Part 2 Season 5: Game modes, competition ladders and more

[*DAMN Mauti]

Alright here we go:

For both ladders the 2 won game differences will be removed a "best of" cb will changed to a real "best of" cb, which means in a Best of 7 cb you play at max. 7 games and then the team with the most wins is the winner! Ties will count as well to the 7 games! If you have a tie after the 7 played games the team that wins the next game will be the winner!

First there will be a 1vs1 ladder for R6 and RS with the same rules as the team ladders have. The competition ladder for R6 and RS are unmodified: still Team Survival.

For Ghost Recon we have to think about a competition ladder where camping doesn't have a chance: Siege won't work because one clan has to camp: but Hamburger Hill and the Warzone game mode could be useful: could someone point out the differences between HH and Warzone pls!?

I would love to set a 5min limit and 3 respawns: I know 5mins sound short to recapture the zone but on the other side HH and Warzone are mods that run until the last second of the timer so a 10min time limit would be too long. -> average cb time with chatting and set up between 60 and 80mins with 10min time limit >< 30 - 50mins with 5min time limit. The task would require extremly fast assaulting and securing the hot spot and much more teamwork than Last Man Standing.

Further I could imagine to start a fun siege ladder and a FFA ladder. c| what experiences did you make at your own FFA ladder!? Did it work out? Was the submiting a problem and what happend if players that weren't on the FFA ladder joined a game!?

America's Army probably won't be supported in season 5 but will be added in season 6 once we all know the game better and can decide what game modes we want to play! May GameRanger support will come!? If not we will open the *DAMN BL AA ladder also for PC Players!

I don't think a 1vs1 GR ladder makes much sense but the FFA ladder would also allow 1vs1 cbs.

Further changes in season 5: an autosubmit system: currently we have 2 ideas: Simply a clanmember can submit scores from a cb his clan played and the score appears immediatly at the ladder.

(All players of a clan have to sign up at the BL league and the clan leader adds them to the clan. So the script only allows players to post that are really members of the clan picked by the clan leader. )

Or the other clan/an admin has to confirm the submition first before the cb gets posted to prevent double postings but that would mean we don't have "live" scores.

There will be a minimum requirement of clans to start a competition ladder: at least 10clans have to sign up and play at least 1 cb in the first 2 weeks or the ladder will be autoclosed. If a clan signs up he can choose from many ladders but only the ladders with a minimum interest will finally appear!

You can only join in the first 3 weeks of a season or you have to wait until the next season starts.

If a clan merges you have to start from new: You can only change your clan fullname but not your clantag within the season.

Clanleaders have full control about the claninfo and can also announce co-leaders with resistricted editing functions. If your clan disbands you can selfremove it from the ladders and all members will be clanless again. Members of a clan can retire themselves but not add themselves to a clan.

Each ladder will have highscore stats shown at top like most wins, most season wins,...


That's it for the moment: please add your suggestions and further required rule changes/additions for the different ladders!

Thanks,

Mauti

[†FiRE Infection]

Well I see as an admin with all the new ladders I'm going to have some work to do and maybe a new computer to get into these new games like AA and RvS.  I hope things will become more clear and then I'll make some of my ideas.  I like shortening the season a little but I still think the clans should be able to play the game for a while, that's what they are made for, many RS clans have been around for a couple of years.

I like only having finals for the main games and the other smaller ladders just being for statistics.

[Jeb]

That sounds good,
The difference between War-zone and Hamburger hill is very small. In warzone your job is to control an area for 2 minutes (it might be longer, but i forget), and with hamburger hill the team which has controlled the zone for the longest amount of time total is the winner.

I personally like warzone better, however the maximum timelimit might need to be set higher than 10 minutes because there is a higher chance of draws happening (maybe not because of the lack of a respawn).

[*DAMN Hazard]

About the auto submit thing. Most PC ladders and the BTs ladder have a member of the  winning clan report the match and then the loser has to either confirm or challenge the cb.

I could see the War-zome and Hamburger Hill settings being very fun.

[BTs_eight]

The thing about games like SAR (Search and Rescue) and HH...

Since the fileds are set in the middle... (guys and base)
All you have to do in order to win is to camp out around the edge and shoot everyone till they are dead... You win game regardless of how many points the other team aquired...(or if the other team grabbed 2 of the 3 guys)

If you make a game like HH or SAR 5 minutes you then run the risk of playing on maps like wilderness which neither team would have enough time to rescure all 3 guys... Maybe make it to the middle in HH for like 1 second get shot then its back to the races again...

And Haz... Looser first reports the loss (Adds in which maps played an how many kills per player) then the winner goes in an reports the win adding the maps they won and then each kill per player also a final score count being something like '3-2'

[Mr. Lothario]

     In Hamburger Hill, there is a central base in the map. To control it, a man from your team must be physically in the base at all times. Each second that your team controls the base, you gain one point. The team with the most points at the end of the time limit wins. Killing the entire other team also results in a win.

     In Warzone, there is a central base in the map. To control it, someone from your team only has to tag it (like in Domination). Sitting in it is not required to maintain control. If your team controls the base for three minutes continuously, you win. If control is lost, even for an instant, you must control for another three minutes to win. Killing the entire other team results in a win.

     Hamburger Hill is inferior to Warzone in my eyes. First, HH runs for the entire time limit, unless a team is killed. This often leads to stupid situations where one team has held the base for half the time limit + one second, and so they can't lose, but the game keeps playing. The winning team just has to hide to keep from being eliminated, which means that the last five minutes or so of a HH game are frequently just the loser team running around looking for hidden people. Extremely anticlimactic. On the other hand, winning Warzone is dependent on defensive ability, since if the other team gets a man into the base even for a millisecond, you've got to start your three minutes over. Reversals happen in Warzone, especially when the teams are even (when the teams are uneven in skill, Warzone games usually last three minutes + however long it took the winning team to run to the base). It's usually a very fun and exciting mode to play.

     Ten minutes is needed for Warzone. If the base is held by a team when time runs out, the game is a draw. The shorter the time limit, the more draws will happen. Warzone games that actually take time mean that the teams are evenly matched, because the game ends when somebody has the base for three minutes. If nobody can hold it for three minutes, there's action taking place and the game shouldn't be stopped early because of a time limit.

[*DAMN Mauti]

So warzone would stop after 3mins of defending the zone or killing the other team!?

Should we use respawns for this gametype or not!? I ask because HH and Siege games are always played with at least 3 respawns!

Bye,

Mauti

[c| Splinter]

I personally like having no respawns, it puts more pressure on you to make that life count, and makes you play differently.  If you have multiple spawns, it takes tactics out of the gameplay.  In a regular game, you figure out where the enemy position is, and base your actions upon that by trying to surround them, flank them, etc.  If you have multiple respawns, you can never set up a perimeter due to the fact that the enemy location changes instantly after a kill.

Personally, i like the old fashioned last man standing way of playing.  Sure it gets campy, but so what.  To me CBs are like chess, you plan and move carefully, with an occasional burst of fast activity.  CBs last season on a whole where way faster than in season 3. Out of our 43 CBs, the average CB lasted about a half an hour.  The more skilled the team, the longer the CB was usually, because both teams become more careful, because they know if they make a mistake, then POW, you take one in the head.  But that's what it's all about, THE DRAMA!!!.  hehe.  It makes winning them that much sweeter, and losing them that much harder.

I may be in the minority here, but I would like to see the old way stay, and maybe tack on a warzone ladder in addition.  The warzone ladder does sound exciting though, but it's a different way of playing.  Tactics are different when the objective is to over take a team, versus secure an area.

I've never taken any official polls, but it seemed the large majority of clans that we played had no problems with the LMS style of gameplay.  You're going to have people unhappy with any style of gameplay.  People will surely complain about being robbed if we switch over to warzone (take embassy for example.  The warzone is placed inside the embassy grounds.  Almost every single game that i've seen has been won by the team that got there first.  That embassy is a bitch to try to penetrate).

Anyhow, that's my 2 cents.

[Valdar]

Warzone is usually played with a lot of respawns or infinite respawns. Many respawns is a bad idea with 2 orginized clans facing off. This is because there is probably only 1 superior strategy that is very simple

1. rush into position to cover middle
2. secure your position
3. now either slowly turtle towards the middle or send out lone individuals on suicide missions

Now that is considering you have a map with fair spawns and not many maps do. If one team has a closer distance to the middle than the other, then they can easily just send one person to the middle and then procede to camp their way to victory.

So, this means that the only way you could do it is with 0 respawns. You might be able to do it with 1 respawn, but I too like 0 respawns.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

First,
Loth did a great job of describing Warzone vs HH.  And yes Mauti, if a team controls the warzone for 3 continuous minutes, it ends the game right then, no matter how much time is left.

Second,
I'm not big on respawns, but if we did them in a battle league, I'd want TEAM RESPAWNS, not individual.  Since clans are teams, Team Respawns would be more representative of the actual clan, not just one individual.  I know most people don't like playing with team respawns on, because some random noob uses all the respawns, but in this case, it would be your own clan.  So if you have a death loving rambo noob on your clan, you have to deal with it as a team (both in the game, and afterwards).

Third,
10 minutes is the right time for Warzone.  One some of the bigger maps, you'd never make it back to the zone after one respawn even (if that's the way you go).  5 minute games would just end up with too many draws.

Fourth,
Splinter, I did read and hear lots of complaining about camping.  Everyone hates it (or at least says they do).  Too many LMS games are just who will get the first kill and then out camp the other team.  By adding a goal (like the warzone) to the game, it makes camping not effective (sniping still works though, but you have to get there, not just snipe from 6 inches from where you spawned).

[Mr. Lothario]

     I'm with Splinter regarding not killing the LMS ladder. An additional Warzone ladder would be most welcome (not to mention a Siege ladder), but LMS is The One True CB. : ) Would it work to have the game type be open? That is, have rules for LMS, Warzone, and Siege CBs, then let the CBing clans decide which mode they'll play? A victory is a victory is a victory, I'm thinking, so it shouldn't require an additional ladder(s).

     Warzone requires respawns, in my opinion. In most maps, the location of the warzone is highly defensible (Stronghold and Embassy are the two most obvious examples, but also Wilderness, Vilnius, Tank...), and so whichever team wins the initial footrace to the 'zone can simply set up an impenetrable perimeter and the game will be over in moments as the other team's people try to assault and get picked off. With respawns, the defending team at  least has to work at it.

[Jeb]

also, there needs to be a list of approved maps for play with warzone...

Doing training would be such bullshit with that gametype.

I do like bucc's idea of team respawns. I think it would be fair to give a clan a number of spawns thats half of the amount of people in the cb on one team...
So its a 4v4, there will be 2 extra team respawns for each team. 8v8 would be 4 spawns per team, ect. The only issue is what to do with numbers that aren't divisible by two. There might be some punishment if you are in a 7v7, or an 5v5, i think rounding down is fair enough.

Also, mutliclan cbs would work under this gametype.

[*DAMN Mauti]

About having one LMS, Siege, Warzone ladder: in Austria we have a saying: " Was der Bauer nicht kennt, isst er nicht!" translated "what a pawn doesn't know, he won't eat!". Most clans would stick with LMS simply because they know it.

I personally wouldn't see Warzone replacing LMS it is like extending LMS by an objective! After the discussion I agree with using a 10min time limit. You fight not simply against each other you fight for a hotspot. And once you have occupied it you can leave the hotspot contrary to Hamburger Hill(if I understood your posts about Warzone right). So you have to move fast and straight forward to the hotzone and conquer it. The team that first reaches the location has to defend and secure it while the other team tries to regain control. Ghost Recon isn't a plain team deathmatch game it is made for tactical teamplay and movment and Warzone would support this military pattern. We still can go back if it doesn't work out after season 5 and for season 5 I'll open a fun, non competition, LMS ladder.

About map resistrictions: Siege and Warzone need both a map list. It would be great if someone could post a list of maps he thinks won't work for these gametypes!

About respawns for Warzone: some of you are against it on the other site the first team that reaches the hot spot has for some maps an unfair advantage! Well all in all it is about to capture the hotspot so we have to test Warzone with 0 respawns and 3teamrespawns. The experiences will decide what to use.

Bye,

Mauti

[Mr. Lothario]

     Warzone with no respawns = LMS. Warzone can be won by killing the entire other team, so playing with no respawns will emphasize that strategy. It will be LMS with the added distraction of a central base. Respawns are a must.

[*DAMN Exe1{utioner]

**SK Again**

Hey look a thread called bs ladder, hmmmm mb we should have that on there!

**Changes direction looking at mauti, than elandran, back and forth intill they submit**

[Valdar]

0 respawns is probably ideal. Bucc brought up a good point that in LMS clans would get a kill and then procede to camp the rest of the match. If you play warzone with 0 respawns it has high potential to spice up LMS. The only way to win the game is by either going for the middle and holding it for all 3 minutes, or elimiating ALL the opposition. Warzone would eliminate those who just prefer to camp at their base. I feel that warzone should be played with 0 respawns or not at all. The reason being that once you add even 1 respawn each death has a lot less of a meaning and every action has a lot less risk.

[*DAMN Mauti]

Well as Valdar stated one reason why we change the competition ladder to warzone is to avoid camping and unlike HH it allows to end the game by holding the zone or killing the other team. In my opinion 0 respawns could work out great simply because you still have to move carefully but you are not allowed to move too carefully or the other team captures the zone. On the other hand having 3 TEAMrespawns could be interesting because the team must be careful because the all together have only 3 "extralives" So it isn't that you move completly different because the most uncareful person consumes your teamrespawns...

As said we must test both so if you gonna host some GR games just host some warzone games with 0 respawns and some with 3 teamrespawns!

Bye,

Mauti

[BTs_eight]

Instead of 3 lives how about something like just 1 respawn... kinda like your last chance life? I'm thinking that with 3 respawns on smaller maps your going to get clans bitching at each other for spawn killing...

[*DAMN Mauti]

3 teamrespawns is that the first 3 guys that die get a second chance not that everyone respawns 3times! So spawncamping shouldn't be such a problem - all in all you have to defend your warzone.

I think we have now enough and I can start working on the scripts nevertheless if you have any other inputs post them please.

Regards,

Mauti

[*DAMN Silent Killer]

mauti, are you evan considering the bs laddeR?


-sk