DB Design Doc: In-Session Progression System

(Smooth) #121

Easily fixed :slight_smile:

(Kendle) #122

OK, Anti alluded to that previously, but unless you want to spell out precisely how I remain to be convinced.

(iwound) #123

[QUOTE=Kendle;440054]Sorry Anti, but you still don’t understand Stopwatch, it is NOT balanced by the fact the teams swap sides.

If defence get upgrades first, even if in round 2 the new defence get them the same time the previous defence did, it’s still not right. SW is about setting times. Anything that prejudices times being set is BAD. Defence getting upgrades first prejudices times being set, in both halves. It doesn’t matter that it prejudices each team equally, it matters that it prejudices either team AT ALL.[/QUOTE]

but the upgrades are per map only, not carried over.
so the second round the new defence get the same chances as the first defence.
or did i miss something?

(Kendle) #124

[QUOTE=iwound;440060]but the upgrades are per map only, not carried over.
so the second round the new defence get the same chances as the first defence.
or did i miss something?[/QUOTE]

Yes, you missed how Stopwatch works, as explained in the 2nd paragraph of the post you quoted.

(iwound) #125

np il read. :slight_smile:

so it boils down to.

kendle - a defence getting upgrades (which would be at the game end) which results in a hold.
SD - so if its xp balanced, attackers also have these upgrades to overcome this.
Comp scene - will probably just prefer no xp and find a way to switch it off.
pub players - worried that their fun spam is reduced to appease comp.

i think kendles strongest point is if SD force the issue with xp it will turn some off.
but also adjustments for comp will also turn off some casual players.
They want the try and see first. but in the end we all want to make it our own individual experience.
kendle and many like him will not like xp but just prefer the gunplay.
i don’t see why not as it doesn’t deviate too much away from the core game.
and it doesnt affect me what-so-ever.
SDs main argument is to try and encourage more casual players to easily move to matches without a whole new rule set.
but im not more likely to do that as i hate using voip and its in the comp bible you must use it so that puts me off.
plus i havent got the time which id prefer to put into maps etc.
but there maybe others who want a comp with xp.

i think this create 1 type for all has a weak argument and if in the end the game isn’t flexible enough to change for different playing styles it will suffer.
SD games have been popular due people being able to change things.
even if SD work with the community now to create something acceptable to all, with probably a lot of compromise, we are a fickle lot and will still want to change it preferably by ourselves.

i think in the end the game will diverge into different groups ie comp, pub mainly because well we already have game types that are completely different ie tdm which is nothing like a match obj game which contradicts what SD stated they wanted. if you have different game types then let comp be a different game type maybe even selectable from the server browser.

unless the game can be changed by us it will suffer. we are all different.
just think brink.

(Kendle) #126

I’m gonna go do some work now, back later maybe. It really does do my head in that people think adding nonsense to one half of a SW round is balanced by adding the same nonsense to the other half. It’s all about setting times, not playing the same map twice, once as each team. :slight_smile:

(ailmanki) #127

Why not have a Stopwatch round, and the results of the better round carry over to the next map.

Though I still do not see how this is going to be balanced over multiple rounds. The better team, will just become better and better. Might be excellent games if both teams are very similar.

(Ashog) #128

Not sure I understand how this prejudices time wrongly. it affects the first time set, but in the second round, who prohibits the team that lost to beat the time by overprejudicing the previous round - by, say, getting the upgrades 20 seconds earlier? The effect is the same, the only difference is psycological - the lost team has to get upgrades a bit faster, but that’s a general target of beating time in SW as well?! Please explain in more detail what you mean in examples.

(Kendle) #129

I’m working on the basis on 2 assumptions:

  1. The defending team, in both halves, get XP quicker, and therefore upgrades sooner, than the attacking team. Please don’t make me have to explain why this is.

  2. XP is reset when the teams swap sides, the defending team from the 1st half do not go into the 2nd half with whatever XP advantage they gained from the 1st.

Assuming that’s how SW works in DB (which is how it does work in ET), then the fact the teams swap sides between halves means diddly squat.

Each half is played on the exact same basis, which it must be or else one team would have an unfair advantage over the other by virtue of who defends 1st.

Whatever conditions arise in the 1st half that may prejudice a time being set, occur equally in the 2nd half. And it’s that issue of times being set in the first place that’s the main concern.

To give you an example, I was involved in the first ever ET competition held in Europe, shortly after ET’s release and before we had ETPro. I admin’ed a match between 2 top Euro teams on Fueldump. It was best of 3 (3 sets of SW), each set resulted in a double full-hold, neither team were able to set a time AT ALL, the match took 3 hours and ended in a 0 - 0 draw, a complete waste of everyone’s time.

This happened not because the teams were equally matched, it happened because XP made the defending team (whichever one that happened to be at the time) stronger than the attacking team. Take out XP and this would only happen if the teams were exactly equally matched. If either team was a bit stronger than the other (with no XP) one of them would have set a time.

So my aversion to XP is not based on how it affects the teams during the course of the match, it’s about how it affects the final result.

Anything that can be demonstrated to advantage the defending team (which XP can), and therefore potentially increase the risk of a full-hold, has no place in SW competition.

(Anti) #130

I thought I’d made this point before, but we’d never add a defender bias. That’s to say in this system attackers could make it so attackers always get them faster the defenders. If that was the case, I don’t see how this would unbalance SW time setting at all, because of the half swap. Whatever opportunity the attackers had in the first half to set their time the second attacking team will always have the chance to improve on that.

(Kendle) #131

Anti, until you explain how I remain to be convinced. You would guarantee the attacking team always get upgrades first, even if they really suck? In what real world sport does one team get given an advantage during the course of a match if they’re losing, just to help them out?

Please explain how you anticipate this working?

(Anti) #132

[QUOTE=Kendle;440712]Anti, until you explain how I remain to be convinced. You would guarantee the attacking team always get upgrades first, even if they really suck? In what real world sport does one team get given an advantage during the course of a match if they’re losing, just to help them out?

Please explain how you anticipate this working?[/QUOTE]

Well, one exaggerated example. It costs the defenders 5000XP to earn a rocket launcher upgrade, it costs the attacker 5XP to earn the same upgrade. Obviously, this is broken, but it would give an attacker bias.

In real world sports, say Football (Soccer for the silly countries :wink:), wind or rain can play a huge factor in a match’s outcome. In the case of wind the teams can change sides after 45 minutes play, so that even’s it out…except it can’t be considered truely even because by that point one team can be losing and demoralized.

A closer example might be sports where points can only be scored by the serving team, when the non-serving team win a point they gain service, not a score. In this case the team with starting serve could be considered to have an ever so slight advantage but folks still compete because it’s something they believe they can be overcome, it has negligible impact. It’s how the team use their skill to take advantage of the serve that is the difference.

What we’re proposing is, at some point after the first 4-5 mins of a SW match, and maybe only 1-3 times a half, the attacking team will gain an extra ability that takes skill to use well. If they use it well it can give their team a leg up, if they use it badly it has no impact, after use it is gone. At the same time, maybe at a much slower pace, the defenders get the same upgrades (perhaps only once per half), with the same potential skill-based successful or unsuccessful outcomes.

No matter what time is set in the first half the newly attacking team at the start of the second half still has equal opportunity to out perform the first attacking team, to earn those upgrades faster, to use them better. Yes, the outcomes of what the first attacking team did may well affect the spirits of the new attackers, it may affect their approach, but this happened in SW in all our previous games - if you’re team got blitzed in the first half the second half was scary.

That’s how I see it :slight_smile:

What I like about this system is set out in the initial goals, that it adds additional highlight moments to the match, gives something for casters to discuss, what did the team spend it’s XP on, how did it use it, when did it time the use of it in the maps flow. For competition and eSports the story of the match, the key beats of the experience are really important to a quality experience. SC2 and the MOBA games do this so well and, aside from some elements of CS, it’s sadly lacking in the FPS genre.

(Loffy) #133

OK, it adds depth in a sense.
I want to try it out.

(ImageOmega) #134

With the comparison to MOBA’s it basically sounds like you’re trying to introduce “ultimates” to the FPS genre.

(Raviolay) #135

I am just going to try it before passing judgement, my only concern is that the tier 3 stuff for most of the classes is just more of the same. Sniper more spotting, Support more ammo, Medic more healing. The solider and engineer get the fun stuff, a Launcher and a Turret, it appears to me that who ever thought this up ran out of ideas.

(INF3RN0) #136

This is what makes the proposal completely separate from a MOBA for me. Some MOBA champs for example have these types of skill shot abilities that are very hard to master and only can change the outcome of an engagement when they connect. If all of the t3 abilities function under this idea to the dot then I can’t see any reason not to try it. No insta-OHK abilities that work every time with a simple click, but skillful non-dependable abilities that take a lot of practice to use effectively- though when used well they can do a lot (ie ET/RTCW panzer as an example). My main concern is that a lot of the t3 abilities won’t be as attractive picks as others.

(jamiewalker) #137

I really like the sound of the unlocks being available for that “campaign”(if you wish) could bee cool if there was a little more too it (dual pistols, faster re-load / cooldown times etc.)

hopefully it plays well :smiley:

(jamiewalker) #138

does the rocket launcher have a delayed shot like the p/faust? :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

(iwound) #139

Bumpity bump bump for those who havnt seen this thread. Read first post.
take into consideration all of the above.

(Bangtastic) #140

any updates on this yet?