How to implement multi in conquest?

[Fips]

First of all, for those who don't know what conquest is, here's how it works:
Map makers set flags/spawns for separate flag layers now. Meaning you have to take layer 1 completely before you can move on to the next layer. Layers can consist of as many flags as the maker wants to. So the combinations are kinda endless here. 10 Flags for layer 1 and then just 1 for layer 2, whereas layer 3 can have 20, whatever, anything's possible. Defenders win by successfully defending at least ONE flag until the end of the round. Attackers have to take ALL of the flags to win the round.


But here's the problem: Conquest maps are huge. They can take up to 60 minutes depending on what the map seems to need and right now you only get multi if you actually win the map, so implementing maps longer than 10 minutes is probably gonna cause a lot of rage and it's unfair to the players. Here's where Urist comes in, because he might implement a way to gain/lose multi, but for that it needs to be doable from a coders perspective, it needs to be balanced around the xp/gold gain that every other gamemode has and as simple as possible.

So here's what i came up with.

Conquest will get a timer. Attackers gain multi by capturing a flag within it and lose their multi if they don't. Defenders get multi if they defend all flags of the current layer until it runs out and lose if a flag gets captured.
Sounds simple enough, but has one bigass problem, how long the timer should be. Currently, as a defender, you can get x5 within 28 minutes of playtime and attackers can do that within 10. But conquest can't be balanced around those numbers because auto balance does not happen as often. If the timer is set at 5 minutes for example, on the big maps defenders are unable to gain x5 in under 20 minutes because there is no chance to get autobalanced to attackers within that time frame. Unfortunately with this method, defenders only gain multi by time whereas attackers can gain it by the number of flags. So there need to be limitations.

Let's say the timer is set to a 7th of the round time. On maps that last about 25-30 minutes this seems nice enough, because defenders could gain multi every 4 minutes but are more likely to lose it because there are more flags to defend. Attackers will get it whenever a flag has been taken and a map of 30 minutes is probably going to have around 5-10 maps, so x5 should be no problem if fast enough. But with a map that takes 60 minutes, defenders would get a HUGE disadvantage by this, because there will be more flags to be captured by attackers, plenty more, and defenders can only gain multi every 8 minutes. On the other hand, when a map lasts only 10 minutes, attackers can only take like 2 flags and defense could get multi every 1 minute and ~30 seconds.
So, setting a minimum for the timer of around 4 minutes and a maximum of 7 minutes (the current value) seems to be okay.
But it's not okay =D
Problem with multi in conquest is the variability of maps. A 10 minute map can have only 2 flags to be captured or can have 5 if the map is built like that. So either way, not implementing the amount of flags in the timer can be a big problem. It also could not be if the maps are set around a certain time/flag relation. But i don't want to do that because it limits the map makers, plus it will be a trial&error solution in the end.
(Can i just say that the idea sounded a lot better in my head than when i am writing it down right now?! ~_~")

Multi timer = roundtime/X - flagsum/Y

Actually, let me just work with 2 examples now, maybe this will clear things up a little bit, this post seems way too chaotic currently.

Example 1: 15 Minute map. 2 Layers, with 2 flags each. 4 flags.
Example 2: 60 Minute map. 5 Layers. Each layer having 4 flags with the exception of the last one, which only has one. Sums up to 17 flags.

Let's set X at 7 like i mentioned above and Y at 50, because why not.

MultiEx1= 15/7 - 4/5 (=1.3 minutes)
MultiEx2= 60/7 -17/5 (=5.2 minutes)

For example 1 the limitation would kick in and set the timer to 4 minutes, example 2 would be untouched by it.
This means defenders can get x5 on ex1 and x12 on ex1. Attackers can get x5 on ex1 and x18 on ex2.

While example 1 seems to be okay with the numbers above and it's limits, example 2 clearly is not.



And i will just stop here, because i suck at math and in general and my brainfart is over now. This is just what i came up with that sounded kinda good in my head. Now i want you guys to think how to either alter my idea in a way that makes this stuff balanced or just come up with a whole new idea!
Have fun, lol.

[San]

Didn't fully read the last few paragraphs yet, but maybe multi just isn't that compatible with the mode. When things become too complex, that's a good indication that it either won't work well or would be difficult. What's wrong with a flat x2 or x3 with extra bonuses based on what you accomplish?

[Algarn]

Multi isn't only wrong with conquest, it's wrong with the mod. Devs promised another reward system, but you know ... ETA : december 2010.

[sjarken]

New gamemode! Cant w8, maybe servers will get filled again

[Utrakil]

Stay simple: multi every 6min. If your archieved score in this 6 min is higher than 140%  of your team's average you gain multi.
if your score is under 60% of your team's average you loose multi.
inbetween your multi stays.
tada my brainfart!

[Taser]

Didn't fully read the last few paragraphs yet, but maybe multi just isn't that compatible with the mode. When things become too complex, that's a good indication that it either won't work well or would be difficult. What's wrong with a flat x2 or x3 with extra bonuses based on what you accomplish?

This.

TBH when conquest was on siege. I played siege a ton more even with a shitty multi. It was fun and that was enough.

But people like their multi so.. I understand the issue. People always GTX as an attacker if they had x1 on conquest.

However you guys set it up.. do it soon so I can do conquest on NA 2. Siege is fun as well but no body plays it to the point that losing 1 or 2 people on siege makes it die if there's a decent amount of people playing.

[Krex]

Yeah,keep multi out of it.
Also,is conquest going to be on a new server and we keep siege on eu2?On the one hand I hope so,because...multi,you know?
On the other hand,the playerbase is already small enough and I dont want it to split up between eu2 and cunquest-siege with 30 people isnt that much fun and I dont bleieve conquest is...

[Kato]

or just change multi system a little. Something simple but motivating, like attackers start on x1 and gained multi for every flag and defenders start on x5 and lose multi for every lost flag. One 30 minute round is enough so map change after. It could be fun then...

[San]

NA2 is pretty much having a decent 10v10 going on, a few people leave (usually non-banner) making it 7v10 or worse for much of the next round. Situation cascades resulting in an empty server. EU2 is more fun with the higher ping. Don't think many people would complain much about experimenting on NA2.

[Fips]

Yes, multi sucks, but that's just the way it is and obviously it won't change in the near future, so multi definitely has to be implemented in the way it is now.
Only implementing score is bad for siege and especially conquest. There are enough tincans spamming around fishing for points as it is, rewarding people to wear a ton of armor is not good imo. Even just a constant x2.5 with score on top of it will do that. There's a whole lot more to think of when getting rid, even partial, of the multi system. That's why noone's done it yet =D

Personally i couldn't care less if i had constant x1 on conquest, because i'd just play it for the mode itself and not to grind, but yeah, you can't implement such a mode without getting the players rewards in form of multi.


@Taser:Conquest is basically a siege map with a certain prop in it. Once the game recognizes the prop it switches to conquest, so yes, it'll be on EU2/NA2.
@Ultrakil: Too unfair to the already highly disadvantaged new players or lowlevels.

[Pue_]

You can take conquest into to siege rotation on eu2. So you dont split the guys. Maybe after 2 maps siege you can play 1 map conquest.
I hope conquest will come back. It is a nice mod for crpg and a lot of fun.

[Krex]

You can take conquest into to siege rotation on eu2. So you dont split the guys. Maybe after 2 maps siege you can play 1 map conquest.
I hope conquest will come back. It is a nice mod for crpg and a lot of fun.

For that you would have to change the gamemode from siege to conquest/conquest to siege,but that should be possible for the devs...
Thats a pretty good idea,but the problem is,that those,who dont like conquest,will just leave the server.
Well,we should just test it,maybe for 2-3 days when this is finished.

[Alaire]

What could be done for conquest multiplier would be to make each flag worth one multiplier. Each time an opposing side gained a flag(or successfully captured a point) that side would gain a multiplier(or the equivalent of).
(so if 5 flags, x5 each flag worth x1, 2 flags still is x5, each is worth 2.5x).

Benefits:
Keeps interest on the defense, the defense could automatically start out with a x5.
Gives incentive for defenders to guard all the spots, without the need of time.
Takes out most of the time factor for giving multies.

Cons:
Ugly amounts of experience at certain points in time(i.E. 3 flags) x1.33 per flag. Gets kind of sketchy with many many flags in general.
Stalling once both teams achieve a decent multiplier. --> to prevent, re balance swap players every(10-20 minutes?) sort of works.
Defense has a possibility of getting more experience than offense? If defends well for long period of time. 
Does not necessarily bias any team...(unless everyone on defense is a pro and the offense gets nowhere)  --> to prevent, re balance swap players every(10-20 minutes?)


Conditions:   #conditions which could cause people to give up and lose? Could just have automatic switch sides if win on defense.
For carrying over, the max would be remain a x5.
If attackers win, switched to defense, would already start with a x5.
If attackers win, stay on attacker side, keep x5.
Attackers lose, switched to defense, gain a x5.
Attackers lose, stay on attacking, stay at x1.
Defenders win, no switch, would already start with x5.
Defenders win, switch, start with x5.
Defenders lose, would start with x5.       #
Defenders lose, switch offense, start with x1. 

Valour could happen over a certain time period. If over a 10 minute span of fighting, they did whatever it takes to earn valour, they could get a bonus multiplier regardless of which side they're on adding a x1 as it usually does. After another 10 minutes, if that person did not earn it again, it would revert back to the "normal" multiplier scheme depending on which side the person is on.

I could have miss-typed something, but overall, this seems to me like a viable solution to the problem.
Also, there would be lots of EXP... mainly for defense if they are solid. Tics could still be every minute, similar to battle server.
Thoughts?

Edit: Realized this may not be extremely good for attackers for larger maps in the beginning, but viable for smaller maps. Page of semi brainfarts.
Thinking about it more... confusing myself a bit I'll just cross that out, leave it there let you guys think about it some

[Taser]

What could be done for conquest multiplier would be to make each flag worth one multiplier. Each time an opposing side gained a flag(or successfully captured a point) that side would gain a multiplier(or the equivalent of).
(so if 5 flags, x5 each flag worth x1, 2 flags still is x5, each is worth 2.5x).

Benefits:
Keeps interest on the defense, the defense could automatically start out with a x5.
Gives incentive for defenders to guard all the spots, without the need of time.
Takes out most of the time factor for giving multies.

Cons:
Ugly amounts of experience at certain points in time(i.E. 3 flags) x1.33 per flag. Gets kind of sketchy with many many flags in general.
Stalling once both teams achieve a decent multiplier. --> to prevent, re balance swap players every(10-20 minutes?) sort of works.
Defense has a possibility of getting more experience than offense? If defends well for long period of time. 
Does not necessarily bias any team...(unless everyone on defense is a pro and the offense gets nowhere)  --> to prevent, re balance swap players every(10-20 minutes?)


Conditions:   #conditions which could cause people to give up and lose? Could just have automatic switch sides if win on defense.
For carrying over, the max would be remain a x5.
If attackers win, switched to defense, would already start with a x5.
If attackers win, stay on attacker side, keep x5.
Attackers lose, switched to defense, gain a x5.
Attackers lose, stay on attacking, stay at x1.
Defenders win, no switch, would already start with x5.
Defenders win, switch, start with x5.
Defenders lose, would start with x5.       #
Defenders lose, switch offense, start with x1. 

Valour could happen over a certain time period. If over a 10 minute span of fighting, they did whatever it takes to earn valour, they could get a bonus multiplier regardless of which side they're on adding a x1 as it usually does. After another 10 minutes, if that person did not earn it again, it would revert back to the "normal" multiplier scheme depending on which side the person is on.

I could have miss-typed something, but overall, this seems to me like a viable solution to the problem.
Also, there would be lots of EXP... mainly for defense if they are solid. Tics could still be every minute, similar to battle server.
Thoughts?

I would agree that this would work just fine. But with conquest you can have like 20 flags if you wanted. Depending on the map and what you go with. I imagine most maps would have 10 or less though.

Can't know if it doesn't work this way or another unless we try it eh? LET'S DO DIS.

[Kafein]

Keep the system as it is, just change the limits. If multi can only vary between e.g. x2 and x3, long rounds are not a problem.

By the way, this simple modification would hugely improve the reward system with any game mode.