Stopwatch victory rule?

(Glot) #1

I personally do not like current ruleset for winning the stopwatch match. Mostly because it is anti-climatic and takes away a lot of pressure anf fun from the game.
I am speaking about the so called obj-win rule.
It is when 1st team doesnt set a time for a map in first round. and second team wins, if they complete more objects.
As logical(?) as it may sound on paper. It is very boring to play bot as an attacker and as a defender in these kinds of second rounds.
If a team didnt set a time (i.e. was fullholded) i think they still need to have a chance to fullhold enemy on full map.
MOst importantly: IF 1st team fails to set a time on a map, how do you know the 2nd team is not going to fail as well? 1st objective (or 2nd) should not be decider.

i remember from ETQW era some maps having some objects easier to set a defence that others, and teams fearing to get rushed by attackers could fall back fro second object and set a nice defence there. that was a Strategical move to save the map. and it was frequently used there.

(Glot) #2

also, another important Q:
when both teams didnt set a time but both completed same amount of objects (lets say two objects)
what team do you think should win - win faster 1st obj or with faster 2nd?

(matsy) #3

In my eyes finishing the map is the only way as different teams maybe able to hold different areas better than others.

If neither teams set a time, neither teams have completed the map.

(Glot) #4

[quote=“matsy;18996”]In my eyes finishing the map is the only way as different teams maybe able to hold different areas better than others.

If neither teams set a time, neither teams have completed the map.[/quote]

i agree. different objects are here to deliver different expierience for teams. not for the sake of long maps.
Some teams are better at ability spam, some teams are trick-jump heavy, some are pure aim-based.

and from a map-story point of view.
who cares if a team repaired some random EV? the goal of the map was not the repair, it was stealing important datacores, of medical samples.
If none of the teams succeeded in the final goal. Neither of the teams is win-worthy. (Even if one of those teams is better than another)

(benignMaster) #5

ET was like that also. A full hold was a full hold and counted as a win, regardless of how far the attacking team got. That being said, so far I dont mind the stopwatch system we have in dirty bomb. Its certainly not bad, just different.

(Szakalot) #6

the problem with the current system is dead-play time.

If maps tend to be fullholdy (they are), and one team completes 2 objective quickly, but gets stopped at the last objective

a) enjoy ~10min of attacker’s getting smashed on the last obj
b) enjoy the 15min of the next SW round; where the map is decided in the first few min (can these attackers beat the quick obj completion times?), while theoretically they could still finish the map and win the game, its very unlikely - and the remaining 10min is a pointless grind.

(Glot) #7

the problem with the current system is dead-play time.

If maps tend to be fullholdy (they are), and one team completes 2 objective quickly, but gets stopped at the last objective

a) enjoy ~10min of attacker’s getting smashed on the last obj
b) enjoy the 15min of the next SW round; where the map is decided in the first few min (can these attackers beat the quick obj completion times?), while theoretically they could still finish the map and win the game, its very unlikely - and the remaining 10min is a pointless grind.[/quote]

so if we get the attack bias on all maps on all objects, its a win-win situation.
much less fulholds, and much less obj-wins.
time will be the decider, like it should be from the mode title!

(Thai-San) #8

If the first team can’t even get the first objective, but the second team manages to do so, why should they win the entire map if they’ve already proven that they did better on this map? o.O

(Glot) #9

i get this point.
but they only proved, that they are better on 1st Object, not the whole map.
they could have sucked it on next stages (different stages have different strategies, and can favor different approaches and different teams’ strong sides.)

(t3hsquirr3l) #10

I agree that the entire match must be played out, just to fairly judge each team on their overall strategy and ability to adjust to different objectives. The time to beat should be the moment the final objective is complete. If you don’t complete the final objective, then you have not set a time to beat. If the second team also cannot complete the map, then it is a draw.

Draws aren’t much fun though, so perhaps in the case of a draw the winner is the team with the highest combined score. Just to reward the team that, in the end, showed higher personal skill and/or teamwork focusing on objectives.

(Glot) #11

[quote=“t3hsquirr3l;19934”]I agree that the entire match must be played out, just to fairly judge each team on their overall strategy and ability to adjust to different objectives. The time to beat should be the moment the final objective is complete. If you don’t complete the final objective, then you have not set a time to beat. If the second team also cannot complete the map, then it is a draw.

Draws aren’t much fun though, so perhaps in the case of a draw the winner is the team with the highest combined score. Just to reward the team that, in the end, showed higher personal skill and/or teamwork focusing on objectives.[/quote]

[SD]Smooth said that they will make changes to the ruleset in Stopwatch, but not sure how exactly.
I hope that teams will get more chances and more versatile possibilities for outcome (i.e. like now).
http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/44108-Stopwatch-win-rule/page4

(t3hsquirr3l) #12

Thanks for the link, that was a pretty interesting thread to read through. I’ll just have to wait and see how things turn out I suppose.

(TndY) #13

Agree with the entire-map idea. (rtcw, et & etqw)

Draws will show sd which maps need tweaking.

Instead of picking maps with an overall strat in competition,
teams might start to focus on which 1st obj can we defend the best.

(Serious Sam) #14

I’ve noticed that when teams don’t finish the whole map, the time at which they completed one or two of the objectives is displayed.

I voted for the “Other, please state below” because I think if a team completes the same number of objectives as the other team (i.e., only one objective of a two objective map) but faster, they should win for having done the same thing as the other team but faster and therefore better.

I’ve played TF2 competitive and this is how the games work (though admittedly there are usually more than 2 objectives per map, more commonly in the upwards of 5, game related pun intended), and I think it makes sense to adopt this feature here.

(Hexa) #15

I’d like to state one thing to begin with
NO PLACE FOR TIE IN COMPETITIVE TITLE

In the past i used to play quite a lot of Left4Dead and in that game everything was judged upon progression, and extra score gathered from unused medkits and painkillers… While dirtybomb game is quite different a bit of that could still be added:

Destroy objects
How far through C4 planting you got: 0-100
Until what point you defended your C4: 0-100
Did your C4 Explode: yes/no

Same formula for another objectives

Escort EV
How much of EV you repaired: 0-100
How far you escorted your EV: 0-1000 (for more detailed scale)
Did you escort your EV: yes/no
How far did you get through picking up objective 0-100
How far did you get through delivering it 0-100
Did you deliver first objective: yes/no

Then same formula for second

Then if you finished all task, whoever did the task first… it should also show hundreth of a second so
13:37.28

If you really want this game to be competitive, deciding winner should be clear and detailed… not “whoever played first”

And if everything is equal… then winner should be decided on team’s overall score.

While this involves more processing to be done by server, it would definitely simplify picking a winner.

(Roggan29) #16

I absolutly dont like the idea that it is a draw if non of the team manage it to set a time for the whole map. I would even quit the game if that gets implemented. I dont like the Objective game mode as some maps are more Attacker and some maps are more Defender friendly. So that game mode is hard to balance and thats the reason why I’m not playing it.
In Stopwatch I like the ruleset which is currently implemented with one exception: I dont like that if first team finishes one objective and the second team finishes that one faster, that the game is still continuing. The first team has already lost and the game should stop right there and not continue further for no meaning. Matches would be no fun if you need to finish every objective to get a chance to win the game. If the first team fails to set a time they know the only thing they can achieve is a draw. Not really motivating for me

EDIT: And I like the idea of Hexa to consider how “much complete” was the objective.

(ZephyR) #17

At least in my experience from RTCW/ET in competition, not necessarily stopwatch in public play, if both teams did a full hold, the entire set was considered NULL.

This later changed as constant full holds started to become an issue, and they moved it to both teams getting 1 point each (for a full hold) and getting 1 point for a win – where before it was 0 points each. The first team reaching 2 points being the conclusion of the game.

2-2 [both teams full hold 2 times each]
2-1 [both teams full hold 1st set, one team winning 2nd set]
2-0 [a team winning both sets outright]

I do appreciate that games are SHORTER, since I recall a match in RTCW lasting 5 hours. I’m not sure how that can translate though in this game (since it seems to be more set on map pools and such) and the competitive aspects are set differently.

(Whoisthis) #18

Since there are so many unbalanced matches, I wish they were shorter. It’s interminable when you are obviously way outmatched (last game the 8 opposing team members surround the remaining 3 of us for 6 minutes and spawn camped us continuously while the clock ran out). Personally I wish they were only half as long and it wouldn’t make a difference in 90% of matches.