Kalo's New Buff Change Proposal: Capture Points



  • Hey everyone, Kalo here! A few weeks ago, I posted about changing buffs to be weaker, but to permanently stack over rounds (to a max of 3) to reward control-style play. However, after an awesome discussion with devs and community members like DualSpirals, TeeVee, eternaL, Orgoth, Bboyonce (who first pitched this upcoming idea), and many others, we decided that the potential for unhealthy snowballing, especially at the casual level, could result in unfun gameplay.

    Currently, buff crystals set up 50/50 “out-snipe” scenarios that don’t feel very strategic. Steals are relatively easy to set up, and crystals in general don’t take very long to destroy, all resulting in the “high risk high reward” intention behind them to not come through properly.

    Cue “Buff Capture Points”. Instead of crystals, the zones buffs are currently on will act as capture zones teams can secure to receive the appropriate buff. However, instead of lasting the entire round, now if the opposing team captures the zone back, the first team loses the buff and the other team receives it. This will more healthily reward buff control, but also reward strong team-fighting. For example: a team who wins a skirmish but doesn’t feel they can push the relic across the map to score before the opponents have respawned, will then be able to secure the buff zones (and maybe destroy some buildables/pressure relic a little bit).

    Along with this change, I’d propose taking buildable/buff damage out of the game as it would lose one of its main purposes, and instead make it so attack damage increases your damage to buildables as well, maybe even just incrementally (half effectiveness?). Gold buff will need to re-worked and can simply be made to give the team who has the buff faster passive gold per second instead. Lastly, the actual zone areas on maps may need to be tinkered with a little bit for fluidity, as these zones will be holding fights, not just center-piecing the crystals.

    Capture points would likely work as so: Team A caps the neutral point after standing on it for 8 seconds (number is strictly an example), made shorter the more teammates are on it at once. Team B then tries to contest the point, but it does not budge as Team A has a member in the zone. After some fighting, Team A steps out of the zone long enough for Team B to cap it, neutralizing the zone, but Team A comes back onto the zone before Team B can fully cap it, so the point remains neutral. Team B then fully wins the fight, forcing Team A back to base, and Team B fully captures the point, giving them the buff. (This is pretty standard when it comes to capture point mechanics but I feel it necessary to explain for clarity’s sake).

    That’s it for this proposal. I know a lot of people are excited about the idea and I’d love to see it tested some time in the future. If you got this far, thank you so much for reading! As always, you can find me at my Twitch or Twitter, and feel free to leave any additions, criticisms, or thoughts down below: I’ll be sure to reply. Can’t wait to continue testing and providing feedback in the weeks and months to come.
    Stay safe and beautiful!



  • I like this a lot! Personally, I'd also like to see one small difference, if only as a baby step in testing towards your proposal - make the territory control last the entire round, as the current buffs do.

    The only problem with the buffs that I have currently is the 50/50 snipe issue you pointed out. Their effectiveness in swaying fights is manageable in their current state. Making them territory control-based removes the issue of sniping buffs, without having a huge effect on the flow and strategy of a match.

    This would be a great change regardless, just want them to baby step us into it a bit more.



  • How would capturing a point interact with things like stealth? Would you be slightly revealed, fully revealed, or just be incapable of triggering the capturing process at all? There would also probably need to be new announcer lines alerting people on the status of the point (which may interfere with other announcer lines that can already stack up on each other).

    Also, what do you think about being able to choose the buff that applies once you cap the point? You can't choose the same buff more than once on the map of course, but it would allow your team to maybe boost a stat they're lacking in. For example, maybe your team only has 2 real damage dealers so you choose the damage buff to make up for it a bit, or your team is super squishy so you choose the health buff to boost everyones survivability. In contrast, you could even boost a stat that you chose to build your team around like becoming even more bursty, unkillable, or something like that.
    This may just add more complication or mechanics than there needs to be though.


  • Amazon Game Studios

    Interesting proposal Kalo. We are going to test some things with Buff Crystals, because we want them to be a richer part of the game. As @hickorylive mentioned, giving players another strategic choice rather than raw ball running really deepens the experience.

    I'll keep this in mind as we begin our experiments on the Buff Crystals.



  • i don't disagree with the original post so all i have to say is

    "yes"



  • I think this is a very interesting idea that will help improve the pace of the game a good bit. I think there is a little bit too much focusing on raw ball running, while macro play is almost completely lost. Something like this may help the issue a little bit. Currently the game is just too faced paced for my liking - especially when you can run/dunk a 3-0 in 2 minutes or less.

    One thing I would like to see however, is a non-symmetrical buff positioning. In a 2 (or more) buff map, I'd like to see 1 buff be closer to each base. This will guarantee each team having a single buff, while giving an advantage to the team able to control 2 (or more).

    If the buff zones are in the same places now - or symmetrical in any way - it will rapidly lead to uninteresting stalemates revolving solely around buff control. Basically it will be a King of the Hill game that kind of sometimes has a ball moving, IMO. I could even see gold buff being favored to one side (supposing sides swap between rounds) - this will be a point of contention, but if it's on the opponents side of the map you have to plan accordingly.



  • @hickorylive an interesting point that came up in our conversation was talk about asymmetrical maps, which I'm a fan of, assuming balance and such: what if we had a single buff map with the ball on one side and the buff on the other?

    Lots of possibilities in junction with this capture point idea.



  • @buttabuttajam said in Kalo's New Buff Change Proposal: Capture Points:

    I like this a lot! Personally, I'd also like to see one small difference, if only as a baby step in testing towards your proposal - make the territory control last the entire round, as the current buffs do.

    The only problem with the buffs that I have currently is the 50/50 snipe issue you pointed out. Their effectiveness in swaying fights is manageable in their current state. Making them territory control-based removes the issue of sniping buffs, without having a huge effect on the flow and strategy of a match.

    This would be a great change regardless, just want them to baby step us into it a bit more.

    yeah exactly like this it would last the entire round and reset the next.



  • @buttabuttajam I'd definitely be interested in testing both ways, because I agree with you in how the permanent round capture would keep things similar, however the way initially proposed could promote a different, control-based dimension of pacing we don't yet have in the game which I think could also be good.

    Hopefully we'll get to test and see!



  • I kind of like non-symmetrical maps with symmetrical buffs (I.E. Atalla Prime). I like that it forces you to choose which buff you value most, or even just pushing the relic and gaining mid-field control. I think non-symmetrical buffs would be balanced to the point of who cares (cause you can get your buffs without harrass) and be a little too similar to League in my opinion. Though I'm all for getting rid of the 50/50 snipe.

    I think ButtaButta's suggestion of permanent capture at first would be a great testing measure of the idea on a smaller scale change.

    Plus this could make it more threatening for Jarra's, Argus's and Thorgrims because, I assume the crystal would be gone and the top would be flatter which would allow them all more access to using their kits. This way they aren't just kited around the crystal and argus could kick people off more easily.



  • @fullmetal372 My issue with symmetrical maps is that inevitably one buff will be prioritized over the other. If the buffs are similar enough (or identical) that you are okay with one and not the other, we would just as likely have the "we are okay with 1, who cares to contest"

    With an asymetrical placement, you may be on the silver buff side of Atala - I'd be surprised to hear you wouldn't push to contest for gold. Similarly, the gold side team would very likely want to absorb pressure as opposed to all inning/risk losing gold buff.

    You know as well as me, that a 4 man dive on top side, means I run STRAIGHT to Drake. Macro plays, map control, and pressure zones can (and should) be a part of a game like Breakway - even if it is way smaller and way faster. I think finding our equivalent of a 'lane swap' could do a lot for competition and viewership.

    To that point @kalology I would be interested in a single buff map as well. I think taking a good deal of focus off the ball is actually a productive situation. The ball should remain the lionshares of objective focus - but I'm not happy with the current ~90% focus. This like pressure swapping and buff control also leaves room for more interesting spectator/camera play. I think taking the camera off the ball (and onto specific zones/player perspective) is very needed - but once again 51% should be on the ball. Just not 99%


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Breakaway was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.