Three things (out of many) that go wrong imo

(RasteRayzeR) #1

Lately I’ve started to rage in DB, and after some time I found out that three elements of the game are really annoying me currently (except all the others ofc) :

  • overtime: overtime is turning delivery games into non-sense. If you get a core close enough to the drop zone, the attacking team has way shorter and faster respawns -> impossible to get it back as the defense.

Solution: cancel overtime once the objective is dropped. This would turn the game into a real last chance as you would require a complete backup from your team to achieve that.

  • grenades: I think I already reported this on IRC and in the bug section, but dying when cooking a grenade should make it explode rather than cancel. It’s armed and no one can undo this.

Solution: make the grenade drop if killed early in the cooking, and let it be thrown if killed late in the cooking. Nothing more satisfying than killing a dude with your last breath.

  • team sizes: I tend to see more and more players stacking the attacking team, leaving the defense with less players. This turns into raping.

Solution: force that if teams are uneven (player count) the defending team has always one more player.

Of course there are many other problems, but these are the ones that currently annoy me the most gameplay-wise.

(tokamak) #2

Yeah these are pretty straight forward. Good call!

(Seanza) #3

Agreed. Except I think the nades should just drop if you haven’t thrown it yet and you’ve been killed.

(montheponies) #4

Agree with everything except the bias on the defence team. I’d rather favour the attackers as if you don’t you run into s stalemate game which is pretty boring. Certainly think team balance should be forced on, with the last player made to change sides if the numbers are uneven.

That said I think a lot of the problem stems from the initial team balance being random, rather than it being based upon a criteria (kdr, xp, wl ratio etc).

You still get the occasional player that just changes to pad their wl ratio or stroke their kdr ego - hopefully the kick function would dissuade that…

(Violator) #5

Now though we’ve gone from one extreme to the other with full holds a rarity (unless teams are complete stacked and attack are spawncamped) as there is too much bias for attackers imho - always adding the extra player to attack when numbers are odd, the overtime thing, the spawn movement…

For balance you could get clever with stats and say that ‘player x,y,z together win 90% of the time so lets split them up’.

(tokamak) #6

Keep in mind that balancing casual pub play is entirely different from balancing ranked matches. Ranked matches really shouldn’t have any cutesy checks and balances going on in the background.

In objective mode you want the team balance to bias defenders while in ranked SW mode there shouldn’t be any automated team balance in the first place. The teams should be fixed from the start and no new players are allowed to join in on a match in progress.

(montheponies) #7

[QUOTE=tokamak;510637]Keep in mind that balancing casual pub play is entirely different from balancing ranked matches. Ranked matches really shouldn’t have any cutesy checks and balances going on in the background.

In objective mode you want the team balance to bias defenders while in ranked SW mode there shouldn’t be any automated team balance in the first place. The teams should be fixed from the start and no new players are allowed to join in on a match in progress.[/QUOTE]

Why? The attacking team is far more likely to suffer from spawncamping, get frustrated and leave. Think Whitechapel. Personally if I’m on defense I much prefer to be pressed than to be sitting on the attackers spawn.

(Mustang) #8

Oooh, this is a neat idea.

(tokamak) #9

Ah but that’s confirmation bias. Anything that puts the attackers at a disadvantage will be more visible because it lasts longer. You won’t pick up on things that affect defenders as easily because the game will be over before then.

So spawncamping defenders happens less because the moment you start doing that the objective is already about to be completed.

So sure, spawncamping is frustrating, but it’s an isolated issue that shouldn’t be fixed by giving a bias elsewhere.

What’s more frustrating, and what will make more people leave are constant steam rolls. A constant streak of attackers winning will make all players spend more time in loading /score/preparation screens and less time actually playing.

That’s why I say, if there’s to be a bias in objective mode then give it to defenders for they’re the ones that actually keep the game going.

(montheponies) #10

[QUOTE=tokamak;510669]Ah but that’s confirmation bias. Anything that puts the attackers at a disadvantage will be more visible because it lasts longer. You won’t pick up on things that affect defenders as easily because the game will be over before then.

So spawncamping defenders happens less because the moment you start doing that the objective is already about to be completed.

So sure, spawncamping is frustrating, but it’s an isolated issue that shouldn’t be fixed by giving a bias elsewhere.

What’s more frustrating, and what will make more people leave are constant steam rolls. A constant streak of attackers winning will make all players spend more time in loading /score/preparation screens and less time actually playing.

That’s why I say, if there’s to be a bias in objective mode then give it to defenders for they’re the ones that actually keep the game going.[/QUOTE]

Who wants a game to last a long time when there is no challenge to it? Personally I’d rather have the steamroll, then a quick shuffle and into the next map with hopefully more balanced teams and better games…

(tokamak) #11

What you’re saying here is that imbalances the defense matters less because you can simply throw away the match and start again. I find that a rather frivolous way of looking at it. A steam-roll is fun, but it only has meaning if it happens occasionally. Having the match end quickly is definitely not a justification for having it happen more often. It will only give players the feeling that each individual match isn’t important and that all that matters is scoring enough touch-downs in one evening.

You’re basically lemming-rushing the game on a meta level.

And I disagree that a full-hold isn’t fun.

Constantly probing a great defense for weak spots gives players much more control than being swept away by the momentum of one big push. As an attacker you always feel like you’re in the game, even down to the last minute. But getting your ass kicked as a defender gives you the feeling that the outcome of the match is outside your influence as your team just never seems to have gotten the chance to regroup and settle a front.

(montheponies) #12

What I’ve said is given the choice of being raped at spawn by a defense side who already have the advantage of being able to stage holds at choke points, or having the game end quickly, i’d go for the latter. As I’ve said, I’d hope the next round would shuffle and have better/more equal teams - nowhere have I argued for constant quick wins.As for rounds being frivolous, some are - this really isnt life or death, just a game I play for fun / diversion from the real world where things are far from frivolous.

In short, saying that in every situation the Defense should be positively biased is just wrong.

(warbie) #13

Agreed. The defense already have an advantage in holding choke points, and if anything defending becomes more exciting when greater no.s are bearing down on you. On the flip side - attacking a choke point with fewer no.s is hair pullingly frustrating.

(RasteRayzeR) #14

[QUOTE=montheponies;510700]
In short, saying that in every situation the Defense should be positively biased is just wrong.[/QUOTE]

In almost all my games lately it’s been the defense being raped because there was one more player in offense. Ultimately I agree that it should be balanced with skill, not player count. In any cases something should be done about it.

(tokamak) #15

[QUOTE=montheponies;510700]What I’ve said is given the choice of being raped at spawn by a defense side who already have the advantage of being able to stage holds at choke points, or having the game end quickly, i’d go for the latter. As I’ve said, I’d hope the next round would shuffle and have better/more equal teams - nowhere have I argued for constant quick wins.As for rounds being frivolous, some are - this really isnt life or death, just a game I play for fun / diversion from the real world where things are far from frivolous.

In short, saying that in every situation the Defense should be positively biased is just wrong.[/QUOTE]

And I rather fight on my heels than constantly having go through the rinse, repeat process.