if you mean by more OBJ that every aspect of an objective counts then I agree.
f.e. terminal. If you succeed in exploding 1 container and other team failed to do so, the team who made that explosion wins. Same for chapel.
A draw would be where both teams constructed EV, escorted EV and both returned 1 out of 2 milk jugs to the buildings (irrispective of when that first milk jug was returned)
[QUOTE=Smooth;528473]I personally feel that if a team on Whitechapel:
[ol]
[li]Repairs the EV[/li][li]Successfully Escorts the EV [/li][li]Delivers the First Carryable[/li][li]Almost delivers the Second Carryable but ultimately fails[/li][/ol]
Then they should win over a team that never even manages to repair the EV.
One team in this case is clearly better than the other. Plus (in this case, completely one-sided) Draws aren’t fun for anyone.[/QUOTE]
Draws should be possible though… If the other team matches this on the attacker side, then it should be a draw. Even when the first team managed to do this in 5 minutes, but failed to deliver the last carryable in the next 10 minutes and the other team succeeded just on the very last second to deliver their first carryable.
This doesn’t mean draws are a good thing. Current system is fine imo, if you did more than the enemy then I really don’t see anything wrong with you getting the win, because you did more than the enemy.
You didnt steal the gold, you didnt destroy the slipgates, you didnt deliver datacores to the helicopter.
you only blew the insignificant door, and they didnt.
[QUOTE=Kroad;528496]never played ET etc so I don’t quite understand how this works. What happens if the team that goes attackers first never completes the primary objective? there would be a time limit right?
because if there is, i don’t see how it would be any different from stopwatch[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at? 
Of course there’s a time limit. ET uses stopwatch. I want to keep stopwatch. I just don’t like the bastardized version of DBs stopwatch.
[QUOTE=Glottis-3D;528489]who told you that?
in my book both teams failed. none of them won a map. but yes one team is better than another, but nevertheless none of them won a map![/QUOTE]
The maps can never be perfectly balanced between offense and defense, because they are asymmetrical. And I don’t like draws. So, I prefer to see a team’s progress count.
And I think EV distance should count as progress.
I think every stopwatch map should work like Radar and Oasis
1st OPTIONAL objective but very helpful (forward spawn + wall break)
2nd MAIN objective (destroy 2 guns or steal 2 parts)
Don’t need a third one^^
I don’t like the stages, they feel more like limitation than progression
for comp double fullhold should be draw
for pubs more progress should count (1 gun down for example)
I just can’t enjoy the current maps, when I compare them to ET maps 
In the case of both teams only complete the 1st obj, whoever did that quickest should win rather than ending in a draw. Team A complete obj in 1 minute but spend 19 minutes on obj 2 vs team B take 19 minutes to complete obj 1 and spend the remaining 1 minute on obj 2 should result in a win for A.
I’d say something in-between.
If both teams do all objectives then the fastest times wins.
If one team does more objectives than the other team they win.
If both teams do the same number of objectives then it’s a draw.
Id say “objective completeness” should be split up a bit more than all or nothing.
e.g. Both teams destroy 1 out of 2 containters could be a draw, but if one team gets 1 and the other team gets 0 then there is a winner.
e.g. EV routes can be split up into several sections, roughly segregating the normal hold points, so Chapel could have 3 EV sections, one team gets 2 sections complete (stuck by the lift) and the other only 1 (stuck between the MGs) there is a winner, but if both teams get stuck near the lift they’d both have 2 sections done and it’d be a draw.
[QUOTE=Mustang;528507]I’d say something in-between.
If both teams do all objectives then the fastest times wins.
If one team does more objectives than the other team they win.
If both teams do the same number of objectives then it’s a draw.
Id say “objective completeness” should be split up a bit more than all or nothing.
e.g. Both teams destroy 1 out of 2 containters could be a draw, but if one team gets 1 and the other team gets 0 then there is a winner.
e.g. EV routes can be split up into several sections, roughly segregating the normal hold points, so Chapel could have 3 EV sections, one team gets 2 sections complete (stuck by the lift) and the other only 1 (stuck between the MGs) there is a winner, but if both teams get stuck near the lift they’d both have 2 sections done and it’d be a draw.[/QUOTE]
I think chapel would be better without the EV
if you compare it to the tank in goldrush it’s very different
Moving the tank was only contested at/by barriers, it had those stages you mention
The EV on chapel is just moving+getting destroyed over and over again
fighting zones in ET where much more defined
my version of chapel:
A spawnflag infront of THE chapel (where mg and ammo box is) and destroy a wall at the EV garage, then steal something from the building and bring it to the garage 2 times (Can be done without blowing the wall, using the trickjump at the ammobox). No EV
The different merc speeds are perfect for docruns would be very exciting in my opinion
@SD: please make every ETplayer (your hardcore fans) happy and add spawnflags + selectable spawns and docruns 
[QUOTE=strychzilla;528465]If you get full held on the first obj and the opposing team completes the first why shouldn’t they win?
With the way the maps are currently, I wouldn’t want to change it or it would be draw city like brink.[/QUOTE]
I used to favor the older system but I have to agree with this.
Agree that it is anti-climatic though 
[QUOTE=Glottis-3D;528501]You didnt steal the gold, you didnt destroy the slipgates, you didnt deliver datacores to the helicopter.
you only blew the insignificant door, and they didnt.[/QUOTE]
and blowing the door is still more than they did
realistically? Sure the door is insignificant, except that the game isn’t based on what’s realistic or not.
Honestly don’t see how this is a better system when all it does is create more draws.
[QUOTE=prophett;528511]I used to favor the older system but I have to agree with this.
Agree that it is anti-climatic though :/[/QUOTE]
and that takes me to the point, where i ask myself:
isnt this whole thing is about excitement? adrenaline and fun?
everytime i blow 1st object and win i go - “yeah whatever…”
and even more: casual players (lets put them that way) seem to NOT GET that the 1st object BECOMES the last object for them.
This will be the case eventually, we still have a little work to do with Stopwatch rules in general.
[ul]
[li]Objective 1 completed in 1 min + Objective 2 defended for 14 mins[/li][/ul]
is just as good as:
[ul]
[li]Objective 1 completed in 5 mins + Objective 2 defended for 10 mins[/li][/ul]
Both teams were held to the same end result in the same amount of time (15 mins) so it will be a draw.
[QUOTE=tangoliber;528503]The maps can never be perfectly balanced between offense and defense, because they are asymmetrical. And I don’t like draws. So, I prefer to see a team’s progress count.
And I think EV distance should count as progress.[/QUOTE]It can, that’s the beauty behind it. Quake Wars is a good example, balance was really good and yet, the 2 sides were as asymmetrical as they can be. That’s why the game needs asymmetric spawn waves for a start.
Agreed, we need to (and will be making) the finishing line clearer in the second half.
[QUOTE=Smooth;528473]I personally feel that if a team on Whitechapel:
[ol]
[li]Repairs the EV
[/li][li]Successfully Escorts the EV
[/li][li]Delivers the First Carryable
[/li][li]Almost delivers the Second Carryable but ultimately fails
[/li][/ol]
Then they should win over a team that never even manages to repair the EV.
One team in this case is clearly better than the other. Plus (in this case, completely one-sided) Draws aren’t fun for anyone.[/QUOTE]Sometimes it’s a very fine line between stuck on 1st obj or a map win. A decent team wipe and some good area control let you more or less breeze through a few objectives in a row. Doesn’t have to mean one team is miles in front, not a realistic indicator if you ask me.
[QUOTE=Smooth;528514]This will be the case eventually, we still have a little work to do with Stopwatch rules in general.
[ul]
[li]Objective 1 completed in 1 min + Objective 2 defended for 14 mins[/li][/ul]
is just as good as:
[ul]
[li]Objective 1 completed in 5 mins + Objective 2 defended for 10 mins[/li][/ul]
Both teams were held to the same end result in the same amount of time (15 mins) so it will be a draw.[/QUOTE]
so, 1 minute is not better than 5 minute?
i thought we were all going for finding the better one!
/being a arse
=)
i would like this to realy happen.
because now most teams are just
‘yay lets spawn rape them like they did just now!’
instead of ‘Guys, this is our last resort, last object! we need to freakin focus!!!’
For public/casual play.
the team that gets the most objectives wins, and soon as that happens great as it is a quicker turn over of maps.
For competitive play.
I feel like you are promoting the defence of the first objective, and sacrificing tactical element of the game, and teams choice to concentrate on a certain point.
I personally like working from the back, you need to have the confidence that you can hold that final objective.
If you are held on the first objective for the full time, and then you hold them on the final objective.
In my eyes it is a draw, you had to beat the clock. No teams did that.