Stopwatch win rule.


(Glottis-3D) #1

I personally do not like current ruleset for winning the stopwatch match. Mostly because it is anti-climatic and takes away a lot of pressure anf fun from the game.

I am speaking about the so called obj-win rule.
It is when 1st team doesnt set a time for a map in first round. and second team wins, if they complete more objects.
As logical(?) as it may sound on paper. It is very boring to play bot as an attacker and as a defender in these kinds of second rounds.
If a team didnt set a time (i.e. was fullholded) i think they still need to have a chance to fullhold enemy on full map.
Most importantly: IF 1st team fails to set a time on a map, how do you know the 2nd team is not going to fail as well? 1st objective (or 2nd) should not be decider.

i remember from ETQW era some maps having some objects easier to set a defence that others, and teams fearing to get rushed by attackers could fall back fro second object and set a nice defence there. that was a Strategical move to save the map. and it was frequently used there.

also, another important Q:
when both teams didnt set a time but both completed same amount of objects (lets say two objects)
what team do you think should win - win faster 1st obj or with faster 2nd?

same poll on nexon:
http://forums.dirtybomb.nexon.net/discussion/10660/stopwatch-victory-rule


(Hundopercent) #2

If you get full held on the first obj and the opposing team completes the first why shouldn’t they win?

With the way the maps are currently, I wouldn’t want to change it or it would be draw city like brink.


(Chux) #3

I agree, double fulls should be a draw, having it like this is just wrong. Let’s say you have 2 teams that play the same map very differently and are more efficient at certain map stages. Team A has a very good defense on 2nd objective for example and manage to hold out till the end on it. Team B can have the best tactics and defense on obj #3 and can full hold anyone. But once they lose the 2nd its game over for them and in theory the should have been able to do a double full hold, draw the map.

Takes the excitement away, I remember some similar matches to the above scenario back in the day where a team would storm through the map, only to fall victim at the very end with the defenders holding last objective for 15mins or so. That’s how SW should work and be scored. It should be about who can complete the map faster and not who can complete it at all in the first place. If the draw system is a problem and someone fears there may be to many double fullholds, then that’s a clear indicator there is a problem with the maps, simple as that.


(Glottis-3D) #4

[QUOTE=strychzilla;528465]If you get full held on the first obj and the opposing team completes the first why shouldn’t they win?
[/QUOTE]
because they didnt prove that they are win-worthy by…winning a map (i.e. completing last and most important object)?

and mean blowing a door… or repairing a EV… is it a map win?? no, its just a starting object. it doesnt have any significant story.
like “We stole the gold!!” in ET, or “we destroyed the contamitation device” in ETQW.

Doublefullholds should be avoided by making an attacking bias (good layout, good secondary onjects, adjusted spawn times).


(spookify) #5

I want to take back my vote!!

Just make it the same as RTCW and ET!


(Glottis-3D) #6

[QUOTE=spookify;528469]I want to take back my vote!!

Just make it the same as RTCW and ET![/QUOTE]
:smiley:
poor Spookify missclicked the right option, and destroyed my poll!! :slight_smile:


(Smooth) #7

I personally feel that if a team on Whitechapel:

[ol]
[li]Repairs the EV[/li][li]Successfully Escorts the EV [/li][li]Delivers the First Carryable[/li][li]Almost delivers the Second Carryable but ultimately fails[/li][/ol]
Then they should win over a team that never even manages to repair the EV.

One team in this case is clearly better than the other. Plus (in this case, completely one-sided) Draws aren’t fun for anyone.


(Amerika) #8

[QUOTE=Smooth;528473]I personally feel that if a team on Whitechapel:

[ol]
[li]Repairs the EV[/li][li]Successfully Escorts the EV [/li][li]Delivers the First Carryable[/li][li]Almost delivers the Second Carryable but ultimately fails[/li][/ol]
Then they should win over a team that never even manages to repair the EV.

One team in this case is clearly better than the other. Plus (in this case, completely one-sided) Draws aren’t fun for anyone.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. And I’ve never understood why this isn’t how it works. It makes sense and there is clearly one team that did better than the other. I’d love to see this for casual pub play since, as you said, ties just aren’t fun.


(Violator) #9

[QUOTE=Smooth;528473]I personally feel that if a team on Whitechapel:

[ol]
[li]Repairs the EV[/li][li]Successfully Escorts the EV [/li][li]Delivers the First Carryable[/li][li]Almost delivers the Second Carryable but ultimately fails[/li][/ol]
Then they should win over a team that never even manages to repair the EV.

One team in this case is clearly better than the other. Plus (in this case, completely one-sided) Draws aren’t fun for anyone.[/QUOTE]

This.

The ‘wins more objs’ rule should only apply if neither team manages to complete all objectives (double full-hold). i.e. both teams should have a crack at completing all objectives. Had to vote other as a result, but nearer to choice 2:

Team with best time wins, but if NEITHER team manages to set a time, team which makes the most objs wins.

If its a full hold and the objective count is the same for both teams, or both teams score the same time without a full-hold then its a draw.


(Glottis-3D) #10

[QUOTE=Smooth;528473]I personally feel that if a team on Whitechapel:

[ol]
[li]Repairs the EV[/li][li]Successfully Escorts the EV [/li][li]Delivers the First Carryable[/li][li]Almost delivers the Second Carryable but ultimately fails[/li][/ol]
Then they should win over a team that never even manages to repair the EV.
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what takes drama away from clutch matches. Current rule set is point-rule set. More points = win.
With the map-win rule there is excitement of risk. with obj-win there is only maths.
I wouldnt go arguing without playing lots of lots of such matches in DB and felt completely indifferent and cheated - i felt no excitement (both as attcaker and as a defender in 2nd round - no matter we won or lost)

and with this example. this is stopwatch, not two consequent OBJ matches.
We will never know if 2nd team will or willnot go any further than 1st object.

so i kind of think this is wrong example.

[QUOTE=Smooth;528473]
One team in this case is clearly better than the other. Plus (in this case, completely one-sided) Draws aren’t fun for anyone.[/QUOTE]
this i disagree with.
i had orgasm-like draws in ETQW with better teams, because we managed to fullheld them on last objects after.


(Glottis-3D) #11

may be we can have the analogue of hockey rules with match-time win = 3 points, and overtime-win = 2 points.

or a boxing match analog - win by knockdown, or win by points.

If a team A won stopwatch map by setting better time = “Flawless victory”.
If teams didnt set a time, the more object rule gives you a “Meh-victory” (or “close but No sigar Victory”)


(spookify) #12

I think DB is set up a different way then ET or RTCW. There are specific map breaks and those can determine the winner.

In smooths example it is easy.

When it gets hard is when both teams do the same amount of objectives. Both team Repair and Both team even delivery one date core. Now what? IMO that should be a draw.

On Frostbite, Ice, Goldrush and maybe other maps you had to finish the Map. Even maps with 2 objectives like Oasis you had to finished the map even though some teams gave up on one radar and just hard defended the second.

Conclusion:
If both teams do the exact same amount of objectives then its a DRAW.
BUT
To Smooths Point if a team delivery one Date Core on WC and the other team doesnt get the EV repair OR to the dock then the first team should win.

Same goes for Train and the game should immediately end if team A did not get a core in and team B got one core in. Team B completed part of the 3rd Obj which team A did not.

SW Rules:
Stage 1 Complete
Stage 2 Complete
Stage 3 (1 and or 2) Complete

I would love to see Dome have a double radar plant to end that map!!


(Glottis-3D) #13

i hope i made it clear that i am speaking about

Team A in attack fails to make 1st obj
Team B in attack blows 1st obj and instawins.
this annoyes me

not the
Team A in attack finishes all objects except for last.
Team B in attack be fails to make 1st object
(obvious obj-win for team A i agree - very logical)


(tangoliber) #14

[QUOTE=strychzilla;528465]If you get full held on the first obj and the opposing team completes the first why shouldn’t they win?

With the way the maps are currently, I wouldn’t want to change it or it would be draw city like brink.[/QUOTE]

I thought that in Brink, you would win in stopwatch just by getting the EV 1 inch further than the other team?


(tangoliber) #15

[QUOTE=Glottis-3D;528484]i hope i made it clear that i am speaking about

Team A in attack fails to make 1st obj
Team B in attack blows 1st obj and instawins.
this annoyes me

not the
Team A in attack finishes all objects except for last.
Team B in attack be fails to make 1st object
(obvious obj-win for team A i agree - very logical)[/QUOTE]

I don’t see the problem…even if they kept playing, Team B would still have gotten further.


(spookify) #16

[QUOTE=Glottis-3D;528484]i hope i made it clear that i am speaking about

Team A in attack fails to make 1st obj
Team B in attack blows 1st obj and instawins.
this annoyes me

not the
Team A in attack finishes all objects except for last.
Team B in attack be fails to make 1st object
(obvious obj-win for team A i agree - very logical)[/QUOTE]


The only way a draw will work is if either team doesnt complete Stage 1
The Rest will be based on time and fastest Stage 2 wins if Stage 3 isnt completed by either team.

DONE BOOM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Insta End Map if 3rd Stage Isnt Needed

Times should reflext these caps and stages. More animation and bells and whistles to know that hey you have 2 minutes to atleast get one data core.


(Glottis-3D) #17

who told you that?
in my book both teams failed. none of them won a map. but yes one team is better than another, but nevertheless none of them won a map!


(fubar) #18

[QUOTE=Smooth;528473]I personally feel that if a team on Whitechapel:

[ol]
[li]Repairs the EV
[/li][li]Successfully Escorts the EV
[/li][li]Delivers the First Carryable
[/li][li]Almost delivers the Second Carryable but ultimately fails
[/li][/ol]
Then they should win over a team that never even manages to repair the EV.

One team in this case is clearly better than the other. Plus (in this case, completely one-sided) Draws aren’t fun for anyone.[/QUOTE]

Disagree entirely. You designed the game and maps around stages, yet de-evaluate them when it comes to winning the game. Team a) may be stronger at stage 1) simply because it’s aim heavier or they’re more comfortable with, while team b) may be better at stage 3 due to their more spam oriented gameplay. Stages should not define the winner, spawn cycles have a huge affect on how a stage is played as well. Doesn’t make them the “better” team, by far.

Seems like a silly concept to me either way, you have a story arc to the map, a primary mission, you failed to complete the mission yet… win? Contradiction much.
Either re-design your maps and shorten them, or have players compete until the PRIMARY objective of the map is completed. Side-objectives that are used as lead/build up in order to complete the MAP’S PRIMARY objective should never declare a winner.

Double fullholds are a map design issue, not gametype issue.


(Glottis-3D) #19

It is essential difference between time-based rules (that stopwatch should be) and point-based rules.
in TDM, in CTF you can add Ovetime/Suddendeath to find a winner.
in Left2Dead Versus you have additional points to separate teams.
because you have points and you can use them (frags, or meters)

but in a time-based game the only decider is the time.
win if you set better time, loose otherwise, or draw if you both failed.

and once again. i think a ‘Close-but-no-sigar-victory’ can be introduced to find a better team in double-fullholds with Less point in tournamets than a clean win, but more points than draw or loss…


(Kroad) #20

[QUOTE=fubar;528490]
Either re-design your maps and shorten them, or have players compete until the PRIMARY objective of the map is completed. Side-objectives that are used as lead/build up in order to complete the MAP’S PRIMARY objective should never declare a winner. [/QUOTE]
never played ET etc so I don’t quite understand how this works. What happens if the team that goes attackers first never completes the primary objective? there would be a time limit right?

because if there is, i don’t see how it would be any different from stopwatch