Game Theory: Intentional Stopwatch Imbalance

(sachewan) #1

In early ET, competition games were plagued with full-hold situations in stopwatch mode (the main competition mode in rtcw/et and probably etqw) because of defensive bias on maps. Extremes were taken to eliminate this problem like nerfing different weapons or removal of XP etc to make the game more offense friendly so that times would be set more often and competition games wouldn’t last 4 hours.

Has SD considered using an intentional offense-friendly imbalance in stopwatch mode only to counter this problem on release? I think this would be a good solution to avoid full-hold situations like we saw in ET.

Maps are generally defensively biased by nature because all they have to do is guard an objective, whereas the offense has to advance and attack it. The spam weapons added in ET made this alot easier than its predessor RtCW and it hurt the game’s early competition life alot. Lots of maps were thrown out of map pools and new bad ones put in just because they could be capped on easily and thus help the competition scene.

It would be great if on release we could skip all this and just make the stopwatch mode offensively biased from the get-go so that alterations to the game aren’t the first thing on competitive players’ minds as soon as it comes out.

In stopwatch, both teams need to play both sides so there really won’t be an imbalance, it would just speed up the game to keep the competitive spirit. 4 hours of full holds waiting for one team to cap isn’t as fun as a fast paced regular legnth game where both sides are capping and trying to beat eachother’s times.

An option would be to make it so in stopwatch the defense team doesn’t have access to as many spam weapons or defensive aids like turrets as they do in regular (campaign) modes. Or make it so the offense is allowed use of more of them. You could also make it so some objectives are completed easier or bypassed completely so that the map moves alot faster for the offense in stopwatch than it would in campaign.

These are just some ideas from a former ET player who doesn’t want to see ETQW plagued with the same on-release problems that ET had for competition players. :slight_smile:

(Nail) #2

I would suggest all you “competition” types wait for “Severity” and leave the 90+% of the players a fun game

(SCDS_reyalP) #3

Lord knows it would be a tragedy if SD made a game that’s fun for both right out of the box.

Seriously, he has a good point. An good campaign map needs about a 50% win/loss probability with equal teams. A good sw map needs like a 90% chance. If you are gonna achieve both with the same map, something obviously needs to be different between the two modes.

(t-readyroc) #4

Are you being serious here, Nail? If so, I’m surmising by your comment that you never did any leagues/ladders for RtCW or ET? If so, I’ll attempt to enlighten you by saying this: RtCW & ET were my team’s favorite competition games for one reason: the objective-based game play.

My memory’s not so hot, but I’m struggling to recall another game (besides the obvious one currently under discussion) that comes close to making a timed match between two teams as nail-biting (pun intended) as they did. In fact, I find it difficult to believe that you never played on any ET SW servers… :?

All of that being said, the OP does have a good point about the initial imbalance; however, I don’t think it was as pronounced until a few seasons into the leagues. People learn maps, & strats are developed accordingly… something very difficult to off-set.

(mortis) #5

Lord knows it would be a tragedy if SD made a game that’s fun for both right out of the box.

Seriously, he has a good point. An good campaign map needs about a 50% win/loss probability with equal teams. A good sw map needs like a 90% chance. If you are gonna achieve both with the same map, something obviously needs to be different between the two modes.[/quote]

Amen, brother.

(Flesh) #6

Obviously this is a question of map balance between teams, so SD prolly have that coverd by now. And if they dont, well, I think its to late to mention it. Try a couple months ago. :stuck_out_tongue:

(sachewan) #7

When clan or competition play is mentioned to the developers in interviews they have responded in the past with the fact that they have included stopwatch for that audience. The ideas I am proposing will keep the core gameplay intact for the majority of (public) players in campaign mode and only affect the stopwatch gametype which is already the choice gametype for competition.

It was really the first couple seasons that it was a problem. 3+ seasons into ET the game had changed enough for most of the maps and gameplay to be offensively biased and resulted in faster, more exciting matches with lots of caps. The early seasons were really bad in regards to full-hold matches that lasted hours and turned alot of people off on the game’s competition side. If you can find them, some season 1 demos from CAL and TWL will attest to this.

My issue with that is if they are balancing the maps for campaign mode only, stopwatch mode will end up not being a good vessel for competition. Campaign maps will probably be balanced as even as possible towards both teams, whereas stopwatch should have an offensive bias since a victor is only declared once a time has been set and beaten.

An example I could use for the people confused with the concept is Gold Rush for ET. In campaign it could play out normally. Once switched to stopwatch mode though, objective scripts could be altered so that the tank moves faster, the tank barriers can’t be built, and only one gold case needs to be stolen. These simple changes would speed up the map and ensure that offense teams could cap in the alotted time, unless vastly outmatched by the opponent.

I used goldrush as an example because back when the stock version was played in early seasons it was one of the worst with full-holds. Even to the point where evenly skilled top-teams couldn’t cap on one another, leading to insanely long matches which aren’t fun or spectator friendly.

(Ifurita) #8

Map configs to support stopwatch specific map changes makes sense even for pubs. Again, the balance for an objective/campaign map should end up with an attacker win 50% of the time near the end of the time limit.

Stopwatch maps should (IMO) to end up with attacker wins ~90% nearer 2/3rds of the timelimit. If SD can implement this balancing out of the box, it 1) improves map utility across the various gametypes and 2) allows pub servers to actually run pub stopwatch to offer a slightly different game experience. This, IMO, is a good thing for the pub community, not just the comp community.

Some things you could do for balancing are:

  • Spawn times

  • Initial spawn locations vs. capturable spawn locations (for example, you could have made the tank room on Goldrush a capturable spawn instead of the Axis initial spawn and made them initially spawn near the bridge)

  • Increased decay times for thrown dyno/constructions (Fuel Dump bridge construction would decay after 60 seconds instead of 30 seconds)

  • Reduced dyno timer (for example) - make a planted dyno explode after 25 seconds instead of 30 seconds - to use Goldrush again, a shorter dyno counter would still lead to defuses on the barricades, but weight it slightly in favor of the attacker.

  • I’d rather not balance maps through the elimination/restriction of turrets or vehicles - I imagine that these are pretty balanced and are there to act as counters for other things and simply taking them out or restricting them 1) changes what classes can do and 2) might inadvertantly unbalance something else.

Overall, a good, on-the-point post.

(Ragnar_40k) #9

You could give the attacker an XP (ie. skill) advantage. Lesser spree, faster repair etc. can make a difference - maybe not from 50:50 to 90:10 all the way, but it would help the attack.

Another way would be to play only a part of the map (with reduced timelimit). E.g. on Fueldump (to take W:ET as example) Allies would win when the tank breached the Tunnel doors. Or the Allies start right at the com post with all walls already breached and have only to destroy the Fueldump (w/o the need to fiddle around with the tank).

(SCi-Fi) #10

well i rather it be allot harder for the attackers than 50:50 or even 60:40
against the attackers, i rather see 70:30 as it would make it more
interesting…

(Floris) #11

You mean an award which can be gained during the game? This will only work if the XP system itself is adjusted for competition play entirely, because the defending side allways has the largest chance of getting XP in a clan match. This was one of the reasons the XP system is not used in modern day W:ET competition anymore.

(Ragnar_40k) #12

I mean attackers have a certain amount of XP with all the benefits (ie. skills) and the defenders have 0 XP. And gaining XP is disabled completly.

Alternativly (or additionally) you could adjust the speed at which skill levels are gained: e.g. defenders get new skill levels 10 times slower then attackers.

(CAL|Daniel) #13

Well the scoring system can help alleviate some of these problems as can scripts and spawn time adjustments. However, it is a major cause for concern. I think this is really on point discussion to have.