My deep seeded concerns with the Stopwatch game mode.

(PixelTwitch) #1

I often struggle to articulate myself properly and I have now tried to write this post over a dozen times. There is a very good chance that I may end up rambling but I hope you are able to grasp at least some of what I am trying to say.

So, one of my biggest concerns with the Stopwatch game mode is the lack of “Tug of Warring” in each match. Tug of Warring is the constant back and forth of which player/team is considered to be winning. Too much and things start feeling unpredictable or even random, too little and things start to feel dull and frustrating. While this is an issue felt by players, I feel that it is more of a problem for both viewers and casters. This back and forth really ends up being the spinal column for the excitement, hype and engagement/retention. Even though the Tug of Warring only really affects the game on an emotional level, I must stress that this is something that’s present in almost every publicly successful competitive title.

In Counter Strike this Tug of War dynamic is achieved via its number of rounds, cash economy and importance of kills. Starcraft does this with the mineral & gas economy, map control, variations in builds and its different phases throughout a match. Moba games are similar to games like Starcraft except for the added focus on character development and team play. Quake uses item management, time management, map control and this is all wrapped up in a points based system with a time limit. Now, lets look at the problem with Dirty Bombs primary mode. The only real Tug of War aspects in Stopwatch are when objectives are started/active and the second half providing that a good time was set in the first round. It is simply not exciting enough to enjoy from the perspective of more casual players and viewers.

For lack of a better word “Null Time” is also an issue. This is mainly due to the fact that that so much emphasis is put on to the clock. Null time happens each time a full reset occurs on Attack yet the clock still ticking. All actions before that reset are effectively nullified and made meaningless. As a player this can make you feel frustrated due to your hard work and actions were all for nothing. Null time is also present when the conclusion of a match is over yet the match continues to play out. An example of this is when Team 1 finishes the first objective at 11min but is held from completing the second objective. Then Team 2 finish the first objective in 3min, we can end up with up to 12min of null time. At best this time is boring and at worst its plain frustrating.

I also have a minor concern when it comes to balance. Admittedly my concern is not with balance from a game design or mechanics perspective. Its literally down to mental pressure, while I am uncertain about numbers I am sure that once we have more competitive matches played and tracked via echo. We will see a slightly higher win rate for the team that attacks first. A blind assumption would be of between 3% - 13% higher win rate. This is not as much as a problem in organised competitive play due to best of 3’s and best of 5’s. I believe the only way to negate this kind of imbalance would be a deuce system like in tennis. Again, it is important to note that this is just an assumption based off both the maths of real world sports and personal experience of this game and Left 4 Dead (L4D has a similar system that was negated by the fact that each match was played over multiple maps.) AGAIN, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THIS ISSUE MAY NOT EVEN BE REAL, JUST A CONCERN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LOOKED INTO.

I do have a few other minor issues with the mode, however I feel it is possible to keep the concept of Stopwatch but package it differently to relieve the issues I have already mentioned. That said, my suggestion would require a fair bit of work to implement. Having a campaign system like that seen in Left 4 Dead with multiple objectives separated into different rounds you manage to increase the Tug of War effect to a decent level and negate most of the Null Time at the same time as reducing any psychological balance issues. The concept would also allow you to make the most out of your maps locations and ensure that each team plays the entirety of the map. I would separate a campaign into between 3 to 5 sections of between 5 - 10 min per side. Here is a quick example.

On White chapel we could theoretically split the map into 3 or 5 double objective sections. After each section you would switch sides. When both sides have been played you would then go onto the next section. This would constantly switch things up and I personally believe make things more fun and less frustrating.

Examples of White chapel section splits…

Section 1 - 5min - EV Repair and Transport to White chapel
Section 2 - 5min - Old White chapel internal objective
Section 3 - 5min - EV Repair and Transport to Elevator
Section 4 - 5min - Old White chapel elevator objective
Section 5 - 5min - Current White chapel final objective
OR
Section 1 - 5min - Ev Repair and Transport to White chapel.
Section 2 - 6min - Old White chapel internal objective
Section 3 - 7min - EV Repair and Transport to Elevator + Current final objective

With 5 sections you would…
A,D,D,A,A,D,D,A,D,A
OR
A/D - Then winning team attack first on each.

With 3 sections you would…
A,D,A,D,A,D
OR
A/D - Then winning team attack first on each

When it comes to scoring you have the option of keeping like stopwatch and basing it on overall time. This would mean that all objectives/sections should be played. Or, you could do it on a points based system for either maps won or objectives complete. If you was to split into 4 sections you could actually have a mixture of both (if wins are tied you then go to time, personally something I like the sound of)

Like mentioned, this would solve many of the game mode based issues and with tweaking of the other systems you would be able to create a game that in public matchmaking and competitive spectating would remain exciting, hyped and engaging. It would remove the frustration of full holds while at the same time leaving the ability to see teams do really cool comebacks. From an event organisers point of view (both online and lan) it would ensure a more predictable time scale for each match. Depending on your point of view, the only thing it would really remove is the instant rotation push on completion of an objective. Saying that, I do believe the current system allows the other team to instantly spawn on the completion of an objective anyway, so the overall effect on gameplay should be relatively small.

I come up with the concept with the pure intention of keeping the core “feel” of stopwatch while fixing many of my perceived shortcomings. I would love to hear other peoples ideas, concerns and opinions on the current Stopwatch mode, as well as any suggestions they feel could improve the mode.

Finally, one last time. Almost every single successful competitive game has this kind of thing nailed down to a near science. When I look at games that I considered “fun” but yet failed, I notice the perceived flaws. The argument about what came first, the chicken or the egg, is not something I think anyone truly knows right now. But, surely the fact that each of the most successful eSports titles all have these things in common cannot be coincidence right?

(Smooth) #2

While we appreciate this kind of thought being put into way of making the game better, we’re going to be focussed on making the current Stopwatch gamemode as good and as fun as we can.

We’re looking at things like pacing, spawn times, distances, balance. win-rates etc. but as most of this comes down to level design it is a slow iterative process.

Until we’re happy that we’ve done most of what we can do to improve this, we won’t be spending too much time on other game modes.

(PixelTwitch) #3

[QUOTE=Smooth;501728]While we appreciate this kind of thought being put into way of making the game better, we’re going to be focussed on making the current Stopwatch gamemode as good and as fun as we can.

We’re looking at things like pacing, spawn times, distances, balance. win-rates etc. but as most of this comes down to level design it is a slow iterative process.

Until we’re happy that we’ve done most of what we can do to improve this, we won’t be spending too much time on other game modes.[/QUOTE]

I understand…
I just hope I am wrong and that this will not be the one thing that limits Dirty Bombs potential.

You can tweak all the things you mentioned and make the game less frustrating and more balanced. However, that will not make the game more exciting or interesting. I have my fingers, toes, arms and legs crossed for you guys.

(BMXer) #4

I’d like to see more of the “tug of war” effect happen with the map design personally. Traditional stopwatch mode is awesome when the maps are really good and the game is well balanced.

(Kendle) #5

The “tug of war” effect happens in previous games of this genre (RTCW / ET / ET:QW), both StopWatch and Objective, because they have something DB doesn’t:-

Forward Spawn Points

In RTCW / ET the front line moves back and forth dynamically because both teams can take control of a spawn area, to either move themselves forward or push the other team back, and these areas can be contested and change hands many times per match.

DB doesn’t have this, and it’s shot a HUGE hole in the gameplay IMO.

Once again we’re talking about complicated solutions to simple problems IMO. Just add forward spawns to maps and then talk about testing / tweaking etc.

(titan) #6

agreed about forward spawns the only one we have right now on victoria is ridiculous like 20s to cap but its 5s away from the actual objective.
Larger maps with decent forward spawns will create real tug of war

(Rex) #7

Leave it as it is. No idea what is wrong about it.

(fragon89) #8

LEAVE IT AS IT IS
the only “bad” thing i can say that i cant spec my teammates while im dead

(onYn) #9

Compared to the huge issues the game is facing right now, as well as little things that need to be improved to make everyones life easier, this doesn´t feel to be so urgent.

It´s not that I don´t like it at all, its has some pro and cons, but if some changes to the game mode “stopwatch” are made - I would like to see others things fixed before. I think most issues will be solved by then and if not SD will hopefully keep supporting the game for a long time after release - adjusting the game mode if necessary.

(prophett) #10

Maps are the issue and not the stopwatch game mode.

Less linear maps with more routes, side objectives, forward spawns, command posts, team doors, alternate spawn points, and multi-objective maps (ala Radar).

(montheponies) #11

As mentioned, maps are the problem including lack of forward spawns and decent/meaningful side objectives. That combined with clunky objective mechanics, such as the forced pick up of the milk jugs makes everything feel slower, less dynamic and frustrating. Add in a dose of equal spawntimes and it’s no surprise you don’t see how this can be good.

Of all of those problems the simplest to resolve, at least in the short term, is the spawntimes. Make it 30s def, 20s off at least until the ‘better’ solution has been found. As it is this is my number one gripe.

EDIT: one other thing, the whole mental advantage of attacking first was mittigated in RTCW by playing ABBA, basically two full games on each map.

(Protekt1) #12

In a fps the tug of war also includes the fact that a competitive match up is determined over a number of maps being played, not a single one.

Also, why in the world would you want stopwatch to be removed and replaced with whatever you came up with, rather than just coming up with a new mode? Is this just a flamebait thread or what? Just say, hey I got a new mode. You don’t have to destroy the mode everyone loves, just have your idea stand on its own legs. No need to fluff it up with phrases like “every competitive game” or whatever. Most competitive games out there stand on their own legs, which DB intends to do. Just say your idea, flat and simple imo, and people will actually read it.

You probably didn’t mean to annoy anyone. But you should know that basically suggesting they scrap the mode everyone plays the game for, in favor of your vision, is pretty arrogant.

(btw I did read it, it isn’t terrible, but I’m not exactly in love with it even being in the game on its own).

(PixelTwitch) #13

When your game lacks things that are shared between every single other popular competitive game on the PC… It makes you think…

when your game lacks things that are also present in “real life sports” and popular competitive games on the PC… It makes you think even more…

//youtu.be/Hgw_RD_1_5I

(Nail) #14

and yet you were hugely outvoted

btw, it’s deep seated not seeded, no farming involved

(PixelTwitch) #15

[QUOTE=Nail;501802]and yet you were hugely outvoted

btw, it’s deep seated not seeded, no farming involved[/QUOTE]

“The vast majority of human beings dislike and even actually dread all notions with which they are not familiar… Hence it comes about that at their first appearance innovators have generally been persecuted, and always derided as fools and madmen.”
― Aldous Huxley

But no in all seriousness, I feel that I was out voted because people simply do not care about the things that I have mentioned. Not that I blame them, after all people like what they like. I just saw a lot of things that are present in all the successful games I can think off, yet are not here in Dirty Bomb. My findings are correct, as arrogant as I may sound, I would willingly put my life on it.

(Nail) #16

please do, post video

(Protekt1) #17

You aren’t even clear on what you mean by tug of war. In DB you have big pushes and big losses like any other game. If team 1 beats objective 1 a minute faster than team 2, they are winning. But if team 2 then beats the second objective fast enough they could be winning. How does that not fit your definition of a tug of war? Any good commentator can decipher when 1 team is ahead of the other and by how much. Big pushes and big wipes are as much of a tug of war as with any MOBA or RTS.

Now your chatter about null time also doesn’t make sense. You say there is no tug of war, but in reality there is a very definite tug of war going on around the clock. If the attacking team pushes at the wrong time and they all die 2 seconds after the respawn clock, that is a big tug in favor of the defensive team. The attacking team took a huge blow after a risky maneuver and they are paying for it by adding time to their final score. You could look at it as a series of rounds all contained within a single round. Sometimes the attackers will gain an advantage in a “life-round” and sometimes they will fail spectacularly giving the defenders a big advantage. Sometimes the results will be more evenly distributed like a semi-tie, e.g. 2 players from each side are trying to pick each other off while they wait for reinforcements. How is this not an example of tug of war?

Your findings that it needs to have more rounds is just nonsensical imo because of the above.

Also, wtf are you talking about the attacking team winning more? Both teams play both sides of the map. Neither team can change their characters choices between rounds. If there it turns out there is a higher win % going first, it’ll probably be so minor it isn’t even an issue. I believe that over the course of 1000s of games, there is no reason it shouldn’t balance out to be 50:50. Objective mode will be different, but we’re not talking about objective we are talking about stopwatch.

(titan) #18

you realize most people agree about the whole ‘tug of war’ thing not being as good as it could be but gave realistic solutions instead of convoluted ones which you have a tendency of presenting?? even SD are clearly tired of your **** posts lol

(Protekt1) #19

“You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to titan again.” lol

(onYn) #20

Well more rounds, make it kinda more thrilling - since there are more “decisive” moments in the game I guess. Thats what makes CS so thrilling, you play 1 spawn, everyone has one life - and every round is “fast”, and delivers instant results that are absolut. In the objective setup we play, even tho you loose objectives, it´s not the same as loosing a “round”. This makes it seemingly harder to showcase the progress of every game, compared to others.

However, for me as a player and someone who actually likes to come up with strategies within the game and have multiple ways to play a game - I prefere the system how we have it right now. It´s just a lot of team effort and coordination, that comes with trying to fight an “almost” lost objective, go play the safe way, not risking to get rushed, but giving up a potentially better time. I know it will stay to some extent, but 50% of the possible decisions concerning this matter will be gone - just because the round will end anyways, so why not just try to get the objective back.

From a viewers point of view, I think for someone who understands the game, and by that I mean just being interested and kinda following the pro scene, it won´t make a difference. It probably will be even more interesting, to watch how teams fall back coordinated, and progress within a longer map. However, for people who are geting new into it, and don´t really understand the strategy behind it it may be more easy to understand what´s going on and how the game is progressing in whose favor, when it´s separated in smaller rounds.

I just think that a good shout caster, will be able to tell his audience how the flow of the game is, and who is ahead, who is behind, who needs to do what in order to get a single objective and win the round. Those people will be also able to put the time into comparison, giving everyone a grasp of who is actually in favor and which team needs to turn up their game in order to have a chance of winning.

So the old system, as well as the suggested one, will create an own thrilling experience. For me as a player I would like to play longer maps, also it feels for me more like an actual war, when I have a single map progress over a longer time, then just tiny objective sections. I like my decisions and plays to be lasting for a time of a whole map, and not a short version of it. From the viewers point of view, I don´t think it matters too much as long as the caster is able to explain it to the audience - now matter how experienced it may be.

And yeah, innovations are good, and for sure the way how to improve or even make something almost perfect. But unfortunately not every innovation is a good one.