Reverse Tickets -1 reply

Please wait...

{TDB}Chicken

But...Why's the Rum Gone?

50 XP

30th March 2005

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

Maybe this would sound like crazy-talk at EA HQ, but I think that the ticket system needs to be revised desperately. I have no problems with most aspects. Bleed is fine, and ticket counts are for the most part good in most FH1 maps.

Now might I suggest that the way that it all works changes. Instead of your team losing a ticket when you die, it should lose one when you spawn. The map, also, should not end until everyone on a given team is dead, even if your tickets read 0. However, once you have no tickets left, no one is able to spawn. It would make the end of the maps seem more like a "Clean up", like it should be.

The Bleed, would be a more potent thing if it was limiting how many people your team could spawn, hence limiting your fighting capacity.

*I'm sorry if this has been suggested before, i searched a couple of different ways, and each time came up with like 5000 results.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

Interesting idea--not sure if I disagree with your exact model (I'd rather not wait until you hunt down that last sniper, after all, WWII ended despite hundreds of Japanese troops hiding in the Pacific) but I agree that the ticket system, well, sucks.




Jetro

There's a satchel on your tank

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,473 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

I'm not so sure about the cleanup idea, there's going to be smacktards that delay the next round by hiding somewhere obscure.

And limiting how many people could spawn would be rather unfair to the people that are forced to sit and do nothing. Maybe bleed could affect the spawn timer instead.




{TDB}Chicken

But...Why's the Rum Gone?

50 XP

30th March 2005

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

well i might be pushing things here, because I don't know how much the engine can do, but when you hit zero tickets, maybe put a 2-3 minute timer on, then the map ends. I kinda expected that somebody would say something about tards just hiding in obscure places.

If nothing else though, I think the idea of limiting the spawns seems reasonable. I'm sure Hitler would've wanted a couple thousand more troops in Berlin when his Tickets hit 0 as well.




Toekar

Proud to be American

50 XP

21st August 2005

0 Uploads

980 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

I really do like this suggestion. I was thinking about this the other day.. And i am sure our talented devs can do this. Kudos, Chicken.




Komrad_B

Score Monkey

45,850 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

4,500 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago
Now might I suggest that the way that it all works changes. Instead of your team losing a ticket when you die, it should lose one when you spawn.

So if your team has 1 ticket left, and the other team has like 5 but is bleeding (you surely saw rounds finish like this, and know how exciting this situation is), well, you lose if someone connects and join your team? If that happened to me, I think I'd crash my keyboard on the wall.

Now might I suggest that the way that it all works changes. Instead of your team losing a ticket when you die, it should lose one when you spawn. The map, also, should not end until everyone on a given team is dead, even if your tickets read 0. However, once you have no tickets left, no one is able to spawn. It would make the end of the maps seem more like a "Clean up", like it should be.

I don't really see the point of it. The guy remaining will either be hiding somewere like a prick, or he will turn himself over so that the round finally ends (seriously, what can he do? he's certain he will lose unless he can cap all flags alone, and reverse the bleed until the other team loses (all of that alone, without dying)). I see this as a waste of time. Besides, I think an army losing without 100% casualties dead or MIA is a bit retarded. When a game ends in a ticket win, I imagine the losing team either surrendered (when defending) or withdrew (when attacking).

The Bleed, would be a more potent thing if it was limiting how many people your team could spawn, hence limiting your fighting capacity.

Not only would it unbalance all maps, but it would make certain situations completely impossible to overcome. The biggest problem here is that it is the attacking side who is bleeding, so it is the attacking side who needs more troops. Implementing this would make the rounds very linear.

On defensive maps :

Defenders dig in, defender obviously win.

On maps with grey flags :

Team that wins in the 2 first mins of the game (in public server : the team which had the guy or two that spawned first and took a jeep to the furthest flag) wins the round.

The possibility would be to make less people spawn if you bleed your enemy more, but that might cause too much flag hopping, or in certain maps, cause your team NOT to attack! Also, wouldn't it be frustrating to be team switched if a flag changed sides? I won't even talk of the impact such a system would have on organized clan matches, it would be perfectly horrible.




pvt. Allen

I would die without GF

50 XP

20th July 2005

0 Uploads

5,654 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

I compleately agree with Komrad_B. Battles weren't won by murdering every single soldier from the oposing force, but by gaining tactical and strategical advantage, pushing the campaign further.




stylie

Mas stylie por favor...

50 XP

13th April 2005

0 Uploads

5,004 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

I just dont see much of a difference... Lose a ticket when you die? Lose one when you spawn? Same thing, really.




{TDB}Chicken

But...Why's the Rum Gone?

50 XP

30th March 2005

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

stylie;3366293I just dont see much of a difference... Lose a ticket when you die? Lose one when you spawn? Same thing, really.[/quote]

Right.

Komrade_BSo if your team has 1 ticket left, and the other team has like 5 but is bleeding (you surely saw rounds finish like this, and know how exciting this situation is), well, you lose if someone connects and join your team? If that happened to me, I think I'd crash my keyboard on the wall.[/quote]

Only if he spawns. If there's one ticket left and 25 guys waiting for it, I'm sure they could work out some sort of senority.

Komrade_B The possibility would be to make less people spawn if you bleed your enemy more, but that might cause too much flag hopping, or in certain maps, cause your team NOT to attack! Also, wouldn't it be frustrating to be team switched if a flag changed sides? I won't even talk of the impact such a system would have on organized clan matches, it would be perfectly horrible.

I'll explain this a bit further down.

[QUOTE=Komrade_B]Not only would it unbalance all maps, but it would make certain situations completely impossible to overcome. The biggest problem here is that it is the attacking side who is bleeding, so it is the attacking side who needs more troops. Implementing this would make the rounds very linear.

On defensive maps :

Defenders dig in, defender obviously win.

On maps with grey flags :

Team that wins in the 2 first mins of the game (in public server : the team which had the guy or two that spawned first and took a jeep to the furthest flag) wins the round.

I think the problem is that someone suggested limiting enemy spawns by capturing flags. This would not work, and I realise this.....Ok I see what happened. I said that the bleed would limit your spawn. I meant this in a way that every ticket you bleed away is one soldier, not that a given team can't spawn as many people.

A lot of times, defenders do win. You can imagine Kursk, Leningrad, the Moscow Suburbs, Battle of the Bulge.

And you can imagine a bunch of maps where the defenders lose such as Berlin. Berlin is a good example. Give the Russians 1500 tickets and the germans 500. That means germans must kill 3 to 1. Its far from impossible, but at least it presents a challenge to both teams. The Russians would have to overcome these defensive positions knowing that they have superior manpower, while the germans have the strategical and tactical advantages with powerful defensive positions.

This may or may not be to your liking, but in a good number of attacks in history, the attacker has to at least believe that it has the advantage, or else why risk an attack? The attackers on some maps could have just as good a chance as the defenders if given appropriate firepower (planes, tanks, etc). If FH2 is going to be as team oriented as I think it's going to be, then this would play right into the game.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Allen]Battles weren't won by murdering every single soldier from the oposing force, but by gaining tactical and strategical advantage, pushing the campaign further.

Thats why I suggested the 2-3 minute timer once a team has no tickets left. I hate playing a round where a team has 10 tickets left, but the bleed is picking away at the other team until it loses, and all the while, both teams are still fielding 25-30 men. If all of the things I said were put together, it would look good (granted on paper). It would probably take extreme playtesting, but it could be made to work.




Komrad_B

Score Monkey

45,850 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

4,500 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago
Thats why I suggested the 2-3 minute timer once a team has no tickets left. I hate playing a round where a team has 10 tickets left, but the bleed is picking away at the other team until it loses, and all the while, both teams are still fielding 25-30 men. If all of the things I said were put together, it would look good (granted on paper). It would probably take extreme playtesting, but it could be made to work.

What for? I just don't see the point of this. I just don't see the point of extending the misery of the losing team.

Only if he spawns. If there's one ticket left and 25 guys waiting for it, I'm sure they could work out some sort of senority.

He WILL spawn. And his team WILL lose. You have to understand at least half of the players in public servers are mindless robots, you can be sure at least one of them won't think about the tickets and spawn anyways, cause his team to lose its last ticket.

This may or may not be to your liking, but in a good number of attacks in history, the attacker has to at least believe that it has the advantage, or else why risk an attack?

Usually, in FH, the attacking team has much more vehicules, and is bleeding. Number of troops doesn't really affect who attacks and who doesn't.

That means germans must kill 3 to 1.

I predict an horrible round. Seriously, to have a 3 to 1 kdr the germans better be good, and the soviets better be patient. If its "easy" for everyone to kill 3 russians in such a map without dying as germans, then being a russian on this map would be awful, and we can already predict all score whores would obviously go axis. I would support changes in spawntime depending on the team in certain maps, but DO NOT affect the number of soldiers playing at a single time. Also, would you have, say, one less soldier per flag you own, or would that be something like 10% less? Also, wouldn't that restrict needlessly the already restricted number of places in a server? Wouldn't that be stupid, to pay a server a few more dozen bucks a month so that it can hold more people, only it have it not being used at its full capacity? And how fun would it be to be on the waiting end? Let me say in just a few words what I think about all those suggestions : They bring little (I seriously DO NOT see the point in them!), probably aren't even possible to implement and would screw balance out of the window. Perhaps if you would tell me how you can think each of your ideas would affect the game in a good way I would reconsider my opinion, but as it is now, I can't see the good of it, and only the obvious bad things.

StylieI just dont see much of a difference... Lose a ticket when you die? Lose one when you spawn? Same thing, really.

Exactly what I was thinking. Is that just... changing for the sake of changing something?