Why Draw if one team did it faster?

[OwynTyler]

example: chapel when both teams got both last objectives

[OwynTyler]

see, we brought obj faster but match is still going and would end in a draw if we don’t bring 2nd obj

looks like a bug or I don’t know…

[OwynTyler]

and here we got EV to the destination faster than the enemy (no 3rd obj was delivered, not even one), but still had to do MORE objectives to WIN and not actually do those “faster” as stopWATCH description suggests :s

[MisterBadmin]

This is intended.

The first half is the pace setter. They have 15 minutes to clear the map. If an objective is under contention (delivering, C4 planted, EV Stage 1 being repaired or EV Stage 2 being escorted) at the buzzer, the timer keeps rolling until it is resolved (deliverer killed/delivery, C4 explosion/defused, EV Stage 1 repairer killed/repair completed, or Stage 2 EV broken/nobody escorting/fully escorted).

Whoever clears more of the map in the time wins. If first attackers blow the last objective at 12:49, the second attackers have to have to blow the last by 12:48 to win. If the first attackers clear a map, it can’t end in a draw. (Unless inhuman timing causes objectives to be completed at the same millisecond, which brings into question all kinds of client side things, so I’m electing to ignore it, as I’ve never seen it.) If the first attackers only manage to clear part of the map, second attackers have to clear more in the same time (15:00 + any Overtime) to win, or the same amount to tie. Partial progress on EVs (Stage 1 repair, Stage 2 Escort) count, but not on C4 or deliverables. It doesn’t matter how close the thing got to exploding, if it doesn’t go boom, the C4 might as well never have existed.

You managed to do the same amount of map in the same amount of time. Congratulations. You and the enemy were equally capable in failing to complete your mission.

[OwynTyler]

[quote=“MisterBadmin;c-223761”]
You managed to do the same amount of map in the same amount of time. [/quote]

But we escorted the EV faster than the enemy

Why was this made so we actually have to complete MORE objectives than the enemy to win in a situation if map mission wasn’t fully completed 3\3 by both teams ?

[Verticules]

This is my biggest salt from this game. I would love for whoever completes the last completed objective first wins the match,
Whether it be 1/1 2/2 or 3/3.

[kopyright]

[quote=“Verticules;c-223857”]This is my biggest salt from this game. I would love for whoever completes the last completed objective first wins the match,
Whether it be 1/1 2/2 or 3/3.[/quote]
But here’s what would happen then - Team #1 on Chapel fails to deliver any EMP charges during the last phase, so the match ends. Team #2 finishes their EV escort faster than Team #1 during their round, so now they don’t have any incentive to actually deliver any charges since all they would have to do now is sit it out until the timer runs out.

[OwynTyler]

[quote=“kopyright;c-223960”]
But here’s what would happen then … all they would have to do now is sit it out until the timer runs out.[/quote]

That’s the thing this thread is about - that should not happen, there should be no time to sit it out for the win, game should just end (ina a Win) right after ev is escorted faster

[Verticules]

@kopyright

I would assume the game would end after they finished the other teams last objective faster.

[kopyright]

Then you would have to remove the EV’s position as a win condition, since pushing the EV further than the enemy team isn’t the objective but to reach a fixed end point.

I think I could live with that.

[znuund]

@OwynTyler said:
But we escorted the EV faster than the enemy

well, you didn’t fulfill the mission.

But let’s look at it from another side:
the better team wins, but are you truly better than the other team, if you didn’t manage to deliver the objectives even with more time available due to faster escort of the EV?

so you were both not good enough for victory = draw

[bgyoshi]

@znuund said:

so you were both not good enough for victory = draw

That’s misleading to the title of the game-mode though. The game mode says “Stopwatch”, implying a time requirement for victory. With the way it works now, though, the only instance where time matters is where the first team completes all of the objectives.

Stopwatch victory conditions should be:

A. Complete more objectives than the enemy

OR

B. Complete the same amount of objectives as the enemy did, but faster

Team A gets 2 of 3 objectives in 12:15
Team B gets 2 of 3 objectives in 11:39

Team B wins

Team A gets 1 of 3 objectives. Objective 1 in 4:31, miss objective 2, for 12 total minutes of play
Team B gets objective 1 in 4:46, but completes objective 2 right at the end.

Team B wins

Same instance, except Team B also does not complete objective 2.

Team A wins

[znuund]

@bgyoshi said:
Stopwatch victory conditions should be:

A. Complete more objectives than the enemy

OR

B. Complete the same amount of objectives as the enemy did, but faster
If you and a friend have to make a cake and you got the dough faster, that doesn’t make a cake at the end. The goal is to make the cake.

If it worked like you mentioned it would make the map unfair for the second attackers. The first team would only have to focus on completing the first objective very fast. The second team would then not only have to make the first objective faster but would also, in case they did not make it faster, need to finish the second objective in order to win the map.

That is a pressure, the first team doesn’t feel.

Stopwatch just means, that if the map is completed from both sides it is the faster time that matters. Back in the days in ET, it didn’t even count as a win if you made more objectives that has already been loosened and this is good.

[bgyoshi]

@znuund said:

If it worked like you mentioned it would make the map unfair for the second attackers. The first team would only have to focus on completing the first objective very fast. The second team would then not only have to make the first objective faster but would also, in case they did not make it faster, need to finish the second objective in order to win the map.

That is a pressure, the first team doesn’t feel.

That’s a full disagree there big guy

There’s no way to cheese wins just by being the first attackers. If your team is better than the other team, you win. Draws in a competitive Ranked format should not be possible, or exceedingly rare.

[znuund]

@bgyoshi said:
There’s no way to cheese wins just by being the first attackers. If your team is better than the other team, you win. Draws in a competitive Ranked format should not be possible, or exceedingly rare.

Well ok, but could you care to explain why my interpretation is flawed?

And there are draws. back in the days, a double full-hold was possible but not the usual case. Don’t know how it is in the current state. But imo already giving the win when pushing the EV further, made winning a lot easier than in e.g. ET.

Like I said:

@znuund said:
If you and a friend have to make a cake and you got the dough faster, that doesn’t make a cake at the end. The goal is to make the cake.

There should not be a reward for sucking a bit less than the other team.

[bgyoshi]

@znuund said:

Well ok, but could you care to explain why my interpretation is flawed?

Your interpretation assumes it’s possible for players to reach the same amount of completion at the same millisecond. The probability of this is so low that it’s not even worth considering.

If neither attacker completes the first objective, then some other metrics will be used:

For EV maps, whoever has repaired more of the EV will win
For C4 maps, whoever has a higher total amount of planted C4 time will win

For the second objective, EV distance is a good metric, but unfortunately it isn’t the only type of objective for the second phase. For C4, you would have to go with destroying the first objective faster.

In either case, both teams have the same amount of motivation to prevent the other team from progressing. The attackers don’t have some raw advantage just by the virtue of being first. If they complete all the objectives in 7 minutes and the second team doesn’t, then that means if the teams were switched, that the first team wouldn’t complete the entire map in 7 minutes and the second team would anyway, and they would still win.

@znuund said:
If you and a friend have to make a cake and you got the dough faster, that doesn’t make a cake at the end. The goal is to make the cake.

There should not be a reward for sucking a bit less than the other team.

The name of the game is Stopwatch, not Completion. The goal isn’t to make the cake, the goal is to stop the other team from making a cake.

If he stops you from even making the dough, and he can make the dough, then he wins. If you both make the dough but he makes it faster, he wins. That’s Stopwatch. Time-based play, not completion based play.

In the case of two high level teams in competition, the reward is absolutely given to the team that sucks less.

[znuund]

@bgyoshi said:
Your interpretation assumes it’s possible for players to reach the same amount of completion at the same millisecond. The probability of this is so low that it’s not even worth considering.
Of course it is not and I don’t see where you got that from

In this case since there might be some misunderstanding I need see if we are on the same page first, before I elaborate my thoughts.
Let’s assume, that your new stopwatch conditions are active it would work something like this:

• Win condition: If equal amounts of objectives are done, the achievement time counts

Examples:

• Objective maps: complete more objectives, time counts at any stage
  So, that means, if two teams reach the same amount of objectives, the achievement time of the previous objective counts unless it is the final objective. In this case the final time counts.

• EV maps: if finished at EV stage, distance counts; if finished at obj stage, time counts.
  Let’s take chapel as example here: 1. repair EV, 2. escort EV, 3. deliver two objectives.
  At position 1 and 3, same conditions as for objective maps are valid. For stage 2, the distance counts.

Did I get it right, what you want to change?

[bgyoshi]

@znuund said:

Did I get it right…?

Slam dunk!

If no objectives are completed (Stage 1 is never passed by either team)

• Objective maps: The most cumulative armed C4 time counts i.e. if one team armed the C4 6 times, but it was defused after 10 seconds each time, they had 60 total seconds of armed C4. If another team armed it twice, but it was defused after 40 seconds each time, they have 80 seconds of armed C4, and they win.
• EV maps: The most repaired EV in the least amount of time counts i.e. 2 teams repair 75% of the EV… the team that repaired 75% in 2 minutes beats the team that repaired 75% in 3 minutes. Or, the team that repaired 80% of the EV beats the team that repaired 65% of the EV.

[znuund]

@bgyoshi said:
Slam dunk!
Awesome!

I do agree that it would be harder to have win conditions like I know them from ET (fulfill final objective = win, else lose). They worked for that game and I can’t say if they would work for DB. So it is fair, if you get a win, if you drove the EV further or were stuck only at the last stage where as the previous attackers didn’t even reached there.
There is just one little thing, which makes your win conditions go a bit too far:

They overvalue attack over defense. On underground, if both teams get stuck at the wall but team A planted more dynas at the wall it does not mean, that they did better. Team B had to defuse more dynas to keep team A from breaching through the wall.
And because it overvalues attack, the first attacking team also has an advantage and can, like you stated “cheese” a win, through a very fast achievement of the first objective. team B then just has so much time to get the first obj. So the win conditions overvalue the first objectives over the final objective.

I hope I could explain my thoughts. If you don’t agree with them, I can say that I did my best If it just makes you think twice that is already good enough. Besides I really like your idea of the stopwatch = 2 times obj mode, time-wise.

Cheers,
znuund aka olga

[bgyoshi]

@znuund said:

They overvalue attack over defense. On underground, if both teams get stuck at the wall but team A planted more dynas at the wall it does not mean, that they did better. Team B had to defuse more dynas to keep team A from breaching through the wall.
And because it overvalues attack, the first attacking team also has an advantage and can, like you stated “cheese” a win, through a very fast achievement of the first objective. team B then just has so much time to get the first obj. So the win conditions overvalue the first objectives over the final objective.

It doesn’t matter how many times they plant or defuse, what matters is the ability to hold the point. If defenders can hold the attackers away, then the bomb won’t be armed for long. But if defenders can hold their point, then it will be armed longer.

It doesn’t matter if the first team gets the first objective very fast, that won’t be good enough to win always. You’re presuming they’re infinitely better on defense than the second team is on attack. They can get that 2 minute objective 1 all they want, but if they don’t complete objective 2 and the second team does, they still lose. Even if they crush the first objective, the second attackers will still get at least 7 minutes to do it, and then an extra 5 minutes to get objective 2. So the fast attackers will still need to hold out for a long time to prevent the other team from progressing further.

It’ll be more of an issue in pubs where the games don’t start will a full team, but it won’t be an issue in Ranked.