Extended Time

(amazinglarry) #1

I have an idea this is going to be somewhat controversial with how strongly some people feel one way or another, but I think it’s worthy of discussion.

How do you feel about adding extended time for completed objectives? Right now, if an attacking team gets into a situation where the D has been too stout, it’s virtually impossible to finish a map.

One example would be escorting the EV, where it has a fixed travel speed - if there’s less than X amount of time remaining on the clock, the Defending team is always going to win.

Now obviously one could argue that if the defending team did their part well enough to burn enough time off the clock on early objectives then they’ve earned the win (and I would agree)… but there’s also the potential for some unmotivated play during the latter half of the match if it’s all but sealed up.

I was thinking maybe if an objective was advanced, only enough time to complete the next objective as efficiently as possible could be added to the clock.

For example, if it takes the attacking team 1:30 to escort the EV from ‘Activision Headquarters’ with the objectives to the objective ‘finish line’ without stopping even for a second, then 1:30 could be added to give the potential of pulling it off.

Obviously the flip side to this is it being too punishing for the defending team, especially if they’ve had a great D for 90% of the game, and completely broke down at the end and lost as a result.

I don’t know… I could definitely go either way with it. What do you think?

(stealth6) #2

I liked BFBC2’s system that defenders had to make 100 kills and per completed objective the timer was reset back to at least 75 kills.

So yes I like extending the timer by completing objectives.

(BioSnark) #3

I hated how tf2 changed the rules on time all the time. I just couldn’t take the objectives seriously because the game wasn’t. Did not like this in brink, either. If a team can’t win, they should have the option to conceed.

My 2 cents

(tangoliber) #4

I had no problem with it in Brink, because the rule was that the escort had to be moving, or the bomb had to be ticking. It never just gave you time to be nice. It was overtime.

(BioSnark) #5

I meant adding some amount of time on each objective.

(DarkangelUK) #6

I prefer it the way it is, if it’s over it’s over. Brink for me became chore, you held the defence till the last possible second, the offence got a lucky break then suddenly you’re back where you started and more time tacked on.

(EnderWiggin.DA.) #7

@Larry
I think the dynamic has to be FUN for both the offense and the defense. If the defense did their job, they should get the win. Prolonging a losing battle personally doesn’t make me want to play more. There are certain maps or days where if the offense is locked down for 80% of the map, then just let it end man. Just let it end.

-I personally think overtime is fun because it creates intense drama which is fun for both teams by creating the possibility of the last second win/loss.
-I’m not opposed to X minutes base map time, +Y minutes additional when objectives are completed so long as the maps are properly balanced. I think this is how Brink did the times. Honestly I could go either way, W:ET/ETQW or Brink. Whichever avoids more rage quits and provides more fun games.

(Humate) #8

Extend the spawn time for the defenders.
Shorten the spawn time for the attackers, the longer the match goes.

Should add you can only really get away with this, if it has 1st person spectate.

edit: no overtime, just handicap

(Pytox) #9

I only like overtime etc when:

  • enemy team planted bomb but it didn’t blow up yet
  • enemy team has carriable , or it is dropped somewhere if enemy team returns it the match ends
(mortis) #10

Overtime is fine for campaign/objective mode, but has no place in stopwatch. It should probably only be used for C4 plants/defuses…

(Thundermuffin) #11

I’m of mixed opinion on overtime overall, but I feel that it has no place in Dirty Bomb or any other ET styled game. To me the whole point of the game is to finish the level in 20 minutes, and if you can’t do that you deserve to lose. There shouldn’t be a double jeopardy for the defense, where they have held you for 19:50 seconds, but you just happen to plant a bomb or repair the EV and now they are tasked with having to hold or defuse you even though you deserve your loss.

(Anti) #12

It is something we’re still considering for Objective mode. The main reason we like the idea of it, and did in Brink, is that it removes painful 20 minute full holds at the first objective if the defending team is better than the attacking team. Does that not bother you folks?

The only thing I can see that is lost with this system is that the attackers can be cut off early, where in a 20 minute match they could complete objective one at minute 14 and still manage to rush subsequent objectives in the last six minutes. Aside from that extended time can mirror regular Objective matches, but end the pain nice and early for struggling teams :slight_smile:

(SockDog) #13

[QUOTE=Anti;410463]It is something we’re still considering for Objective mode. The main reason we like the idea of it, and did in Brink, is that it removes painful 20 minute full holds at the first objective if the defending team is better than the attacking team. Does that not bother you folks?

The only thing I can see that is lost with this system is that the attackers can be cut off early, where in a 20 minute match they could complete objective one at minute 14 and still manage to rush subsequent objectives in the last six minutes. Aside from that extended time can mirror regular Objective matches, but end the pain nice and early for struggling teams :)[/QUOTE]

If I can be honest I have to say I don’t like objective specific timers. Many times the first objective could be held for a long time but a breakthrough could stumble the opposition enough to speed through the next couple of objectives. You’re pretty much lowering the chances of that ever happening (which are frankly some of the most awesome games).

Also, if there is a full hold it’s because the teams are imbalanced, would be better to say enforce a shuffle in such a situation rather than just call the game ‘done’. Avoiding the pain is avoiding the issue IMO.

Regarding extending the time on plants I’d say do it although disable the ability for additional plants once the timer is complete. This gives what, 60seconds of overtime on a few maps? Rather that than teams quitting 59secs from the end of a map because it’s pointless to play on.

(Humate) #14

Does that not bother you folks?

If its clear that there is no way to win, then the goal is to complete the 1st objective.
And if thats not possible, you take the loss and play the next map.

We actually had a discussion about this on the main forums a while ago…
One of the solutions was allowing the dominated team to concede the map with their own vote, which also prompts a reshuffle on the next map.

(Anti) #15

Most concede vote systems I’ve seen tend to turn into vote spam though, which is never much fun (vote caller doesn’t get what he wants, players voting against get spammed). Skill based team balance shuffles mid session aren’t great either as they can separate groups of friends, preventing them from playing with each other and often causing them to leave.

Obviously both types of system can be designed to be smarter and work better than existing examples, but ultimately any automated system like this can be gamed or abused one way or another to cause frustration. A system that reduces the impact of bad balance and then addresses the route cause between matches seems the least “evil” to me, but am interested to hear more opinions.

(stealth6) #16

Getting stomped by the enemy for 20 minutes can be fun depending on the map. If the map is too linear then no it’s not much fun(for example oasis in W:ET was pretty bad since the objective can be completed in under 5 minutes).
As for the topic at hand I think extending the time if dynamite is planted is fair, but no more plants should be allowed as already said. I don’t think the time should be extended when a player is still carrying an objective since that can be abused.

I think a conceed vote should be possible in stopwatch mode. For instance on Goldrush in W:ET if you didn’t have the truck with 50 seconds to spare, there was no point.
Same thing for Whitechapel. If you don’t have the tank on the lift with 2-3minutes to spare… Not sure if it’s worth it.

Then again I think there was a surrender vote in ET which I’ve never seen used.

(Humate) #17

[QUOTE=Anti;410483]Most concede vote systems I’ve seen tend to turn into vote spam though, which is never much fun (vote caller doesn’t get what he wants, players voting against get spammed). Skill based team balance shuffles mid session aren’t great either as they can separate groups of friends, preventing them from playing with each other and often causing them to leave.

Obviously both types of system can be designed to be smarter and work better than existing examples, but ultimately any automated system like this can be gamed or abused one way or another to cause frustration. A system that reduces the impact of bad balance and then addresses the route cause between matches seems the least “evil” to me, but am interested to hear more opinions.[/QUOTE]

Yep it has its associated negatives :slight_smile:
That said, I too am curious to see whether the brink approach is more popular than the etqw approach.

(SockDog) #18

[QUOTE=Anti;410483]Most concede vote systems I’ve seen tend to turn into vote spam though, which is never much fun (vote caller doesn’t get what he wants, players voting against get spammed). Skill based team balance shuffles mid session aren’t great either as they can separate groups of friends, preventing them from playing with each other and often causing them to leave.

Obviously both types of system can be designed to be smarter and work better than existing examples, but ultimately any automated system like this can be gamed or abused one way or another to cause frustration. A system that reduces the impact of bad balance and then addresses the route cause between matches seems the least “evil” to me, but am interested to hear more opinions.[/QUOTE]

Let me introduce you to my much hated L4D director style game balancer which fires out temporary upgrades to teams which are clearly out gunned. Oh wait, there is a warning label on this thing… “May incur the wraith of all gamers who have no problem steam rolling other teams”

and yes I’m bitter. :slight_smile:

(Anti) #19

Not quite what I’m suggesting though is it :wink:

(zenstar) #20

The problem with pub games is when one side is being seriously stomped then people drop out making it even more difficult to make a comeback. This makes the 20 minute lock-out a real issue as the server empties on one side. Especially when groups of friends are playing together on one side.

I still think having a server-side option would be best and have that clearly labelled in the server browser. Then people who like the trickle effect can have that and people who like the set timer approach can go for that.