State of Play: Modes, Movement, Mercs, & More

Kl3ppy · 2014-05-14 17:12:09 UTC

Can confirm this.

Erkin31 · 2014-05-21 07:56:18 UTC

[QUOTE=Anti;496847]Of all the tests we’ve done in alpha/closed beta, and there are a few…

[ul]
[li]Increased hit box size
[/li][li]Reduced spread
[/li][li]Changed spread behavior
[/li][li]Reduced recoil
[/li][li]Fixed fall-off bugs
[/li][li]Changed movement speed
[/li][li]Increased damage
[/li][li]Fixed application order of damage in network packets
[/li][/ul]

…the biggest increase we’ve ever seen in player accuracy, from a single tweak, was when we reduced strafe speed. It’s had the most impact of anything we’ve done. We even tried smaller spread at one point and yet accuracy didn’t increase with that change for the majority of players.

I think we’d still like to try reducing strafe speed slightly but in this case we’ve listened to you folk, who say it’s something you really want.
[/QUOTE]

And what about a bigger tickrate ? 60 is low compared to some others FPS .

On ETQW, PacketSize and tickrate was important for the rlrlrl pattern. (By tweaking cl_maxpackets command, players could be more harder to hit)

Smooth · 2014-05-21 10:44:29 UTC

This is basically a case of the enemy’s shooting before you and killing you (on the server) before you got you got you actually managed to fire.

However because of network latency you don’t receive the ‘you died’ network packet until after you’ve reacted.

After a player has died on the server we do ‘nullify’ any bullets sent by them after that point, this is to prevent very high-pingers having the unfair advantage of killing people (incredibly frequently) before they receive their own ‘death’ notification.

There is a buffer window of around 100ms after a ‘death’ where we still accept any bullets fired, which will result in the odd double-ko but does lessen the occurrence of this frustrating situation. This value is being tweaked and will probably end up being slightly higher.

RasteRayzeR · 2014-05-21 10:57:20 UTC

[QUOTE=Smooth;498042]This is basically a case of the enemy’s shooting before you and killing you (on the server) before you got you got you actually managed to fire.

However because of network latency you don’t receive the ‘you died’ network packet until after you’ve reacted.

After a player has died on the server we do ‘nullify’ any bullets sent by them after that point, this is to prevent very high-pingers having the unfair advantage of killing people (incredibly frequently) before they receive their own ‘death’ notification.

There is a buffer window of around 100ms after a ‘death’ where we still accept any bullets fired, which will result in the odd double-ko but does lessen the occurrence of this frustrating situation. This value is being tweaked and will probably end up being slightly higher.[/QUOTE]

I understand your reasons, but as a player it is very frustrating to land that perfect headshot with the shotty right under the nose of the opponent, hear the sweet beep of glory and be the only one to actually die …

I hope tweaking can reduce this effect and offer more chances to get situations where both players actually take the real damage that was output. A dead guy with the finger on the trigger can still kill … would be an amazing death animation btw

Glottis-3D · 2014-05-21 12:12:01 UTC

i did saw that once. a player died, and his gun was still shooting in agony. it was awesome. happened only once though.

PixelTwitch · 2014-06-09 08:45:03 UTC

All these are part of a much larger document I am currently working on and will be posted to their own thread once I feel I have made enough progress. Just thought I would share what I had so far.

THE RESPAWNS

The current respawn system can often result in multiple waves of attackers. Due to the location of Defender spawns in the majority of maps this is not as big of a problem for the Defending team. Simply, a wave based system only works if players/teams pay attention to the wave time itself. This is not to mention trying to keep note of the enemy teams wave time also. More often than not the Attackers can end up on a 3:2 or 4:1 cycle that leaves them out numbered by the Defenders who also hold better positions and a less punishing respawn due to distance from objective. Many “comp” players are pushing for longer respawn waves that are map dependent and will favor the Attacking team. As a concept it all seems to make sense, at least in competitive play. However, I see many flaws with this system in public play and low/mid level competitive play.

The PROS to lengthening the respawns in public play are…
Higher chance of Attackers keeping within a single wave.
Higher chance of Attackers starting objectives.
Reducing the ‘Meat Grinder” effect on many maps.

The CONS of lengthening the respawns in public play are…
Causing frustration with length of respawn.
Increases the skill gap to much in public play.
Increases the luck factor in public play.
High chance of reducing map times.
Lower chance of Attackers completing objectives.

I feel it is important to note the use of the word “chance” as this is going to be the foundation of my argument for a completely new system. Whilst lengthening spawn timers has the possibility of improving many aspects of play, luck plays a huge part in that possibility when people are unable to learn, follow or use the spawn times to their advantage. In higher level play these luck factors are reduced and manipulated into a strategy (such as pushing seconds before you next wave and self killing). In public and casual matchmaking however many players will be playing in the hope of staying alive more than for the objective. This means they are less likely to be willing to sacrifice themselves in most circumstances. By increasing the potential respawn time you also decrease the average players willingness to die. This means the system that is used positively in games like ET and ETQW, will likely have a negative effect on Dirty Bomb in a public setting.

One other idea we have floating around the forums is that of having a minimum respawn time. This would use the same wave based system but with something like a 7.5seconds minimum time, this means you need to bypass the next spawn and wait till the one after… Whilst this would make things easier and more predictable it would also increase the likelihood of multiple waves as it would actively seperate already dead players into separate waves. This fact alone in my eyes is enough to disregard the system completely.

We can also see people suggesting set respawn times per player. This would punish players for death and reward players for kills. The problem however, is that this will result in lemming like play due to the lack of Attacker/Defender waves. Again, this is a system that could actually work in comp play much more reliably than public.

Really, I feel we need a much more complex, robust and player triggered system. Having a respawn system that is triggered by players and contains fail safes could dramatically reduce multiple Attacker waves, be harder to abuse by good players in public and increase the likelihood of Attackers completing objectives. In high level play this would also open up many more tactical possibilities than even the current system or that from ET. One of the major factors in comp players simply not wanting this system revolves around removing the timing aspects that are present in previous Splash Damage games. Whilst it would remove them timing systems, a player triggered system would replace with alternatives that I personally feel are more skill based and manipulatable. Abuse of the system can be restricted by having self kill and team kill on independent timers of ## seconds that does not affect the teams respawn timer. Self kills should work like recall in games like League of Legends, meaning you need to have a decent buffer of no damage before you can self kill. Even better you could implement an animation sequence around it that cancels if interrupted. For team kills you would make like the self kills on an independent timer. This would also ensure that Team Kills are “punished”. You could also reduce missed wave frustrations by adding a 2.5-5 seconds wave buffer that allows players that die shortly after a new wave to instantly respawn. Finally you would also have all defenders and attackers instantly respawn on the completion of an objective, for multiple reasons that I am sure you can understand.

In conclusion, I feel it is important to remove as many of the luck based design choices as physically possible. Also, just because something is skill based in competitive play does not make it so in public (and vice versa). A wave based system is not optimal for both public and competitive play. In this case, simplicity is certainly not key…

THE MERC LIMIT

The current 3 Mercs in a squad limit is causing issues with team diversity and predictability. Whilst being able to see your teams Merc selection does help other players choose their mercs to a certain degree. The choice of 3 mercs in a match also means it is impossible to predict how a team’s players intend to play the match. In turn, forcing players that are “in it for the win” to sacrifice any fun and experimentation in order to choose 3 viable/diverse Mercs. However, this can still leave a decent player in a position where they simply do not have the ability to be the required merc at any given time. Now before I talk about some of my suggestions I would like to prefix my argument with the following… I am talking exclusively about public servers where you join via the server browser and NOT matchmaking.

The first way you could reduce frustration on better players but at the same time have a higher percentage of “rage quit” would be limiting to a single merc. This would enable players to know what each player is using and will be using the the entirety of the match. Decent players will be able to then select their merc based off what they see. Obviously we would see more people leaving the game due to not being happy with their current merc selection and wanting to mix things up… So in public, I do not feel like this would be the greatest idea.

You could also open up the Merc pool fully allowing all players to switch mercs during a match. This would result in LESS leaving of matches and would allow decent players to always have access to mercs that the teams need at that moment in time. However, I do feel we can do a little better than that.

Giving players the ability to select only 1 Merc at the start of a match and have 2 more mercs selected by the game based on what is needed at the specific moment in time could result in slightly less leaving than we currently have. It would also allow decent players to always have a viable merc (providing the system is working correctly). Using XP/Gold as an incentive to switch mercs at certain points could also result in more directed team play. An example of this would be if the current defense objective was to prevent a plant/defuse a C4 and no one on the team has an engineer, you could offer 1.4x XP/Gold to a player that will switch out to one. At this point the players limbo screen would have his pre-selected merc, Proxy and either a third roll if needed or a random merc. These could be tagged as “Recommended” on the menu and also have the bonus values shown (if applicable).

In conclusion, the current system limits team diversity and predictability. It also prevents decent players from being able to carry a team and this can cause a lot of frustration. I see many ways of reducing these issues whilst leaving limitations at play. Personally, I would love to see a hard limit of one merc per round. However, I feel this would only work in matchmaking and on smaller teams. In public play where players are expected to both come and go, opening up the options or directing the options should result in less frustration and less leaving of matches.

MULTIPLE OF THE SAME MERCS

Whilst giving the option of multiple of the same mercs on a single team may reduce the frustration level for people that really want to play their favorite merc. It is obvious that the mercs have not been balanced for when there is multiple of the same merc. Even though a single Rhino on a team is fairly well balanced, if you up that to two Rhinos the balance shifts dramatically to the point where the second Rhino is more than worth any other merc that player could take. A great example of this is Terminals first objective as attackers where 4x Sawbones and 1x Rhino/Fragger/Thunder basically beats out any other combination. On Underground 3x Nader for the first objective as defence makes it literally impossible to progress as an attacker.

Some people will put this down to map/objective design. However, I would say that limiting your map design diversity and potential instead of limiting multiple mercs would be a big mistake. I simply do not see how you could balance multiple of the same merc without implementing artificial barriers that will both reduce a mercs effectiveness and be unfair to the person that selected to play that merc first.

The most logical solution would be to simply limit the Mercs to one of each per team. This would also open up the number of played mercs, increase tactical diversity, be easier to balance and likely result in more sales of cosmetic items. The only real issue that would remain would be that of unskilled players hogging a vital merc. However, I would imagine that will not be as big of an issue once more mercs are introduced and the current pool are more evenly balanced.

IN MATCH PROGRESSION (OBJECTIVE PROGRESSION)

Currently we can see an awful lot of either FULL HOLD rounds or rounds that are over in a matter of minutes (stopwatch mode). The current issue with this is broken up into multiple smaller issues that we will go into now. Again, let me prefix this section… I am only talking about public play and STOPWATCH MODE and this time I am including public matchmaking in my reasoning. I would also like to point out that none of my following comments are influenced by my opinions on a matches watchability. I will include that feedback in a separate article at a later date.

Full holds are a major problem within stopwatch mode for multiple reasons. One of the easiest to see frustrations is that of 15 minutes on the same objective boring. It also displays somewhat a lack of team balance and/or poor map balance. I feel one of the cardinal sins in this respect is that of performance. Whilst going through and optimizing each level will show huge benefits, it does not avoid the fact that often the full map is being rendered/processed while only a small percentage will be played on. Whilst balance tweaks should fix this issue for the most part, in the current climate I feel it is simply wasteful. Full holds should be the exception for great defensive team play and not the expected way to play.

The balance between attacker and defenders bias needs to be switched. Currently the design not only favors the defenders but also puts all of the pressure onto the attackers. Whilst it is obviously not fun to be “steamrolled” by an attacking team, at least it results in a much shorter amount of time being “”steamrolled”. Right now we often find attackers pushing into an immovable defence for 15 straight minutes. Only to then be “steamrolled” anyway once the roles switch… In basic terms, this is simply not fun and I believe one of the core issues when it comes to player retention in both matches and the game as a whole.

Honestly, I feel that stopwatch mode is antiquated by design and lacks excitement, regardless of how you package it in its current form… There is simply no way I can fathom to add “meaning” to the majority of the round time. I believe I have a decent concept that would “fix” these issues but I also understand that it would change stopwatch mode itself, almost beyond recognition.

In conclusion, Stopwatch is frustrating to play in a public environment due mainly to Attacker/Defender bias on most objectives. While many of these issues can still be negated, I cannot help but believe that stopwatch in its current form is badly designed and implemented.

prophett · 2014-06-09 12:11:53 UTC

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;501193]
THE RESPAWNS[/QUOTE]

The PROS to lengthening the respawns in public play are…
Higher chance of Attackers keeping within a single wave - yes
Higher chance of Attackers starting objectives - yes
Reducing the ‘Meat Grinder” effect on many maps - yes

The CONS of lengthening the respawns in public play are…
Causing frustration with length of respawn - I think this is wildly exaggerated to reinforce your point. Take CSGO - there are times when you get picked 5s into a round. I’m pissed that I died but I am not frustrated that I am left to watch the next 2 minutes because the game is exciting and keeps me engaged.

Increases the skill gap to much in public play - How does a 5-10s longer defensive spawn time completely break this?

Increases the luck factor in public play - please explain what is so “lucky” about a 5-10s longer defensive spawn time? If people are “unable to learn”, then educating them is the solution. Not trashing a proven effective spawn system

High chance of reducing map times - that’s the whole idea of stopwatch - to set a time.

Lower chance of Attackers completing objectives - disagree. This should read “higher chance of attackers completing objectives” and it should be in the “PROS” section

I have a big problem with this whole “luck factor” comment you keep making that is the foundation for your argument. Everyone has a spawn timer. If you die with time on your clock, you wait X amount of time to spawn. I refuse to believe that a person who might be playing an FPS for the first time cannot comprehend simple math or that this simple game mechanic can’t be understood at low levels.

Do a survey and gauge the current population on whether or not they understand this concept.

onYn · 2014-06-09 15:09:19 UTC

Merc limitation of any kind, as well as objective progression are topics I would rather talk about once we are faced with a more finished build. Right now it´s hard to tell where the game is heading, so it´s hard for me to think about any kind of quality feedback concerning those points.

As I havent thought much about spawnsystem I won´t talk much about the variety of suggestions given here. But I would like to point out, how the suggested “complex” one will create insanely silly game mechanics like:

Geting a first pick will be a huge disadvantage in many cases - because even tho the enemy will be outnumbered in the short therm, there whole team will respawn much quicker then the enemy. Especially if done by attackers (who in general have shorter spawns) a spawn that will be triggered upon death will cause indefensible two wave pushes, that can´t be defended by a team whose spawntimer will be triggered much later, while also probably being longer. This would cause a super stupid game mechanic, of not being allowed to kill any of the attackers, unless you get at least 2 or 3 of them. Otherwise the stretched spawn windows will be simply overpowered, and even if they will be evened out with smaller defender spawn time (what will probably have other effects on the game), the same silly core mechanic will remain just favoring the deffenders.
The flow of the game will be crippled. Fast adjustments to the enemy team or the current game situation will just take much longer - for no reason. This is unacceptable in a game where every push could be game deciding and consist of a different lineup of mercs, different tactic and fast last second decisions to the current game progress (like a sneaky plant for example). Any kind of telerportation time is just wrong, and does belong in different game genres or even tactic based shooters but not a game we are currently testing.
Not only will fast decision making in therms of re spawning be almost not existent or at least limited by a fair amount, you will also need to change some things in the game, removing even more of those tactical options. For example the automatic full re spawn of attackers and defenders upon completing an objective. This will totally remove the aspect of deciding between holding an objective, trying to take it back or falling back to the next one, in order to setup defences. Those decisions, are usually exciting points in the game, were many heros were born as well as horrible disasters happened.

Those points, are only discussing the competition aspects of some of the given spawn methods and to be honest, there is no way any of the suggested spawn methods has a single benefit, or at least is being equal in in any way if it comes to competitive play, they are just inferior in all ways - it´s just a joke. In pub play, they may be beneficial somehow, making pub play more organized by force. However, I think that´s a very short therm and simple minded way to approach such topic. Pub play should be different for more experienced players then it is for noobies. People will organize themselves when given enough experience (before that, they probably won´t even realize how the spawn or other “in depth” game mechanics work anyways), and by that be way more motivated to play this game for a longer time. They will be able to see their own progress and be able to discover many ways to do certain things, rather then being forced into a “cage of game mecahnics”. That´s why I will always be for the old spawn system (unless someone comes up with something that may work better), because from my experience I know the different stages of how you can use it for your own needs as well as for the team. It just offers the biggest freedom and the variety and effectiveness of those uses increases with the experience you have. Sure it may confuse some players, it will feel like meat grinding at low pub play and that´s for sure not good - but people will learn. People always learn how to play games, after some time they understand what they have to do, how to coordinate and how to use the possibilities given by the game. That´s the case in the most succesfull games I know, and they are insane grindfests on lower level of play as well.

PixelTwitch · 2014-06-09 16:57:01 UTC

[QUOTE=prophett;501210]The PROS to lengthening the respawns in public play are…
Higher chance of Attackers keeping within a single wave - yes
Higher chance of Attackers starting objectives - yes
Reducing the ‘Meat Grinder” effect on many maps - yes
[/QUOTE]
The very fact that you agree to all my “PROS” and none of the listed “CONS” show me that this is the system you would like to go for. However, let’s look at your comments…

The CONS of lengthening the respawns in public play are…
Causing frustration with length of respawn - I think this is wildly exaggerated to reinforce your point. Take CSGO - there are times when you get picked 5s into a round. I’m pissed that I died but I am not frustrated that I am left to watch the next 2 minutes because the game is exciting and keeps me engaged.

First off the CS comparison is muted by the fact CS works on a round based system… At least in games like Counter Strike, once you have been killed the round is completely out of your hands and when you do respawn its back on a level playing field (minus economy). In Dirty Bomb the length of your respawn has a direct outcome on the result of a round. Not to mention inconsistency of times is also a huge factor in the frustration. This is amplified by the fact your general pub player WILL NOT be paying attention to the spawn timer which will reduce your ability to control your timer whilst still being effective to your team.
The current “revive like a crazy man” meta, ability to remain incapped after a respawn wave has spawned yet still jump onto that wave at any time and see the respawns via score board. All add to the overall randomness of the current implementation. Finally the “exciting game that keeps you engages” thing really falls into my issues with the watch ability that I will cover in a separate post in the near future.

Increases the skill gap to much in public play - How does a 5-10s longer defensive spawn time completely break this?

Based on my opinion that longer the majority of players will not be paying attention to the respawn timer, lengthening said timer simply makes people able to “abuse/use” the timer correctly will have MORE of an advantage than with lower respawn times. Currently a good player can keep people out of the game for around 15 seconds and if that was increased to 30 seconds (I know you said 5-10 but let me make this point) it increases his perceived ability more than you would imagine because… While going from 15sec to 30sec may seem like “double”, the truth is this gap is much more complicated than simple maths. I would attest that doubling the current spawn timers would actually create an effect much more than double. This would make things easier for players with the ability to time but much, much harder for players without the ability.

Increases the luck factor in public play - please explain what is so “lucky” about a 5-10s longer defensive spawn time? If people are “unable to learn”, then educating them is the solution. Not trashing a proven effective spawn system

First off… let’s not confused “proven” with “previous” because (A), It was not proven on THIS game… the NS2 respawn system has been proven, so has that of TF2 and don’t forget Dystopia. (B), Just because this system has been used for so long, it does not make it the best possible system.

Now, I know you seem to find it hard to grasp that an awful lot of people will NOT learn to use the respawn timer so there is very little more I can say to you. This is going to be something you need to see for yourself. In fact how about you jump onto ANY public lobby in Dirty Bomb right now and tell me if people are using it or not?

In basic terms… -=IF=- I am correct there will be a large group of people that do not correctly learn the respawn timers… Each kill they get would put you in a respawn wave based on nothing more than “right place, right time” and not because they planned to kill you at that said time. In reverse, when they die from their perspective it is luck if they died at 5 second or 25 seconds.

High chance of reducing map times - that’s the whole idea of stopwatch - to set a time.

As you can see with my thoughts later down in this same post, I agree.
However, doing so based on nothing more than a respawn timer is a pretty lame way to do it.
In organised/skilled play this is totally not a problem (like I have said multiple times now) but in public… Yea…

Lower chance of Attackers completing objectives - disagree. This should read “higher chance of attackers completing objectives” and it should be in the “PROS” section

Actually with the current map design and simply lengthening respawn timers. We will see a lot more defuses/clears then we currently see… The difference is the attackers will also manage decent pushes/plants more often. Overall we will see MORE attacker wipes on the objective due to longer respawns and travel distance. This is a prime example where simply lengthening the respawn times will only serve to widen the results more than direct the results.

In simple terms…
Current lets say (EXAMPLE)
Current respawn system - 2 Plants per Success with the average of 3 plants per map.
Longer respawn system - 4 Plants per Success with the avarage of 12 plants per map.
These numbers are not representative of anything, just used to show what I mean when it comes to lower chance of completion per attempt.

I have a big problem with this whole “luck factor” comment you keep making that is the foundation for your argument. Everyone has a spawn timer. If you die with time on your clock, you wait X amount of time to spawn. I refuse to believe that a person who might be playing an FPS for the first time cannot comprehend simple math or that this simple game mechanic can’t be understood at low levels
.
First off… Its funny you call it simple maths because the majority of the community have been telling me its a highly skilled, very important and core aspect of play…
Second, I wish that I had your faith in the human race… Personally I think you are either ridiculously naive or simply unable to accept that just because you can do something that someone else can do it just as easy. The VAST majority of gamers are in it to run around and kill stuff and will never check the mini map, use an optimal loadout or care about the current meta. I really do not understand how you cannot see this already… So closed minded and to be quite frank, elitist.

Do a survey and gauge the current population on whether or not they understand this concept.

Doing a survey of the people on this forum would be a complete waste of time for multiple reasons.
1, The majority of people here have come from 5+ years of this system.
2, No one would ever go against ET/ETQW (best games ever you know.)
3, The general skill level of players here is not representative of the public player base.
4, Asking if someone understands a concept is very different to asking someone to keep track/use a concept in a high stress environment.
I mean hey, I know the concept of how to stop an arterial bleed however being able to do so is a completely different matter.

prophett · 2014-06-09 17:28:52 UTC

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;501232]The very fact that you agree to all my “PROS” and none of the listed “CONS” show me that this is the system you would like to go for. However, let’s look at your comments…
[/QUOTE]

An assumption you made based on a biased (and flawed) list.

I’ll poke holes in the rest of your arguments later today when I have the time.

PixelTwitch · 2014-06-09 17:35:14 UTC

[QUOTE=prophett;501236]An assumption you made based on a biased (and flawed) list.
[/QUOTE]

Actually… my assumption was based off one of your previous posts.

Longer D spawn times would help this - just sayin (for the 100th time)

You have actually made multiple posts about this topic recently.
So, I am only working off what I have in front of me.

I’ll poke holes in the rest of your arguments later today when I have the time.

I would prefer if we could have a mature discussion rather than taking pot shots at each other personally…

prophett · 2014-06-09 20:20:18 UTC

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;501232]
First off the CS comparison is muted by the fact CS works on a round based system[/QUOTE]

Disagree. You stated that players would be frustrated by long respawn wait times. Frustrated by what, exactly? Waiting to play? Is that your argument? If so, the CSGO comparison is valid. A two minute wait time in CSGO isn’t frustrating because that game keeps me engaged. A 30s wait time in DB has never been a problem in any other game with a similar spawn system, why should it be a problem in DB?

Yes - It can. So can any respawn in any system. If you die it’s going to hurt your team and effect the outcome.

You have a timer that tells you when your next spawn is. Although not exactly the same time every time you die, it is consistent (read: not random). I really don’t see the frustration here or being frustrated when I first started playing. I was frustrated that I died, not because I didn’t spawn at the same intervel each and every time.

How do you know this? You are making a generalization based on 0 facts.

The game is in beta and there are still issues to address. You are making this observation based on a flawed/improperly set up spawning system in Dirty Bomb that does not reflect properly working systems from previous games. I agree that all those things you mention need to be addressed.

Couldn’t agree more. This game has a lot of issues that need to be improved upon. I get more excitement from the microwave alarm letting me know my food is done than I do from the closest round of Dirty Bomb I have played in 8-10 months. The biggest contributor to this lack of excitement/engagement is the bland maps.

Again - A generalized opinion and not fact. My opinion - most players will pay attention to it due to the consequence of not paying attention to it.

Yes. Attacking teams will be able to use the times to their advantage to increase their chances of completing objectives and setting a time in stopwatch.

Yes. This is possible if you kill someone 3-5 seconds after they spawn. While spawn camping does happen quite frequently, people being “kept out of the game” for 15s doesn’t happen on a large scale. There will be even fewer instances of this once matchmaking kicks in and teams are relatively even.

I never suggested to double the times so we’re going off on a tangent here.

I provided examples of travel times of various objectives demonstrating a bias toward the defending team based on my sampling. Defensively biased maps are not ideal in stopwatch as setting a time (the whole idea behind SW) is harder.

In order to counter the current defensive bias, having a attacker/defender spawn time of 15/25 might also be enough to do the trick, although adding 10s to the defender spawn time would definitely make the current maps more biased toward the attacking team.

Disagree. This game is much more similar to rtcw, et, and qw than it is to TF2 or Dystopia. The system I am supporting is proven in those games and it is fair to assume that it would work well in Dirty Bomb (once it is properly established). I do agree that it might not be the best possible system, but I do know that it works very well in this type of game when it is properly set up, and in my opinion, is much better than the system you propose.

That could apply to any mechanic in any game. Using the most simple example I can think of - join a Dirty Bomb server and see which people are charging their paddles before reviving or not. They might not be doing it because they may not know of it’s importance.

First of all, it isn’t fair to say “large group” to reinforce your point because we really have no idea of a) how many people will play this game b) how many people won’t understand the system

But yes, If those players have not been educated on the respawn timer and it’s importance (or have been and fail to understand), they will experience what appear to be “random” spawn times. From my own personal experience, there were a lot of things I didn’t understand the first time I played a team based multi-player, and there a lot of things I don’t understand when playing current games because I am new to that game. I learned it in time.

Wrong… I’ll use this example - Currently in the span of 80s you get 4 defensive respawns. Say you take 40s to get a plant as attacker (which means you have to fight through 2 waves of defensive respawns), you will also have to fight through 2 waves of defender respawns trying to defuse that plant. That’s 4 respawns. If the timer was adjusted to 30s respawns you would only have to fight through 3 waves of defensive respawns in that same length of time.

How would less chances to defuse lead to more defuses? (especially since the attackers respawn timer has not changed, and due to a longer respawn by the defending team, the attackers will have more of a presence around the objective.

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;501232]In simple terms…
Current lets say (EXAMPLE)
Current respawn system - 2 Plants per Success with the average of 3 plants per map.
Longer respawn system - 4 Plants per Success with the avarage of 12 plants per map.
These numbers are not representative of anything, just used to show what I mean when it comes to lower chance of completion per attempt.[/QUOTE]

My previous example defuncts this.

.

Economy in CSGO is simple math. It works at a lower level, but at higher levels is a “very important and core aspect of play”.

People who simply want to mindlessly run around and kill stuff won’t enjoy the game any less because they might have to wait 5s to spawn one time, compared to 20s the next.

A targeted survey with the right questions would help paint a clearer picture. All you have to go on right now is your opinion.

You didn’t understand my post.

Name-calling. Nice! So much for the “mature discussion”…

PixelTwitch · 2014-06-09 20:34:25 UTC

[QUOTE=prophett;501252]Disagree. You stated that players would be frustrated by long respawn wait times. Frustrated by what, exactly? Waiting to play? Is that your argument? If so, the CSGO comparison is valid. A two minute wait time in CSGO isn’t frustrating because that game keeps me engaged. A 30s wait time in DB has never been a problem in any other game with a similar spawn system, why should it be a problem in DB?