Retreating

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Kisen_K

S&M Airlines
May 12, 2000
1,093
0
0
39
Norway
rullings.com
Instead of the "last man standing" TDM we have now, wouldn't it be better to have a set maximum "casualty" percentage, say 30% (can be set by server) , so if one team only have 3 / 10 soldiers left, they are forced to retreat (or surrender?).
This way, you'll have to look out for your fellow soldiers to win, and getting yourself killed will affect your team much more.
In addition, it speeds up the game aswell, as you do not have to wait for 2 people looking for eachother on Extreme Prejudice, Kosovo etc.
 

Galthor

antagonist, absolut
Aug 9, 2001
89
0
0
44
Rhein-Main
Visit site
i like it. that could improve the big maps alot. i love big maps but they are not played that often because some rounds tend to be boring when only two are left on each side . but they should only surrender when there are at least 80% more enemies than own troops.
 
Great Idea

I agree with this idea. Would stop long drawn out matches on big maps (maybe they will be played more often). I think your team should be able to retreat when you have been reduced to 30% and below. If people can retreat anytime... well, you can figure out bad things that might happen :)

Also maybe there should be designated retreat zones on maps? Like on EP the team that starts in the house could get to a humvee and drive away, while the team that starts in the shed could reach the long road leading into nowhere. Just an idea.
 

R-Force

(IF)
Nov 21, 2000
1,060
0
0
48
Canada, Quebec, Terrebonne
Yeah, this idea is great (could be added to other gametypes). Basically this could make TDM a more interesting gametype by simply forcing you to cover your teammates and making sure they survive to win a round. So TDM could be renamed "Secure the Area" : you try to root out the other team by inflincting on them more casualties than you suffer. Once one team is bellow their casualty threshold, they loose. Or we could set a retreat point for them to go giving them some team points for having succesfully pulled out before being decimated (and no point for killing the enemy from that point, you are supposed to pull out and nothing else). Maybe a timer for retreat : anyone retreating on time is considered alive and give team points, the rest who kept fighting are MIA (no retreat points for them).

The team who forced the other team to retreat is by default winning (even if the other team manage to kill them after the retreat order). Team points are awarded for surviving teammates at the end of the round...

Feel free to give your own ideas, this is just how i would do it :D.
 

JamesT

sniper apprentice
Jun 25, 2001
798
0
0
46
Taiwan
inf.dearhoney.idv.tw
Think about it in another way. The winning or losing standard is still the same for both team. In this idea, if you die, your team is tend to lose faster than the current TDM. Yes. But the enemy is suffering the same thing! Technically that means being berserk (RAMBO) is still a good tactic! That means if you can kill 2 or more enemies and you die, you are "helping" your team!

And that's wrong.

The essential point of INFiltration is accomplish mission objective, which is to eliminate all enemies in TDM (should be better in EAS), without losing a single life. That means getting killed should bring much much more penalty. In v2.85, death was nothing, so people complained. In v2.86, I think death is still not a big deal since a frag gives more score (Team Effeciency) and a death only minus one point from the score.

Weeks ago, someone I don't remember the exact name has suggested that the score of someone getting killed in a certain round should not be counted, and I think that was a very good idea. That means, for example in a 8 vs 8 match, during the middle of a round, Team A has killed 7 members of Team B without casualties, and the Team Effeciency score should be 14 : (-7). 2 points for a kill and (-1) point for a death. But after that, the only one left in Team B takes out all 8 members in Team A. Then in this system, the end result of that particular round will be Team A (-8) points : Team B 16-7=9 points. Any player get killed in a round gives (-1) point to their Team Effeciency score, no matter how many enemies he or she has taken out.
 

R-Force

(IF)
Nov 21, 2000
1,060
0
0
48
Canada, Quebec, Terrebonne
JamesT :

Yeah, the idea is good but would only be well accepted in clan games as in pubs it would be really disliked (since you have no control on who's on your team and can't just kick out a poor player that drag your team in the negative score)...

Also it goes against the average gamers mentality : more rewards than penality. Too much penality lead to frustration of the player and then make the player stop playing or increase the likelyness he try to cheat to "even the odds".

I think it would be best to try to keep a round that goes very bad for one team to drag for too long... If the players play "the bad way", then the round should be shortened significantly. So if they want more challenge and fun out of it, they should try to play as a team and make sure their teammates survive as long as possible... Once the death threshold is passed, the round should end very quickly. I think it would be more subtle and more effective than a score only "frustration".
 
Last edited:

JamesT

sniper apprentice
Jun 25, 2001
798
0
0
46
Taiwan
inf.dearhoney.idv.tw
Originally posted by R-Force
Yeah, the idea is good but would only be well accepted in clan games as in pubs it would be really disliked (since you have no control on who's on your team and can't just kick out a poor player that drag your team in the negative score)...
Think about it. A poor player won't affect much on the Team Effeciency score in either the current system or the suggested system. In the current system, a poor player still contributes (-1) point to the team because he gets killed without taking out an enemy. The suggested system FORCEs people to think before they attack. The concept is "do NOT die if you want to attack."
Also it goes against the average gamers mentality : more rewards than penality. Too much penality lead to frustration of the player and then make the player stop playing or increase the likelyness he try to cheat to "even the odds".
"More rewards than penalty" is so easily done in the suggested system -- just raise the point for frags. I have an even better idea. You know every INF soldier has 100 Health Points (HP) right? OK, count Team Effeciency as how much you damage your enemy. Then completely killing a full-health enemy rewards 100 points Team Effeciency score. So, for example a PSG-1 marksman hitting an enemy, taking 90 HP away from the enemy, contributes 90 Team Effeciency score. And another man puts an end to that enemy's life, contributing 10 Team Effeciency score. Now the Team score is 100. If the marksman get killed in that single round, Team score becomes 90+10-90-1=9. If the other man get killed, Team score becomes 90+10-10-1=89. Do NOT die and NO frustration at all. ( You know, the problem is some people want to kill enemies and get frags too eagerly; I don't know why, but I know that attitude is exactly what INF should eliminate. )
I think it would be best to try to keep a round that goes very bad for one team to drag for too long... If the players play "the bad way", then the round should be shortened significantly.
In any way, this cannot be done by the mere scoring system or win-lose determination system. A well designed "Minutes of Round Timer" is the only way to go. Currently the "Minutes of Round Timer" cannot be set separatly for each map. If shortening an unreasonably and unwantedly long round is the aim, we should suggest the INF team to implement "Minutes of Round Timer" for respective maps.
So if they want more challenge and fun out of it, they should try to play as a team and make sure their teammates survive as long as possible... Once the death threshold is passed, the round should end very quickly. I think it would be more subtle and more effective than a score only "frustration".
OK, now a better way to do what you want is a well designed "LastPlayer Timer." A very important point is this also must be able to set differently for different maps. I suggest when half of a team have died in a round, activate this timer. And when it times out, the team with more alive members win.
 

JamesT

sniper apprentice
Jun 25, 2001
798
0
0
46
Taiwan
inf.dearhoney.idv.tw
A well designed "LastHalfPlayers Timer" is for public servers. Clan matches don't need such a thing.

A well designed "LastHalfPlayers Timer" for example counts down for 5 minutes or more rather than the meaningless 90 seconds which greatly encourages camping as soon as the timer is activated.
 
I don't think you should be FORCED to retreat. It is just an option. If you are forced to retreat, how many people will retreat? Hardly anyone. They don't get frags taht way. But if I was the only one left, out of the "goodness of my heart" :) I would retreat so we could start another round. In fact, if everybody who has to escape escapes, it would be awesome for them to have a tie round. That way the team that won has to secure the retreat locations for the enemy team. If there is some concern for people camping just to retreat early, than make the escape location at the spawn point of the enemies camp. Or somewhere near there.

I don't think you should lose the round because you basically live to fight another day. You can be back with more men or something. If you lost regardless, than why the hell wouldn't I try to take down as many people as possible?
 

perrin98

New Member
Aug 17, 2000
630
0
0
Maybe as part of a TDM with a team pool of lives? If you know you can't win, you retreat and come back at full strength and take less from the team pool. If you die off, the next round starts and you take the full load from the pool. This would allow you to remove the round limit, and force you to retreat when necessary.