Why isn't Stopwatch just Objective mode twice?

(bgyoshi) #1

Really though

Why isn’t it just objective mode, then switch sides and do it again?

Pasted from my response in another thread:

I’ve believed since the beginning that changing stopwatch to be two rounds of Objective, with players switching attack/defense, would make the mode way more fun.

But it’s not. It’s some inferior, longer, inconsistent, more obnoxious version of objective.

Two teams, 7 minutes to get the first Obj. If you hit the first obj, mark the time to completion and add time to the timer. You go until you fail or succeed, each with each completed objective getting a time to completion. Then the second team goes. If they don’t complete the first obj within 7 minutes, and you did, then they lose. If you complete the same amount of objectives, the total completion time determines the winner.

If the first team completes objective 1, but not objective 2, then team 2 will win if:

  1. They complete objective 1 faster
  2. They complete objective 1 slower, but also complete objective 2

If the first team completes all objectives in a total time of 13 minutes, then team 2 can never get more than 13 minutes of total play time added to the timer.

This would make games turn around faster, stops forcing players to endure a full 15 minutes of stomp, encourage players to play until time runs out, still allows both sides to play attack and defense, and just adds more suspense and urgency to the game in general.

And if the game ever got to MLG status, they could do best 2 of 3 matches where they alternate the starting attacker.

I honestly, firmly believe that making this change to stopwatch would outright kill objective mode and make stopwatch the most popular game mode, hands down.

(ThunderZsolt) #2

Also a draw should only occur when neither team completed the first objective.

If both team got stuck at the 2nd for example, the winner should be that completed the 1st objective faster.

(GatoCommodore) #3

probably, lets hope SD read this then

(GatoCommodore) #4

*edit

(bgyoshi) #5

@GatoCommodore said:
probably, lets hope SD read this then

The game modes forums seem to receive almost no traffic :stuck_out_tongue:

(Dr_Plantboss) #6

TBH, it just feels like it compounds balancing issues.

If team A is better that team B, then no matter which side attacks/defends first, team A is 2x as likely to win that they would in a regular match due to the fact that it just makes it even harder for team B to win because of shorter times to do everything.

Personally, I think it’s mostly OK for competitive due to the fact that they shoudl (theoretically) be balanced well… except they usually aren’t.

(bgyoshi) #7

@Dr_Plantboss said:

If team A is better that team B, then no matter which side attacks/defends first, team A is 2x as likely to win that they would in a regular match due to the fact that it just makes it even harder for team B to win because of shorter times to do everything.

It should never be harder for the better team to win.

It’s not that the time is shorter to do everything. You still have 15 minutes to complete the entire map, but you have to earn 8 of the 15 minutes. You get 7 + 5 + 3 minutes. The only time you would get less than 15 minutes to complete everything is when Team A completes all three objectives in under 15 minutes.

If Team A completes Objective 1 in 5 minutes and doesn’t complete objective 2, you still get 7 + 5 minutes to complete the first two objectives, just like Team A did. If you get Objective 1 in under 5 minutes you don’t have to even try for objective 2, you automatically win. If it takes you 6 minutes to get Objective 1, then you have to complete Objective 2 to win.

It’s Stopwatch; complete more objectives than the other team, or do the same objectives faster.

Whether that compounds balance issues or not, the idea is that grueling close games are still going to run 30 minutes because both teams will be battling it out for the entire map for the faster time, and one-sided matches will end faster and players will be less encouraged to leave.

(watsyurdeal) #8

@bgyoshi said:

@Dr_Plantboss said:

If team A is better that team B, then no matter which side attacks/defends first, team A is 2x as likely to win that they would in a regular match due to the fact that it just makes it even harder for team B to win because of shorter times to do everything.

It should never be harder for the better team to win.

It’s not that the time is shorter to do everything. You still have 15 minutes to complete the entire map, but you have to earn 8 of the 15 minutes. You get 7 + 5 + 3 minutes. The only time you would get less than 15 minutes to complete everything is when Team A completes all three objectives in under 15 minutes.

If Team A completes Objective 1 in 5 minutes and doesn’t complete objective 2, you still get 7 + 5 minutes to complete the first two objectives, just like Team A did. If you get Objective 1 in under 5 minutes you don’t have to even try for objective 2, you automatically win. If it takes you 6 minutes to get Objective 1, then you have to complete Objective 2 to win.

It’s Stopwatch; complete more objectives than the other team, or do the same objectives faster.

Whether that compounds balance issues or not, the idea is that grueling close games are still going to run 30 minutes because both teams will be battling it out for the entire map for the faster time, and one-sided matches will end faster and players will be less encouraged to leave.

This, this so much this