Extended Time

(Anti) #21

Yup, like that, should be easy for us to do.

(SockDog) #22

Just trying to think outside the box. :slight_smile: It’s not like the existing solutions have fixed the issue, they’re just familiar and accepted as part of online gaming.

[QUOTE=zenstar;410499]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.[/QUOTE]

Are people really going to pick a server dependant on that option or just risk a join and see how balanced it is. Again we’re managing the outcome and not dealing with the issue by asking people to make a choice how they’d like their imbalanced game to play.

I’m also not so sure people are going to find it acceptable to have their friends shuffled at the start of a round compared to in the middle of it. Seems either way they’ll be split and likely leave the server.

(zenstar) #23

My guess is things will work themselves out organically. At first people will jump around to whatever server is more full and not care about the settings too much (well… a few people will but I think the majority won’t to start with).
Then slowly they will favourite the servers where they had the most fun. People will tend to have the most fun on the servers that are set up the way they like to play. Slowly the population will shift into 4 groups: Setting A yes! Setting A no! Setting A either way! and what’s Setting A?
The first 2 groups will stick to servers that they like. The third group will go to the active servers and the 3rd group are yet to favourite a server.

So no. I don’t think people will consciously choose servers based on that, but yes, I do think that adding the option will get people to settle into the server clusters they prefer.
Of course I could be completely wrong. I’m not a psychologist… hell, I’m not even very sociable most days. :slight_smile:

But I do think that having options and checkboxes makes server administrators feel sexy.

(tokamak) #24

Overtime as long as someone is actively constructing, moving the EV, if an C4 charge is ticking and when someone holds a package.

I don’t care if it’s fair or balanced, having redundant minutes at the end of the match because the objective can’t be met anyway is just a boner killer.

(amazinglarry) #25

To echo a few thoughts that have come up on this thread, I know that I for one get bored easily if I’m on an attacking or defending side that is stuck on the first objective for the full 20 minutes. Sure, sometimes as a defender it’s nice to have a full hold like that, but over the game’s lifespan, at some point it’s going to be like, “Great, we get to sit here all day again.”

Now, obviously there’s going to be a weird balance of games where the attackers completely blow through the map, or the defenders hold really early… but in general, having the highest chance of doing the most objectives on a map and still pulling out a win are the most exciting games for me.

If time-based objectives were to be implemented, then they would need to be unique to each map which would definitely take a lot of balancing. For example, if escorting the EV to Activision HQ took 3 minutes of nonstop movement, each barricade taking 30 seconds with a C4 charge, and the potential of the EV being disabled… you could figure attackers would have ~8-10 minutes to escort it to AHQ.

I’m not necessarily suggesting that’s what I want to see in DB, but it’s definitely an option. I tend to view people as having really limited attention spans, especially when I played CoD, where each full TDM match was like maybe 8 minutes long. You didn’t see a lot of people quitting out because their side was losing, because they knew it would be over soon either way and a new match was only a few minutes away.

P.S. I hate shuffling, especially when it’s based on XP.

(SockDog) #26

It does seem to be overcomplicating things and ultimately it’s nothing more than an unquestionable map restart.

As for entertaining the CoD kiddies. Well that is why you’re going to have 10 minute TDM/DM and other modes for them to play so we don’t need to make OBJ into guitar riff pegglised firework show then. :slight_smile:

(amazinglarry) #27

Yeah that didn’t really cross my mind for some reason – when I think of SD games I think “OBJECTIVE (SW) ONLY, SHUT UP!”

It’s going to take a bit of re-education on my part to remember that there are other modes in DB :stuck_out_tongue:

(EnderWiggin.DA.) #28

It bothers me but generally only in the range of 10-15 minutes. I’m fine with a beat down in that time frame and if it continues to happen I’ll just find a new server that is more balanced if the issue isn’t corrected in 2-3 rounds. This is especially true if I can tell the other team is all one clan rolling pubbies for the lols. I am in favor of shuffling at the end of rounds but I understand the issue of splitting up friends. I’m also in favor of writing smarter shuffling logic rather than just basing it on XP or random.

What about incentives for switching teams for balance at the ends of rounds?
“Hello PlayerOne, we see you have a 2:1 K/D ratio and are playing on the winning team a lot. For 1/10th of a money hat, would you switch teams with TallyWacker69 who is really just a meat shield?” So maybe that’s not the best wording and the logic should be based on more than just K/D since a lemming engie may die more than a medic, but you get the idea.

(tokamak) #29

[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]

Well this is especially important if you want to attach value to xp. During a full hold the xp difference between the two teams will only grow bigger and bigger and thus increasingly more meaningless. Cutting of a game without chance also keeps the xp meaningful.

(SockDog) #30

Lets make gameplay decisions around making XP valuable. <le sigh>

(H0RSE) #31

[QUOTE=stealth6;410237]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.[/QUOTE]
I really enjoyed BFBC2, but I am not a fan of its “kill timer system” at all. Sometimes performing actions even when death is inevitable, is encouraged. A system like that devalues choices like that.

Maybe I’m just traditional or “oldschool,” but I believe objective based games should rely solely on a time limit, regardless the amount of kills or deaths players are ranking up.

I don’t know if it is already implemented, but an overtime mechanic could work - if time runs out, give the attackers more time, as long as they are performing the objective. If say, an engineer is building something and gets killed, give the attackers 5 seconds or so to get another engy on the objective before it’s game over.

[QUOTE=BioSnark;410249]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[/QUOTE]

In the case of Brink, I believe their reasoning for doing it was to try and deal with matches dragging on. To me, it makes more sense to have objectives split up, instead of treated like one “mega” objective. Giving a separate amount of time for each leg of the map, seems more “clean” and streamlined, although, the option to forfeit makes sense.

For defenders, yes, that can be frustrating, but in the same regard, one huge time limit for everything, can be frustrating for attackers - your team spends too much time on an objective and finally pushes through, but it’s all for nothing - there’s only 10 seconds left… I think the system Brink had, was an attempt to try and meet in the middle ground for both teams. That being said, the system could always use tweaking.

(stealth6) #32

[QUOTE=H0RSE;410529]I really enjoyed BFBC2, but I am not a fan of its “kill timer system” at all. Sometimes performing actions even when death is inevitable, is encouraged. A system like that devalues choices like that.

Maybe I’m just traditional or “oldschool,” but I believe objective based games should rely solely on a time limit, regardless the amount of kills or deaths players are ranking up.

I don’t know if it is already implemented, but an overtime mechanic could work - if time runs out, give the attackers more time, as long as they are performing the objective. If say, an engineer is building something and gets killed, give the attackers 5 seconds or so to get another engy on the objective before it’s game over.[/QUOTE]

Ye I was initially in favor of a similar system, but with time as you suggest. But after the recent points made I prefer the old system (fixed time), with an overtime for C4.

(SockDog) #33

The other thing in cutting matches short is that people never break those holds. You take away the opportunity to learn and improve.

(Anti) #34

[QUOTE=EnderWiggin.DA.;410520]
What about incentives for switching teams for balance at the ends of rounds?
“Hello PlayerOne, we see you have a 2:1 K/D ratio and are playing on the winning team a lot. For 1/10th of a money hat, would you switch teams with TallyWacker69 who is really just a meat shield?” So maybe that’s not the best wording and the logic should be based on more than just K/D since a lemming engie may die more than a medic, but you get the idea.[/QUOTE]

We’re talking about two different issues now. One is teams getting rolled not being fun, the other is imbalanced teams.

On the latter incentivised switching is definitely an option we’ve discussed to try and keep sides balanced mid-match. Shuffling at the end of match, and respecting parties in this shuffle is another option, as is balancing by hidden Elo style skill ratings on match start.

In general though I think we’re against mid-match balancing unless players opt in to it, just to avoid frustration and disorientation.

Keeping match times short in general is also something we’re keen on though, so nobody ever suffers for too long :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #35

If you want an F2P to go anywhere then that’s quite essential methinks.

Of course cutting of full holds at the first objective is symptom treatment. These things should be an extremely rare occasion if you get the balance right.

@Anti you may not like mid-game balance in the sense of shaking up teams. But what about dynamic balance? An xp-boost (if xp is handled on a campaign scale, for permanent xp it doesn’t matter) based for the underdog based on the ratio between the two team’s xp levels. If people acquire rewards faster when they’re on the losing side then they have a better chance of catching up again.

(SockDog) #36

More essential than making the game fun to play? Sorry but I see the priorities somewhat differently.

(H0RSE) #37

Sometimes, they go hand in hand… I have noticed that nearly every f2p based fps I have played, has some sort of xp/level up system. I don’t think it’s just a coincidence…

(amazinglarry) #38

Is this assuming there are ‘battle sense / class / light weapons’ unlocks as a map/campaign moves forward? If there are underdog benefits of acquiring rewards faster, then there may as well be a global “at the 5 minute mark, everybody gets level 4 light weapons.” I don’t think I’d like knowing that just because my team was doing better, the other team gains a potential advantage (if I’m understanding this correctly).

(SockDog) #39

Of course, it’s the gerbil food. My point is are you designing a game to feed gerbils or make a wheel that’s fun to run on and drops food.

Fine line but frankly I’m not eager to pick up a game to earn treats or work for them.

(tokamak) #40

I don’t see how the two bite each other. Right now it’s only one extra reason to cut full-hold short. It’s not only boring, it skews xp. I really think spouting your anti-xp sentiments here is misplaced.