Focus Testing Part 1: Stopwatch, Canary Wharf, Trainyard and Waterloo

(Zarlor) #21

I played on a team that full-held at the fist objective and then we hacked in what seemed like less than a minute and the game ended. It didn’t feel so lopsided when we full-held because there were some good firefights and I did die a bunch, but when we got the objective so fast I felt bad it was such a slap in the face. I really wanted it shuffled up after that one.

I think the lobby should be the limbo menu… Just rework it so they are one and the same somehow. Maybe when it’s the limbo menu then some options like switching mercs is grayed out or something, etc.

(DarkangelUK) #22

Not a fan of the current stopwatch system of full holds then ending after 1 stage. I get it, I understand why it’s there, it completely makes sense as well… but for some reason I don’t like it and I don’t even know why.

(Glottis-3D) #23

i dont like this either. and i know why.
I like when a BIG IMPORTANT thing decides who the winner is. i.e. the map goal is achieved or not.

let us ask ourselves. does Makron even give any amount of crap whether some ****y orbital laser is built or not? or is built faster or slower??? nope. Makron does care only if the stargates are destroyed. (then he is happy) or not destroyed in time (he will eat your eyes).

map winner is the one that complites the map’s BIG goal faster. no1 cares about blown doors, or smthng.
now we have “YOUR TEAM WOOON!! YOU HAVE BLOWN THE DOOOORR!!” meh

(prettzl) #24

Maybe it’s just me but attackers should always have the advantage and should consistently complete the full map.

Defenders should never be able to full hold.

(DB Genome editor) #25

[QUOTE=prettzl;493499]Maybe it’s just me but attackers should always have the advantage and should consistently complete the full map.

Defenders should never be able to full hold.[/QUOTE]
Make that the attackers winning most of the time when the teams are even. For the defenders to never win, regardless of team balance, would require incredibly biased maps. Full hold should be possible, but fairly rare with evenly matched teams.

(Glottis-3D) #26

I’d like to be like this: when teams are even, the attackers win most of the times, but with timer desperately running out…

(prettzl) #27

I’m plainly stating that the maps should be biased toward the attackers winning. If it were geared toward even combat (which I’m guessing is the way it is now) then all that will happen is the second round attackers/first round defenders will rage quit more often thus lowering player retention.

If you are guaranteed to win as the attackers people will stay for at least 2 rounds every time they want to play.

(DarkangelUK) #28

[QUOTE=prettzl;493499]Maybe it’s just me but attackers should always have the advantage and should consistently complete the full map.

Defenders should never be able to full hold.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, been lobbying this for ages now, especially when the new maps have the defender spawn closer to the objective than the offender. On LB it completely screwed it up when they moved the EV further away from the offence and closer to defence… fell on deaf ears :confused:

(Kendle) #29

This is a common theme in SD maps (going way back to their first RTCW maps and ET’s standard maps). SD maps seem to adhere to the concept that the fun is in playing them, not in completing them. They only made one good competitive ET map (Radar) and I bet that was an accident.

At the risk of blowing my own trumpet it was all explained here :-

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/7378-ET-competition-maps-guidelines

In particular the “spawn rule”.

In XT spawns are too short, travel distance (for defenders) too short, and often the time it takes to complete the objective (EV repair time, C4 fuse time) is too long. Defenders get too many chances to recover from attackers wiping them out, taking control of an area, and it’s this that leads to both the meat-grinder effect and the underwhelming sense of (non)achievement when whatever it is you’re trying to do eventually (and seemingly by pure luck) gets done.

There’s no wow factor, no “**** me that was a good game” feeling at the end. No “moment in time” when the game is won or lost, it just ends, often before final objective, and you’re left checking the score board to see who won.

(DB Genome editor) #30

[QUOTE=prettzl;493503]I’m plainly stating that the maps should be biased toward the attackers winning. If it were geared toward even combat (which I’m guessing is the way it is now) then all that will happen is the second round attackers/first round defenders will rage quit more often thus lowering player retention.

If you are guaranteed to win as the attackers people will stay for at least 2 rounds every time they want to play.[/QUOTE]
I think we all agree on the principle that he maps should be biased toward the attackers, what I take exception to is them being biased so much that “you are guaranteed to win as the attackers”, because that becomes boring for a different reason. Where’s the motivation on defense if you know you will loose? “Common team, let’s loose slower than these guys!” is not exactly as inspiring as being able to pull an actual win on defense…:wink:

That being said, with even teams a defensive win should ideally be a close-fought affair around the very last objective with epic last-minute saves :smiley:

(DarkangelUK) #31

[QUOTE=Djiesse;493506]I think we all agree on the principle that he maps should be biased toward the attackers, what I take exception to is them being biased so much that “you are guaranteed to win as the attackers”, because that becomes boring for a different reason. Where’s the motivation on defense if you know you will loose? “Common team, let’s loose slower than these guys!” is not exactly as inspiring as being able to pull an actual win on defense…:wink:

That being said, with even teams a defensive win should ideally be a close-fought affair around the very last objective with epic last-minute saves :D[/QUOTE]

I don’t think he was literally meaning every singe time. Regardless of how biased a map is, a good team will always dominate a mediocre team, but when you have 2 matched teams pitted against each other in the likes of a league final then constant full holds are just silly. Times should be getting set, and it should be down to the best tactical team that can set the best time, not the best defence that can hold out on a poorly designed map.

(prettzl) #32

[QUOTE=Djiesse;493506]I think we all agree on the principle that he maps should be biased toward the attackers, what I take exception to is them being biased so much that “you are guaranteed to win as the attackers”, because that becomes boring for a different reason. Where’s the motivation on defense if you know you will loose? “Common team, let’s loose slower than these guys!” is not exactly as inspiring as being able to pull an actual win on defense…:wink:

That being said, with even teams a defensive win should ideally be a close-fought affair around the very last objective with epic last-minute saves :D[/QUOTE]
The game mode stopwatch is about time. So defending as hard as you can even if you KNOW you will lose the line is your objective, holding the line as long as you can is your job as a defender. Being able to defuse bomb objectives and counter hack or destroy things built, eh, just doesn’t really jive with stopwatch. Once an objective is completed by the attacking team that should be set in stone.

Attackers WILL break your line, there should be no possibility of that line being pushed back by the defenders because the attackers ARE RELENTLESS.

(Kendle) #33

The thing is it’s not just about pure bias.

Take WC last stage for example, it’s hugely better because it’s a doc run, but it’s not just a single doc run, they’ve effectively “balanced” the stage by having 3 jugs that are each moderately easy / difficult to deliver.

Balance, in terms of overall map design, could also by achieved by having just 1 jug to deliver, but making it much harder to do so. This gives you balance (attack really have to work together to get the job done) but also gives you that sense of achievement when it does get done, gives you that “moment in time” feeling that’s currently lacking. As it is now WC is much much better than it was, but the last stage is still a bit “meh” because you kinda win in bits rather than all at once.

(prettzl) #34

Well, Kendle, take Canary Wharf for example too. With the introduction of ‘placed blahdiblahs’ on the final objective (which can be destroyed with a knife faster than use whatevering on them) the final objective becomes a simple king of the hill ending, it’s not epic, its not fun and the defenders, even with their spawn distance “advantage” have the worst possible full view approaches for the attackers to just mow them down.

How do you balance a king of the hill scenario? Who does it favor? In canary wharfs case it’s the attackers because of their visibility advantage. Hell, the gas route is a joke to counter attack kill boxes and cover for the attackers everywhere.

But I’d rather have it be that way honestly, at least then rounds would complete rather than stagnate.

(DarkangelUK) #35

Exactly, there’s no big ‘objective’ to chase, the one to grab and cap. Village in RtCW was great by the fact that you not only had to grab the gold because it wasn’t just sitting on your doorstep, but also get it to the truck. The fact you can get 3 jugs to the cap point means its not exactly exciting.

(Kendle) #36

prettzl, agree on CW ending, it’s just bad, I can’t even begin to imagine how it could be improved, it needs a complete rethink IMO.

DA, Village is one of my favourite RTCW maps. Imagine if you had 3 gold bars to deliver, but only had to take them half way, it would just be bland and meaningless, as it is having to take 1 bar all the way across the map, the inherently greater risk of getting intercepted, the reward for defense of making a single interception, just makes it infinitely more epic compared to XT’s attempts at doc run.

(Humate) #37

[QUOTE=Djiesse;493506]I think we all agree on the principle that he maps should be biased toward the attackers, what I take exception to is them being biased so much that “you are guaranteed to win as the attackers”, because that becomes boring for a different reason. Where’s the motivation on defense if you know you will loose? “Common team, let’s loose slower than these guys!” is not exactly as inspiring as being able to pull an actual win on defense…:wink:

That being said, with even teams a defensive win should ideally be a close-fought affair around the very last objective with epic last-minute saves :D[/QUOTE]

As you get more experienced with each map, you know what a good time is and you know what a bad time is.
Your teams progress or the clock itself, supplies the morale, but its difficult to know or experience that in testing.
I do however think that a lack of variance in results can reduce the excitement of a stopwatch match.

(Ashog) #38

Meh, you guys could have left one Execution server live :frowning:

It wouldn’t compete with SW anyways - just for late night skirmishes when only a few people are online…

(shaftz0r) #39

please for the love of all that is holy in this life, get rid of trainyard, or at least add the second half. i cant play that map anymore

(BAMFana) #40

Not disagreeing that trainyard is pretty bad, but I’ll take it any day over canary wharf…