Stopwatch solution: Last Stand

(tokamak) #1

One thing that’s bothering me right now is the way competitive stopwatch is forcing the way matches unfold. For Dirty Bomb to be taken serious as an E-sport each game has to unwind within a certain time limit. Especially considering you’re basically asking the audience to watch the same thing twice.

An audience doesn’t want to hard-set see time-trials. An audience doesn’t want a sudden ‘attackers lose’ screen in the midst of a good match. An audience wants to see the map resolved. They want to watch a story envelop between the teams.

ETQW and W:ET and even Brink weren’t made with these limits in mind. They were basically games with a really generous time set for the attackers to complete the objective. Without much rush it was basically two sides having a blast on a map. Progress was necessary but the rate of the progress mattered less. The lack of time constraint allowed for more deliberate and creative strategies. Strategies that would trade off completion time for probability of completion.

Anyway. I understand that this is a luxury Dirty Bomb doesn’t have. Yet I still don’t like the way the map flow is forced in more regular ‘beats’ of gameplay. Currently SD is trying to solve the issue of regular/predictable map completion times through lots of small adjustments nudging both teams towards similar outcomes.

The hard time limit is problem that causes us a lot of headache.

Instead of a hard limit, there’s also the alternative of a soft limit. Sudden Death. Or well, sudden death only on the defender’s side. So a better name would be ‘Last Stand’

After the time runs out, the defenders’s re-spawn is cut off. The time is still running for the objective and the attackers will most definitely complete the match. But the amount of overtime they’ll take will depend on how well the defenders pull off their last stand.

For ordinary pub play this would be terrible. Attackers would always win. But for a Stopwatch mode this is completely different. Yes, the attackers will always complete that last objective. Both teams will. But the real winner is the one that completes the fastest. The sudden death will ensure that the completion time will ALWAYS vary and there will always be a winner. Stalemates won’t be a thing and boring endings where a game is ended right during intense combat will be history as well.

In short, a sudden death on the defender sides will have both rounds result in a climax. Whether the team claims the objective before the sudden death kicks in or whether the defenders go in ‘last stand’ mode.

-We can even add another twist where the defenders in ‘Last Stand’ can’t be gibbed. They won’t respawn and their bodies will be around in the map relying on medics and (since the update) also team-mates to help them up. It’s going to add such a huge amount of drama and narrative to the match. Something an E-sport desperately needs to gather audience appeal.

And best of all, this frees up a lot of constraints for pub matches. Maps development won’t be as constrained as with hard limits and players will have more ways to feel that at least their attempts haven’t been in vein.

Would love to hear other people’s thoughts. Am I on to something or am I missing a glaring obvious flaw in this way of resolving Stopwatch?

(Ceres) #2

League of Legends has so many maps teams can choose from LOL.
I am sure LCS, OGN, and LPL fans are just tired of watching teams fight on the same map for years. Wait, it’s the same map for idk how many years now and people are still watching! Damn. What about those best of 5s! Oh man, same map, same champions, same strategies, up to 5 times in a row, and people are still watching!

Edit: I actually like the concept of how games end depending on the objectives completed. It ensures fast and interesting games. You actually get rewarded for setting up good defenses.

(PixelTwitch) #3

Cool concept but I do see quite a few flaws…

First off the “last stand” concept basically means in a match where last stand is used we have already had 15 min of meaningless time… The concept itself basically results in a pseudo penalty shootout…

Overall while the map would end in a “climax” that would only be the case if both teams are full held on the same objective. On top of that we have the issue of lining up the waves to be fair to both teams… Otherwise the time could end with only 1 defender left so the “last stand” would be pretty bad. Also when it is in last stand how is this handled? If the defenders do not respawn does this mean we then have to watch the attackers do multiple objectives without resistance because I do not see any climax there.

Overall having a system like this running the whole time during a match could be interesting.
First min of an objective the defenders respawn wave is 20 seconds, second min is 30 seconds and third min is 40 seconds and so on. This way the pressure in on the defence to hold fast while eventually they would guarantee to lose meaning attackers win. 5 min in with a 1 min spawn time is almost a given. This would have also allowed the SD guys to lengthen the maps because progression would be a given.

you could also increase the wave time based on kills… like each defender death would add +1 second to the teams respawn wave. So 20 defender kills later the defenders wave would be 40 seconds each time… This would then be reset on the completion of a primary objective. That way progression is a given, based on attackers actions and results in many clutch moments.

(montheponies) #4

Where does the idea come from that stopwatch is broken? DBs implementation with serial objectives makes it’s implementation clunky (with mid-map cut-offs) but that’s a problem with the map/objective design rather than the game mode.

Making maps last longer is the absolute last thing you need to do in a competitive game, where setting times by the attacker should be the norm (with relatively balanced teams).

Refer to the competitive maps played in RTCW or even, if you have to, W:ET for examples - some of which are still being played and viewed…

(Kendle) #5

I recall watching RTCW at Quakecon 2002 / 3 with 1000’s of other WTV viewers, and no-one commented on the game mode being an issue. RTCW was a great spectator sport, and the intensity of playing towards a ticking clock made it the game it was.

W:ET somewhat diluted the experience, until more comp worthy maps became the norm. Can’t speak for ET:QW or Brink but IMO it’s the maps not the mode that need addressing. Yet more clunky artificial mechanics to plaster over poor map design is not the way to do it.

(PixelTwitch) #6

[QUOTE=montheponies;503035]Where does the idea come from that stopwatch is broken? DBs implementation with serial objectives makes it’s implementation clunky (with mid-map cut-offs) but that’s a problem with the map/objective design rather than the game mode.

Making maps last longer is the absolute last thing you need to do in a competitive game, where setting times by the attacker should be the norm (with relatively balanced teams).

Refer to the competitive maps played in RTCW or even, if you have to, W:ET for examples - some of which are still being played and viewed…[/QUOTE]

First, lets be honest when we talk about still being viewed and played…
The numbers in comparison to newer games are tiny… ET comes from a time where watching casts of matches was more of a niche thing and players were much more forgiving of certain mechanics. Due to Stopwatch missing out on many spectator aspects (tug of war gameplay, end of game climax and lack of progression) that make a game fun to watch as someone who is not much of a player themselves. The current system means you really need quite a deep understanding to appreciate a lot of what makes the game good. A better spawn system could help increase these factors.

I agree with you when you say do not make the rounds longer. I want to see all maps have a kinda minimum complete time of 4 - 5 min (by having longer holds and objectives in order to prevent 2 min matches that we see on things like trainyard) and EVERY attacker team should be able to finish. The pressure should be shifted over to the defenders instead of the attackers… Making a good defence should be just as (if not more) important than the attack…

The wave based system system is kinda random in public (when playing with people that do not pay attention to it) and it is to ridged of a pace setter in competitive, I will say this again, In a game mode based on time you should not be encouraged to wait… While I do understand that it is “FAIR” and it is tactical. I feel it removes “impact” of actions, is boring to watch and can still be slightly random to play.

I just cannot stress enough how odd it is to me that in something that is so Time-Based the Wave system promotes waiting and “abuse” of mechanics. Its antiquated and Jarring… Sure this is a game… I get it… but the system is just overlay gamified (I know thats not a word lol)

(tokamak) #7

That’s not the intent. It’s merely proposing a soft limit rather than a hard limit. A soft limit makes it possible to place it wherever you like without disrupting the gameplay. A hard limit however, means you have to carefully fine tune the content to get the average map duration right.

You can make the last-stand time limit lower than the original hard limit so that the game would taper off. The purpose of this is that you rule out the possibility of two rounds being exactly the same (IE 2x full hold).

In turn you get to safely increase the variation in the duration of each map without resorting to constant map balances that coax the players into completing the map around the same times.

I completely disagree with Kendal in that the map duration should be controlled through map design. That’s what makes the game feel so suffocating. That’s the reason why it feels like you’re just grinding through the corridors the devs want you to girnd to to arrive around their intended average time.

(Kendle) #8

I don’t accept that at all. What could be simpler than Team A completed the map in ‘X’, now Team B have to do it faster to win? It’s dead simple, makes perfect sense, and leads to dramatic conclusions. It’s the main reason I love the game mode compared to say, BF’s ticket system, where the game simply tapers off at the end, or a CTF game mode where each round is a fixed time and you can spend ages watching one team dominate the other and it gets boring real fast.

I honestly think you’re using more recent implementations of the genre (DB, Brink, ET:QW) to base you conclusions. If you’d been around during RTCW’s heyday you’d appreciate how SW is done properly, and that’s largely due to the superior map design.

I really don’t think you understand the subject matter here at all. You’re theorising again, and doing it badly. Go actually play some competitive SW, it might help. :slight_smile:

(PixelTwitch) #9

The issue with the system in my opinion is that the supporting mechanics are at odds with the game mode design.

ET’s random spawn wave that you would figure out and then have more efficient times to attack goes against the whole idea of speed being the key aspect of the overall mode. Honestly my core concern is not gameplay but watchabiltiy. You say that tickets taper off… So does Stopwatch if one team has 3 min left to complete X number of objectives and you know its physically impossible. Never mind the taper of full holds on both teams and full holds on the first team.

The “hype” from watching is removed due to the fact the whole first map is effectively irrelevant from a spectators point of view unless they pull out an amazing time. The reason why this hype and watchability is so important is because in order to grow the game as a esport it needs viewers…

If the only people that will be watching it are people that play at a decent level I can tell you for a fact that the viewership will not be enough to secure regular good prize pool events. Not to mention this “no progression” issue with full holds and dead time where you know you cannot win / cannot lose being so boring that it will put off a lot of the more casual players…

Every time SD let a bunch more people into the game the low skilled players vanish and the good players remain (for the most part). While some of this could be due to the fact they get beaten badly… I still think (from playing BF4 and CoD for a long time) that its the lack of “fun” for certain groups of players that is the main culprit.

(tokamak) #10

Ah but that’s a no true scotsman fallacy. Dirty Bomb’s main mode of play IS the competitive stopwatch. You may think these people who’re playing are casual newbies but it’s the casual newbies who are going to define what this game will look like INCLUDING actual competitive play. This has been true for every popular e-sport out there. It’s only the niche games that resort to changing the main game into something different.

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;503109]If the only people that will be watching it are people that play at a decent level I can tell you for a fact that the viewership will not be enough to secure regular good prize pool events. Not to mention this “no progression” issue with full holds and dead time where you know you cannot win / cannot lose being so boring that it will put off a lot of the more casual players…

Every time SD let a bunch more people into the game the low skilled players vanish and the good players remain (for the most part). While some of this could be due to the fact they get beaten badly… I still think (from playing BF4 and CoD for a long time) that its the lack of “fun” for certain groups of players that is the main culprit.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. The reason football is a trillion dollar industry sport is because every singe person is able to play a game of football. The rules aren’t different for the top leagues and the top leagues don’t impose their desire as to how a game should be played on the lower levels. It’s all the same game.

The real successful F2P’s are the games that understand this concept. And it’s not about dumbing down the game either. The highest leagues play spectacular matches and show extreme feats of skill within the same ruleset a beginner starts in.

So that’s why I raise this point. A stopwatch time-trail is exciting for the 0.1% competitive players. For them the ticking clock resonates with them. But for the rest of the players and the audience and anyone who will ever have anything to do with the game, they want narrative.

(trickykungfu) #11

What i really don’t like about the patch now it even more feels like the attackers can never set a time at a equal skill level. I only played canary yesterday and the objectives felt not manageable. For me the attackers should always be able to set a time and the interesting thing is the second round if the new attackers can bet that time…

Because of the 20 seconds Spawntime it always feels like meat grind. Best tactic ist just rush, kill, respawn no use of even setting up a defense…

(Kendle) #12

PixelTwitch / tokamak, I think the problem you’re both having is that you define “fun” as what you personally find “fun”, and extrapolate that everyone else shares the same view.

You say “if the only people that watch it are those that play at a decent level” … I would argue the only people who are going to watch it anyway are those who play it, and that the level at which they play is irrelevant. I can assure you ET and RTCW back in the day had huge audiences, and probably 90%+ of those were players who had no hope of competing at the level they were watching.

From the perspective of playing the game, yes I’d agree that getting hammered by much better players all the time is not fun, and is undoubtedly part of the reason DB currently suffers from low player retention, but that doesn’t apply to watching others play.

(PixelTwitch) #13

[QUOTE=Kendle;503114]PixelTwitch / tokamak, I think the problem you’re both having is that you define “fun” as what you personally find “fun”, and extrapolate that everyone else shares the same view.

You say “if the only people that watch it are those that play at a decent level” … I would argue the only people who are going to watch it anyway are those who play it, and that the level at which they play is irrelevant. I can assure you ET and RTCW back in the day had huge audiences, and probably 90%+ of those were players who had no hope of competing at the level they were watching.

From the perspective of playing the game, yes I’d agree that getting hammered by much better players all the time is not fun, and is undoubtedly part of the reason DB currently suffers from low player retention, but that doesn’t apply to watching others play.[/QUOTE]

ET and RTCW did NOT have huge viewer numbers…
90% of a small community is not a lot…

I am using the word fun because its simpler than going into every single aspect of the games design.
In general I am using “fun” as the reverse of “frustration” and not actually sitting back with a big smile on my face kinda “fun”.

I think this is something we are going to disagree on because you like what you like and I want to have something that lots of people like.

(Glottis-3D) #14

once again way too much theory around the problem (not about the problem), where the real problem is maps. i stated before, and will say this 1 more time: no other sophisticated spawn system will ever make these maps fun.

i realy suggest to put more thought in map-design. suggestions for routes/objects/layout etc.

(PixelTwitch) #15

[QUOTE=krokodealer;503125]once again way too much theory around the problem (not about the problem), where the real problem is maps. i stated before, and will say this 1 more time: no other sophisticated spawn system will ever make these maps fun.

i realy suggest to put more thought in map-design. suggestions for routes/objects/layout etc.[/QUOTE]

I still disagree with the maps argument…
Sure you can make maps that work with the current restrictive oldschool design…

OR! you can better design the game to the point where more variation in map design is enabled while keeping that solid feel. The current issue with the SYSTEMS is that its going to leave the maps all kinda being… well… the same -.-

Each spawn will be about the same distance, the same kinda side objectives and primary objectives, aprox the same number of side routes and the wide open sky lines above you to enable airstrikes and lasers and the invisible walls keeping everything together so we cannot skip bits that would allow us to get to places… Seriously, you can make good maps, however the effort in making good maps on poor design is not easy… Especially if you do not want everything to be basically feeling the same regardless.

I honestly believe that people are blaming the maps as thats the first thing that they see…

ahh -.- game… why have you forsaken me >.<

(tokamak) #16

I don’t think ‘fun’ is the right word. ‘Watchable’ is better. Watching two teams competing against each other’s time is boring if that’s all there is to it. A soft limit keeps the plot in the matches. Last Stand gives a meaningful conclusion to Stopwatch without losing it’s essence.

The only reason why all of a sudden we’re comparing casual versus ‘pro’ was this remark:

Go actually play some competitive SW, it might help.

There’s no reason why soft limits would be less competitive than hard limits. If anything it’s going to be the competitive players that truly get to shine during the last stand. There’s going to be heroes, game-savers and all kind of nasty tricks to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat in ways that casual players can’t compete.

So implying that I don’t know what I’m talking about or that I’m trying to dumb down the game is just shrill.

Hard limits are more traditional which is what you equate with the good ol’ days where your favourite FPS’s were being taken serious as an E-sport. But they’re not any longer. Stopwatch is a dated concept. And you’re just dismissing it out of nostalgia.

My purpose is to give shoutcasters something to shout about. Audiences need to be kept at the edge of the seat for the entire match and it should be the players that decide when the game is over, not some dry old ticking clock.

(Kendle) #17

In the context of player base they did. Most people that played the game and were interested in watching matches, watched matches. Everyone else either wouldn’t have watched matches anyway because they didn’t play, or just weren’t interested in watching matches.

I’m not convinced there’s a huge audience for ANY game outside those who play it, or at least not team games, or at least not without making compromises to the enjoyment of the people who play it. At the end of the day teams are going to play DB either because they can make money from it (compete in tournaments), or because they enjoy playing it. And the former is not likely to happen unless the latter occurs (in other words the game must first be fun to play, even if it means it’s less fun to watch).

Fine, but are you talking about fun to play or fun to watch? I’d find it extremely frustrating to play football against Messi, but I find it fun to watch him.

(Kendle) #18

In your opinion.

For people who play a game themselves it’s generally as watchable as it is enjoyable to play, regardless of how well or how badly you play.

(Glottis-3D) #19

[QUOTE=PixelTwitch;503129]The current issue with the SYSTEMS is that its going to leave the maps all kinda being… well… the same -.-

Each spawn will be about the same distance, the same kinda side objectives and primary objectives, aprox the same number of side routes and the wide open sky lines above you to enable airstrikes and lasers and the invisible walls keeping everything together so we cannot skip bits that would allow us to get to places… Seriously, you can make good maps, however the effort in making good maps on poor design is not easy… Especially if you do not want everything to be basically feeling the same regardless.

I honestly believe that people are blaming the maps as thats the first thing that they see…

ahh -.- game… why have you forsaken me >.<[/QUOTE]

we only have 1 semi-good map out of 6 horrible (to different extent).
the fun in maps are the areas where the good fights take place. the areas, that are both fun to defend and to attack. no matter the spawn system, you team gets to the postitions and attacks/defends those areas. no spawn system will make those fights worse or better. his is basis, the foundation (together with physics and game mechanics). spawn system is above it. it is second floor.
i like buildings, that were built from the foundation, not from 2nd floor.

anyway, it is OFFTOPIC mostly.

i would like to give a try to any reasonable spawn system, i just dont want to do this now on these broken maps.

i just honestly think this would be a waste of my time. unlike testing new maps, new versions of maps.

(tokamak) #20

The best game in the world can be ruined if you start playing it in a ****ty format. SD’s games are revolving around objectives and therefore inherently asymmetrical. The game is then forced into the Stopwatch mode because that’s the only way we know how to make it competitive. It’s an artifact from more primitive days where we didn’t know any better.

Stopwatch is a ****ty format. It’s repetitive and the majority of the matches are an anti-climax. And in a way it’s not even truly fair. The first attackers enjoy the advantage of being harder to predict due to their longer time limit. The second attackers will have to work under a constraint which locks down a whole range of possibilities that defenders no longer have to account for.

And now, worse than that. We’re actually seeing SD moving backwards. Rather than trying to find a format that fits objective games, we’re trying to squeeze objective games into a way to accustom Stopwatch. That’s why the maps are so short and that’s why we’re forcing maps into steady ‘beats’ of objective completion.

All I’m saying, it doesn’t have to be this way. There are variations that can be just as competitive.