Attack Incentives
Posted: 2008-06-17 05:07
Well, I created this thread based on one central assumption: On "attack" maps, the attacking team should not be able to defend an initial flag and win.
The scenarios I am going to describe happen all too often, and I am of the opinion that they go against the "spirit" of the map. The "attack" maps (as opposed to mirror maps such as Qwai, Kashan or Ejod) feature a clear attacking force. These maps are:
- Assault on Mestia
- Jabal Al Burj
- Road to Kyongan'ni
I have not included Counter Attack maps such as Seven Gates or Zatar as the problem does not exist on those maps.
Assuming that the teams are of equal capability, these scenarios, in my opinion, go against the "spirit" of a map:
Jabal Al Burj: At roundstart, any decent US team can grab both the beaches. Any commander worth his salt knows that as long as East Beach is secure, the bleed stays off. Then, the round stagnates as the MEC capture the dam and fortify their positions there with bunkers and firebases. The US still has the ticket lead it started off with.
In almost all PR maps, the side that establishes a ticket lead first, wins in a "no-bleed" situation. Bunkers get built at East beach and the US digs in there. Meanwhile the MEC can easily come down from Dam to West beach and eventually overwhelm it, but lose precious tickets.
Considering that the MEC have most of the flags in a map that the US is supposed to attack, the MEc should win. The ticket deficit on the MEC side gives them the incentive to get East Beach as well, since the only way they can recover is if they get the bleed back.
This is a perversion of the map where the MEC has an incentive to attack and the US has incentive to simply hold East Beach with almost all their team. Since the "defenders" get the "home ground" advantage by letting the attackers come to them and assuming all things (including each team's skill) remain equal, the US defenders win.
The US can win the map simply by cocooning themselves at East Beach. The MEC, who are technically the defenders are forced to attack. In my opinion, if they MEC has every single flag except one (and remember they are meant to be the defenders), they should win. The US needs incentive to attack. Therefore, my proposed "fixes" are:
-Giving the US a larger ticket lead (perhaps a 300-400 point ticket lead) but keeping the bleed going till they have Dam. Any "beach assault" map should encourage the attackers to atleast get off the beach, and this will.
- As it stands, the US have to defend East and West while attacking dam. The defenders have to hold one flag, while the attackers have two flags to hold. This should not happen. A more appropriate "cap order" would be when after East is capped, West should become "attackable" and after West is capped, the Dam should be "attackable". The MEC defenders have a height advantage from Dam to West Beach and the US has the ticket lead. Therefore, the US does not get tied down defending East and can focus on the fight between West Beach and Dam. The US cannot cocoon as effectively at West Bach because the MEC defenders can pick them off from high ground meaning that the US has to attack (as they are meant to)
- Make it a Counter-attack map. This fixes everything. The attackers do not have to defend, until they have established a credible foothold.
Assault on Mestia: This map faces a similar problem. At roundstart, the Militia can cap both the Tower flags in the first 2 minutes that it takes the British to set their first rally points and form up. A British commander can direct ALL his squads to West Tower and stop the bleed while retaining the ticket advantage.
The Militia is meant to hold the East and West to keep the bleed going until the British Ticket lead has been bled away. However, the militia has to split its defences between East and West while the British do not. Therefore, assuming that 15 out of 30 Militia are at West Tower, the British can afford to send 30/30 people there. In those circumstances, the British can easily cap the West Tower, retain the ticket lead, and stop the bleed.
Now, the British can win the map without even taking the fight past the Tower flags. The Militia have an incentive to attack to because to make up for the Ticket defecit, they have to counter-attack West Tower (or East, depending on which Tower the British choose to go all out for). The British have better weapons than the Militia, and they can comfortably defend one flag and win.
The only way to "reverse" the incentives as they now stand is for the Militia to keep their initial hold on the Tower flags till the British ticket lead has been diminished. That is very hard when the attackers have a 2:1 advantage. The defending squads would have to be exceptional (and this would violate the assumption that both teams are of equal capability) or the attackers would have to be, for lack of a better adjective, really dumb.
It is possible, just not plausible. If this happens, the British find themselves in a "no-bleed" situation with a ticket deficit. Therefore, they must attack, as they are meant to. Currently, more often than not, the Militia find themselves in a "no-bleed" situation and therefore, have the incentive to counter attack to regain the bleed, losing them more tickets because the British can simply cocoon themselves at West Tower.
The irony is that attacking team can thus win by defending. The fight rarely goes past the towers in Mestia, or the Beaches in Jabal Al Burj. This gets boring, redundant, and wastes a large amount of the map. My proposed solution to fix this map would be much the same:
-Give the British a bigger ticket advantage but keep the bleed going until they neutralise Storage Bunker or Munitions. IE: Keep the bleed going until the attackers establish a credible foothold.
- Make it a counter-attack map, thereby unburdening the attackers of the need to defend captured positions for a certain amount of time. In Mestia, this would work if the ticket count is equal to start with, as the Militia would have a fairer chance.
Road to Kyongan'ni: I am not even going to bother typing out the situation with this one. The US caps airdrop with the ticket lead. The US wins by defending Airdrop or the Chinese, manage to cap airdrop to get the bleed back and win. The beautiful central flag, which is obviously the focus of the map, Kyongan'ni, goes unused 90% of the time. The US has no incentive to attack.
In all, my gripe is the fact that the attackers have no incentive to establish a credible foothold (IE: to attack). They can win by defending initial flags and this goes against the "spirit" of the map. It confines a beautiful map to a handful of locations and the "incentives" in these maps need to be fixed.
Do not get me wrong, cocooning is fine in a "Mirror" map such as Qwai, Kashan, Qinling, EJOD, Sunset, etc. Those maps do not feature a clear attacking force because either side can take the initiative and both sides have equal incentives. The map is not wasted at fighting around initial flags as one team has to "push through" and carry the fight. This problem only occurs on the 3 "attack" maps I have described.
The scenarios I am going to describe happen all too often, and I am of the opinion that they go against the "spirit" of the map. The "attack" maps (as opposed to mirror maps such as Qwai, Kashan or Ejod) feature a clear attacking force. These maps are:
- Assault on Mestia
- Jabal Al Burj
- Road to Kyongan'ni
I have not included Counter Attack maps such as Seven Gates or Zatar as the problem does not exist on those maps.
Assuming that the teams are of equal capability, these scenarios, in my opinion, go against the "spirit" of a map:
Jabal Al Burj: At roundstart, any decent US team can grab both the beaches. Any commander worth his salt knows that as long as East Beach is secure, the bleed stays off. Then, the round stagnates as the MEC capture the dam and fortify their positions there with bunkers and firebases. The US still has the ticket lead it started off with.
In almost all PR maps, the side that establishes a ticket lead first, wins in a "no-bleed" situation. Bunkers get built at East beach and the US digs in there. Meanwhile the MEC can easily come down from Dam to West beach and eventually overwhelm it, but lose precious tickets.
Considering that the MEC have most of the flags in a map that the US is supposed to attack, the MEc should win. The ticket deficit on the MEC side gives them the incentive to get East Beach as well, since the only way they can recover is if they get the bleed back.
This is a perversion of the map where the MEC has an incentive to attack and the US has incentive to simply hold East Beach with almost all their team. Since the "defenders" get the "home ground" advantage by letting the attackers come to them and assuming all things (including each team's skill) remain equal, the US defenders win.
The US can win the map simply by cocooning themselves at East Beach. The MEC, who are technically the defenders are forced to attack. In my opinion, if they MEC has every single flag except one (and remember they are meant to be the defenders), they should win. The US needs incentive to attack. Therefore, my proposed "fixes" are:
-Giving the US a larger ticket lead (perhaps a 300-400 point ticket lead) but keeping the bleed going till they have Dam. Any "beach assault" map should encourage the attackers to atleast get off the beach, and this will.
- As it stands, the US have to defend East and West while attacking dam. The defenders have to hold one flag, while the attackers have two flags to hold. This should not happen. A more appropriate "cap order" would be when after East is capped, West should become "attackable" and after West is capped, the Dam should be "attackable". The MEC defenders have a height advantage from Dam to West Beach and the US has the ticket lead. Therefore, the US does not get tied down defending East and can focus on the fight between West Beach and Dam. The US cannot cocoon as effectively at West Bach because the MEC defenders can pick them off from high ground meaning that the US has to attack (as they are meant to)
- Make it a Counter-attack map. This fixes everything. The attackers do not have to defend, until they have established a credible foothold.
Assault on Mestia: This map faces a similar problem. At roundstart, the Militia can cap both the Tower flags in the first 2 minutes that it takes the British to set their first rally points and form up. A British commander can direct ALL his squads to West Tower and stop the bleed while retaining the ticket advantage.
The Militia is meant to hold the East and West to keep the bleed going until the British Ticket lead has been bled away. However, the militia has to split its defences between East and West while the British do not. Therefore, assuming that 15 out of 30 Militia are at West Tower, the British can afford to send 30/30 people there. In those circumstances, the British can easily cap the West Tower, retain the ticket lead, and stop the bleed.
Now, the British can win the map without even taking the fight past the Tower flags. The Militia have an incentive to attack to because to make up for the Ticket defecit, they have to counter-attack West Tower (or East, depending on which Tower the British choose to go all out for). The British have better weapons than the Militia, and they can comfortably defend one flag and win.
The only way to "reverse" the incentives as they now stand is for the Militia to keep their initial hold on the Tower flags till the British ticket lead has been diminished. That is very hard when the attackers have a 2:1 advantage. The defending squads would have to be exceptional (and this would violate the assumption that both teams are of equal capability) or the attackers would have to be, for lack of a better adjective, really dumb.
It is possible, just not plausible. If this happens, the British find themselves in a "no-bleed" situation with a ticket deficit. Therefore, they must attack, as they are meant to. Currently, more often than not, the Militia find themselves in a "no-bleed" situation and therefore, have the incentive to counter attack to regain the bleed, losing them more tickets because the British can simply cocoon themselves at West Tower.
The irony is that attacking team can thus win by defending. The fight rarely goes past the towers in Mestia, or the Beaches in Jabal Al Burj. This gets boring, redundant, and wastes a large amount of the map. My proposed solution to fix this map would be much the same:
-Give the British a bigger ticket advantage but keep the bleed going until they neutralise Storage Bunker or Munitions. IE: Keep the bleed going until the attackers establish a credible foothold.
- Make it a counter-attack map, thereby unburdening the attackers of the need to defend captured positions for a certain amount of time. In Mestia, this would work if the ticket count is equal to start with, as the Militia would have a fairer chance.
Road to Kyongan'ni: I am not even going to bother typing out the situation with this one. The US caps airdrop with the ticket lead. The US wins by defending Airdrop or the Chinese, manage to cap airdrop to get the bleed back and win. The beautiful central flag, which is obviously the focus of the map, Kyongan'ni, goes unused 90% of the time. The US has no incentive to attack.
In all, my gripe is the fact that the attackers have no incentive to establish a credible foothold (IE: to attack). They can win by defending initial flags and this goes against the "spirit" of the map. It confines a beautiful map to a handful of locations and the "incentives" in these maps need to be fixed.
Do not get me wrong, cocooning is fine in a "Mirror" map such as Qwai, Kashan, Qinling, EJOD, Sunset, etc. Those maps do not feature a clear attacking force because either side can take the initiative and both sides have equal incentives. The map is not wasted at fighting around initial flags as one team has to "push through" and carry the fight. This problem only occurs on the 3 "attack" maps I have described.
