a slightly better idea...but that would require the computer/server to keep track of who participated in the entire capture/defense of the objective, keep in mind that some of these objectives are quite massive and designed for 100's of players per side to compete over in battles that may take days to resolve EDIT so far weve been shown 2 of the 4 proposed objective sizes (the smaller 2 in fact), so a battle that see's players rotating in and out as their gaming windows elapse is quite possible... eg: you log in and arrive with the first wave of attackers at depot #253, you play for 3 hours attempting to seize it and eventually log out while the objective is still under dispute, you log back in 10hrs later and discover the battle for the objective is still going since other players have maintained the offense/defense while youve been at work/school/sleeping and battle for another 3 hours before logging out again, you log back in 10hrs later and the objective has been captured/defended and the fights moved elsewhere
i think it also would be hard to measure how someoone contributed the most? Kills, "points"? What if someone held the enemy away from the point but didnt kill that much although it was maybe a huge contribution to that. edit: i.e stopping the reinforcement to arrive at the capture point, sop they are away from capture point but contribute to it.
I guess what I'm trying to get across is this... in a PvP enviroment the players themselves are unpredictable and therefore the greatest source of complexity in any system, to balance this what we need in the computer/server mechanics in EC is a mixture of both depth and simplicity, depth enough that it feels like we're doing something both meaningful and enjoyable but simple enough that the computer/server can track and resolve all the actions being undertaken by the players without slowing the whole system down to a crawl
hmm dawn of war trailer is what is in my mind But nice pic Grig do all youtube links need always a mod approval?
The Devs stated bases would take on the faction aesthetic when captured. Perhaps it'll be a gradual thing like what you describe. Banners raising and whatnot. I couldn't imagine the change being instant. That'd just be weird. It would be badass if there were conditions in which a Chapter's, Clan's colors would fly. Considering all we've seen is basically an instanced corridor it's not a good representation of how bases will work in open world. Imagine enemies reinforcing (from three other factions) from behind in the livestream assault. As it is, it could take days to assault that base. Without the time limit of the instanced map, anyway. It doesn't make any sense, to me, for more time to be added to basic actions of point control when the odds are pretty good that shizzit is gonna rage on like AV.
I think we are on exactly the same page here, I just don't see raising your flag to represent a ticking timer important, putting up your banner is something you do after you've conquered the base, not something you do to conquer the base. My point is that it's the flag itself that is the bland idea, by all means hang one once you have control but there are so many different things you can do instead of slowly raising a flag. Your 1st sentence says it all: I'm not capturing a flag I'm capturing a base, I'll burn the flag once the base is mine.
I assume banners representing all subfactions within the owning faction will go up, the LSM main banner will be that of the Emperor, the CSM the 9 pointed star of Chaos undivided, Orkz would raise a Whaagh banner, I don't know if Eldar have a general banner.
So basically you'd rather leave the banner bit to be automated, instead of player placed? And rather have the base captured without the final banner raise? Fair enough, just hooping we'd have a little more variety than "hold the zone" to capture. Something less bland. As I suggested with the multiple obstacle system, not just a straight up capture the flag. HERESY!!!
