skirmish question

[bkandor]

Lately, I see skirmish rounds ending in about 10 min with only a few deaths. One or two small engagements allow enough time for one side to cap the other side out. Once ticket bleed starts there is no time to try to flank or change tactics for the losing side and then boom it's over.

Seems like it would be more consistantly fun if there wasn't ticket bleed on these maps?

[Skodz]

Hell no. Ticket bleed is very important and map that have no ticket bleed feel broken in competitive play.

My opinion.

[Masterbake]

Got to have a ticket bleed at some point or you can just risk it and go all attack.

[bkandor]

Got to have a ticket bleed at some point or you can just risk it and go all attack.

I agree, so maybe it's the speed of ticket bleed? I commented on this because over the weekend I watched a half dozen skirmish maps end in under 10 min. with less the 15 deaths on both sides. I also remember have great protacted matches on these same maps until one side ran out of tickets and the score was like 2-0.

Did something about the cap time or bleed time on skirmish change in .86? Maybe that's what I'm seeing?

[Skodz]

Usually, if one team trigger the ticket bleed and win very fast it simply means the other team is doing something wrong.

[Stokes52]

I tend to agree with lessening the ticket bleed for a few reasons. As it is now, the very second that the ticket bleed starts it is basically game over for the team with the bleed because since the maps are so big it can sometimes take upwards of 5-10 minutes before reinforcements arrive to recapture the site, by which time, the round is already over and lost.

Keep in mind, that this can be accomplished with no less than 2 people, (All that is needed to cap an area) and if everyone else is on the other side of the map, it can mean an incredibly dull and imbalanced way of gaining victory.

On the other hand, capturing a bleed point shouldn't mean "game over", it should mean "oh $h1z, its overtime, get it in gear guys!" Some of the best moments in general gaming are when it is down to the wire and you're fighting for that last goal, that last strategic location, those last few kills, and I think a slower ticket bleed would add this affect to PR. Now, the bleed is so fast that its game over once it starts because even IF they manage to recapture it right away, the capture time is so long that you can easily lose 50-80 tickets JUST CAPTURING THE POINT. But, if it was slower, then it be more like a "timer" where the bleeding team has a certain period of time to recapture their lost point or else. The more time it takes them they worse off they are in tickets, but it isn't necessarily game over and they still have a chance to come back and win the fight.


My two cents... or five...

[Himalde]

Taliban always wins skirmish at Operation Archer, due to better close combat weapons and shorter distance to the combat zone. But we need ticket bleed, but maybe only on the last flag before base.

[SilentNoobAssasin]

Thats because people suck in defending and most people just assault the next objective, and gets pwnd by defending squad while the other take there objective -.-

[Masterbake]

Every map I've played on competitively so far seems to be slightly or badly imbalanced in favour of the MEC or Taliban, definitely Muttrah, Jabal and Archer at least.

To me that seems like a bigger problem, as if the maps are a bit more balanced then rounds shouldn't be over so quickly anyway.

[bkandor]

Now, the bleed is so fast that its game over once it starts because even IF they manage to recapture it right away, the capture time is so long that you can easily lose 50-80 tickets JUST CAPTURING THE POINT. But, if it was slower, then it be more like a "timer" where the bleeding team has a certain period of time to recapture their lost point or else. The more time it takes them they worse off they are in tickets, but it isn't necessarily game over and they still have a chance to come back and win the fight.

That pretty much is the point I was trying to make. Bleed is ok, but it's so fast that if you loose one encounter and decide to regroup and attack their flank, by the time your organized the round is over.

[flem615]

Wow over in 10 minutes? Every time I play a skirmish map it just turns into a long, uncoordinated, boring free-for-all. I think the skirmish game mode needs some tweaking

[bkandor]

Yeah, I see it go both ways - sometimes it's a great round that ends in a gripping 2-0 victory. But last weekend I saw 4 rounds in a row end in 10min or lest by ticket bleed with no more than 10-15 deaths on both teams.

[flem615]

I've never had a good skirmish game tbh. There's just no teamwork. At least when I play

[Masterbake]

I've never had a good skirmish game tbh. There's just no teamwork. At least when I play

You may need a new clan.