WarMap

[Maxdoggy]

Rokkman, I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

In the final two wars on Reach, I was the Battle Strategy guy for BLUE. I strategically out-maneuvered REDD week after week, but our teams weren't winning games so REDD was able to keep using their vCash to buy ambush. If we had won more games in those wars, my superior strategy would have propelled BLUE to victory.

The system was a bit faulty back then, but the only imbalance was with skill. I don't see a need to radically change everything in what appears to me to be a counter-intuitive way.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

Here, I'll throw in my two cents.

If we split up the squads, and each was a separate piece or 'frigate' like in the past, all I'm saying is that I better be playing every weekend like the other squads. If the Resistance didn't play one weekend because our piece wasn't moved to engage the enemy, I would be pissed. I think this goes for most of every one here too. That's why it's better that we all fight as one entity, although technically we have an 'entity' for every territory we own.

And, if that is how it works (meaning all squads move and find a battle), wouldn't that make it just a bit more difficult for our War Director to get things set up? Keeping track of two maps and who's playing on them is one thing, what about six? Too much in my opinion.

And now I'm going to reiterate Myths point. What if one squad, say VbD, come in contact with a much less skilled squad for a battle, and there is no way the less skilled squad can get backup? VbD will obviously wipe the floor with them for every game they play, and no one can do anything about it . . . I'm almost positive that players from the less skilled team would begin to quit, and eventually, any squad paired up with VbD (squads without a chance) wouldn't even show up to battles regardless. And we shouldn't change the rules just because one team is very good. While we are a war-sim, Forerunner Conflict still heavily implies competitive game play into its matches. Having a different amount of kills needed to win the game than the other team, or anything along those lines. doesn't really fit the fair, competitive play we've been shooting for.

To be honest bud, I don't think this idea would be very fun. I like the way the battles have been fought previously.

[KazuhLLL]

Well, I don't know about the big changes that you're trying to put out there, but I do agree with the idea that squares of the map should have some incentives. Maybe we could have it so that winning on bigger maps would have a bigger payout credit-wise?

It could be something along the lines of:

• credits = amount of credits earned (as determined by map odds)
• modifier = 1+.5[(number of players per team-4)/4]
• modcred = credits*modifier
• 4v4 maps have credit modifier of 1 (receive 100% of credits)
• 5v5 maps have a 1.125 credit modifier (receive 112.5% of credits)
• 6v6 maps have a 1.25 credit modifier (receive 125% of credits)
• 8v8 maps have a 1.5 credit modifier (receive 150% of credits)

As a balance to this system, maybe ambush would scale depending on map size? (Small teams easier to insert behind enemy lines, large teams are more difficult/expensive)
Well, I don't know about the big changes that you're trying to put out there, but I do agree with the idea that squares of the map should have some incentives. Maybe we could have it so that winning on bigger maps would have a bigger payout credit-wise?

As a balance to this system, maybe ambush would scale depending on map size? (Small teams easier to insert behind enemy lines, large teams are more difficult/expensive)

• ambush = standard ambush price
• modifier = (number of players on map)/6
• modamb = credits*modifier
• 4v4 maps have a 2/3 ambush modifier (66.7% of price)
• 5v5 maps have a 5/6 ambush modifier (83.3% of price)
• 6v6 maps have an ambush modifier of 1 (100% of price)
• 8v8 maps have an 4/3 ambush modifier (133.3% of price)

Using ambushes as a way to counterbalance a credit-modifier system, if would give an incentive to 4v4 maps as well as give a downside to 8v8 maps. (I omitted 7v7 maps because as far as I know we don't play on any)

[silversleek(GEN)]

Yes, but it needs to be tweaked so it isn't something game breaking like 50 kills. Even the worst games aren't near that. (Are they?)

some of the worst games i've been in have had like, a 75-100 kill gap. Thank god those are so rare it's barely worth mentioning.


i think it it was a mix vs vbd...

[Rokkman X]

Here, I'll throw in my two cents.

If we split up the squads, and each was a separate piece or 'frigate' like in the past, all I'm saying is that I better be playing every weekend like the other squads. If the Resistance didn't play one weekend because our piece wasn't moved to engage the enemy, I would be pissed. I think this goes for most of every one here too. That's why it's better that we all fight as one entity, although technically we have an 'entity' for every territory we own.

And, if that is how it works (meaning all squads move and find a battle), wouldn't that make it just a bit more difficult for our War Director to get things set up? Keeping track of two maps and who's playing on them is one thing, what about six? Too much in my opinion.

And now I'm going to reiterate Myths point. What if one squad, say VbD, come in contact with a much less skilled squad for a battle, and there is no way the less skilled squad can get backup? VbD will obviously wipe the floor with them for every game they play, and no one can do anything about it . . . I'm almost positive that players from the less skilled team would begin to quit, and eventually, any squad paired up with VbD (squads without a chance) wouldn't even show up to battles regardless. And we shouldn't change the rules just because one team is very good. While we are a war-sim, Forerunner Conflict still heavily implies competitive game play into its matches. Having a different amount of kills needed to win the game than the other team, or anything along those lines. doesn't really fit the fair, competitive play we've been shooting for.

To be honest bud, I don't think this idea would be very fun. I like the way the battles have been fought previously.

Well, then we would need a way to make it so that all of the squads are very likely to participate in combat every week. (Other than the fact that if they didn't participate, it would be an extreme oversight by their CO as they're basically not doing anything.) Maybe they've got 2 separate pieces on our board. It would be a bit weird because they can't really be in 2 places at once. Or maybe there's some other way to solve it.

Overall I'm not saying that having squads that are really good is a problem and that they need to be weakened. No. The fact remains that on the board as it is (as I understand it) 1 battalion can go up against 100 (exaggeration, the point remains) and still win with no disadvantages at all. With this system, one faction in theory can have a 'god' squad and win even if the opposing faction has an unlimited number of slightly less skilled squads. When in a situation with any amount of Battle field tactics this would be the worst possible decision to make. The one would get slaughtered every single time, no questions asked. That, my friends, is what I think needs to be fixed, before there is a problem like it. (Yes war directors would stop this from happening. I know, but the exploit is still there.)

- - - Updated - - -

Having the odds give out more cash would only serve to have the winning team get more money. Thus being able to do more by following an example of attacking a strategically disadvantageous position, but still winning. It promotes bad leadership decisions.

@Max
The system as it is now is only faulty when there is a skill gap. If it were luck based, as this seems to be designed, it would be more fair and balanced, but then we would probably not be playing Halo then, we would be rolling dice.

[bazongaman502]

you cant restrict people from playing... we keep telling our members they will play every sunday if they can make it... If we take our words away from that, you will see a serious drop in participation.

Good idea, and i do like it, but there is no way this will work without any affect on anybody

i have to say no

[bazongaman502]

@Max
The system as it is now is only faulty when there is a skill gap. If it were luck based, as this seems to be designed, it would be more fair and balanced, but then we would probably not be playing Halo then, we would be rolling dice.

To fix the skill gap it is up to the FM/HC/Officers of each army. That is one point of the job. You cant expect people to jump on board with this because of an army issue.

There is a big skill gap, but look at who BLUE just got... Myth, Metkil, Mede, ect. When halo 4 comes out, you will find more... thats the point of recruiting.

Yes, REDD may still hold the advantage, but anyone can be beat. (I know i keep mentioning them) When Zulu was a power force in REDD back at the start of the Reach Wars, Dark Rain was created in BLUE. On week 2 of its exsistance, they beat Zulu... the members of that group where basically new recruits that joined the week before Dark Rain was created.

In order to fix the skill gap, you need to recruit and improve as a team and not as an individual like most think they will need to. Most people when they see Guzzie on the other team, they basically say "We Lost" (i admit, iv done that). But he is 1 person surrounded with skilled players. VbD can be beat (BLUE nearly did it last war), Resistance can be beat (BLUE did beat them), Blue Phenoix can be beat, Blue Barets can be beat, etc. Its about the leadership and knowing how to improve all together rather then by themselfs. Most of these "God Squads" are just a bunch of guys that play together every-single-day and know how to work together... you cant just throw a squad together and expect them to beat a team full of close friends.

The skill gap needs to be fixed within the army, not outside of it... and if it is needed for an outside source of that army (REDD helps BLUE, BLUE helps REDD) we need to help each other... but not have it where it prevents certin groups from playing each week.

[Rokkman X]

Why would any number of squads not be in a fight somewhere? If their mere presence is helping tip the scales in their army's favor, why would they not be fighting? That would be absurd.

How about random draws determine where a garrison is on each controlled map and those garrisons represent a squad, but it can't move. Or maybe they can be switched, but a garrison must be maintained on every map on the board at all times. Then in addition, a squad also has 'away teams' or 'drop points' that represent capable transport to their attack destination. That way each team is attacking each time and may need to defend as well. This brings up another consideration as well, this team is always tasked with the defense of this point, they would know and be more efficient at playing this particular map.

[SuRroundeD By 1]

Well, then we would need a way to make it so that all of the squads are very likely to participate in combat every week. (Other than the fact that if they didn't participate, it would be an extreme oversight by their CO as they're basically not doing anything.) Maybe they've got 2 separate pieces on our board. It would be a bit weird because they can't really be in 2 places at once. Or maybe there's some other way to solve it.

Overall I'm not saying that having squads that are really good is a problem and that they need to be weakened. No. The fact remains that on the board as it is (as I understand it) 1 battalion can go up against 100 (exaggeration, the point remains) and still win with no disadvantages at all. With this system, one faction in theory can have a 'god' squad and win even if the opposing faction has an unlimited number of slightly less skilled squads. When in a situation with any amount of Battle field tactics this would be the worst possible decision to make. The one would get slaughtered every single time, no questions asked. That, my friends, is what I think needs to be fixed, before there is a problem like it. (Yes war directors would stop this from happening. I know, but the exploit is still there.)

- - - Updated - - -

Having the odds give out more cash would only serve to have the winning team get more money. Thus being able to do more by following an example of attacking a strategically disadvantageous position, but still winning. It promotes bad leadership decisions.

@Max
The system as it is now is only faulty when there is a skill gap. If it were luck based, as this seems to be designed, it would be more fair and balanced, but then we would probably not be playing Halo then, we would be rolling dice.

Well, the reason that one battalion can go up against five and crush them (you already discussed it at Max), is because the community still strives to be skill based. Personally, I'm not the most skilled player out there, any one will tell you, Fuzzy's better than me (although I think I'm catching up on him), Guzzies better than me, AfterShocK, etc. Again, personally, I'm always striving to get better and better and better, I don't believe that there is a wall that people get stuck at when it comes to video games, I think skill can be learned, it just takes time and practice.

Now the reason I just ranted a little about skill, is because that if Forerunner Conflict's combat were anything but (mostly) skill based I probably wouldn't be as excited to play. In my opinion, the skilled army should win, whether its individual skill that takes it or the way an army that works perfectly together that takes it, the most skilled army should win. Some people might call me a hypocrite, since I've never actually lost a war during my stay at Forerunner Conflict, but my point still stands. When we hit Halo 4, if Blue is the better prepared and more skilled Army, they should start winning games. It's all about getting better, and FC is definitely a place to get that done. I would be extremely disappointed if we stopped doing our traditional wars and started playing in a way that was more realistic, but less skill based.

So, in my opinion, even if the odds were 1:100, if the army with the 1 is the better army, they should win.

EDIT: Well . . . maybe the other army could get a few advantages when they greatly outnumber the other army. Maybe a few automatic wins? As long as it isn't impossible to still win the map. There should be pro's for outmaneuvering or being the army that has a better strategist. If what Max says is true and he did out do us every battle night in terms of strategy, that maybe Blue should have had some more advantages during the last war, but they shouldn't be huge ones imo.

[Rokkman X]

They wouldn't be the better army if they were sent in with those odds. Therefore they should not win. They may be more skilled but this is a level playing field with uneven playing field mechanics. One side should get actual advantages if the circumstances are just so, conversely the advantages should be taken away if careful consideration is taken to prevent such losses.
The way it is now, the battles are dice rolls on a risk board. If the skill gap is anything but minimal across the board there will be balance issues that arise.

Although I do agree that skill can be acquired. (Knowledge+Practice=Skill .)