Regarding capzone rewards

Neue Feature für unseren Arma 3 Wasteland Server?
Post Reply
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed 19. Oct 2016, 23:52

Regarding capzone rewards

Post by Masgon » Sun 26. Mar 2017, 15:44

So there was a discussion in the discord channel about the capzone rewards. I've taken the liberty of copying some of the arguements to put them here on the forum.

If you do not want to read all of the quotes below to get up to speed I will write a short summary.

In general what is being discussed is the incentive to defend the capzones/flags after you have captured. There appears to be no real reason to stay and defend your zone. If you let someone cap it from you, you can cap it back and earn another 3500. Cap trading is bannable, but there is a question on how to define it. If you trade capzones with someone without planning it or communicating with eachother, is it still bannable?

It has been mentioned that capping the zone from a bigger team than yours will only result in the enemy getting more money than you as a consequence of your own actions. A point was made that capping should either disrupt the enemies income, or boost your own.
The ideas that came up was either reduce/remove the reward for capping, or increase the reward for holding. It has been pointed out that the flagzones get (ab)used during nighttime to earn money, and it wouldn't be right to reward this playstyle.

Please share your ideas and thoughts on this matter.

An official message was released: [AJ]
@everyone - we run a new capturezone money script on server1 now for testing purposes. - the territory payout is $60 x count players
for bigger groups there is a modificator that they get (slightly less money)
50% of the money for a 15 player group

count players on server * $60 = money per territory
count members on group reduces money a little bit (50% money for 15 player group)
numbers are not final though - thats why we do balance testing on server1 now

Below this line is the discussion almost in full, if anyone wants to read through it.


Reking - 03/17/2017
the money rewards with capturing zones is very strange, i still think. if i am playing in a smaller group or solo, in a way it is bad for me to steal a capture point from a larger group. because they will come back, retake it , and earn a lot more money than they would if nobody took it. if i didn't capture the point, they would just get the slow income from holding points. doesn't anyone else find it a bit strange?
by stealing a point from them, i am rewarding them with a lot more money (3500 x number-of-members-in-their-group)

Example: lets say its team A (3 players) who holds a point. they spy on team B (also 3 players) who are going in to capture the point. what does team A do? if they want most money, they should wait until team B captures, then recapture back. possibly avoiding conflict. they can also try to kill team B after their capture, to get more money.

i suggest that money reward from capturing be lowered, and reward from holding the territory be increased. then, if in my previous example, team A wanted to maximize their money, they would have to attack team B before they captured!
it doesn't have much to do with size of teams... even if i'm solo vs team of 5, it could be better for both of us (money wise, at least) to not engage in combat, just capture, run away, recapture, etc.

of course, i don't only play for money but for kills as well, but it would be great if money rewarded the more interesting playstyles
raekmackbert - 03/17/2017
i kinda agree, the money achieved for holding the zones arent really an incentive to continue be there, i think alot of groups capture them and then move on (atleast we do that)
If there would be more incentive to stay at the flags and defend them then there would be more combat for the zones, thats what i think anyways [AJ] - 03/17/2017
yes - if you can't hold the a capture point it might be a disadvantage to capture them. the slow income is there to give an incentive to hold an error but it isnt't something to get you rich. capture zones are best fitted for team vs team gameplay. for solo play the missions are better fitted.
i think it is enough money to "pay the bills" if you want to stay at the zones - but it isn't the most money you can make for sure. if there would be more money for holding the territories the larger groups might gain a big advantage.
reking - 03/17/2017
yeah, that may be because the money you get from capturing is multiplied by members of the group. if instead it was divided between the members...
for example, 1 person captures, gets 3500. 5 people capture, they get 3500/5 each
or some other formula
but it just feels unrewarding when you as a solo player manage to capture and you get 3500, while you know the enemy team you just killed could have gotten enough to by an armoured vehicle with just one capture
raekmackbert - 03/17/2017
but i dont really see how increasing the defend zone amount is that negative tho, i think it would be pretty cool, also would give more incentive for players to attack [AJ] - 03/17/2017
large teams would get rich faster and faster
the money should be just a small payment for the time - nothing to get rich
raekmackbert - 03/17/2017
yeah, but it should be small enough so that you dont want to leave the place and do something else
i agree it shouldnt be a huge amount
but still enough for you wanting to stay there
reking - 03/17/2017
Maybe decrease the money for capture and leave $/10 min the same?
the money for capturing is very high compared to almost all other missions currently
you get like 2500 for rescuing a hostage
if you capture all zones with a group of 4, you get 42000 in total

i capture, run away and hide, check the zone, watch enemies recapture and leave. then i cap again. is that bannable?
this is, today, the most effective and safe way to make money according to the mission
instead of making a bannable rule to stop cap trading, you could just adjust the economy to make it useless to cap trade
having a bannable rule creates a lot of problems - how to catch people cap trading? how to define it?

i just noticed something weird today when i went to steal a zone from a large group. effectively, i gained 3500 and gave 3500 to 5 enemies... i started to wonder if that was even positive for me to do.
it should always be "good" to take a zone, no matter your team size or enemies team size, imo.
either you disrupt their income, or boost your own, or a combination. but you shouldn't end up giving them more money from this.
Dudio - 03/17/2017
Just jumping in because I saw convo - there is no insentive to stay in the zones. You get 3500 per cap but once you cap all of them it's not worth the time staying there, you may as well leave, wait for somebody else to cap and then come back... you know?
Well, would be best if you got 500 for capping but something like 2500 per base per tick instead really. Would encourage capping with the intent to defend, not the other way around.
Masgon - 03/18/2017
I also agree that money rewards for capping is a bit strange. If you as a player who owns a capzone sees another player sitting still in your owned zone, it would be wiser for you to wait until he is done capping before engaging. You get his reward money, plus the money for capping the zone back.
It should be more rewarding to prevent this other player from capping all together
Eliminating or lowering the cap-reward could be a solution

Post Reply