Competitive match feedback


(Rex) #1

Thought this can be the thread for competitive match feedback in general.

So I will start with the scrim I played two days ago:

We started defending on Camden and were able to fullhold our opponent. As we attacked we completed the first objective and the map ended! I was like WTF :eek:
I’m used to compare times and not to rate “who did more objectives”. I have a déjà vu here and it’s not a good one.
So this system means double fullhold is impossible and the team which got fullholded first got no chance to play for a draw (1-1).
Can anyone from SD explain what’s the reason behind this?

Camden:

Is quite quiet. You can organise your pushes and got more opportunities on how to approach.

Whitechapel:

To sum it up in one word: It’s a mess.
The second objective where you have to get the ammo from the chapel in the EV is where the attacking team gets hunted. Somehow it turns around at this point, because you always get damaged from the main way until you even reach the upper way or the entrance to the chapel.

General problems:

These random spawn points (everyone is spawning at a different position and sometimes you even spawn in front of a wall) make it really hard to meet with your mates, as well as the missing spawn timer.
Most of the time I had the feeling I spawned alone and I never knew which mate was around me.


(INF3RN0) #2

It ends because you full held on the 1st obj. Once you complete the 1st obj you’ve completed more of the map than the other team. You can still tie, but in order to do that both teams have to have equal map completion. It avoids having to rematch over and over, and even though you might say “well maybe they could make a come back and full hold on the next objs” it doesn’t ignore the fact that one team was obviously superior and the other should probably not tie just because there’s 4 more objs ahead to complete.


(INF3RN0) #3

To add here’s some feedback from my first experiences in a draft game with the agnostic objs.

The agnostic objs only seem to matter for 2 obj actions at the moment, C4 and diffuse. I haven’t found the EV repair to be that significant as of yet, except after the opposing team has been wiped. Even then half of your team is spread out and does not actually want to group around the EV (because that’s how easy multi-kills happen). Without proficiencies a saturation of medics appears to be the best means of consistent diffuses. All classes still are valid, but you pick them specifically towards what you can (A) frag best with in a given situation and (B) gives the team the most momentum via special abilities. This is different for everyone, which proves that there isn’t one ‘best’ class layout.

What do agnostic objs do for the game? The same thing it does for the pre-existing agnostic objectives. Killing and gibbing is the primary focus, versus hunting down the obj class. This appears to reward superior combat engagements overall. The C4 objectives definitely become the most frustrating because people are overwhelmed by the requirement of “defending the obj”. Previously you did not have to be as focused on having to stop a planter or covering the C4 once planted simply because there was usually only 1-2 players that could plant or diffuse it. With everyone able to plant and diffuse you have to really be well coordinated and well positioned otherwise you will suffer. Is this good or bad? I consider it different than what I’m used to in the prev titles, and honestly much more challenging than previously. It makes complete player elimination feel much more significant than before.

Also set spawn waves for the entire team is greatly needed in the next patch for testing. Without a lot of strong communication and organization you consistently have players spawning in split groups of 2 or 3 and it completely screws up the experience. If anything should be made easy for players, it should be being able to spawn together more consistently. I blame frustrating objectives on the lack of a solid spawn wave system much more than agnostic objectives at the moment, so please give us a test with them asap and let’s find out.


(Rex) #4

I know.

So we have objective rating instead of times?

But it ignores the fact that the other team could be superior as well. And the team defending first has an advantage.

Ohh wow I’m really surprised by your opinion here. Now you have to kill the entire team instead of just 2 people if you were lucky.


(INF3RN0) #5

[QUOTE=Rex;463788]

But it ignores the fact that the other team could be superior as well. And the team defending first has an advantage.[/QUOTE]

Equal teams won’t have problems with this, but not having it would result in more indecisive end results. Team A full holds on the 1st obj. Team B full holds on the 3rd obj. At that point both teams tied simply because of the amount of objectives on the map. Full holding on the 1st obj is no easy task after all. If you want to play all the objectives, then the most fair way to do that would be to have a mini-SW for each objective and determine the winner based on who had the overall best time.


(twincannon) #6

Getting an objective != full hold… seems obvious to me. The game would get boring really quick if one team could get 1 objective and one team got 4 objectives, on a 5 objective map, and then be considered to have tied.

That said the map ending automatically is kind of lame if it does do that, it would be nice if it let you play it out which is often fun esp. in scrims


(Mustang) #7

I like the new mechanics.


(Kl3ppy) #8

I like the SW System.
Now it’s much better than the system was before. I always thought, when Team A fullholds Team B on objective 1 and when Team A attacks and they manage to get the 1st objective done, then they should win because they got further in the map than Team B did.

Something I want to add to victoria:
The wall breakthru after blowing up the first objective is way too tiny, a perfect spot to get out camped. There needs to be a 2nd way thru, maybe add some secondary objectives (build a ramp/lift to get up to the balcony).


(DB Genome editor) #9

In a PUG or scrim the teams might still want to play it out for the fun of it, but at that point you’re basically playing TDM or for the honor of stopping the winners short of a full victory. Some might enjoy it, other would prefer to go on with the next map. Very much personal preferences and mood of the moment, so maybe have a voting system?

In actual competition there would be no point in dragging things out unless there’s a distinction made in the rankings between a “total” victory (full completion on one side / full hold on the other) and a “partial” victory (full completion or hold on both sides, time / objective progress being the decider). But that only make sense in a round-robin type of tournament, which if I’m not mistaken are not as common as elimination ones.


(Rex) #10

But one team is better on this objective and the other team on the next one. A fullhold doesn’t need to have something to do with the amount of objectives being on the map.
Before we continue our discussion, are you speaking about the system in general or about DB how it works at the moment? If we talk about DB you are right with too many objectives causing fullholds.

Yep, agreed. Though it’s not about “fun”, it’s more about “still having a chance”.

If you prefer to go on with the next map you must be demoralised and you’ve already given up. Which team would do that? Not equally skilled teams for sure.

Ever played actual competition?


(DB Genome editor) #11

[QUOTE=Rex;463834]Yep, agreed. Though it’s not about “fun”, it’s more about “still having a chance”.

If you prefer to go on with the next map you must be demoralised and you’ve already given up. Which team would do that? Not equally skilled teams for sure.[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about a system where dual full holds would be considered a draw or the current one where whichever team got further wins? In the first case, for sure you would not give up because the other team got further then you did because like you said you “still have a chance”, a draw is still possible until that very last objective has been captured. But under the current DB rules (furthest completion wins, which is what I was referring to and so I though was twincannon), you can’t come back and win or pull a draw once they got further than you did. The game is won, whatever you do with the rest is “just for fun” since it can’t change the result.

Gaming competition? No, but I’ve played competitive sports and I’m pretty sure the same ideas apply. The closest similarity I guess would be an ippon in judo. There’s still time on the clock and you’re still able to continue the fight, but by the rules you’ve lost and that’s it. If you’re sparing in training you might want to continue to see if you could even things out, but in competition you’re done.


(slanir) #12

I like the system as it is now. But giving the players an option to continue playing even if the game per se is lost would be nice when you are just practicing. :slight_smile:

if all players agree to continue playing after a vote for example


(Kordin) #13

I think, both ways of stopwatch mode got their reasons to be used. I would prefer the one where time counts and not the number of objectives.

The objective stopwatch mode got a really big weakness in my oppinion. Its favouring the team that defends 1st pretty hard because different teams will allways be extreme good at a certain objective on the map. If team1 is super good at defending the objective1, they will fullhold team2 there. Team2 is really good at defending objective2, but they will never get a chance to show their strength because the map is over after the 1st objective is done in the second round. Alot more fair would be the stopwatch mode where only the maptime counts (like etqw). Every team got the chance to defende every objective in the time that is given…

The problem I see in Dirty Bomb is that the maps arent really good balanced for competition. If u play against an equal strong team it would end up most of the time in a double full hold with the time stopwatch mode. The only way to prefent this is to use the objective stopwatch thing that is currently used in DB.


(Rex) #14

I talk about double fullhold.

Thought so.

[QUOTE=Kordin;463845]
The objective stopwatch mode got a really big weakness in my oppinion. Its favouring the team that defends 1st pretty hard because different teams will allways be extreme good at a certain objective on the map. If team1 is super good at defending the objective1, they will fullhold team2 there. Team2 is really good at defending objective2, but they will never get a chance to show their strength because the map is over after the 1st objective is done in the second round. Alot more fair would be the stopwatch mode where only the maptime counts (like etqw). Every team got the chance to defende every objective in the time that is given…[/QUOTE]

That’s what I meant with “one team is better on this objective and the other team on the next one”.


(Valdez) #15

The current system is terrible. The current maps are not made with competition in mind. Time limit should be in the 10-15 min range, with the opportunity to complete it in 5 mins if you steam roll a team. Have maps with 1 main objective (2 at the most), a capturable forward spawn point, a side route that you can access. Throw us a few maps like this please SD.


(DB Genome editor) #16

That part was obvious, but it looks to me like we are talking about different contexts… What I was trying to get across is that you seem to be advocating a SW system in which double full holds equal a draw, which is different from the current DB system. Meanwhile I was stating that in the current DB system, I don’t see a point in continuing the game past the point where one of the two team has met the winning conditions. If you want to change the overall SW system, fine, I’m not even commenting on that. But within the current system I don’t see the point in continuing a game that’s been won (expect for fun if the majority wants to).

Very valid argument, because for sure my lack of experience in this specific type of competition means there is no way I can draw a parallel with similar experiences I’ve had and imagine myself in that situation… :rolleyes:


(Rex) #17

Yep, was this hard to figure out what I want?

No need to tell me obvious things. Have I ever mixed it up?

Well of course it doesn’t make sense, because you can’t. Since it ends after completing the first objective.

Let’s call it “changing the SW system back” like it always was, because the current one with Valdez words is terrible.


(DB Genome editor) #18

I’m afraid you have, the very first time you responded to my response to twincannon:

[QUOTE=twincannon;463809]Getting an objective != full hold… seems obvious to me. The game would get boring really quick if one team could get 1 objective and one team got 4 objectives, on a 5 objective map, and then be considered to have tied.

That said the map ending automatically is kind of lame if it does do that, it would be nice if it let you play it out which is often fun esp. in scrims[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Djiesse;463830]In a PUG or scrim the teams might still want to play it out for the fun of it, but at that point you’re basically playing TDM or for the honor of stopping the winners short of a full victory. Some might enjoy it, other would prefer to go on with the next map. Very much personal preferences and mood of the moment, so maybe have a voting system?

In actual competition there would be no point in dragging things out unless there’s a distinction made in the rankings between a “total” victory (full completion on one side / full hold on the other) and a “partial” victory (full completion or hold on both sides, time / objective progress being the decider). But that only make sense in a round-robin type of tournament, which if I’m not mistaken are not as common as elimination ones.[/QUOTE]

First two quotes are in the context of the current DB scheme, you’ve confirmed that yours was in the context of the classic scheme where a draw is possible. Sorry if somehow what I wrote lead you to believe I was advocating bailing out of a match because one’s team is trailing behind, it was absolutely not the case nor the intention :frowning:


(Kl3ppy) #19

But I want a reward when I complete more objectives. If team A gets stuck on objective 1 and Team B does finish objective 1, Team B should take the win because they did better than Team A. If Team A fails on first objective, Team B has to win the whole map to get the win, which is not fair. Just think about LB, Team A is ok, but gets dominated by Team B. Team A doesnt get the EV moving. When Team B attacks, they manage to get the EV moving and almost get the EV to the win place, but they dont. Result, we end with the old System in a 1:1 which is obviously wrong.


(INF3RN0) #20

@ Rex, Pertaining to the current DB maps the system is necessary and yes, I assumed we were talking about DB and not ETQW. I still think that full holding on the 1st objective is a sign that a team is simply better. How are you supposed to determine that the other team deserved the tie when perhaps the 1st team could full hold all objectives if they wanted? Like I said if we wanted to allow for that then try what QWO did and after X minutes on one objective you automatically progress to obj 2, then after another X minutes obj 3- winner has the shortest overall completion time. There has to be some means of a tie breaking decider.