capture points make no sense

[dmcheatw]

they give army bonuses yes, but they are not tied to the actual objective. in essence there is still only one game type - last man standing - and capturing the buildings only indirectly relates to that objective. So the result is that you can capture all the control points/buildings, but your opponent can remain camped in his deployment indefinitely and not lose Adding capture points was a step forward, but they are not implemented well and thus don't solve the real issue.

[Aykis16]

Well if your opponent decides to stay in his deployment zone, just go get all the bonuses first and then go meet his army with your now much more buffed army.

[Vexillarius]

I think they meant for them to discourage camping.

Just my 2 cents.

[leviath]

Well, it doesnt work that great because on some map, you can camp while covering the ressource point with your archers...

The thing is, when 2 players are moving, maps are sooo little that you can't take the point before the battle has ended.

[kostas84]

They give good bonuses, the morale one is very good, but the maps are small so the fights are over before you can conquer them, well, most of the time at least.

[dmcheatw]

how significant are the army bonuses really though? i don't know that they are enough to overcome good players who have chosen to camp.

[Aykis16]

how significant are the army bonuses really though? i don't know that they are enough to overcome good players who have chosen to camp.

You know what is good enough to overcome good players who have chosen to camp? Superior tactics (combined with all the bonuses the guy gives up since he chooses to camp). If you still can't beat him, then you probably weren't going to win even if he didn't camp.

[dmcheatw]

You know what is good enough to overcome good players who have chosen to camp? Superior tactics (combined with all the bonuses the guy gives up since he chooses to camp). If you still can't beat him, then you probably weren't going to win even if he didn't camp.

lets say that i take a rush army and find my opponent has taken spearmen and archers. I'll crush him in the open, but you really think my tactics will beat that? we're talking about 2 players who are at the same level of competence.

In the situation i outlined above, superior tactics executed to perfection likely will still fail, because of my opponents strategic choices in army build before the game began. and don't tell me he has a superior strategy because my strategy is equally is good (better in the open) but he made a conscious choice to camp before the game even began, and he is able to do this due to the control points not functioning as intended.

there is nothing wrong with camping when there are attacker/defender designations or when you have moved to the middle of the map/captured control points or other good terrain. nor is there anything wrong with advancing to the center, getting beaten, and then retreating back to your deployment when necessary. In fact, you can even camp your deployment if it offers no logical benefit to you (like in flat map) What is not cool, and what I myself have never done, is camp the deployment from the start and never offer battle in the middle in a regular game, relying on exploitative terrain to ensure that any engagement disadvantages the other player.

That is not cool because nobody has the right to camp in their deployment in a regular game. you're supposed to offer battle on more neutral territory or move forward and capture the terrain you want. not just sit there and turtle on a map with a huge starting hill.

[xccam]

dude, your sword units along with bonuses will SHRED spear units. It wont even be close.

[Aykis16]

lets say that i take a rush army and find my opponent has taken spearmen and archers.

How about you try to field a more balanced army instead of a "rush army" which I suspect means heavy on the cavalry, especially considering how before each battle you never know the composition of an opponents army?

Again, the bonuses are there for you to use them if you can. Usually there's a morale bonus, a melee attack/defense bonus and range bonus of some kind. If you get all three and your opponent just sits there that's a pretty significant advantage.

Also, on every single map I've seen there is way better terrain than the deployment zone, which is usually just a flat area. Plus, hills don't even offer range bonus for archers anymore (which is stupid and hopefully patched).

[Bryanrows]

For my two cents, I think they work well. If it were made so that captureing the buildings results in victory, then you would just have people who capture them, then simply turtle around them until they win instead of just doing it on hills.
With the way they have implimented it now, capturing the buildings gives your army enough of a buff to defeat a camper much easier than in the past, especially given the already rock-paper-scissors nature of the game. If you get a buff for your swordsmen, take out their spearmen with them first. If you have a buff to your archers, target their archers and destroy them so they have to move. I think the buffs do a good job of negating campers.

[Aykis16]

For my two cents, I think they work well. If it were made so that captureing the buildings results in victory, then you would just have people who capture them, then simply turtle around them until they win instead of just doing it on hills.
With the way they have implimented it now, capturing the buildings gives your army enough of a buff to defeat a camper much easier than in the past, especially given the already rock-paper-scissors nature of the game. If you get a buff for your swordsmen, take out their spearmen with them first. If you have a buff to your archers, target their archers and destroy them so they have to move. I think the buffs do a good job of negating campers.

I agree. It adds a nice element to an already fun game. Plus, most of the time I meet my opponent in battle before any of us have a bonus completed, or at most just 1 for the both of us.

[BunnyPoopCereal]

THey make no sense when battles only last 3 minutes and it takes 5 or so minutes to capture one

[xccam]

THey make no sense when battles only last 3 minutes and it takes 5 or so minutes to capture one

You CLEARLY missed the point of them.

[daniu]

I think the way they are now strikes a pretty good compromise between discouraging camping by giving boni while keeping the main gameplay intact.
The game is not supposed to be centered around them.

[The Bobba-Job]

I believe capture points were designed to meerly add another level of gameplay, CA are too disattachted from the community to come up with a semi-effective camping deterent, let alone recognise camping as a problem.

Having said that, CA has come up with a good idea here. Probably 80% of my battles have been fought near or around capture points, this has signifacntly intencified fights and given players another reason be a little more aggresive.

BUT.

I have noticed in alot of matches in which the cps have been located in rather awkward, and in some cases unfair or univiting positions. For example, i forget the map name, but it is the one in which both players are situated at the crest of a `V` shaped valley, and 3 cps are located at the basin. Most players I have played on this map seem content with sitting on the steep slope and showering you with arrows whenever you attempt to capture the cps. This is frustrating as just about every game i end up having to assult those buggers.

Yet i must remind myself that if those cps weren't there in the first place he would probably be tucked up even higher up the hill....

[leviath]

As Bobba job and me said, in some maps, ressource points that you are able to shower with your arrows whitout moving are encouraging camping a lot !

[dmcheatw]

How about you try to field a more balanced army instead of a "rush army" which I suspect means heavy on the cavalry, especially considering how before each battle you never know the composition of an opponents army?

Again, the bonuses are there for you to use them if you can. Usually there's a morale bonus, a melee attack/defense bonus and range bonus of some kind. If you get all three and your opponent just sits there that's a pretty significant advantage.

Also, on every single map I've seen there is way better terrain than the deployment zone, which is usually just a flat area. Plus, hills don't even offer range bonus for archers anymore (which is stupid and hopefully patched).

it's hard to field a more balanced army when you don't know what the map is going to look like before hand (match making) and someone hits start so u have 30 secs to switch out retainers, guess about a build, sub out your damaged vets from the last battle, etc. usually you just end up having to go with a pre made army, many of which are designed for flat maps in my case

the same could be said about the other guy, why didn't he get a balanced army instead of only spears and archers? and lots of maps still do have good camping terrain in their deployments numizawa being a quick example I can think of.

were u the kind of player that thought it was legit to camp on asuterlitz? trying to get a feel for what you think is normal/fair. bear in mind i'm using match making not choosing the maps I play on.

[daniu]

it's hard to field a more balanced army when you don't know what the map is going to look like before hand (match making) and someone hits start so u have 30 secs to switch out retainers, guess about a build, sub out your damaged vets from the last battle, etc. usually you just end up having to go with a pre made army, many of which are designed for flat maps in my case

May I advise you to select your army before searching by using the army management screen?
You will keep this army once your match is found and you can do minor adjustments to it depending on the map you're thrown onto.

[TheDude]

The capture points are great and a step in the right direction but they are not a deterrent to camping at all. For example, the map with a river running down the middle, a wooded area around the middle island and steep hills on both deployment zones, the capture points are in the actual river and a camper can place his artillery in his deployment zone and his all 3 capture points with impunity.
I think that the points should be out of range from the deployment zones, have larger bonuses and should adopt a Battlefield like ticker system when controlling 3 will quickly deplete the campers ticker number to 0 and give you the victory. This would increase the importance of capture points, discourage camping with artillery and possibly make the game more fun and fluid.