Intelligence Mission Concern

[SockDog]

A

/Quit_ForumRage_JoinRandomServer

command would be most useful.

[Cankor]

Unfortunately, Intel missions are something that have been left on the cutting room floor. We still like the idea of what they were trying to accomplish, but for all the reasons mentioned here we simply didn’t feel like they were going to work well enough to keep in the game.

Color me uber sad I don’t see a reason not to do it unless it was indeed a gamebreaker during testing…even with it going to the weakest link

[QUOTE=3Suns;262333]Way late to this party, but I wasn’t in the brain space to give it the attention it deserves until now.

I am glad “Intel” was left on the cutting floor. “Rubberbanding”/“Blue turtle shells” need to stay in Mario Kart. In fact, it took Valve about 2 years to patch TF2 on the 360, but as soon as they offered a toggle switch for “critical hits”, they were gone in all games we played in/hosted. Randomizing results are one of those things that seems like a good idea at the time, but in practice, serve to grieve more than they console.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not even close to random, in fact it’s exactly the opposite of random. It’s something that happens when and if it’s needed, and only then.

Also, if you don’t like it turn it off. That’s perfectly valid.

[QUOTE=Apples;262355]The problem in enticing players to switch lies in the teams theirselves, as usual. If one team is uber dominated I dont see why I or whoever on the winning side should have to switch just to get dominated again, I’m not the type of player who can rebalance a team all by myself, and usually I like to have fun and fair games, so when my team dominate too much I usually switch server, except if I’m playing with friends.
[/QUOTE]

This is part of the reason I said give the mission to one of the guys who switched to help; it’s added incentive to switch.

in ETQW I switch sides pretty often to try and help, especially if the numbers are unbalanced by 2 or more (but I suck so it’s usually just symbolic, although one time I switched and a guy got a plant on Refinery at 50 seconds and then I got one at 42 seconds and we won it in the last 2 seconds, that was pretty fricken epic).

@Nail: I like the hero mode thing too. Anything to help make the game funner for everyone. I guess that would be a vote option. They’d have to get more XP as well for those guys who don’t care about badges or Steam achievments or whatever you could give them that’s shiny.

I wonder how often the 5 minute spawn handicap they give a team on ETQW who can’t get the objective in the first 5 minutes helps? I’m sure it helps, but I don’t think it’s real noticable when it does, you never hear anyone say "thank god our Spawn Timer went down by 5 seconds or we never would have made that plant. The thing is, I think it does help more than people realize because after a few spawnwaves the timers have gotten out of sync and the attackers end up spawning far enough in front of the defenders that they manage a plant (or a build or whatever). Even more so if the timers are already at 20-30, when they go to 15-30 suddenly the attackers are spawning twice as often.

Again, it’s about making the game more fun…my post at Geezergaming sums up why I think this was such a great idea:

Think about your most exciting multi-play matches. Chances are you are not remembering some game where you steamrolled the other side, and I know you are not thinking of some match where you just got creamed. The most exciting multi-player matches are those in which there is some epic battle, often decided in the last minute or even seconds. Those kinds of matches are inherently fun and the GG’s at the end come with lots of exclamation points.

Think about what else happens when one team gets steamrolled, they start to leave. At that point you’re in a vicious feedback loop (unless you get guys changing sides voluntarily); as more people leave the loosing team does worse, and as they do worse more people start to leave. The next thing you know you have an empty server.

So how do you try and make the matches more exciting, particularly if one side is dominating the other? You could shuffle the players (either randomly or by XP), but that’s really a poor solution, particularly in the middle of a match where it interrupts the flow. Even a shuffle at the end of the match could separate you from a friend you want to play with. Just about all of the solutions which have been tried are imperfect solutions to a not uncommon problem.

In Brink, Splash Damage thinks they have a better way, and that way is The Intelligence Mission.

…

[BioSnark]

But anyway, how does the narrow time limit help?

Because when one team is failing they get matched against a new team faster.

Does anyone know how that works the other way? When attackers take an objective do they get additional time added to the clock or is the timer reset regardless of how long the previous objective took?

[SockDog]

@Cankor My mind, you are in it. As I said in another post, while this might be cut I’d really like SD to consider pushing the concept in a patch (or some unofficial, offical mod) if for no other reason than to get some real world data on it.

[quote=BioSnark;262542]Because when one team is failing they get matched against a new team faster.

Does anyone know how that works the other way? When attackers take an objective do they get additional time added to the clock or is the timer reset regardless of how long the previous objective took?[/quote]

Sorry I’m quite tired so as to be inherently thick. You mean the maps finish if someone doesn’t complete an objective in a certain time? Fail to build the bridge in 5 minutes = end of valley map? There is no overall map timer?

[Mad_Hatter]

I think the time left over from the first objective gets added to the time for the next one, but don’t quote me on that. I very well might be delusional. But yeah, if one team is steamrolling (well, if the defenders are steamrolling, anyway) and the attackers can’t get an objective done, then the match just ends at that objective. I imagine SD probably made it so that each main objective is a little harder than the one before it. Meaning the first one would be fairly easy for the attackers and the last one would be the big finale, the final showdown. Maybe probably hopefully.

[SockDog]

Not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand I get that it’s no point playing a map if it’s pretty much unwinnable (although one tough objective does not always a map lose) but on the other it just seems like kicking over the chess board in frustration. Dunno, seems like a cheap fix that does work but also steals you lunch money and snogs your girlfriend while you’re not looking.

[Cankor]

Not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand I get that it’s no point playing a map if it’s pretty much unwinnable (although one tough objective does not always a map lose) but on the other it just seems like kicking over the chess board in frustration. Dunno, seems like a cheap fix that does work but also steals you lunch money and snogs your girlfriend while you’re not looking.

Yeah, there was a thread about this awhile back. On the one hand you don’t have to suffer through the pain as long, but if the teams don’t even up by the next match it won’t help. So whether it’s the first two objectives on two different maps or the same objective on one map for twice as long, it’s pretty much the same thing.

Also, you would never get those last minute come from behind wins you can get after being held at the frist objective for 10 minutes (example from my post above).

So even though I get it, I’m really not sure I like the idea.

[Bullveyr]

Obviously the best matches are the close ones with balanced teams and totally one-sided matches suck, they aren’t even real fun for the dominating team but I don’t like the idea of some kind of “hero mode”.
I don’t wan’t to lose a firefight just because the other guy gets some benefit for sucking or being in a dominated team.

I could live with something like “adjusted spawn times” but would still prefere it off to be more competetive.
This could also cause the better team losing the map which would imho really suck.

I would prefere smaller maps with shorter map times anyway, that would also result in a shorter “suffering time” for the dominated team to maybe get a more balanced team on the next round.

[Fireseed]

Unfortunately, Intel missions are something that have been left on the cutting room floor. We still like the idea of what they were trying to accomplish, but for all the reasons mentioned here we simply didn’t feel like they were going to work well enough to keep in the game.

Buuuh! I´m also not happy with this, maybe SD reconsider the thing again, at later time… hope

[Apples]

[QUOTE=Bullveyr;262584]Obviously the best matches are the close ones with balanced teams and totally one-sided matches suck, they aren’t even real fun for the dominating team but I don’t like the idea of some kind of “hero mode”.
I don’t wan’t to lose a firefight just because the other guy gets some benefit for sucking or being in a dominated team.

I could live with something like “adjusted spawn times” but would still prefere it off to be more competetive.
This could also cause the better team losing the map which would imho really suck.

I would prefere smaller maps with shorter map times anyway, that would also result in a shorter “suffering time” for the dominated team to maybe get a more balanced team on the next round.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, still cant see the point in giving bonus to a player who sucks… he needs to try harder, as if everything in life was given :rolleyes:

[Exedore]

Color me uber sad I don’t see a reason not to do it unless it was indeed a gamebreaker during testing…even with it going to the weakest link

For me, it really was a gamebreaker… the problem was it was quite inconsistent, due to how different the levels are from one another, and then again due to their asymmetry. Inconsistency /= quality. It also could potentially distract players from the objectives at a very bad time, as it was a dynamic and rather than scripted system.

We had options to disable this feature when creating matches, as we knew more hardcore/competitive players wouldn’t like it, but I just didn’t think it was working well enough to be part of the core game experience (most matches created would probably have it turned off anyway). There comes a point where you have to look at what a feature will really give the game as they all need a lot of polish, and that’s attention you’re taking away from other parts of the game.

[Exedore]

Also, it’s generally worth noting that I’m a bit less of a carebear than Rahdo is, especially when it comes to balancing…
:stroggbanana::stroggtapir::stroggbanana:

[madoule]

its just so awesome, that once in a while we get these insider decision processes and BRINK gaming experiences first hand for free… cheers!

i actually would consider paying for the intel - though i rather should have said that 8)

[trigg3r]

Exactly, still cant see the point in giving bonus to a player who sucks… he needs to try harder, as if everything in life was given :rolleyes:

agree.

And what would happen if 3 players from the winning team leave the game for whatever reason and 3 other players who are not really good join that team? they are gonna be in a serious disadvatage if they suck at the game and have to play with 50% reduced health

[SockDog]

Still sad this couldn’t be made to work. Don’t think it’s over caring or giving people an advantage/disadvantage. I like the concept because it says both sides get to be challenged rather than having some random configuration of players decide if a game will be fun or frustrating.

I don’t see how people think it’s unfair to tweak a range of handicaps to balance teams and yet think it’s fine that one team just clearly outclasses another to the point of clearing a server. I see the lesser evil.

Anyway, I hope SD still tinkers with the concept.

[Humate]

I wonder how often the 5 minute spawn handicap they give a team on ETQW who can’t get the objective in the first 5 minutes helps? I’m sure it helps, but I don’t think it’s real noticable when it does, you never hear anyone say "thank god our Spawn Timer went down by 5 seconds or we never would have made that plant. The thing is, I think it does help more than people realize because after a few spawnwaves the timers have gotten out of sync and the attackers end up spawning far enough in front of the defenders that they manage a plant (or a build or whatever). Even more so if the timers are already at 20-30, when they go to 15-30 suddenly the attackers are spawning twice as often.

In my experience, which doesnt count for much - it only helped good teams that were playing poorly.
Also if you’re playing your absolute hardest from keeping a team off first objective, you shouldn’t be punished for it.

Sometimes full holds happen through pure unbalanced teams in terms of skill, other times this happens because of effort. And because of the latter, its not a great idea imo.

[Atavax]

if on the server there are 6 players that are substantially worse then the others, it doesn’t matter if they’re all on one team or if they’re evenly split on both teams, no one is going to have very much fun.

[Cankor]

…I imagine SD probably made it so that each main objective is a little harder than the one before it. Meaning the first one would be fairly easy for the attackers and the last one would be the big finale, the final showdown. Maybe probably hopefully.

The thing is none of them can be hard, if you want the attackers to win 50% of the matches on average, and there are three objectives they have to beat to get there, then on everage the attackers have to complete each objetive about 80% of the time. That may seem hard to believe but:

Start with 100 games, lose 20% of the time at first objective, now you have 80; take 80, lose 20% at the second objective, now you have 64; take 64, lose 20% at the 3rd objective, and you have 51. It’s worse (but not a whole lot worse) if you have 4 objectives.

With 2 objectives you still have to beat each objective around 70% of the time to get to 50% wins at the end (70 left after first objective * 70% win at the second = 49 wins)

So you really can’t have a hard one at the end…it can be a little harder than the others, but that just means the first two are probably rediculously easy.

This assumes it’s not like ETQW online where if you don’t get an objetcive they move to the next anyway, which I assume it’s not since they said no sense drawing out the pain if you can’t make the first one.

[QUOTE=Exedore;262602]For me, it really was a gamebreaker… the problem was it was quite inconsistent, due to how different the levels are from one another, and then again due to their asymmetry. Inconsistency /= quality. It also could potentially distract players from the objectives at a very bad time, as it was a dynamic and rather than scripted system.

There comes a point where you have to look at what a feature will really give the game as they all need a lot of polish, and that’s attention you’re taking away from other parts of the game.[/QUOTE]

That makes a lot of sense. I suppose if the results are inconsistent it would make it even harder to balance the maps as well (it has to be a bitch as it is).

I guess all you can do is tweak the spawn timers like in ETQW (if you even decide to do that, it wouldn’t distract anyone at least)… maybe just for the last minute or two.

I do think it would be a good thing if there were win/lost metrics for each objective for each map (put into “bins” of minutes)… x percent of times the objective was completed in the frist minute, etc. And then some time after the game has been released and there is lots of data, do a tweak (spawn times, objective times, whatever) to try and push the maps closer to 50/50 win/loss.

Then again, it’s probably not super important for it to be that close as long as it’s not so lopsided it pushes people to wanting to play one side more than the other. I’m one of those guys that takes it way to far sometimes

That said…different default settings for stopwatch to make all maps automatically have a bias for the attackers so times are set much more often than full holds would be very nice Or at least the option to tweak them in a config (I know we could do map times in ETQW, not sure if we could do spawn times).

We do appreciate the feedback we get from you guys!

[Cankor]

Thinking more about the way it’s done in ETQW (knocking 5 seconds off the attackers spawntimer if the objective isn’t completed in 5 minutes). The more I think about this the more I think it must be pretty effective. Seems like lots of time there is a 5 minute hold and then shortly thereafter the attackers finally stage a breakout.

Maybe it’s my imagination.

[SockDog]

But it still doesn’t mean you couldn’t escalate that relative to the time held and what objective it is. I’m not really concerned about evenly matched teams reaching a stalemate, that seems to be a map issue or as you say perhaps simple respawn timing tweaks.

I’m intrigued about this being a good method to address skill differences in light of A) Matchmaking sucking balls and B) Players being douches/fed up with balancing teams.

Seems I’m in a minority that sees a fun game as more important than a “fair” game. I mean lets keep fair to competitive and fun in casual pub play. After all wouldn’t something like this enable friends/clans to play together without all the drama?