Objective Progress - Deciding the Winner

(chasm) #1

The current stopwatch configuration firstly determines the winner based off of time, ie. whoever can complete the objective the quickest wins. No problem there.

However, it is when neither team can complete the objective, and the winner is decided on map progress where the issue lies. Currently, this progress is determined by stages, based on primary objectives, ex) blowing up the door on aquarium is one stage. Following the previous example, say both teams blow up the door on aquarium, but team 1 pushes the hostage further than team 2, but neither make it to the ship. The game will then look at XP, even though team 1 clearly did better.

I propose that the game look at hostage progress (in terms of percentage distance to the end) through the map, instead of going straight to XP. This would also apply for maps other than aquarium and other objectives like robot distance or crane repair percentage. I realize this is no easy task coding wise, so read on for the quick fix.

On the topic of XP, it is an incredibly terrible way to determine the winner. For instance, if team 1 stonewalls team 2 and camps them, team 2 will be respawing a lot. So, team 2 will then have far more supply pips (since you respawn full) to use for buffs, and therefore, spam XP. Team 1 is then stuck recovering pips slowly and getting miniscule XP for the kills. Team 2 will win regardless whether they pushed the hostage at all in the aquarium case.

So instead of XP determining the winner, I am thinking straight up kills. The team with more cumulative kills in the match wins, simple as that. This is obviously open for suggestion, so let me hear yours in the mean time, since SD will likely not have the fix for the progress issue for the upcoming tournies.

(v1D) #2

XP was never used as determining the winner. Don’t know where you got that or assumed that info from. In ETQW it was always determined by who progressed the furthest and in what time (assuming progress was identical)

(pharaohz) #3

We scrimmed a team last night on two maps, the first map we played aquarium and they didn’t get the escort past bar when their time expired. We ended up getting him on the dock, only a few feet from the boat and somehow it told us we were unsuccessful.

They had 3 medics, which translates to more xp in most situations and that is the only factor we can come up with that made a difference. If it was kills, that’s even more silly as this is a “team game” where kills shouldn’t have a deciding role in games. Even further, there is no killboard so it wouldn’t make any sense.

(chasm) #4

The problem is in the scoreboard at the end of the game…it doesn’t definitively tell who the winner is. We just tested the aquarium case and got mixed results on who won.

I don’t even see how one is supposed to confirm a win for a tournament or league. What are you supposed to screenshot? I suppose mutual trust + demos would work on say “who pushed the hostage further”, but demos aren’t working atm. I guess screenshoting progress could work, but it could still be ambiguous.

(Kn1ghT) #5

You were ‘unsuccessful’ because you did not get him to the Boat.

I have been testing some different things with SW mode, and have only gotten it to display ‘successful’ if you complete the entire map objective (offense) or prevent the other team from completing the entire map objective (defense).

(Niz) #6

[QUOTE=pharaohz;306729]We scrimmed a team last night on two maps, the first map we played aquarium and they didn’t get the escort past bar when their time expired. We ended up getting him on the dock, only a few feet from the boat and somehow it told us we were unsuccessful.

They had 3 medics, which translates to more xp in most situations and that is the only factor we can come up with that made a difference. If it was kills, that’s even more silly as this is a “team game” where kills shouldn’t have a deciding role in games. Even further, there is no killboard so it wouldn’t make any sense.[/QUOTE]

In the event that a 2nd phase objective is failed by both teams, it reverts back to the time set for the first objective. They completed phase 1 in a faster time than you, so they win. It is NOT based off of the 2nd phase progress, because a faster time has already been set. This is how stopwatch is supposed to work.

The problem with Brink stopwatch lies when both teams fail to complete the first phase objective and neither team gets a hack box planted or any progress. Since there is no measurable progress the game reverts to XP as the deciding factor. I’m sure once SD has fixed how the game shows the winner of stopwatch, they will make this situation display as a Draw.

So the deciding factors in stopwatch should be the following, progressing in the case of a tie;

Phases Completed > Completed Phase Time > Phase Progress > XP

example. Aquarium. Both teams completed the first phase but failed on the second phase > Both teams completed the first phase in 2:30 seconds > Both teams moved the escort the same number of steps (percentage of the distance) > XP becomes the determining factor.

I am however unsure of how a hold for both teams on phase 3 would be calculated. Ideally it should be the combined time to complete the first 2 phases. But SD may just use the most recently completed phase time.

(matsy) #7

I don’t like this.

If there are two full holds its a draw. Play the second map, if that’s a draw play a third map and if that’s a draw play a fourth and if that’s a draw player a fifth etc.

(Cynix) #8

I entirely agree that this should be the way to do it; however, until the maps are rebalanced, I just don’t see this as a viable option. Right now if two teams are even remotely similar in skill there is a very high probability of the game ending in a double full hold regardless of the map. You can keep playing round after round, but the winner is probably going to be determined just by one team getting lucky. You may as well flip a coin as play 5 or 6 maps.

XP should never be a deciding factor even as a last resort.

(chasm) #9

[QUOTE=Cynix;319671]I entirely agree that this should be the way to do it; however, until the maps are rebalanced, I just don’t see this as a viable option. Right now if two teams are even remotely similar in skill there is a very high probability of the game ending in a double full hold regardless of the map. You can keep playing round after round, but the winner is probably going to be determined just by one team getting lucky. You may as well flip a coin as play 5 or 6 maps.

XP should never be a deciding factor even as a last resort.[/QUOTE]

This.

As another thread mentioned, full holds should never happen. If two teams are even, both should succeed a fair amount on attack. I would even like to see this game in favour of the attack, such that two evenly matched teams can complete the entire map with ease. This would then bypass the need for XP as a deciding factor, and I think a 25-30 second spawn timer for defense would suffice for most maps.

(Kn1ghT) #10

[QUOTE=Cynix;319671]I entirely agree that this should be the way to do it; however, until the maps are rebalanced, I just don’t see this as a viable option. Right now if two teams are even remotely similar in skill there is a very high probability of the game ending in a double full hold regardless of the map. You can keep playing round after round, but the winner is probably going to be determined just by one team getting lucky. You may as well flip a coin as play 5 or 6 maps.

XP should never be a deciding factor even as a last resort.[/QUOTE]
mp_marketgarden

make it happen. It will fix all of these issues.