After playing Company of Heroes so much for the past 2 years or so I have really come to like the Victory Point system used for standard auto-match online play. I think that the idea behind it is great and it really allows a strategy game to focus more on the battlefield rather than the opposition's base. I was thinking about seeing such a game mode in BZ2 today, and I think it could prove to make strategy games fairly interesting.
For those who have never played CoH (or Dawn of War II now. It is also very similar to how the Battlefield games work) the VP system works by having the two opposing teams start out with a certain number of VPs at the start of a game that is predetermined at the start of the match. On the map there are a certain number of capture-able points that when captured by a player comes under his ownership. If one side has more of these points than his enemy does then his enemy's VPs will start to slowly deplete themselves. The more VPs under your control the faster your opponent's points will deplete, until eventually when either side hits 0 victory points they will lose the match.
So lets say for example this was implemented in BZ2 and you played a VP ST game on Dunes. Say there are 3 VPs on the map, 1 near the center pool in the middle and 2 others on the far sides of the middle area of the map. The host decided to set the VPs at 500 points. The game would generally function normally as a non VP game, although now your focus is to keep control over the map not just for the resource benefits from the extra pools but also for the win as well. So let's say you want to get an early advantage on victory points for the game. Now there is a decision that you must make as the player; Should I head out to capture one or two VPs and try to take the point lead? If I do then my Scavengers might be left open for attack, and an early resource setback could cost me the game. However, the point advantage could really pay off if this turns out to be a close match. You could also sit tight and defend for the time being, not capping VPs early in the game may put you at a disadvantage in points but you will also have more resources to put together an early offensive. (Assuming that your opponent is spending his scrap on defending his points, otherwise you could just run in and capture them unopposed)
Depending on how many VPs a player controls would control how fast the other side loses their points. If I only have 1 point in my control then the ticker goes down pretty slow. However having 2 points would increase this, and having 3 points would start to really put a strain on the other team, it could even be devastating to their point value if they are low as it is. The enemy's control over the VPs also has an effect on the ticker as well though. If we both only have 1 in our control and the 3rd is too much of a hot spot for either of us to capture it then the ticker stays the same as if we both had zero. Also if my opponent had 2 points in his possession I could still slow down my point loss by holding onto the 3rd VP treating the countdown ticker as if he only had 1 VP under his control.
Now how exactly would this work best in BZ2? Here a few ideas I would suggest:
- Bases need to be tougher to crack: The general idea of playing a VP game would be to keep the focus of combat away from the bases and onto the battlefield. Recyclers would probably have some kind of early defense system that would crush most light attacks. Other methods should be applied too, maybe harder to destroy buildings? Or stronger defenses? Aside from what needs to be changed, the idea would be that going for the base kill is generally very risky; While you are hammering away at the base, your enemy could just sweep through the map and cap all the VPs, and if your base assault gets crushed you will be at a considerable disadvantage. Raids on the base to kill power/unit production or on extractors should still be a viable tactic but to totally annihilate the base should not be a viable strategy unless you have a considerable advantage over your opponent.
- VPs would be capturable by players and AI units: A VP could generally be anything depending on the map. Generally an object that the map DLL would recognize and transfer ownership to the player who is able to stay there unopposed for a certain amount of time. It could be a building, a ruin, or a wrecked unit, heck it could just be one of those flagpoles from CTF
. It could be more interesting to see different objects as VPs, it actually makes you feel like you are fighting over important stuff. As long as you or some of your units can stay at a VP for say 5 seconds or so and no enemy units are nearby then it is yours for the taking.
- There should be a limit to how hard you can put up defenses at VPs: VPs shouldn't be a race to who can get there and build more GTs at that spot than the other guy. Perhaps the terrain by VPs should only allow for 1 or 2 GTs if any at all. (although with no GTs at all there may be a need for more defensive types of units)
It is still a pretty rough idea in my head for BZ2 implementation although I think it would make an interesting new game mode to add a twist to BZ2 ST games. Players will have to use different strategies in order to be victorious and there are a lot more opportunities for a turnaround. Resource management, teching, and unit placement/tactics will play a deciding factor for the winner. I think that this could be a really interesting idea to put into practice in the BZ2 world. Please let me know your opinions on such an idea, and of course any suggestions and ideas are welcome too! If it would work out properly and be fun to play, perhaps it is something the CP could look into as a feature.
For those who have never played CoH (or Dawn of War II now. It is also very similar to how the Battlefield games work) the VP system works by having the two opposing teams start out with a certain number of VPs at the start of a game that is predetermined at the start of the match. On the map there are a certain number of capture-able points that when captured by a player comes under his ownership. If one side has more of these points than his enemy does then his enemy's VPs will start to slowly deplete themselves. The more VPs under your control the faster your opponent's points will deplete, until eventually when either side hits 0 victory points they will lose the match.
So lets say for example this was implemented in BZ2 and you played a VP ST game on Dunes. Say there are 3 VPs on the map, 1 near the center pool in the middle and 2 others on the far sides of the middle area of the map. The host decided to set the VPs at 500 points. The game would generally function normally as a non VP game, although now your focus is to keep control over the map not just for the resource benefits from the extra pools but also for the win as well. So let's say you want to get an early advantage on victory points for the game. Now there is a decision that you must make as the player; Should I head out to capture one or two VPs and try to take the point lead? If I do then my Scavengers might be left open for attack, and an early resource setback could cost me the game. However, the point advantage could really pay off if this turns out to be a close match. You could also sit tight and defend for the time being, not capping VPs early in the game may put you at a disadvantage in points but you will also have more resources to put together an early offensive. (Assuming that your opponent is spending his scrap on defending his points, otherwise you could just run in and capture them unopposed)
Depending on how many VPs a player controls would control how fast the other side loses their points. If I only have 1 point in my control then the ticker goes down pretty slow. However having 2 points would increase this, and having 3 points would start to really put a strain on the other team, it could even be devastating to their point value if they are low as it is. The enemy's control over the VPs also has an effect on the ticker as well though. If we both only have 1 in our control and the 3rd is too much of a hot spot for either of us to capture it then the ticker stays the same as if we both had zero. Also if my opponent had 2 points in his possession I could still slow down my point loss by holding onto the 3rd VP treating the countdown ticker as if he only had 1 VP under his control.
Now how exactly would this work best in BZ2? Here a few ideas I would suggest:
- Bases need to be tougher to crack: The general idea of playing a VP game would be to keep the focus of combat away from the bases and onto the battlefield. Recyclers would probably have some kind of early defense system that would crush most light attacks. Other methods should be applied too, maybe harder to destroy buildings? Or stronger defenses? Aside from what needs to be changed, the idea would be that going for the base kill is generally very risky; While you are hammering away at the base, your enemy could just sweep through the map and cap all the VPs, and if your base assault gets crushed you will be at a considerable disadvantage. Raids on the base to kill power/unit production or on extractors should still be a viable tactic but to totally annihilate the base should not be a viable strategy unless you have a considerable advantage over your opponent.
- VPs would be capturable by players and AI units: A VP could generally be anything depending on the map. Generally an object that the map DLL would recognize and transfer ownership to the player who is able to stay there unopposed for a certain amount of time. It could be a building, a ruin, or a wrecked unit, heck it could just be one of those flagpoles from CTF
. It could be more interesting to see different objects as VPs, it actually makes you feel like you are fighting over important stuff. As long as you or some of your units can stay at a VP for say 5 seconds or so and no enemy units are nearby then it is yours for the taking.- There should be a limit to how hard you can put up defenses at VPs: VPs shouldn't be a race to who can get there and build more GTs at that spot than the other guy. Perhaps the terrain by VPs should only allow for 1 or 2 GTs if any at all. (although with no GTs at all there may be a need for more defensive types of units)
It is still a pretty rough idea in my head for BZ2 implementation although I think it would make an interesting new game mode to add a twist to BZ2 ST games. Players will have to use different strategies in order to be victorious and there are a lot more opportunities for a turnaround. Resource management, teching, and unit placement/tactics will play a deciding factor for the winner. I think that this could be a really interesting idea to put into practice in the BZ2 world. Please let me know your opinions on such an idea, and of course any suggestions and ideas are welcome too! If it would work out properly and be fun to play, perhaps it is something the CP could look into as a feature.
