Community Clash Season 1 – Lane or Single Base Combat Format?

ReachCast · 2013-11-07, 08:38 AM

Per the Community Clash meeting last night I would like to pose the following question to the community and get your feedback on what you think would be a more entertaining and enjoyable combat format for the outfits involved as well as those watching for the coming Season 1 ladder.
Side Note: The coming Community Clash season with be played in a 24v24 format ( My thanks to the community for providing their feedback on this subject in a previous post) http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/c...4v24_or_48v48/

1. Lane Format The two competing outfits would each start the round/half with two bases in a five base lane. The fifth center base would be neutral to the two competing factions and the scoring system would revolve around capturing and defending as many bases as possible in the lane during the round/half.
e.g. Outfit 1 owns Mani and Mani Lake. Outfit 2 owns Freyr and Freyr Geothermal. The fifth central neutral base would be Aurora Materials. Each side attempts to capture and hold as many bases in the lattice lane as possible during the half and then they switch sides.

2. Single Base Format
The two competing outfits would start each round/half with a home base connected to a three point base. The central three point base would be neutral and the scoring system would revolve around capturing and holding as many points of that base as possible during each round/half.
e.g. Outfit 1 owns Granite Valley Garrison as their home base. Outfit 2 owns East Hills Checkpoint as their home base. Each attempts to capture and hold as many of the points at Splitpeak Pass as possible during the round/half and then switch home bases.
Thank you as always to everyone in the community providing feedback. It helps us better form an event that you will all enjoy participating in and watching.

NewSith · 2013-11-07, 12:00 PM

Option one with one exception:

If we want there to be a bit of strategy involved, I would include 2 middle bases into the lane instead of 1, so it's not linear capture.

PS Since you are not basing victory on territory ownership and instead base it on captures even number of bases is applicable, imo.

EDIT: What a baddy I am for not reading the "e.g."s. Does that mean you don't intend to do the season on Nexus?

Shamrock · 2013-11-08, 05:55 AM

Anyone that played WoW and raided hardcore knows what an absolute nightmare it is to co-ordinate the actions of 40+ people over team-speak, 24 is just so much more manageable.

jollytraveller · 2013-11-08, 02:39 PM

Any chance of running an Infantry only 12v12 ladder? Located at a balanced base (e.g. Octagon or Esamir Munitions) with one AMS for each faction parked either side of the base which is used simply as a terminal and muster point.

Rules are no respawns allowed until the round is over, revives allowed, all infantry classes allowed, last team standing wins the round.

It's easy to set up, is more balanced than any other format of competition in this game, loads of outfits will be able to field a 12 man team and it's huge fun.

robocpf1 · 2013-11-08, 08:23 PM

I think a lane would be preferable to a single base, for 24v24. The tug-of-war mechanic is nice for that, and gives a more varied style of play. I agree with the poster above who suggested multiple neutral bases, except with the caveat that if you only have a couple of cameras, it's harder to keep track of all the action.
Teams should be able to have some ability to make "strategic" choices on a bigger scale than simply which capture point to attack, but that needs to be balanced with the ability to cast the match. I think ideally the fighting should be focused at a handful of locations, with the teams' ability to select and play those locations making a huge impact on success or failure, if that makes sense.

Mastachief · 2013-11-08, 08:56 PM

A lane would be best IMO. 24v24 would still allow for combined arms in this format.

Blynd · 2013-11-09, 06:02 AM

Lane would be better as it allows the use of fall back and dig in tactics to smash an attacker and thus then allo the push forward.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-11-09, 11:38 AM

I think for 24v24 a single lane would be best.

I would take another step and allow only NS weapons. I understand that allowing only ns weapon systems deletes a few components from the competition. This kind of limitation would make for a far more ballanced match between the factions.

Blynd · 2013-11-10, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I think for 24v24 a single lane would be best.

I would take another step and allow only NS weapons. I understand that allowing only ns weapon systems deletes a few components from the competition. This kind of limitation would make for a far more ballanced match between the factions.

I think that only allowing ns gear is wrong. You eliminate max's from the fights to start with plus all the mbt's and esf's that can't be used either

Infact its insanely restrictive.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-11-10, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Blynd

I think that only allowing ns gear is wrong. You eliminate max's from the fights to start with plus all the mbt's and esf's that can't be used either

Infact its insanely restrictive.

Well yes it is restrictive. By not allowing maxes means there wont be that natural max advantage that the vs get.

MBTs and ESF should be allowed but there numbers have to be kept in check. I think for a 24v24 you should only be allowed to have 2 dedicated esf pilots.

Using ns weapons only would bring balance to an imbalanced system. I want to see skill, tactics, strategy win battles. I dont want to see hordes of esf spawn camping points for 30 minutes.

Using ns weapons in competition would allow everyone the same foundation to compete from.

Omnimon · 2013-11-10, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by ReachCast

Per the Community Clash meeting last night I would like to pose the following question to the community and get your feedback on what you think would be a more entertaining and enjoyable combat format for the outfits involved as well as those watching for the coming Season 1 ladder.
Side Note: The coming Community Clash season with be played in a 24v24 format ( My thanks to the community for providing their feedback on this subject in a previous post) http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/c...4v24_or_48v48/

1. Lane Format The two competing outfits would each start the round/half with two bases in a five base lane. The fifth center base would be neutral to the two competing factions and the scoring system would revolve around capturing and defending as many bases as possible in the lane during the round/half.
e.g. Outfit 1 owns Mani and Mani Lake. Outfit 2 owns Freyr and Freyr Geothermal. The fifth central neutral base would be Aurora Materials. Each side attempts to capture and hold as many bases in the lattice lane as possible during the half and then they switch sides.

2. Single Base Format
The two competing outfits would start each round/half with a home base connected to a three point base. The central three point base would be neutral and the scoring system would revolve around capturing and holding as many points of that base as possible during each round/half.
e.g. Outfit 1 owns Granite Valley Garrison as their home base. Outfit 2 owns East Hills Checkpoint as their home base. Each attempts to capture and hold as many of the points at Splitpeak Pass as possible during the round/half and then switch home bases.
Thank you as always to everyone in the community providing feedback. It helps us better form an event that you will all enjoy participating in and watching.

Question with #1 /#2 . How could that work ? You'd need to have a boarder with all 3 empires within 1-2 hexes. Empire boarders like that aren't common at all if any at times. Even if they were, they usually end up in places that often occur the most (ie, crown / xroads, etc ) . Unless there was SOE ADMIN support for this ( ala they can change the base to be neutral ) this is going to be tough to pull off.

Rather if possible,I'd propose something else. Say 2 empires fight it out, but whoever takes the enemy's base first wins that " Round" . Have a best of 5 or best of 10, etc.

But a few major changes ( versus how MLG is setup) :

1) Oufits are given 5-10 minutes to setup . Neither side is allowed to engage but both sides are given time to setup base defenses / plan attacks. No warpgate camping within 1-2 hexes during the match at all ( Granted its a tactic , but for the casual observer, this is very boring ) .

2) Once a round is won, the next base HAS to be fought on a different continent . This prevents 1 empire from " starving" if say a base was fought over at Indar between the VS and the TR.

Problem is , the TR have little or no territory on Indar. Thus due to control that's beyond what the 2 teams can influence upon a battle, resources are a huge factor. This would negatively impact the TR because they're already in the " hole" for resource gain. Which will accelerate the steamroll for the VS . I don't think casual viewers want to see lopsided wins .

Also this prevents what I've seen in MLG where an outfit would " precap" as many bases as possible on the continent that outfit would fight on to get a " resources" advantage even before the actual game took place.

3) Need to have 4 observer cams for this unfortunately . 2 to " referee " against warpgate camping . And 2 to see action going on at both bases.

4) If say an outfit breaks the rule by "pre-emptively " engaging another outfit ( ala destroying a lib before the 5-10 min NAP is up ) or they start warpgate camping , those that participated in the kill, are banned from joining the match ( for the duration) again . That outfit would fight with 1 or 2, etc less people . Can't call up reserves . This would prevent " abuse" by having outfits staking jobbers or throwaways so that they would break the rules then have a the real player step in to play the game. Banned players have to stay at the warpgate landing pad(s) . Can't move anywhere,etc. To do so ='s that outfit is DQ'ed .

This does a few things :

1) Increases the amount of " useable" map for such contests. Therefore you have more bases you can choose to fight over/ at .

2) No need to deal with " neutral bases" . I don't know how that could be done without admin intervention . The problem with neutral bases is the fact that unless a 3rd empire owns that base. Such a base is not exactly neutral . Given where the spawn locations are ( this is probable) that whichever empire owns it ( of the 2 competing factions) has an advantage. Even if it goes against the " rules" unless you have multiple . As seen with the recent contests with how MLG is setup and how abuse able such rules are. Using a " neutral " base shouldn't be key.

3) Also this is KISS : Keep It Simple and Stupid. Thus its tougher to screw things up. Casual observers of this game will see how its won ( 1 base was overtaken by the enemy ) , instead of complex scoring rules and such. A round ends when a side loses their " home base" / Attacker obtains enemy home base .

I know this is probably full of holes, but its much more feasible to set this up ( assuming we don't have admin help from SOE) and some drawbacks : ( needs more manpower since referring is involved and this makes matches longer . )

NewSith · 2013-11-10, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Omnimon

Problem is , the TR have little or no territory on Indar. Thus due to control that's beyond what the 2 teams can influence upon a battle, resources are a huge factor. This would negatively impact the TR because they're already in the " hole" for resource gain. Which will accelerate the steamroll for the VS . I don't think casual viewers want to see lopsided wins .

I think your whole line of thoughе is based on you not knowing that Com Clash hosts were given their own private server. I assume the championship is going to take place there.

Fara · 2013-11-11, 06:53 AM

With regards to lattice lane fighting, have you guys watched the Future Crew vs INI Elite fight which happened last night? Round 3 was a lane fight.

Round 3 SCRIM: Future Crew vs Ini Elite, by KidRiot

First 2 rounds for good measure,
Round 1 - Round 2 -

Rolfski · 2013-11-11, 08:49 AM

A 24 vs 24 match on a single base would make it too infantry centric.

My problem with 24 vs 24 matches is already that's its too centric towards infantry only pushes and not so much about combined arms, as is perfectly illustrated in the INI vs FRCW matches.

A single base match would only make this worse.

NewSith · 2013-11-11, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

My problem with 24 vs 24 matches is already that's its too centric towards infantry only pushes and not so much about combined arms, as is perfectly illustrated in the INI vs FRCW matches.

Combined Arms in that particular case would be Infantry fighting indoors and ESF battling it out in the sky. So it would've been just the same, except with more people.