'd exploit it, I'll show you how to beat that.

[Stormin']

There is no way to exploit this feature if it is done properly.  Again, provide an example of how you'd exploit it, I'll show you how to beat that.

I thought I did...a group better armed by the end of the match doesn't have to go sit on your cap point.  They can just as easily sit under cover near the cap point and wait for the opposing team to reach it, which, unless the disadvantaged team is somehow able to overcome their disadvantage, is apparently REQUIRED for the win.  And since that point would be such a non-advantageous position, a heavier team would have no problem dispatching of the underdogs as they try to reach it.  You KNOW where that team is going to be at some point in the game, and that point would provide a win to the other opponent.  It would be stupid to ignore it and not set up a proper defense of it.  Again, if the game creates a situation in which a weaker opponent is forced into the open, I think you would quickly find a lack of variety in this game, which happens to be one of the main things MWLL was created to provide.

You also say that there is no reason to be anywhere near that point except at the last second of the game.  Ever play TF2?  Ever hear the term "ninja"?  And just from a logic standpoint, why in the world should you be required to run out and hold (yes, even for a second at the end of the game, we got that) a completely undefendable position?  It makes no tactical sense.  Me, I prefer realism.  This is a sim, not an arcade game.

Reading back over this thread, I think you might be kinda trolling for an argument here, and I unwittingly allowed myself to get stuck in it.  I made alternative suggestions which I think addressed the needs you propose, to which you do not appear to have any comment.  Also the devs have already made clear that they are not addressing this "issue", and I'm not seeing much support for the idea here in your thread.  So...guess that will be my 2 cents.  Good luck chasing this whale.

[Stalker]

I thought I did...a group better armed by the end of the match doesn't have to go sit on your cap point.  They can just as easily sit under cover near the cap point and wait for the opposing team to reach it, which, unless the disadvantaged team is somehow able to overcome their disadvantage, is apparently REQUIRED for the win.  And since that point would be such a non-advantageous position, a heavier team would have no problem dispatching of the underdogs as they try to reach it.

Ya, that is not a bug, it's a feature.  That is the whole idea of having a capture point, to stop the weakened team from running off into the distance and hiding to achieve a win by default.  No one gets to claim the win unless they control the battlefield beyond dispute.  If a team doesn't have the physical strength to take possession of the flag, then they obviously don't control the field and they should lose.  I have no idea how you'd ever justify letting the weaker team that has run away take the win for the game. 

I think your issue here is that you don't have any actual experience of this scenario in online play and thus don't understand what I am really getting at.  I see you're making suggestions in good faith but they are not really related to the actual problem I am describing.  Unless you've got some pretty substantial time played in leagues, you're not going to see this problem for what it is and I don't just mean you, there are others who don't understand the problem too.

[TuRbOlAg]

I think people are still having trouble realizing that this isn't CTF or KotH, it's a battle royal with a safety feature, the only purpose being to decide a victor if a team decides to leave the battlefield and hide.

Unless even I am not understanding this properly, but that's the conclusion I got to.

EDIT:

And just from a logic standpoint, why in the world should you be required to run out and hold (yes, even for a second at the end of the game, we got that) a completely undefendable position?  It makes no tactical sense.  Me, I prefer realism.  This is a sim, not an arcade game.

To declare a winner within a reasonable amount of time, that's why.  Perhaps there could be a setting that lets games like that go on for hours for clan matches or something, but when most people play instant action style they probably won't want to be playing the same damn game of hide and seek for three hours.  This way the game ends at the preset time limit, and there is always a winner.

I'm pretty confident that ToA and SA games will not come down to this though.  Of course none of us will know until we play so perhaps this is something to talk about then, eh?

[(TLL)Cowking]

There is no way to exploit this feature if it is done properly.  Again, provide an example of how you'd exploit it, I'll show you how to beat that.

There is Always a way to exploit something, in a little or big way. Its just a matter of having the ingenuity to figure it out.

[PukinDog]

I think you guys should wait until you play before worrying about complicated solutions to probelms that don't exist yet.  The simple inclusion of aerospace means that no one is totally safe anywhere.

That was exactly my question to the devs on page 1 of this thread, TYVM.

[I_Like_Robots]

So lets see. Flag in the middle. Best team at encamping a position wins.
Glorified King of The Hill it is. Fluff it up as much as you like that's what it is.

I'd prefer a point-based system of the generic king of the hill mold that's being represented here...hold it for a certain amount of time, most point wins, rather than who can camp the flag at the last second wins.

[PukinDog]

Everyone who reads preceeding posts before posting themselves^.....gets a cookie

[Defender]

I like the concepts in this thread. I'd like to see someone apply them.

[Stormin']

I think your issue here is that you don't have any actual experience of this scenario in online play and thus don't understand what I am really getting at.  I see you're making suggestions in good faith but they are not really related to the actual problem I am describing.  Unless you've got some pretty substantial time played in leagues, you're not going to see this problem for what it is and I don't just mean you, there are others who don't understand the problem too.

....right.  That must be it.  I clearly have no understanding of league play.

[Stalker]

I think people are still having trouble realizing that this isn't CTF or KotH, it's a battle royal with a safety feature, the only purpose being to decide a victor if a team decides to leave the battlefield and hide.

That's exactly it, you've got it right.

So lets see. Flag in the middle. Best team at encamping a position wins.
Glorified King of The Hill it is. Fluff it up as much as you like that's what it is.

And this is exactly wrong.

There is Always a way to exploit something, in a little or big way. Its just a matter of having the ingenuity to figure it out.

I consider exploiting the rules to be the use of a feature or scenario in which only one side has the advantage from it.  Because no feature exists to decide a winner in a standoff, leagues have to rule a default winner and the team that knows they can win without fighting will create a situation to take advantage of that.  When no team can win by default, both must act aggressively to win.  Whatever traps or tricks one team might use around the flag point, the other team can do exactly the same.  It returns the game to a clash of skill and tactics where no unit gains any advantage from default situations.  Being lured into an ambush isn't an exploit, it's good tactics on your opponent's part.

That must be it.  I clearly have no understanding of league play

That's all I can think of as to why you don't understand the heart of the issue.  People who play in no-respawn leagues have all seen this kind of "cheating" and it annoys virtually everyone except the units that behave this way.  If you'd experienced it, you'd understand the issue.

[Stormin']

That must be it.  I clearly have no understanding of league play

That's all I can think of as to why you don't understand the heart of the issue.  People who play in no-respawn leagues have all seen this kind of "cheating" and it annoys virtually everyone except the units that behave this way.  If you'd experienced it, you'd understand the issue.

I've been on the receiving end of it, and as necessary I've been on the giving end of it.  I ran a team for years in several leagues that ran into this annoyance all the time.  I co-authored the original MW4VL rules set and served as the original rules admin, it was an issue then too.  I know the problems with planetary, and that is an issue with league rules and not game function.  Don't point your nerdier-than-thou finger in my direction, just as you seem to be doing with everyone in this thread that disagrees with you.

If one team's objective is to eliminate the opposing force, and they are unable to do so, then yes, they have failed their mission.  If the other team's objective is to defend that map, and in the end all he can do is force a stalemate, then yes, that is a valid tactic.  All I'm saying is I see a purpose to it.  I'm not talking in terms of wins and losses, I'm talking in terms of defending a territory.  To demand a change to the game so that we are all forced into this generic little dash and kill concept you have of it is simply selfish on your part.  There are times when one team is forced to bring less tonnage than the other, and by your own admission that pretty much means the advantaged team deserves the win before the match even starts.  Your concept only works for equal tonnage ladder matches, which I find to be pretty damn boring day after day.  You can have strategy, or you can have twitch...I'm sure there is room for both.

[(TLL)Cowking]

There is Always a way to exploit something, in a little or big way. Its just a matter of having the ingenuity to figure it out.

I consider exploiting the rules to be the use of a feature or scenario in which only one side has the advantage from it.  Because no feature exists to decide a winner in a standoff, leagues have to rule a default winner and the team that knows they can win without fighting will create a situation to take advantage of that.  When no team can win by default, both must act aggressively to win.  Whatever traps or tricks one team might use around the flag point, the other team can do exactly the same.  It returns the game to a clash of skill and tactics where no unit gains any advantage from default situations.  Being lured into an ambush isn't an exploit, it's good tactics on your opponent's part.

I don't see the relevance of that... I am talking about in general not just rules or anything like that. You can consider anything exploitation in general some times(also depends on point of view.)

This is besides that fact that all games type so far in MWLL (Only two: Solaris and Trial of annihilation or whatever its called...) are all combat focused and have forward objects like going to kill the enemy or Take a base which are fought in both directions just like in crysis (if you've played that game yet...)

Personally I think you just like to talk on-and on about thing that: A. You make you as you go along(or so it seems most of the time) B. You don't believe people who know what their talking about like Stormin' here.

Also you seem to think that almost everyone will always do the wrong thing (like on the commander topic) I think you should develop a more positive out look on things and stop arguing even after you've been proven wrong. (Not to say I've proven anything yet myself...)

[TheANIMAL]

Surely the introduction of aricraft virtually eliminates the ability to avoid conflict?