Ideally, yes, but the attacker that estimates his attack success probability at 20% is interested in a tie. A tie does not change the point difference between the teams, an unsuccessful attack will change the score difference in favor of the other team as much as a successful attack changes it in favor of his team, and at 20% success rate, that's a net loss over a tie. The decrease in winning score does not change this at all.Rain wrote:both, defender and attacker are interested to win the round and not get the tie. both teams are interested to win as soon as possible.
2020: if it is 1 vs 1 and I'm the attacker and I know that sooner or later, a deathzone will emerge inside the zone, I'll do this lame thing: I'll circle the defender and won't let him out. If he makes a strange move before the deathzone appears, I'll go for the fortress. The suggestion does the job of giving the attacker an advantage, though.
My attack bonus suggestion (it's a bit different from the right of way, like Lucifer writes, the difference in the game being that in Fortress attack and defense happen simultaneously at different places by different people) has a flaw, too: it discourages the defender from killing the attacker. It will always be in the interest of the defender to stall the game.
I had a couple of more ideas that are again modifications of the game physics rules. The first one starts with this: make matches time limited. Then, the team that is behind in points has no interest in stalling a round. Making an early attack with 30% success rate will be better for them than waiting a minute for an attack chance with 40% success rate. We'd just need to make sure that the attacking team always is the one that is behind in points; we could let a fortress zone collapse harmlessly if its owning team is behind in points, has only one player left and the zone hasn't been touched by an enemy in a short while (so in case the currently attacking team is ahead in points, they have a reason to touch the enemy zone often).
Alternatively, we could drop the score comparison. Just collapse any zone owned by a team that is down to one player (it should have been started with more players) that hasn't been touched by an enemy recently, but has been defended. Result: if the attack force doesn't really attack, the object of the attack will vanish and the attacker and defender roles will be swapped, hopefully with a quicker resolution.
Last one for today: respawns. If a zone hasn't been touched by the enemy, it slowly generates respawn tickets for its team. They can be used by players saying "/spawn". This would make it essential to keep the enemy fortress under attack to make the other team run out of respawns, and a 1 vs 1 fight simply wouldn't stay 1 vs 1 for long.
