- The number of attackers in the fortress does not matter as long as there is a defender.
- The number of attackers in the fortress must be greater than the number of defenders. (3 attackers could win against 2 defenders for example, but not 3 defenders)
Settings change suggestion
Moderator: Z-Man
Settings change suggestion
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8640
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
I think I'd prefer (2), even over current settings.
The problem I see with (1) is that the goalie then has no motivation of his own to do anything. Sure, his own tactics are somewhat constrained because he has to keep multiple attackers out, and (1) would appear to free him from those constraints. OTOH, what's more likely imo is that the last part of a round would become harder for attackers and push winzone usage (which might be a Good Thing
). Two attackers against one defender who's really good at mazing can become impossible. Two wussy attackers against one not-terribly-wussy defender is already annoying. 5 minutes of intense fighting, team vs. team, ending in 5 more minutes of wussy-footing until the goalie screws up and kills himself. I think we'd see a lot more of that. Alternately, we might see a lot more daring rushes inside if the attackers are forced to kill the goalie, squeezing him not being good enough.
We already have (2) for the most part, I think. Except that, if I'm reading it right, it seems like 2 attackers can conquer a zone with 2 defenders in it, but that hasn't been my experience. Hard to tell without looking at the numbers, though, because also in my experience its very hard for 4 people to stay in the zone together for very long trying to kill each other without someone dying.
The problem I see with (1) is that the goalie then has no motivation of his own to do anything. Sure, his own tactics are somewhat constrained because he has to keep multiple attackers out, and (1) would appear to free him from those constraints. OTOH, what's more likely imo is that the last part of a round would become harder for attackers and push winzone usage (which might be a Good Thing
). Two attackers against one defender who's really good at mazing can become impossible. Two wussy attackers against one not-terribly-wussy defender is already annoying. 5 minutes of intense fighting, team vs. team, ending in 5 more minutes of wussy-footing until the goalie screws up and kills himself. I think we'd see a lot more of that. Alternately, we might see a lot more daring rushes inside if the attackers are forced to kill the goalie, squeezing him not being good enough.We already have (2) for the most part, I think. Except that, if I'm reading it right, it seems like 2 attackers can conquer a zone with 2 defenders in it, but that hasn't been my experience. Hard to tell without looking at the numbers, though, because also in my experience its very hard for 4 people to stay in the zone together for very long trying to kill each other without someone dying.
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Nemo: what is the problem you're trying to fix with your suggestion, or the game situation you're trying to make more interesting?
I'd like to see changes that make quick turnovers slower as long as a defender is alive, but also make the 1vs1 or 1vs2 endgame situations resolve faster, one way or the other. Both goals seem to be in contradiction. Against the quick turnovers, capping the effective enemy and defender count to some value could help, but of course, that makes 2vs1 harder to win if the cap is set too low.
I'd like to see changes that make quick turnovers slower as long as a defender is alive, but also make the 1vs1 or 1vs2 endgame situations resolve faster, one way or the other. Both goals seem to be in contradiction. Against the quick turnovers, capping the effective enemy and defender count to some value could help, but of course, that makes 2vs1 harder to win if the cap is set too low.