Stopwatch should be more stopwatch


(.FROST.) #1

Stopwatch is really the only game mode, that makes sense with this game(at least when the objectives are on), since it’s still highly biased, with an obvious advantage for the attackers. I don’t know how much this is true in comp play, but in average pub matches I think most people would agree with this statement.

Since we are talking about “Stopwatch” everybody is once attacker and once defender and everything is fair and everybody should be happy, right? Actually not, at least I’ve asked myself many times; why the eff am I even doing this to myself? Imo there isn’t enough reward for just playing the game. I’m not talking about XP and coins and whatnot, but good ol’ fun just by playingit. I think most people can handle losing, but losing without even getting from the starting block makes people extremely salty(at least me).

“Stopwatch should be more stopwatch”, in the sense, that most of the time the attackers should at least be able to finish the first main objective, or even the last objective/s; just like in a time trial, where every participant/team would get to the final goal, and the only measurement of who won and who lost, is the time it took them to finish their objectives.

Imo the attackers should’ve a natural advantage* over the defenders, so the game could move forward much faster. Those stagnant, running to the slaughter, matches are as much no fun as a VG can get.

*significantly shorter spawning times, pumps(repair obj) should be much nearer to the attackers, etc., etc.,

The first obj in Whitechapel is pretty much how I’d imagine it. 95% of the time you’d at least get EV rolling; though delivering the containers is a whole different story. But in the Victoria map it’s imo too hard to even destroy the wall; the attackers have too much of an edge on that obj. The same goes for Trainyard’s first obj(even though it’s not as bad as Victoria’s wall).

In essence: It’d be perfect if most of the time both teams would be able to accomplish their last attacker obj and the only things that’d decide over winning and losing are the times in which either team accomplished their objectives. So you’d still feel like you’ve at least achieved something, even when you’ve lost.


(prophett) #2

A problem with most objectives is that due to the current 20s spawn times in relation to travel times to the objective after you spawn. The defending team is currently able to respawn and run back to the objective faster than the attacking team can. This is what creates the bias, not allowing the attackers to finish objectives most times.

Simply put, to quickly fix the current maps the defending team either needs a longer travel time to the objective, or the time it takes them to respawn needs to be increased.


(montheponies) #3

Yep, 30s def spawn would make the bias shift towards attack, and as you say the attackers should always have a slight advantage. At the moment all too oftern i’m in games that end in a double full hold, with the attacking team taking a mauling in both cases.


(Nail) #4

iirc, in W:ET defenders spawned at the first objective with much advantage; Like Battery, where is the attackers advantage that everyone seems to want ?
attackers never had an advantage in ET


(tokamak) #5

Neither did they have an advantage in ETQW.


(montheponies) #6

[QUOTE=Nail;501265]iirc, in W:ET defenders spawned at the first objective with much advantage; Like Battery, where is the attackers advantage that everyone seems to want ?
attackers never had an advantage in ET[/QUOTE]

dear god, please dont ever quote W:ET stock maps as something that ‘we want’ especially battery…even then, i’d bet a half eaten hob nob that the defenders spawntime was 30s to the offense 20s.

Brink suffered a lot from full holds which was one (of a few admittedly) reason why it lost players.


(montheponies) #7

and a game that lasted slightly longer than Brink should be the template to match?

Please refer back to RTCW if you want to quote something relevant.


(.FROST.) #8

[QUOTE=Nail;501265]iirc, in W:ET defenders spawned at the first objective with much advantage; Like Battery, where is the attackers advantage that everyone seems to want ?
attackers never had an advantage in ET[/QUOTE]

Because nobody wanted that in an 11year old game, it has to apply till eternity? Sry Nail, but just look at the three posts above you; we don’t think, that faction bias is the most awesome thing since sliced bread. And I just can’t imagine that many young players will appreciate this kind of self chastising either.


(prophett) #9

[QUOTE=Nail;501265]iirc, in W:ET defenders spawned at the first objective with much advantage; Like Battery, where is the attackers advantage that everyone seems to want ?
attackers never had an advantage in ET[/QUOTE]

Nail, this would be true if there was no choice - a very important component that Dirty Bomb is lacking at the moment. On that particular map (Battery), the attackers could have chosen to do a full assault at the back door (rather than rush the suicide ramp), or, fake a back push then drop back to a ramp push, causing the defenders to rotate away from the ramp for coverage.

Poor map design and lack of choice is one of those things we’ve been complaining about for months.

They also spawned immediately on top of the flag on radar, but there were alternate objectives the attackers could make plays for allowing them to complete the map in different ways, or shift focus away from the flag so that it could be captured.


(prophett) #10

They did have an advantage due to a faster respawn (please correct me if I am wrong - it’s been awhile).


(fubar) #11

[QUOTE=Nail;501265]iirc, in W:ET defenders spawned at the first objective with much advantage; Like Battery, where is the attackers advantage that everyone seems to want ?
attackers never had an advantage in ET[/QUOTE]

Actually: Allies had a 20 second spawntime with Axis being 30. There’s your advantage right there. Apart from that, Battery is a bad map and even more so, an awful example. There’s a reason any and all of the stock maps (apart from radar) have not been played in a competitive game in… Oh, I don’t know, 9 years? And quite honestly, if people are given as much, or even more, freedom in map design as they did in ET, I don’t see a single one of the current dirtybomb maps making the cut either.


(.FROST.) #12

Exactly. The only reason why I played it for so long was it’s unmatched visual style in the FPS genre. You can really get me with the art of a game, but if the gameplay/map design is no good the most beautiful designs mean nothing, and your game is dead before you even realize it. These are fast paced times, no one(at least not enough people) will stay on a game that has some major design flaws(gameplay wise) since there are enough well balanced games out there.

If I would’ve to design a game, I’d definitely(!!!) make sure, that you won’t have to fear to be on either of two factions. It should be fun playing a game from both sides, but at the moment playing the attackers is like the vegetables you’d have to eat, before you’d get the delicious dessert afterwards. Sry, but that is just not a very good design decision. The drawbacks, you have from being an attacker, should be outweighed by the virtues you’d have over the defenders.

There should be this little fun-extra, that makes people even love playing attackers, some kind of virtue you’d only have when you are on the ofense. Significantly shorter spawntimes could be one thing, faster acquirable forward spawns an other, etc., etc.


(fubar) #13

Honestly all this game needs are proper spawn waves and proper implementation of the respawn/spawn system. Spawntimes aside, which, pretty much cause these imbalances in gameplay, you’re never going to achieve something in a pub game if your team’s spawns are all individual or near to.

But it’s not like people have been complaining about this very thing for a little over a year now.


(Glottis-3D) #14
  1. Fix the maps.
    2.get rid of obj-win rule. (Make it stopWATCH)
  2. me good

(.FROST.) #15

We are at the same frequenzy there:)


(tokamak) #16

The attackers respawn gradually shortened the longer the match lasted.


(.FROST.) #17

That sounds like a very good solution. It’s a (tiny)bit like the extra power you’d get in some fighting games, when you are low on health. Even though the power boosts there are a 100% active*** and result in Ultra Combos(Street Fighter), lvl 2 and 3 X-Factors(MvC3) and Rage(TTT2), etc. It’d be a good way to give a team a final chance to turn the tables and push for a runback.

***as opposed to reduced spawn times, which is obviously more of a passive “power”


(tokamak) #18

What we’re actually talking about is the average time it takes a team to complete a map as well as it’s standard deviation.

As you increase the attacker advantage, you decrease the standard deviation. The harder it is to stop the attackers the less frequent disruptions in the game flow and the closer the time scores will be.

As you increase the defender advantage, you increase the standard deviation. Full-holds with the occasional break-through mean that the match could end at any time.

The standard deviation is especially tricky because too much makes the outcome feel random and too little and it feels like the outcome is fixed. The assault modes in TF2, WoW and Brink often feel that way.

And then there’s also the difference between pub and competitive. For public matches, a large standard deviation is fun. It adds a lot of diversity to the game. That’s what made W:ET and ETQW so great. The same maps always felt different because they always got stalled at different points.

For competitive play that would be incredibly frustrating and even boring. You really want both teams fighting over every second in completion time.

So yeah. Maybe the SW mode should employ different spawn times than objective mode. Maybe objective mode shouldn’t exist at all. But then that would only be justified if the public matches were all very competitive and tight with locked down teams and ELO ratings and everything.


(Runeforce) #19

I played against you yesterday on Victoria and I can understand your frustration in those matches. But sometimes you just get unblanaced teams, which was the case, with one team knowing what to do and the other team having no clue and not working together, pushing in one by one, with the wrong classes… It was not a problem with the map, but a problem with the players, not knowing what to do. And then you should loose.

Currently, there is no rebalancing of teams between matches (in stopwatch on pub.) I think there should be some rebalancing after a match if a team gets a full hold and/or one team beats the time of the other with too big a margin (say in half the time.)

But to gradually bias the game mechanics towards the worse team, I think is a horrible suggestion.


(tokamak) #20