[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]
Yes this is how it should be!
Personally I’d go for having to complete the map - end of story.
If fullholds are the norm then there is something wrong with the map/merc balance.
However, as a compromise the method proposed by Smooth would take away my number one complaint at the moment, which is essentially you can win just by completing a 1st stage objective 1s faster than the opposition.
Again the crux of it for me is that the serial objective maps are suited to Objective mode. Stopwatch maps should have one or at a stretch two primary objectives (which should be acheivable from the getgo), with a couple of side objectives that open routes. The current serial setup almost invites you into creating false win conditions.
Honestly doesn’t make sense to me. I think the team that completed the first objective earlier should win.
Completely agreed.
The new stopwatch rules are one of my favourite features of Dirty Bomb, I can’t believe we are talking about reverting those…
Draws are NOT good for competition. Seeing two teams slug it out for half an hour just to get no result is really no fun for anybody involved. Draws are ok when they are super rare and happen on a knife’s edge, draws are NOT ok if they are a very likely outcome.
Aside from being boring as ****, draws also create potential problems for tournament organisers. What if a decider map ends in a draw? Play a whole new round? Whenever you have the concept of draws, you also need tiebreakers. Using the number of completed objectives, and then the time set on the first objective(s) as a tiebreaker makes perfect sense, and I have no idea why people take issue with this. This is far far more important than dragging out a game that was essentially already decided.
If anything, make this optional, something like “allow draws”. When this is set to false, the only way to create a draw should be a double-fullhold on the first objective. And even for that unlikely outcome we should ideally have a tiebreaker, although maps really should be designed in a way that the first objective is almost impossible to hold unless there is a huge gap in skill.
To those who are saying that fullholds are a map problem: A good design should work on any map, no matter how flawed. It doesn’t have to be great, but at least it should work. The original SW only really works on super fast maps, which is not ideal either and has always been a limiting factor for ET for example. We are not going to see all maps re-worked to short 5 minute maps just to solve this particular problem. So this is something we have to deal with, and the current rules do that sufficiently.
With all due respect,
Don’t bloody mess with Stopwatch.
Just fix the winning condition to finish a match when the first team to attack sets their last time on a non-final objective and the second team beats it.
If you feel like common sense is not enough, read Zenity’s answer. The only draw allowed should be double full hold and this being a common occurrence WOULD be a map problem, not the game mode ruleset problem.
Sincerely,
Everyone enjoying Stopwatch.
P.S. For the love of everything that is holy and otherwise, please realize that if you make draws common in the primary competitive mode, you are guaranteed to have it rejected by the 90% of the players and viewers. Just because pubs fail to acknowledge that what makes this mode unique is time management doesn’t mean that we should dumb it down to accommodate for ignorance.
[QUOTE=Glottis-3D;528468]because they didnt prove that they are win-worthy by…winning a map (i.e. completing last and most important object)?
and mean blowing a door… or repairing a EV… is it a map win?? no, its just a starting object. it doesnt have any significant story.
like “We stole the gold!!” in ET, or “we destroyed the contamitation device” in ETQW.
Doublefullholds should be avoided by making an attacking bias (good layout, good secondary onjects, adjusted spawn times).[/QUOTE]
Have you seen the maps man? They’re barely playable let alone palatable. There would tons of more draws in comp play with this suggestion.
yeah, maps are not good.
i am speaking from the perspective, that maps will be reworked, and redesigned with a nice attack-bias.
simple as that.
Fulhold will be possible ONLY, if team A(in defence) is much better than team B(in attack). that means there will be no double fullhold ever (worse team will never fullhold a better team with attack bias). By map design.
so, from the point of view of a passionate competitive player.
obj-win is counter exciting.
so in other words:
Attack-bias with almost none existant double fullholds and exciting clutch matches is much better than obj-win on defence biased maps.
right it is not about who WON, it is about who FAILED LESS HARD.
And what if the other team completed the second obj way faster? THAT doesnt make sense.
If they completed the 2nd objective proportionately faster (10 minutes), then they would win…
In my opinion, it’s a simple concept… You have X minutes to get as far as you can. If you get further than the other team did in X minutes, you win. If you struggle with the first objective, you need to proportionately make up the time later on the other objectives…
[QUOTE=tangoliber;528616]I
In my opinion, it’s a simple concept… You have X minutes to get as far as you can. If you get further than the other team did in X minutes, you win. If you struggle with the first objective, you need to proportionately make up the time later on the other objectives…[/QUOTE]
I second this mentality. Don’t see why completing first objective faster should be more important than completing the second objective faster.
So you’re pleased that rather than tackling the problem SD have made conditional rules that allow poor maps to be the norm. gg.
Basically we’re creating false and in some cases completely unintuitive win conditions whereby a map has been ‘won’ but you are still forced to play out the remaining time irrespective (ie. second attackers push the EV further than the first team). Really don’t get the logic that we should create rules for SW to account for poor map structure. Just dont make or play maps that are likely to end in draws (hello Brink).
In the same vein, why not force us to play Execution on Whitechapel? Any mode should be able to bend to work with any map, right?
Seriously SD should create distinct maps for Objective that are relatively long, potentially have some rubbish story, and could be joined to form a campaign style set. Nice public orientated maps that shares a common gamestyle with SW, but is it’s own ‘mode’.
Stopwatch should have relatively short, single objective maps, forward spawns, with focus on good primary and secondary objective placement, attacker bias and the possibility of the occassional ‘steal’ (think Beach speedrun).
But SD isn’t known for SW maps, so I guess we’ll stick with the current approach of making a square peg fit a round hole, kindof.
No, I just completely disagree.
I would have done it exactly the same way SD did. I know that because I was playing with the thought of actually doing it, before I started playing Dirty Bomb.
There isn’t just one style of valid Stopwatch maps. The short maps are fine, but also have their downsides. SD prefers the longer variation, and has provided rules which make them work competitively. It’s as simple as that.
No, but the current crop are good examples of invalid styles. We’ll agree to disagree and watch while finals are won on who managed to repair an EV just a bit more than someone else, cos 24min of watching a single map is appealing for the masses…
i can hardly think of downsides to short SW maps. Radar 10min time would be considered EXTREMELY poor in the high-skilled ET cups, and typically a clutch play here or there would determine the outcome.
The team that has progressed the furthest wins.
I think that is by far the best way and it doesn’t shoehorn you into making map design decisions you wouldn’t make otherwise. Attackers don’t need to be advantaged in winrate on every map with this rule-set. And while you might want to make attackers advantaged anyway, at least you aren’t forcing yourself to do it because of the rules and likely while you want attacker advantage anyway it doesn’t need to be that big of an advantage as opposed to requiring most if not all games to set times.
Just as important, however, is how bad it is getting a tie despite significantly outplaying the other team like mentioned previously in the thread. So easily option 2 without question. Tournaments can have their own rules (although it should be strongly recommended to follow the pub rules).
[QUOTE=tangoliber;528616]If they completed the 2nd objective proportionately faster (10 minutes), then they would win…
In my opinion, it’s a simple concept… You have X minutes to get as far as you can. If you get further than the other team did in X minutes, you win. If you struggle with the first objective, you need to proportionately make up the time later on the other objectives…[/QUOTE]
you are being very contradictory… The discussion is about what needs to happen when both teams has done equal the amount of objectives in the required time. First you say that the team who has done the first objective faster should win. Now you say the team who has done the second objective “proportionately faster” wins? You are not making any sense…
If both teams succeeded in completing the same amount of objectives, then it should be a draw. It is utterly wrong to go and look at the times of the several objectives. If a team succeeds in completing as many objectives as the opposing team withing the same time, surely that can only be considered as a draw. Just because the team repaired the EV 30s faster or w/e should not be a criteria in this game because this can be influences by a lot of factors not only due to the players.
I will hate this kind of SW because it will be very infuriating that you managed to do all of the objectives like the other team, but that you somehow lose because they were slightly faster on an certain objective…
We all agree on that. It is the question where both teams have the same progression that needs to be answered;)
This.
The current maps are fine for objective.
But stopwatch is most of the times either Spawncamp, then finish the first objective, or finish the whole map and then spawncamp (from a winners perspective)
Stopwatch maps should be more tactical, and less “stage based”
here is my idea how a Stopwatch! chapel could look like: http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/44130-Please-remake-stopwatch-maps!!!-(-Idea-for-chapel)
Please look at Radar and use it as a reference for future stopwatch maps