Since I am investigating missions and basically have the opinion that the focal point like missions are more “killy” and the objective missions are more “mission”-like. that is that in the Killy missions there tend to be more bloody and while the mission like missions more often involve sacrificing your units to secure a win. Mike at OB gracefully gave me the results and I thought to give it the same run-through I have done on the latest Swedish tournaments. But this time i have 24 players so a better compilation of data.
Due to being away on vacation I have not the possibility to proofread this. I hope for your understanding.
Ob have of course had their missions up for a while. I like them overall and it is a bit more interesting to see the results in a tournamnet where the Swiss is key which we really can’t investigate in Sweden as our tournaments have too few players. So with this data I can actually check out how the swiss affects as well and consider it as well.
This tournamnet is at 1000pts and that will affect the data somewhat compared to 1500pts. I think a mistake of wrong placement hurts hell a lot more in 1000pts games than at 1500pts.
So let’s start. By the data I have collected I have the original theory of;
Mission 1 and 3 will be more killy influenced (Ground control and Surging strike) and mission 2 and 4 should be more mission-like (Take and extract and military complex). Now Ob have done some small changes here and there but I think the overall mission are close enough to what I have seen before to consider them the same for this matter. They have also considered the type of missions well, I think. For instance the mission Surging strike is actually a little more mission-like compared to normal focal points as you will need to move some extra to get to the opponent’s side. So it feels like Ob have considered this a lot.
So let’s check the results:
Are the killy mission killy? Well;
Mission 1 Ground control gave in total 8403kp to all players. 314kp in average Kp advantage to the winner.
Mission 2 Take and extract gave in total 9132kp to all players. 88kp in average advantage to the winner.
Mission 3 Surging strike 7975kp. 170kp in average advantage to the winner.
Mission 4 Military komplex 8440kp. 110kp in average advantage to the winner.
This result is actually rather strange. Mission 2 and 4 was clearly more bloody while the other two missions where less bloody. It is a bit strange as Swiss should dictate the Kp should be less as the tournament move on. But at the same time it is interesting that the mission-like missions gives more KP in total taken, perhaps because you sacrifice units easier to get the mission done while in the Killy missions you need to hold back and not sacrifice units as time goes on.
Also we can pretty clearly see that the average KP win for the winner is higher on killy missions and lower in mission-like missions. This is pretty self clear as the mission-like missions have more data points where the winner have a negative KP value. Still, even with the swiss I do consider this a trend. Killy missions awards the winner a higher kp advantage.
But in how many games (ignoring draws) does the game winner loose the KP game?
Game 1. Killy: In 0% of the game the winner lost Kp.
Game 2. Mission-like. 33% of the games the winner lost kp.
Game 3. Killy. 20% of the games the winner lost kp.
Game 4. Mission-like. 33% of the games the winner lost kp.
Here I see a clear trend and even with the swiss system I see that the mission-like mission the players need to sacrifice units to get the job done. The Swiss system of course push in and make sure the players are closer to each other in terms of skill. But still, the Ground control and the Surging strike seems to be more killy. I also think that Surging strike is a better missions than the normal focal points as it require a little more movement than normal focal points. If you like that players need to sacrifice units to win then consider Surging strike instead of normal focal points or Hold the ground.
In the four games the amount of games that resulted in larger wins was 50%, 42%, 42% and 17%. For me it is a clear advantage of the Swiss system. All the data would of course be different if you place missions in another order but still I think the following is my conclusion so far:
- It is fair to split missions in “killy” and “mission-like”. Killy missions are with mainly focal points and holding ground. Mission-like more focus on objectives, intel e t c or at least more objectives than focal points when a combination is available.
- It seems that mission-like missions is actually more bloody than killy. I am fairly sure it is because of the need to sacrifice units to handle the mission well. When investigating the average KP win the Killy missions showed that the winner had more advantage in KP in average than in the mission-like mission. Basically Killy missions tend to have a higher average KP advantage to the winner than mission-like.
So I would like to stress again that people should do as they wish but it is interesting to see that we have killy missions and mission-like missions and focal points/ground control does seem to be the absolut main difference. The Tournament organizer can do which ever he or she wants knowing this. I just think it is good a player can make informed decisions.
I think we need a bit more mission-like missions like objectives in bunkers. Perhaps a combination of Intel and Objectives in a center bunker (since we tested our own version of Secure the flanks the objective inside a center bunker is a freaking great addition to any mission – you get that focus I really like) or a combo of other ideas like possible objectives which might work better if used in combination with other missions. The main reason I think this is because I think mission-like missions are more fun and the reason I started DZC and the second reason is that the new critical location will shift the focus to the Killy missions even more.
A lot of boring text but in short. Killy missions will most likely be more used in the future and there are ways to have more mission-like missions in tournaments, the question is if we want to have the same balance and then how? I think we need to consider more combination of Objectives, Bunkers, Intel and possible objectives to succeed.