Forums » General
This isn't a suggestion as much as an observation on the current mission system and the direction of the game.
One of the topics that seems to be getting kicked around on the messageboard a lot the past couple days is running. Some players seem to feel that running from a foe is dishonorable, others even go as far to call it unfair. This got me thinking: why is it that running away from combat is such a volatile topic? If you clearly have little odds of defeating your opponent but a good chance of making it out alive, the only logical thing to do is to run.
I think part of the reason is that all of our current combat missions are based on making a certain number of kills... the mentality that is fostered by these missions is "I gotta make the kill." Running then becomes an apparent victory for the fleeing player, since he has denied his opponent their objective. This applies more so to the Border Patrol mission, where by running you impede the progress of the opposing team.
Killing ships isn't really an end in itself, however... since the pilot will most likely buy back his/her ship and jump back into the fray in a matter of minutes, and a bot will simply respawn. When you are killing bots or players you are concievably working toward a higher objective like pushing back the Itani/Serco border or stamping out an infestation of hive bots. Therefore making the kill is just a means to an end.
The problem is that the only way combat missions measure progress is by how many kills the player has made, therefore the natural philosophy of the player will be "gotta get the kill." Killing then becomes an end in itself, and by running away the fleeing player has denied his/her opponent their objective and scored a moral victory. The same applies to hitting the /explode command moments before becoming destroyed. There is no logical reason to exchange almost certain death for certain and instantaneous obliteration except to deny the enemy their kill and perhaps take them out with you.
An alternative would be for the combat missions to focus objectives other than getting the most kills, such as territory control. Virtually all FPS games have some multiplayer "King of the Hill" game where the goal is to control a certain territory by maintaining a presence in that territory and denying the enemy access. From the design wiki, it seems like this type of gameplay would be more suited to the combat missions, since the Hive is a dynamic force that will eventually be cleared from certain sectors, and the border between the Itani/Serco will shift. Both of these objectives deal with territory control, with kills simply being a means to an end. The critical difference between this type of mission and a deathmatch mission is that in territory control, killing an enemy and driving an enemy to run away amounts to the same thing. The player's mentality then goes from "gotta get the kill" to "gotta defend this house." Running away may save your own hide, but it will put your team one step further away from their objective.
I'm not necessarily saying one is better than the other, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss both alternatives. Obviously, it's easier to measure progress and keep score in "deathmatch" style gameplay... the tradeoff being that players don't play as a team as much as a series of simultaneous duels. Territory control inherently fosters a more rooted, defensive style of gameplay, but progress is harder to measure. We all know how tough it is to engage an opponent that doesn't want to be engaged... what if one player from the opposing team is continually zooming around the enemy's territory, "contesting" it? You want the mission to be a battle, not a game of tag. At the same time, measuring progress by kills alone tends to make players lose sight of the "big picture" and get caught up in "who gets the kill" to the point where people /explode rather than allow their opponent's kill to be counted. It also seems like most of the big picture goals in the design wiki deal with who controls what territory.
Perhaps there's a way to merge the two styles of gameplay, (without too many unwieldy if and but's, hopefully). I've got some more ideas about this but I wanted to hear yours.
Let's discuss...
One of the topics that seems to be getting kicked around on the messageboard a lot the past couple days is running. Some players seem to feel that running from a foe is dishonorable, others even go as far to call it unfair. This got me thinking: why is it that running away from combat is such a volatile topic? If you clearly have little odds of defeating your opponent but a good chance of making it out alive, the only logical thing to do is to run.
I think part of the reason is that all of our current combat missions are based on making a certain number of kills... the mentality that is fostered by these missions is "I gotta make the kill." Running then becomes an apparent victory for the fleeing player, since he has denied his opponent their objective. This applies more so to the Border Patrol mission, where by running you impede the progress of the opposing team.
Killing ships isn't really an end in itself, however... since the pilot will most likely buy back his/her ship and jump back into the fray in a matter of minutes, and a bot will simply respawn. When you are killing bots or players you are concievably working toward a higher objective like pushing back the Itani/Serco border or stamping out an infestation of hive bots. Therefore making the kill is just a means to an end.
The problem is that the only way combat missions measure progress is by how many kills the player has made, therefore the natural philosophy of the player will be "gotta get the kill." Killing then becomes an end in itself, and by running away the fleeing player has denied his/her opponent their objective and scored a moral victory. The same applies to hitting the /explode command moments before becoming destroyed. There is no logical reason to exchange almost certain death for certain and instantaneous obliteration except to deny the enemy their kill and perhaps take them out with you.
An alternative would be for the combat missions to focus objectives other than getting the most kills, such as territory control. Virtually all FPS games have some multiplayer "King of the Hill" game where the goal is to control a certain territory by maintaining a presence in that territory and denying the enemy access. From the design wiki, it seems like this type of gameplay would be more suited to the combat missions, since the Hive is a dynamic force that will eventually be cleared from certain sectors, and the border between the Itani/Serco will shift. Both of these objectives deal with territory control, with kills simply being a means to an end. The critical difference between this type of mission and a deathmatch mission is that in territory control, killing an enemy and driving an enemy to run away amounts to the same thing. The player's mentality then goes from "gotta get the kill" to "gotta defend this house." Running away may save your own hide, but it will put your team one step further away from their objective.
I'm not necessarily saying one is better than the other, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss both alternatives. Obviously, it's easier to measure progress and keep score in "deathmatch" style gameplay... the tradeoff being that players don't play as a team as much as a series of simultaneous duels. Territory control inherently fosters a more rooted, defensive style of gameplay, but progress is harder to measure. We all know how tough it is to engage an opponent that doesn't want to be engaged... what if one player from the opposing team is continually zooming around the enemy's territory, "contesting" it? You want the mission to be a battle, not a game of tag. At the same time, measuring progress by kills alone tends to make players lose sight of the "big picture" and get caught up in "who gets the kill" to the point where people /explode rather than allow their opponent's kill to be counted. It also seems like most of the big picture goals in the design wiki deal with who controls what territory.
Perhaps there's a way to merge the two styles of gameplay, (without too many unwieldy if and but's, hopefully). I've got some more ideas about this but I wanted to hear yours.
Let's discuss...
Wow... *applauds*
My short experience with the territorial control was in the DS and SAW guilds. The objective was to take and hold a sector. For the DS, that meant destroying/evicting pirates, and for SAW, that meant doing the same to all non-Serco. It was much more satisfying to see a player run, because our objective wasn't necessarily to kill, but to control. Forcing a player to flee is a type of control you exhibit on him.
My short experience with the territorial control was in the DS and SAW guilds. The objective was to take and hold a sector. For the DS, that meant destroying/evicting pirates, and for SAW, that meant doing the same to all non-Serco. It was much more satisfying to see a player run, because our objective wasn't necessarily to kill, but to control. Forcing a player to flee is a type of control you exhibit on him.
heh you don't force people to flee... since that shows a lack of controll. Unless you can let them flee in a trap (so to a point in your choosing). But that chanc eis minor (although existant)
and for the rest im not even going to bother replying on this since I'm sure people know my stance and I don't want to reitterate it again for the millionth time. As I am sure I already did in the previous threads.
Besides, I don't make the game and I'm just going to see where the devs go to, and ill decide after that. Since im sure that all we are as you say discussing about has already been fleshed out by the devs, but they just need the time to put it in.
and for the rest im not even going to bother replying on this since I'm sure people know my stance and I don't want to reitterate it again for the millionth time. As I am sure I already did in the previous threads.
Besides, I don't make the game and I'm just going to see where the devs go to, and ill decide after that. Since im sure that all we are as you say discussing about has already been fleshed out by the devs, but they just need the time to put it in.
I agree that territory defense would be nice, but I'd also like to offer another suggestion as to why players dislike the running.
Suppose you're fighting someone's valk. If they run when they get low, they can repair at any station, and be right back in the fight. (you on the other hand, who have likely also sustained damage, will have to repair as well, and will actually return to the battle AFTER them)
If you kill them, they have a trip across the galaxy to make, and you've earned yourself some time to repair and return with one less player around, at least for a little bit.
Suppose you're fighting someone's valk. If they run when they get low, they can repair at any station, and be right back in the fight. (you on the other hand, who have likely also sustained damage, will have to repair as well, and will actually return to the battle AFTER them)
If you kill them, they have a trip across the galaxy to make, and you've earned yourself some time to repair and return with one less player around, at least for a little bit.
Forcing someone to run is one of the most basic objectives of combat, and one of the most basic demonstrations of power and control. By making him run away, I show that I can force him away from a place, thereby controlling his access to it.
Shape, true, but why are you fighting his valk? Hopefully, in the future, there will be more of a reason to fight Valks than to get a kill or win a random B8 furball - and any MMO worth it's salt has support roles. Vendetta just doesn't have any because there's no reason to repair someone. If you had to stay on station to defend an objective, a repair rag would suddenly become a desperately valuable ship and a vital part of a successful defence. Right now it's... worthless.
Everyone fights now to be able to say they're the best fighter. It's all ego and no purpose. With a story, and story driven missions, the ego becomes only one of many reasons to do things - and then someone running off to repair means you win, not ambiguous result.
Shape, true, but why are you fighting his valk? Hopefully, in the future, there will be more of a reason to fight Valks than to get a kill or win a random B8 furball - and any MMO worth it's salt has support roles. Vendetta just doesn't have any because there's no reason to repair someone. If you had to stay on station to defend an objective, a repair rag would suddenly become a desperately valuable ship and a vital part of a successful defence. Right now it's... worthless.
Everyone fights now to be able to say they're the best fighter. It's all ego and no purpose. With a story, and story driven missions, the ego becomes only one of many reasons to do things - and then someone running off to repair means you win, not ambiguous result.
But even as the strategy progresses, the same problem remains, repairing costs you nothing, and can be so fast as to make it a viable strategy, not just for survival, but for attack, since if your opponent does not take the same course of action, you will be in the same situation, but they will have more life.
(Though, as I think about it, running to their station, and ignoring the kill is actually viable, you simply blast them a few times as they are leaving the sector, so that they have to go back and repair)0
As an avid go player, the advantages of looking for more than a kill are always in my mind (in fact, focusing on the kill is a serious fault that can be exploited rather easily.), and currently, running is prevalent because there are no disadvantages to having to repair a ship.
I completely agree that the game should be about more than ego, however, perhaps we've been driven to a 1v1 environment by virtue of the fact that most combat is consensual.
(Though, as I think about it, running to their station, and ignoring the kill is actually viable, you simply blast them a few times as they are leaving the sector, so that they have to go back and repair)0
As an avid go player, the advantages of looking for more than a kill are always in my mind (in fact, focusing on the kill is a serious fault that can be exploited rather easily.), and currently, running is prevalent because there are no disadvantages to having to repair a ship.
I completely agree that the game should be about more than ego, however, perhaps we've been driven to a 1v1 environment by virtue of the fact that most combat is consensual.
...This is why you always stick a rail gun or two on your ship. Valks pop easily when boosting away... just ask 0. ;-)
camps I wanna see you stick 2 rails on a single cent :D
PS: and starfisher, controll is in my eyes making people go where you want them to go, not what you stated. I just want to refer to the scroched earth battletactic wherein the russians where so called fleeing from napoleons forces. But the entire time they burned down everything behind them reducing all the food and watersuplies for napoleons army leading up to his defeat. Where was the controll of napoleon on the fleeing russians? You have the same tactic with the muslims during the crusades (bnot scorched earth but hit and run). Same thing for guerillia warfare; you fake fleeing and draw them in your traps or seperate them and finish them off 1 by 1.
PS: and starfisher, controll is in my eyes making people go where you want them to go, not what you stated. I just want to refer to the scroched earth battletactic wherein the russians where so called fleeing from napoleons forces. But the entire time they burned down everything behind them reducing all the food and watersuplies for napoleons army leading up to his defeat. Where was the controll of napoleon on the fleeing russians? You have the same tactic with the muslims during the crusades (bnot scorched earth but hit and run). Same thing for guerillia warfare; you fake fleeing and draw them in your traps or seperate them and finish them off 1 by 1.
A note on Starfisher's comments on support roles, in particular to repair ships. The most annoying thing (IMNSHO) in most PvP games is that when two groups clash, the healers are the first to be targetted and killed, which results in high amounts of frustration for said players. If you add to that the fact that the repair gun as it stands now is not the user-friendliest of guns in-game, I can see how repair ships will be long in appearing, even if compelling RP reasons are given to have them.
And I think Renegade has gone way off the mark; in this game, where you can't choose to burn down a station and thus deny the enemy its use, control IS defined by making the opponent run and think twice about entering a sector. In fact, I've always believed blockades can be enforced in game, at least while there are enough players to keep it up. Trying to keep people from crossing to/from a wormhole is possible with a small number of people; some will get through, but most won't, until the situation comes to a point where a large undertaking is needed to push out the blockaders from the sector, everyone actively avoids that sector, or the blockaders leave of their own volition. In other words, territory control of sorts is possible right now as the game stands, and can be used as a great RP excuse to fight it out.
Another player-led event, perhaps? Take a sector, put in a set number of Nation defenders, see how much time it takes for all comers to blow the defenders away, then do the same with the other two Nations, maybe even Guilds instead. Once every team has had a run as defender, the Nation/Guild who kept control the longest wins.
And I think Renegade has gone way off the mark; in this game, where you can't choose to burn down a station and thus deny the enemy its use, control IS defined by making the opponent run and think twice about entering a sector. In fact, I've always believed blockades can be enforced in game, at least while there are enough players to keep it up. Trying to keep people from crossing to/from a wormhole is possible with a small number of people; some will get through, but most won't, until the situation comes to a point where a large undertaking is needed to push out the blockaders from the sector, everyone actively avoids that sector, or the blockaders leave of their own volition. In other words, territory control of sorts is possible right now as the game stands, and can be used as a great RP excuse to fight it out.
Another player-led event, perhaps? Take a sector, put in a set number of Nation defenders, see how much time it takes for all comers to blow the defenders away, then do the same with the other two Nations, maybe even Guilds instead. Once every team has had a run as defender, the Nation/Guild who kept control the longest wins.
Control? I'm thinking of massive minefields, and Behemoths with 50 mines per port to lay them down. That's control.
Very interesting thread. This game screams for combat missions with another goal than kill-da-enemy-scum. There are two ways of killing that never-ending issue about "running": assimilate it to defeat (like in duels) or make it irrelevant. "Running" is irrelevant to Capture-the-Cargo because there is a goal. Devs, give us other missions with a goal! Capture flags, extract damaged ship from enemy territory, control stations, whatever!
even in capture the flag, you couldn't run... just as a reminder
oh yeah, having the flag made you a sitting duck. you had to rely on other people protecting you, dodging skills, and luck!
i miss CTF, but with the multiple systems now, unlike the 2 sectors (3.3.?) in alpha, dunno if thats possible
i miss CTF, but with the multiple systems now, unlike the 2 sectors (3.3.?) in alpha, dunno if thats possible
Rene, sometimes control isn't about people it's about a location.
You may not have exclusive control over the people as they can still run; But, you can control a location, as in having complete say as to who can access a station you have barricaded. Say you barricaed all Orion stations ... you now CONTROL access to the Rev C.
CTF: the sitting duck aspect was the best part of ctf, without that we would have never had the great team armadas that it took to steal and defend. It was a good example of a scenerario that let the players decide how to team up on there own to accomplish the task. No arbitrary mission guidlines required. Even the reward was up to the actual carrier to distribute as they saw fit.
You may not have exclusive control over the people as they can still run; But, you can control a location, as in having complete say as to who can access a station you have barricaded. Say you barricaed all Orion stations ... you now CONTROL access to the Rev C.
CTF: the sitting duck aspect was the best part of ctf, without that we would have never had the great team armadas that it took to steal and defend. It was a good example of a scenerario that let the players decide how to team up on there own to accomplish the task. No arbitrary mission guidlines required. Even the reward was up to the actual carrier to distribute as they saw fit.
Yeah, CTF was a blast back in the day... imagine CtC with Xirite meaning no turbo ability, that would be crazy fun. Rewards would have to be upped to compensate for the difficulty, though.
Rene, you're in a losing battle.
CTF was a classic version of control. If you drove off an enemy, you were happy, because you exerted control over him. So what if you didn't kill him? Time is what's valuable, and he wastes it by running to another sector to repair. Your goal was to protect the flag carrier--not kill all comers.
CTF was a classic version of control. If you drove off an enemy, you were happy, because you exerted control over him. So what if you didn't kill him? Time is what's valuable, and he wastes it by running to another sector to repair. Your goal was to protect the flag carrier--not kill all comers.
Sircamps,
so if I drove off th eperson with the flag I was exerting controll? Sure...
there are always 2 sides to what you consider driving off. And making somebody run is not controll, that is lack of controll. Since you can't decide, when where or how he is going to run. If you can do that then and only then you can exert controll. Or can you say immediately once some person engages you... hmm i just have to keep him ntertained for 1 sec and he will then run off to Bractus C3.
Controll is: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. Making somebody run is his choice, not yours. So you are not directly exercising any authorative or dominating influence.
Besides Sir, so what if I'm in a losing battle. But I am sure that once we reintroduce (yes reintroduce) the acceptance of running, we will see again the entire debacle of people being annoyed at each other and stationcamping, wormholecamping etc come forward. And lets just say that I am not in favour of that behaviour although I know of some people that did this relentlessly during alpha and beta (and that found that era the prime...).
so if I drove off th eperson with the flag I was exerting controll? Sure...
there are always 2 sides to what you consider driving off. And making somebody run is not controll, that is lack of controll. Since you can't decide, when where or how he is going to run. If you can do that then and only then you can exert controll. Or can you say immediately once some person engages you... hmm i just have to keep him ntertained for 1 sec and he will then run off to Bractus C3.
Controll is: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. Making somebody run is his choice, not yours. So you are not directly exercising any authorative or dominating influence.
Besides Sir, so what if I'm in a losing battle. But I am sure that once we reintroduce (yes reintroduce) the acceptance of running, we will see again the entire debacle of people being annoyed at each other and stationcamping, wormholecamping etc come forward. And lets just say that I am not in favour of that behaviour although I know of some people that did this relentlessly during alpha and beta (and that found that era the prime...).
i'm with rene on this one, even if there is a nice rp reson to let people justify their running it'll still annoy plenty of people (me included) and that'll lead to lots of problams (like rene said camping and personal vendettas) i'm not saying running is allways bad or allways dishonorable but it is annoying in most places, if it's a 6-1 fight running can hardly be complaned about likewise if you are attacked when you didn't want to fight but if you are attcking if you're being harased by someone be it for a mission or just for some idea of fun it is basic instinct to want to see them blow up it releaves tension and puts a definite winner, but when someone runs you can justify it all you like to yourself that you won that you drove them off, but to me at leased it still doesn't feel like i have won and with all the effort i put into a fight i want to feel i have won (not to mention getting that nice 500pk badge that i'll never get otherwise) and if i don't it just seems kind of pointless to me.
also as i have allways put in stuff like this i think if your trying to do something and lose you should face the loss be that trecking all the way from itani space or not.
and i just don't see how nice missions with other objectives will releave that base emotion of the joy of seeing your foe explode into a million peaces (not that i whuddent like those missions ,and as far as i can tell with the new mission editor they'll be coming witch is a very good thing for the game)
anyway as allways its just my opinion not trying to force it on others
also as i have allways put in stuff like this i think if your trying to do something and lose you should face the loss be that trecking all the way from itani space or not.
and i just don't see how nice missions with other objectives will releave that base emotion of the joy of seeing your foe explode into a million peaces (not that i whuddent like those missions ,and as far as i can tell with the new mission editor they'll be coming witch is a very good thing for the game)
anyway as allways its just my opinion not trying to force it on others
-------------------------------
there are always 2 sides to what you consider driving off. And making somebody run is not controll, that is lack of controll. Since you can't decide, when where or how he is going to run. If you can do that then and only then you can exert controll. Or can you say immediately once some person engages you... hmm i just have to keep him ntertained for 1 sec and he will then run off to Bractus C3.
Controll is: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. Making somebody run is his choice, not yours. So you are not directly exercising any authorative or dominating influence.
---------------------
Ugh. If that's not equivocation, then I failed Logic 101.
Rene, your argument is flawed. Consider a chess game, when an opponent reacts to your moves (instead of vice versa), you are exerting control over him. The more you dictate how he reacts, the more you control him.
It is the same in Vendetta. If I damage a pilot to the point that he has to retreat, he is REACTING to my attack (my "move"). It puts me in a position of superiority to dictate his actions. I don't care "where" he runs or "how" he runs if my only objective is to protect an object or another player. That much is irrelevant.
Now, this much is true: If I was intending to kill him (as is most often the case in Today's VO), and he runs, and I chase him, and fail to kill him, then I am REACTING to his action (running). He controls my actions, to an extent. However, if a kill is not my objective, and he runs, and I don't chase him, then most often he is attempting to escape my control. (DUH!)
-----------------------------
so if I drove off th eperson with the flag I was exerting controll? Sure...
-----------------------------
Uh, I didn't say that--did I? I said "Your goal was to protect the flag carrier--not kill all comers." Thanks for taking my argument out of context and misquoting me. You exert control over an enemy flag-carrier by killing them. You exert control over the people who want their flag back by killing them OR driving them off. Are we clear on that?
To make it clearer, let me ask a hypothetical: You and two other players are escorting a flag carrier out in VO 3.1. Four pilots attack your group. You damage me to the point that I turn and run. Question: Would you run after me, trying to kill me, or would you stay with your two buddies (one of whom can't dodge well) and fend off the other three attackers? Perhaps you would chase me, but a skilled tactician wouldn't, because that's not his objective, and it would leave his primary charge (the flag carrier) vulnerable.
*hmph* :-P
there are always 2 sides to what you consider driving off. And making somebody run is not controll, that is lack of controll. Since you can't decide, when where or how he is going to run. If you can do that then and only then you can exert controll. Or can you say immediately once some person engages you... hmm i just have to keep him ntertained for 1 sec and he will then run off to Bractus C3.
Controll is: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. Making somebody run is his choice, not yours. So you are not directly exercising any authorative or dominating influence.
---------------------
Ugh. If that's not equivocation, then I failed Logic 101.
Rene, your argument is flawed. Consider a chess game, when an opponent reacts to your moves (instead of vice versa), you are exerting control over him. The more you dictate how he reacts, the more you control him.
It is the same in Vendetta. If I damage a pilot to the point that he has to retreat, he is REACTING to my attack (my "move"). It puts me in a position of superiority to dictate his actions. I don't care "where" he runs or "how" he runs if my only objective is to protect an object or another player. That much is irrelevant.
Now, this much is true: If I was intending to kill him (as is most often the case in Today's VO), and he runs, and I chase him, and fail to kill him, then I am REACTING to his action (running). He controls my actions, to an extent. However, if a kill is not my objective, and he runs, and I don't chase him, then most often he is attempting to escape my control. (DUH!)
-----------------------------
so if I drove off th eperson with the flag I was exerting controll? Sure...
-----------------------------
Uh, I didn't say that--did I? I said "Your goal was to protect the flag carrier--not kill all comers." Thanks for taking my argument out of context and misquoting me. You exert control over an enemy flag-carrier by killing them. You exert control over the people who want their flag back by killing them OR driving them off. Are we clear on that?
To make it clearer, let me ask a hypothetical: You and two other players are escorting a flag carrier out in VO 3.1. Four pilots attack your group. You damage me to the point that I turn and run. Question: Would you run after me, trying to kill me, or would you stay with your two buddies (one of whom can't dodge well) and fend off the other three attackers? Perhaps you would chase me, but a skilled tactician wouldn't, because that's not his objective, and it would leave his primary charge (the flag carrier) vulnerable.
*hmph* :-P
You can't controll how othe rpeople react... thats exactly what I'm saying. Can you beforehand say he is going to run now... No you can't. A person runs based on his own view of finding it unsafe, not because you exert controll. And letting someone run will also mean that he will come back quickly (rearmed, fully healed). You however will still be practically semidamaged and maybe with half ammo left. Now you have to decide if you have to rearm or not... because the person will catch up to the thing you are guarding with full life and health. And seeing that he chooses the time when he runs, he has a timeadvantage on you making it possibly impossible to go and repair. Which might end you up with in the end not protecting your charge.
So yes it is important that you exert controll over your opponent to make him go to a certain spot. Since that is exactly what you try to do in chess. You don't move and change your pieces to denounce him a move. But you move your pieces in that way so you can liquidate him. Running does not make you win the game. Only the lack of running (being check, check and mate, stale...). But as long as the opponent can run he is not beaten and the game goes on. And this is for something like an easy game of chess...
---
My point was in my eyes the person with the flag is the enemy, I drive him off so according to your own definition i exerted controll. Which de facto was not true.
I would attack you, since I prefer to take out 1 crippled enemy, and then focus on the others, in stead of letting him flee and see a returning stream of people. Beside, it will still be a 3 vs 3 an,d even if one of the persons is a bad dodger. The chances are he will survive long enough for me to kill the straggler and return to fortify the carrier. Why, very easy... I prefer to have 1 dead person that has to respawn all the way back in x in stead of having him return a couple secs later fully healed and ready to come back on a completely exhausted defense.
aka:
person 1 runs
person 2 runs
person 1 comes back
person 3 runs
person 2 comes back
person 1 runs
person 3 comes back
I die, my friend dies. the carrier dies. I made them flee, but had no controll at all. Since they could return from the closest position possible in stead of the position they were homed at, which I presume to be at the flags position.
So yes it is important that you exert controll over your opponent to make him go to a certain spot. Since that is exactly what you try to do in chess. You don't move and change your pieces to denounce him a move. But you move your pieces in that way so you can liquidate him. Running does not make you win the game. Only the lack of running (being check, check and mate, stale...). But as long as the opponent can run he is not beaten and the game goes on. And this is for something like an easy game of chess...
---
My point was in my eyes the person with the flag is the enemy, I drive him off so according to your own definition i exerted controll. Which de facto was not true.
I would attack you, since I prefer to take out 1 crippled enemy, and then focus on the others, in stead of letting him flee and see a returning stream of people. Beside, it will still be a 3 vs 3 an,d even if one of the persons is a bad dodger. The chances are he will survive long enough for me to kill the straggler and return to fortify the carrier. Why, very easy... I prefer to have 1 dead person that has to respawn all the way back in x in stead of having him return a couple secs later fully healed and ready to come back on a completely exhausted defense.
aka:
person 1 runs
person 2 runs
person 1 comes back
person 3 runs
person 2 comes back
person 1 runs
person 3 comes back
I die, my friend dies. the carrier dies. I made them flee, but had no controll at all. Since they could return from the closest position possible in stead of the position they were homed at, which I presume to be at the flags position.