New idea for capture mode

by eihrul on 10/26/2007 06:05, 17 messages, last message: 11/02/2007 12:24, 1390 views, last view: 05/05/2024 19:40

Okay, I was thinking on the fact that I really dislike the whole 10 second wait time in capture. There is also still no real reason to defend a base, other than if you happen to be passing by it and an enemy is taking it, otherwise you're mostly always better off just going and taking one of the enemy's bases eye-for-an-eye style.

So here is the basic idea:
1) get rid of wait times
2) bases no longer store ammo
3) you spawn with less ammo, maybe some pistol ammo and 1 grenade like in SP, or maybe a bit more, but not quite as much as now
4) you recharge your ammo by standing on a base you own (happens automatically), but bases still only recharge a specific type of ammo

This makes the action constant, you are never forced to wait around while dead. You have more incentive to protect bases, and ample reward for doing so. It also reduces the contention of people all trying to take ammo from a base at once since everyone recharges independently. And no more people asking, "How do I get ammo?" and people shouting "Use the R key, noob!"

   Board Index   

#1: ..

by GreyMario on 10/26/2007 07:49

Brilliant, but I still say it should automatically pick up the ammo in normal capture.

reply to this message

#2: ..

by ATIRULE on 10/26/2007 09:58

Still Plan Old Capture the flag would Be Nice to have Capture and hold Is kind of slow!! and get's boring after a While!!

and ,yea i know that You think sauer may be a little to fast paced for it plays well in Q3 arena and that is faster paced than sauer

Please!!! We need More Game modes Could it be option maby We are begging you PLEASE With Suger and honey On top PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE




1 plus 6 = a login system with username and password Would be a plus

reply to this message

#3: ..

by Quin on 10/26/2007 12:19

Yes, yes, and yes again. I hate the respawn delays.

reply to this message

#4: ..

by Julius on 10/26/2007 14:03

I like the idea of ammo reloads (maybe health too? but that has to be carefully balanced to avoid giving the defender too much of a advantage).

I don't see how that would alter the need for a respawn time (which might or might not be needed in capture anyways).

reply to this message

#5: ..

by Julius on 10/26/2007 14:07

P.S.: I always liked the idea of "linking" the bases so that some of them are protected from capture as long as they are only connected to bases of the same team or something like that.

That would give capture a more tactical approach and less random capturing undefended bases all over the map (and also a reason to defend certain KEY bases).

reply to this message

#6: Re: ..

by eihrul on 10/26/2007 16:59, refers to #4

The reason it obviates the respawn time is the enemy starts at a disadvantage, and to reduce his disadvantage he has to go to one of his bases and recharge his ammo. However, during this time he is actively playing, rather than passively waiting.

reply to this message

#7: ..

by SanHolo on 10/26/2007 18:55

Good idea, but I don't see how this will stop people from asking "how to get ammo?". =D
Ok, if you manage to implement this graphically obvious like a big ammo box floating on top of your own bases, this might work.

I think the 10 seconds wait time is important, it stops people from running straight in and shoot like crazy, they (and everyone else) die, and there they go again.
Ok (again), if you have to stand by a base for some time to reload, this somehow compensates if we lose the 10 seconds timeout.

I like your ideas, they might work well.

reply to this message

#8: Re: ..

by SheeEttin on 10/26/2007 21:16, refers to #5

UT's Onslaught?

Sure, why not? Dunno how you'd implement linking with the entity system, though...

reply to this message

#9: ..

by Max of S2D [Fr] on 10/26/2007 21:17

MAX OF S2D [FR] APPROVES

reply to this message

#10: Re: ..

by demosthenes on 10/26/2007 23:48, refers to #2

No, it wouldn't. This is the least spammed forum system I've ever seen, so hold your tongue.

On topic: I like the progressive capturing maps (like those found in TF2 and a few other games) where only two control points are contested at a time. It leads to longer, more linear maps where the width of the map determines player density. These maps have straightforward battling, where one team must push the other all the way back to the last CP and then capture it. You would spawn in the CP behind your frontmost one, or at the back of the map when your last CP is being contested.

It's fun, I swear!

reply to this message

#11: ok

by Aardappel_ on 10/26/2007 23:58

this is in basis certainly a good idea.

- it may be fun if its somehow clearly visible which ammo a certain flag gives, maybe with a larger version of an ammo box permanently floating above the flag, even if its not captured etc.

- regen should be slow enough that you can't fire continuously and never run out, to avoid people standing on a rocket flag and spamming the entire map continuously. Alternatively, maybe make it such that you can only regen N ammo boxes worth of ammo, which resets as soon as you touch a different flag.


- I am not sure if it will really change people to defend more. Effectively, it will make people spend those 10 seconds at the nearest flag, which is an improvement, sure, but after that they will STILL run off and do what they do now. It will help, in the sense that the flags more often have defenders around them, and maybe if the amount of ammo you can get from a flag is low, you are forced to come back often, or visit multiple flags before your attack. If ammo given is low (say 1 box), you can make the ammo regen instant, meaning you can keep moving, replacing waiting for running between owned flags is probably good.

- it may have a bad effect on the "end game". One point of the 10 second delay was that if 1 team does good in killing, it has a big advantage because there are less opponents in play. Also, the whole reason you can capture the last enemy flag is because you can kill the entire team, and now you'll have to contend with the whole team constantly respawning with fresh health at their one flag, and that may be too hard to overtake for the attacking team.

not just the end game, but also the middle game, once you get the flags split halfway (as on the two towers map) the gameplay just becomes and endless respawn and run/spam at the middle fest. the fact that killing someone before removed them from the game gave you the ability to capture. Infact, taking over that middle flag will be hard, and you're constantly under fire, and the flag will be "reset" all the time.

reply to this message

#12: ..

by Passa on 10/27/2007 02:40

"- regen should be slow enough that you can't fire continuously and never run out, to avoid people standing on a rocket flag and spamming the entire map continuously. Alternatively, maybe make it such that you can only regen N ammo boxes worth of ammo, which resets as soon as you touch a different flag."

Maybe it would just be easier to make the capped flags act like weapon lockers in UT2k4?

Anyhow, I think a different scoring system would be great for another capture mode too. Individual scoring that instead encourages teamplay. No points for fragging though, and you get 50% more points if you capture a flag with more than one person or defend a flag (kill an enemy player capturing your flag) with more than one person. Might discourage the monotony of this individual capture play-style that everyone has seemingly adopted.

Forgive me if that makes no sense whatsoever.

reply to this message

#13: Re: ..

by SanHolo on 10/28/2007 12:46, refers to #12

I'd second that. Give points based on "capturing percents", e.g. every time the statusbar slides a bit, one point to the bystanders. Frags could still be displayed in the scoreboard, definitively interesting to see who is playing with what objective.

reply to this message

#14: ..

by }TC{Jorge on 11/01/2007 20:03

Imho there is no need to change Capture mode. What I would consider more important is SanHolo\'s or passa\'s suggestion. One should get points for capturing or defending mainly. Ok, capture is a team-game, but nobody really cares about the team score.

But if you want to do major changes in gameplay (which I don\'t consider a good thing), I\'m totally with Aardappel.
Maybe you automatically get 1 box of ammo when coming to your flag. Then you have to touch another flag to reset, or wait let\'s say 60 seconds.
Getting rid of the 10 seconds waiting would be nice, but also dangerous. With more than 10 players, it might work, but in a 3on3 or 2on2, it would be impossible to get the last flag. The opponent would respawn like 10 times while you\'re trying to capture, even with pistol only he would be able to keep you away from getting the last base.

What does it look like now? Every not-noobish player visits his team\'s bases from time to time to fill up his ammo, so this would stay pretty much the same. And as it is now, the key to win a game is defending your bases. When you defend your base you can (a) refill your ammo (b) kill lot\'s of enemys as they stand at the same place (c) keep the place where you can refill ammo (d) save time, as capturing a red base is difficult and takes a lot of time.
I think if there are mainly ecperienced players in a game, you will see lot\'s of defending action.

Maybe now I\'m speaking of myself only, but sometimes I\'m getting bases in the first 30 seconds of a game, and then switching over to defending these bases for the rest of the time. And I\'m way better off with this tactics, than with running around and kamikazeing.

reply to this message

#15: ..

by Acord on 11/02/2007 06:21

Sauer's biggest strength is it's hyper fast gameplay. This is a good idea because it acknowledges that and removes forced wait times, allowing players to jump into action instead of waiting after they die. The game moves way too fast for tactics to be of any use besides the walk together rock together philosophy.

reply to this message

#16: Re: ..

by yvfc_cebtenzzre on 11/02/2007 12:20, refers to #14

I\'m not suggesting anything be changed, but added.

reply to this message

#17: ..

by yvfc_cebtenzzre on 11/02/2007 12:24

ups - wrong thread - ignore me :p

reply to this message

   Board Index