The Breach ticket system and spawn times need to stay as they are and this is why | Forums

[CandleInTheDark]

So before I go into this it is necessary to go into dominion. Dominion as it is played at most tiers might as well be on the deathmatch playlist. Look at every match where every member of a team has ended up with 16-20 kills because they have all been part of rolling around the map picking off players one or two at a time and you very quickly see that as an objective based game mode dominion falls flat, it is essentially skirmish plus

That is a good part of the reason that I play tribute when I can get a match, deathmatch otherwise (since at least I know going in what to expect) and dominion more or less only vs ai when level grinding, for someone who wants objective play where teams need to actually play to the objective, dominion doesn't have it. At all.

What has this to do with Breach and spawn times? A good part of the reason dominion is the way it is is because lives are treated cheaply (in that they are given away very readily) and because there is no need to focus on the objective because teams can get everything they need out of kills and people come back every fifteen seconds, if anything the short respawn timer in dominion contributes to it being an objective game mode in name only. People asking for a dominion style short timer and no tickets in Breach either don't realise that this would essentially turn Breach into another mindless rolling 4v4 only on a bigger map or that is exactly what they want and that is not healthy for an objective based game, certainly not one that the devs have stated they want to appeal to competitive players and teams with.

Breach is not a game where you can just stand in the middle of a field killing people, it is not a game where kills mean points but one where deaths instead mean loss of resources or presence on the field in order to influence the objective. Breach is a game where teams need to push together and, when they see an opportunity, take a risk to advance their objective in another part of the map and in order to have that actually make an impact then the risk and reward both need to be significant, each life has to be treated as if it is precious and each death that the other team is not able to get a revive for, and more significantly each team wipe, has to have consequences. For the attacking side those consequences are they lose at least one ticket and if the defenders are able to spend the time guarding a body quite possibly three to four tickets, that's a large percentage for a risk going wrong in spectacular fashion, it is also time that the defenders can reset the capture of a zone or seek to damage the ram. For the defenders who do not have tickets, this is a time that attackers are able to more or less take one of the objectives or for a time double their ram's movement or strike speed. None of this works if someone can come back in fifteen seconds (and I would note that the maximum time someone is out is only double that, not over forty seconds as I have seen banded about) and just throw their life away again with no consequence. By the same logic, this is also why those risks and rewards need to be more significant later in the game as the timer going up by renown or in the case of tribute by flags taken provide.

I am not a competitive gamer by any means but I have long watched any competitive gaming I can find, in a mode such as this every death needs to be a big thing, every half to full team wipe needs to be huge and that does not happen if the consequences and rewards do not balance or are not weighted along with the risk taken. If you want an 'objective mode' where you don't need to think that hard about the objective, you have dominion for that, as I said above it might as well be on the deathmatch playlist to begin with, Breach should not be turned into skirmish plus, as dominion is, on a larger map and the devs should not be taking steps that put it closer to that position.

[OoKaMi_79]

I’m on PS4 so I hadn’t try yet the new Breach mode but I have been following some youtubers to watch gameplays and when I see the complaints of the respawning time I fully agree with Candle. That time is required to give time to deal with all the other objectives for the teams.

The only thing I would address is that please Ubisoft make the time and effort we put on each match worth. Deliver fair rewards for everyone.

[DefiledDragon]

Lots of different ways of looking at this.

The long respawn timer encourages players to respawn and venture out onto the map alone, likely resulting in their swift demise, particularly for attackers as the defenders don't have to try to do anything other than gank the attackers and drop the cauldron when the ram is docked. When I've been defending I've met attackers mostly on their own or in pairs. When I've been attacking I've mostly met the defenders in threes or fours.

If you are being ganked, or the players on the other team are just flat out better than you, you're going to spend most of the game staring at the respawn screen. I've seen a lot of players quit mid match when they've been on the losing side. I'm not psychic, so I don't know why they quit, but if I was a betting man I would probably stick a fiver on the lengthy respawn timers.

The tickets for the attackers encourage the defenders to run around in a 4 player gank squad because depleting the attackers tickets seems to be the most efficient way to win as defenders. I think we can all agree that being constantly ganked isn't much fun, but as attackers playing against a savvy team of defenders, this is what you have to look forward to.

The tickets for the attackers shifts the defenders focus from stopping the ram, which I believe should be the primary concern for the defenders in the first two phases, to reducing the attackers ticket quota as fast as possible because reducing the attackers tickets by as many as you can during the first two phases can leave them with single figure ticket numbers in the final phase. At that point it doesn't matter that you didn't stop the ram because you just defend the commander and the attackers have no chance, even spamming OP AOE feats because they simply can't withstand the inevitable attrition rate with so few respawns.

i appreciate what you're saying as I too much prefer objective oriented gameplay, which is why I put 1000's of hours into CS:S but I wouldn't play CoD if you paid me £500 a week to do so, but at the same time I don't want to see Breach become Tribute. I want to be able to play it with other players as an alternative to Dominion, but in it's current form I don't believe it will retain sufficient numbers. I really do hope I'm wrong and I really do hope it becomes very popular, but I've seen too many complaints about these precise issues (among others) and I fear the mode will lose players very quickly if they can't hit the right balance.

Also, the XP and steel rewards need a major buff given the time commitment required or Breach will be DoA.

[CandleInTheDark]

Lots of different ways of looking at this.

The long respawn timer encourages players to respawn and venture out onto the map alone, likely resulting in their swift demise, particularly for attackers as the defenders don't have to try to do anything other than gank the attackers and drop the cauldron when the ram is docked. When I've been defending I've met attackers mostly on their own or in pairs. When I've been attacking I've mostly met the defenders in threes or fours.

If attackers run around like headless chickens, yes, that is bad attacking play. Alternatively, and I have done this with my group and in pug games, the attackers stay together for the first part to see how the defenders are playing, they interrupt executions, cover each other while they revive and they split off to the ram (or guardian in phase two) when they have killed a couple defenders or when they are confident that three of them are capable of holding off four. In the latter case if an attacker is clearing minions around the ram then the defenders need to decide do they continue as they are or do they stop the double speed of the ram in movement or striking? And yes this does work, I have been on teams that have gone into phase three with more than twenty tickets.

If you are being ganked, or the players on the other team are just flat out better than you, you're going to spend most of the game staring at the respawn screen. I've seen a lot of players quit mid match when they've been on the losing side. I'm not psychic, so I don't know why they quit, but if I was a betting man I would probably stick a fiver on the lengthy respawn timers.

Or the fact that they are losing, the devs said that it has always been the plan to have quit penalties in breach possibly for this reason. People behave like this in dominion which has a shorter respawn time, occam's razor suggests they quit in Breach for the same reason.

The tickets for the attackers encourage the defenders to run around in a 4 player gank squad because depleting the attackers tickets seems to be the most efficient way to win as defenders. I think we can all agree that being constantly ganked isn't much fun, but as attackers playing against a savvy team of defenders, this is what you have to look forward to.

The defenders cannot fourman everywhere at once, I covered this up above but sticking as a four or even a three the attacking team can preserve tickets through reviving. If in a straight fight they get beaten again and again that is because the other team is better.

The tickets for the attackers shifts the defenders focus from stopping the ram, which I believe should be the primary concern for the defenders in the first two phases, to reducing the attackers ticket quota as fast as possible because reducing the attackers tickets by as many as you can during the first two phases can leave them with single figure ticket numbers in the final phase. At that point it doesn't matter that you didn't stop the ram because you just defend the commander and the attackers have no chance, even spamming OP AOE feats because they simply can't withstand the inevitable attrition rate with so few respawns.

Having had successful games with defenders in my group and in pugs, yes keeping the zones is important, same as with the attackers though that is not the only course, I have kept the ram paused having killed the minions around it when there are no enemy heroes around for half a minute at a time and in this my group, without me being there unless a couple of my teammates died, had them breaking before the end of the first phase and when one of them managed to hold out untila second after the gate fell left the ram at only half health from all the minion damage and the extra cauldron drops. This was entirely because the ram took over twice as long to get to the gate, teams on either side ignore the ram or the flag for the shield buff at their own risk. A smart team on either side will make the ram a big part of why they won.

i appreciate what you're saying as I too much prefer objective oriented gameplay, which is why I put 1000's of hours into CS:S but I wouldn't play CoD if you paid me £500 a week to do so, but at the same time I don't want to see Breach become Tribute. I want to be able to play it with other players as an alternative to Dominion, but in it's current form I don't believe it will retain sufficient numbers. I really do hope I'm wrong and I really do hope it becomes very popular, but I've seen too many complaints about these precise issues (among others) and I fear the mode will lose players very quickly if they can't hit the right balance.

And in the form people are suggesting, no tickets and short timers, it is going to be just like dominion in that people ignore the objective and have a rolling fourman with everything else happening in the background with the result in each phase, taking longer, being down to maybe one team's minions take a little more damage than the others on the occasional time a whole team isn't around for five seconds at a time. The last thing the devs should be aiming for is deathmatch on a larger map which is what that idea will turn it into.

Also, the XP and steel rewards need a major buff given the time commitment required or Breach will be DoA.

That I agree with and said in my own feedback.

[Velentix]

I agree with making the deaths count, however penalizing the ones who have gained enough renown to unlock feats is a bit ridiculous, it just makes deathballing the preeminent strategy for the defenders to use. I think it would be better to make the capture points have a greater effect on the damage to the ram (as far as archers go) that way capturing those points will be important to the attackers, non sequential captures of points might be worth considering also.

To balance this though, attackers need to be given an advantage on the field i.e. more troops(historical note; seiging armies nearly always needed several times the defenders in order to successfully take down a fortress). In this way the ram will go forward relatively uncontested unless defenders split up and clear the field. The good thing about this is that deathballing will become harder. Side note: not all the troops of the attackers need to be pikemen you could have dominion minions as well, as long as they had slightly buffed attack speed/damage, still one hit kill.
Just my thoughts, but would be interested to know what you guys think.

[CandleInTheDark]

I agree with making the deaths count, however penalizing the ones who have gained enough renown to unlock feats is a bit ridiculous, it just makes deathballing the preeminent strategy for the defenders to use. I think it would be better to make the capture points have a greater effect on the damage to the ram (as far as archers go) that way capturing those points will be important to the attackers, non sequential captures of points might be worth considering also.

To balance this though, attackers need to be given an advantage on the field i.e. more troops(historical note; seiging armies nearly always needed several times the defenders in order to successfully take down a fortress). In this way the ram will go forward relatively uncontested unless defenders split up and clear the field. The good thing about this is that deathballing will become harder. Side note: not all the troops of the attackers need to be pikemen you could have dominion minions as well, as long as they had slightly buffed attack speed/damage, still one hit kill.
Just my thoughts, but would be interested to know what you guys think.

I think for me it is more about that in the later game deaths count more, and maybe like tribute where one team is very much better than the opponents it balances it out some. At the same time I do believe that unless the attackers are smart the defenders have less places they need to be and that making the ram zone having a slight bias towards the attacking side would force the defenders to multitask earlier though my concern would be that if it starts out that way the zones falling would skew the balance, it already has an impact when both of the archer zones fall. More damage to the ram when no zones have fallen over more attackers on the field as you suggest might be a way that works though if it is done right.

Non sequential zone captures I am not sure on basically because the way it is it suggests that the attacking minions have a clear path to come into the second and third zones as the ones before fall.

[DefiledDragon]

If attackers run around like headless chickens, yes, that is bad attacking play. Alternatively, and I have done this with my group and in pug games, the attackers stay together for the first part to see how the defenders are playing, they interrupt executions, cover each other while they revive and they split off to the ram (or guardian in phase two) when they have killed a couple defenders or when they are confident that three of them are capable of holding off four. In the latter case if an attacker is clearing minions around the ram then the defenders need to decide do they continue as they are or do they stop the double speed of the ram in movement or striking? And yes this does work, I have been on teams that have gone into phase three with more than twenty tickets.



Or the fact that they are losing, the devs said that it has always been the plan to have quit penalties in breach possibly for this reason. People behave like this in dominion which has a shorter respawn time, occam's razor suggests they quit in Breach for the same reason.



The defenders cannot fourman everywhere at once, I covered this up above but sticking as a four or even a three the attacking team can preserve tickets through reviving. If in a straight fight they get beaten again and again that is because the other team is better.



Having had successful games with defenders in my group and in pugs, yes keeping the zones is important, same as with the attackers though that is not the only course, I have kept the ram paused having killed the minions around it when there are no enemy heroes around for half a minute at a time and in this my group, without me being there unless a couple of my teammates died, had them breaking before the end of the first phase and when one of them managed to hold out untila second after the gate fell left the ram at only half health from all the minion damage and the extra cauldron drops. This was entirely because the ram took over twice as long to get to the gate, teams on either side ignore the ram or the flag for the shield buff at their own risk. A smart team on either side will make the ram a big part of why they won.



And in the form people are suggesting, no tickets and short timers, it is going to be just like dominion in that people ignore the objective and have a rolling fourman with everything else happening in the background with the result in each phase, taking longer, being down to maybe one team's minions take a little more damage than the others on the occasional time a whole team isn't around for five seconds at a time. The last thing the devs should be aiming for is deathmatch on a larger map which is what that idea will turn it into.



That I agree with and said in my own feedback.

Yeah, as I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you, those were just my observations based on my own experience and on the feedback I've seen from players thus far. I want Breach to be popular and I want it to be an objective focused mode of play, but objective based game modes require cooperation and teamwork or the experience can be a dreadful one. There's a reason that the 24 player CS:S deathmatch servers are always full and the 12 and 16 player objective based ones rarely are. I think players like you and I are in the minority within this community. Like I said though, I hope I'm proven wrong.

[Velentix]

realized I forgot my 2 cents on tickets lol.
1st I think the lower the ticket count the faster the respawn. As far as tickets throughout the game or just in the kill the lord segment, I'm a bit torn but I lean more on the side of only after the ram.

The reason for this being that if they want an objective based mode it needs to have a primary focus of the objective (namely the ram) not an easy side out of deathballing the attackers. Leave that crap in dominion. Any objective mode should have conflicts occurring as a result of the objective not for the sake of conflict itself.

[DefiledDragon]

One other point that was made about tickets was that having one bad player on the attacking team, who isn't very good and therefore has low renown and therefore a higher spawn rate, can completely bollocks the game for the attacking team by burning all their tickets. It's a valid, if a little brutal, concern.

[Velentix]

I think for me it is more about that in the later game deaths count more, and maybe like tribute where one team is very much better than the opponents it balances it out some. At the same time I do believe that unless the attackers are smart the defenders have less places they need to be and that making the ram zone having a slight bias towards the attacking side would force the defenders to multitask earlier though my concern would be that if it starts out that way the zones falling would skew the balance, it already has an impact when both of the archer zones fall. More damage to the ram when no zones have fallen over more attackers on the field as you suggest might be a way that works though if it is done right.

Non sequential zone captures I am not sure on basically because the way it is it suggests that the attacking minions have a clear path to come into the second and third zones as the ones before fall.

As far non sequential captures is concerned, I think the possibility would be good provided that any non sequential capture is only carried out by heroes with no minion support so that if all defenders just sit at the first location and deathball, attackers have an option to try to split them up. Especially if the defenders are substantially better player.