Regarding matchmaking and servers, and other things

(watsyurdeal) #1

So, just throwing this on here for discussion purposes, we may benefit from the following.

Merc Changes

  • Bushwacka is now a starting merc, and has his own section in the tutorial
  • As an added bonus, his turret can now be rotated with Right click while the turret is being placed.

Stopwatch changes

  • The timer no longer starts at full, much like in Objective mode, teams have to earn more time by completing objectives, this shortens matches as if the offensive team can’t get it together in 5 mins, then the defending team will have an easy first objective. And this might also allow for two true runs, so both team can have a chance at defense first.

Format changes

  • 1 of each merc with the exception of Skyhammer and Aura, since those are the starting mercs that most people will have.
  • 5v5 of course, that’s the standard format

Matchmaking Changes

  • We have ranked and unranked matchmaking, unranked allows player to get familiar with the format without being pressured to play and have their stats tracked. While ranked is, well, ranked.
  • No casual matchmaking, that’s what unranked is for, we now would have community ran servers, with their own admins, mods, and setups. So if you wanted 24/7 chapel with ff on and merc limits or bans, here you go.

That’s pretty much the cut and dry of it, give us ranked and unranked matchmaking, having that be the focus, and community pubs for screwing around. That and Stopwatch becoming basically Objective mode with two rounds, and Bushwacka finally being a third starting merc. These are all things that I think could happen in a couple of months, and put the game on the right track to finally being out of beta.

(Szakalot) #2

Overall agree but:

no-no on the stopwatch changes.

The map shouldnt be played as ‘5 min for this obj, 5 min for that obj’. Some objectives are very easy (chapel EV), some objectives are a lot harder (underground 1st obj can be easily locked down). Having both teams to go through entire maps allows for interesting strategies and game dynamic, where one team excels at a particular objective with a well prepared strat, but perhaps does not have the lasting power to get through the entire map, etc.

(watsyurdeal) #3

@Szakalot said:
Overall agree but:

no-no on the stopwatch changes.

The map shouldnt be played as ‘5 min for this obj, 5 min for that obj’. Some objectives are very easy (chapel EV), some objectives are a lot harder (underground 1st obj can be easily locked down). Having both teams to go through entire maps allows for interesting strategies and game dynamic, where one team excels at a particular objective with a well prepared strat, but perhaps does not have the lasting power to get through the entire map, etc.

The point is Defense shouldn’t have to hold the first point for 10 to 15 mins, that is a match that is way longer than it should be for no reason at all. If you want each map to have separate objective amounts, depending on the difficulty of each one, then sure, I have no problem with that.

The First objective on Chapel for example should only be about 3 to 4 mins, while the first point on Bridge may be 5-6 mins to start. But there’s no reason to start out the Defenders having to hold the first objective for 15 mins, cause what happens is they inevitably fatigue over time and eventually they’ll get the first and second objectives, when the offensive team should have lost long ago.

(Szakalot) #4

@watsyurdeal said:

@Szakalot said:
Overall agree but:

no-no on the stopwatch changes.

The map shouldnt be played as ‘5 min for this obj, 5 min for that obj’. Some objectives are very easy (chapel EV), some objectives are a lot harder (underground 1st obj can be easily locked down). Having both teams to go through entire maps allows for interesting strategies and game dynamic, where one team excels at a particular objective with a well prepared strat, but perhaps does not have the lasting power to get through the entire map, etc.

The point is Defense shouldn’t have to hold the first point for 10 to 15 mins, that is a match that is way longer than it should be for no reason at all. If you want each map to have separate objective amounts, depending on the difficulty of each one, then sure, I have no problem with that.

The First objective on Chapel for example should only be about 3 to 4 mins, while the first point on Bridge may be 5-6 mins to start. But there’s no reason to start out the Defenders having to hold the first objective for 15 mins, cause what happens is they inevitably fatigue over time and eventually they’ll get the first and second objectives, when the offensive team should have lost long ago.

ive had games where on offense we only ever accomplished first objective at very end of the map, indeed could be because of ‘defense fatigue’ (or boredom and the pushed too hard). Fully expecting to get stomped, only to actually fullhold the opposing team, who for the first few min isnt even trying, only to realize wave after wave they can’t break our teamplay/good team composition etc.

With your proposed changes we would have lost. Imo, keep it simple and let the full 15min run. If the offense is getting stomped super hard, likely someone rageqq-leaves and the attackers will surrender vote.

(nokiII) #5

@Szakalot
While I agree with you, I would like the objective timer thing for public stopwatch, for anything more competitive related, the full 15 minutes has to stay.

(KangaJoo) #6

@Szakalot No, you wouldn’t have lost you would have tied. Neither team would have made it past the first objective. Actually that’s the only problem I see with this approach: it might result in too many draws. Maybe you could have some rule for deciding ties like team with the highest score or most time with the bomb planted wins or something.

(Szakalot) #7

@KangaJoo said:
@Szakalot No, you wouldn’t have lost you would have tied. Neither team would have made it past the first objective. Actually that’s the only problem I see with this approach: it might result in too many draws. Maybe you could have some rule for deciding ties like team with the highest score or most time with the bomb planted wins or something.

oh sure,

what about scenarios like: one team gets a lucky push on 1st obj on terminal, but cant even get close to putting c4 on any of the carriages vs. the other team ‘slow but steady’ approach gets first obj in 6 min and carriages at 12. If the time limit on 1st obj of e.g. min was imposed, the 2nd team would lose the game.

In the end I just dont really see much benefit, it sounds like an overcomplicated system that will either piss off/confuse people, for very little gain.

So - no thanks.