Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Showdown Feedback

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    I doubt the gametype will be a success if it requires maps that give you as little choice as possible. I'd like it to have the potential to be deeper than classic duel, but it has to provide choices and incentives instead of moving towards becoming 1v1 TAM on Morbias.

    Comment


      #62
      I didn't see Clawfists post when I posted before but that is true. Different maps require a different play style depending on a variety of factors. That's the same reason why the UDamage doesn't play a big role in Deck Showdown right now. That being said, I would be surprised if many people play Tuba in Showdown (I've only seen it once that I can think of) because Showdown is only 1v1 and Tuba is not viewed as "hardcore enough" to play 1v1.

      I think the main problem with Tuba is that there is too much risk per reward. Flak and Shock are probably the most important items on the map. Sniper and UDamage are too risky and make you vulnerable for too long without getting much in return relatively speaking. Flak and Shock are in the same area so they can be picked up in the same loop and with so little armor grabbing vest won't give you much of an advantage versus those guns.

      It does show that there are ways to create slightly more interesting scenarios through map design.
      Last edited by Sir_Brizz; 08-11-2015, 01:55 AM.
      HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
      BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

      Comment


        #63
        I'm not a dueler so my comments are based on spectating and other games.
        Let player A be player with advantage and B player without.
        Originally posted by luauDesign View Post
        IMO, make kills be the only way to score points, and in timeouts no one scores. This should make the player with the biggest stack and weapon advantage to attack. Mechanics that make the weaker player attack and the stronger player defend are broken.
        I agree, as a viewer, it is more fun to watch "will player B survive the round with only 10 health?" than "oh, player A has 200 health and B has to attack, the outcome is obvious", even if hide-and-seek isn't very fun by itself. A should be punished for not finishing it and B should be rewarded for surviving, and something like zero points accomplishes both.

        Originally posted by luauDesign View Post
        Anyway, something else:if rounds ends and noone is dead, why not just respawn everything at once as the countdown reaches zero (you don't even have to "time" things)? In that case, up the score-worth of the round cumulatively. Noone got the +1 from the round? Respawn everything, and now the round is worth +2. Noone dies yet? Respawn everything, and now it's worth +3... +4... (there's a bit of a similarity with betrayal gametype here, for those who didn't notice) This whole thing would work better with 1min rounds, this way there's less down time.
        Another option is to simply force a role swap. A should be forced to play aggressively due to advantage, and B rewarded for survival - when time's up and A has failed, find a way to give B the advantage so that B becomes aggressor and A defender. For example, a health/armor swap or share (eg A 200/B 50 becomes 50/200 or 125/125), item respawn but with player-restricted pickup (inverse of round pickup?) weapon swap between players, etc.

        The advantage of swap/share/inversion against "role-specific" treatment is that there is no need to determine who is A and who is B and then judge whether the difference is large enough to punish/rewiard. By its nature the effect will be proportional to difference in advantage - an even round barely affected (where A and B will already both fight to score), an uneven possibly flipped (gives strong incentive for A to attack while possible, and B to survive).

        In the uneven case, there might also be strategic implications - should A try to find B and attack but risk not getting the kill in time, giving B a strong opportunity to counter, or stay away and get in position to grab items asap?
        Should B try to sneak close to A - maybe predicting post-swap pickups? - before the time limit to ambush before A's item pickups have levelled the advantage, but risk being spotted and die? Item respawns (regular or inverse) re-adds prediction lost after round start pickups, which could place A in an even worse position.

        As for scoring, time limit, number of time limits before draw if any, no thoughts, except that I'd be against draws, I feel that a game like UT should always have a winner and a loser.

        I'm sure there's a lot to say about these ideas but I wanted to bring up the possibility of some sort of forced role switch, as the other ways of forcing aggression/activity mentioned (a control zone, powerup spawn) have the weakness of forcing the weaker player B to make the move by reaching a certain spot, not only exposing B but also giving the stronger player A an obvious place to look at (or even camp) and absolutely no incentive to actively go for the kill. Why should B even try, if the difference is large? Could as well just stand in a corner waiting for the game to end, and A has no reason to intervene (in fact, it would be a horrible decision considering potential loss).
        Giving B a powerup brings the abovementioned issue of determining player advantage, and is less intuitive than simple swap/share/inversion.

        Comment


          #64
          The OOCP made mistakes and didn't gain control. Giving them a potential balance mechanism through a powerup that they have to put in effort to get accentuates that they have already lost the advantage. Just giving them some even footing doesn't seem like a wise way to keep the game moving.

          I kind of like your idea of evening everything out after the match ends to force a resolution but I think you'd still need a time limit. As soon as one player takes some damage, they will run and hide again. One option would be to take the Smash Bros. route and give both players extremely low health where whoever gets hit first will be dead
          HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
          BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

          Comment


            #65
            Again I'm not a dueler so my reasoning might be off, sorry about that.
            I'll use A as player with advantage and B without as previously.
            Tide turning is what I call the abovementioned time-limit-based mechanism to swap player roles/even them out.

            Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
            Just giving them some even footing doesn't seem like a wise way to keep the game moving.
            I agree that simply forgiving B for getting into a bad position doesn't feel that fair. But to me, the focus is the punishment of A:
            For some reason A has advantage, maybe due to B's mistakes, better spawn/pickups etc. The goal of the game is to kill your opponent. A has all the opportunity in the world to do that, yet fails - therefore B is given a second chance to prove him-/herself.

            I would probably more strongly agree with you if this was Arena-esque with no pickups at all, as in that case both players start out even. But in this gametype, you have spawn locations and their closest items as an (the most?) important factor, due to no pickup respawn.
            In a regular duel, even if you are heavily damaged in a fight (or die), you can always crawl your way back up as your opponent cannot control all respawns at the same time (and prediction/ambush is possible). This is part of the excitement - there could be a comeback and a role reversal at any time.

            In addition to the too harsh punishment of mistakes discussed below, what I fear is that without a passive mechanism to even/turn the tide, 1) there will be spawns that are inherently weaker and with players of same skill level, spawning there is such a disadvantage that the excitement is more or less lost, and 2) as seen thus far, the winner is declared at first engagement(s) even if the other player is still alive, as there is no way besides luck to make a comeback if the players are now too uneven.

            After a standard pickup route and first engagement(s), the game turns defensive, as A has no attack incentive and B only for indirect/safe attacks. Maps would need to be designed to avoid too weak spawns (which doesn't prevent point 2) - whereas with such a mechanism, slightly uneven spawns might even be encouraged as they can instantly create (more or less uneven) aggressor and defender, and comeback is possible.
            (This would obviously require some way of ensuring that spawns over an entire match are fair - maybe get to choose between 2 weak or strong spawns, alternating; been discussed in the thread before. Requires in-map spawn weighting)

            My immediate concerns would be:
            - Is the pre-/post-engagement hide-and-seek fun?
            (At least it should be better than the defensive play)
            - Is it easy enough for player B to disengage from first battles, when player A feels a need to get the kill to not risk losing advantage?
            (You can figure out what pickups the enemy has taken and therefore relative strength/your role - possible to decide whether to even engage from that)
            - Should spawns be mostly even or uneven? If uneven, is there a limit to what degree? What proportion even:uneven spawns during a match?
            (Even spawns - no assigned role from the start, hard to balance, might be more action in initial phase, risk of stalemate post first engagements, tide turning mechanism playing less of a role due to less need for comebacks
            Uneven spawns - risk of too predictable spawn locations?, clearer role assignment, easier to make as balance is less of a concern, risk of hide-and-seek dominating the game from start depeding on degree of unevenness, forcing more aggression from the stronger player, tide turning mechanism having a central role as weaker player might be forced to survive that long to stand a chance)

            Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
            The OOCP made mistakes and didn't gain control. Giving them a potential balance mechanism through a powerup that they have to put in effort to get accentuates that they have already lost the advantage.
            The issue is that this doesn't force A to use this advantage given by the mistakes of B. A can play defensively for the rest of the match, waiting for this powerup that B is forced to grab to have a chance of winning - when there's nothing else spawning on the map.

            A mistake should not necessarily make a loss; the other player has to use it. In any game, you have the chance to make up for mistakes given that they are not too big, opponent is not too good, or end of game is not too near.

            This is also why I primarily believe in a passive mechanism - as A has advantage, A should be the player forced to take action. B is already punished by being weaker and at risk of giving up a point.

            The tide turning is a passive mechanism that primarily serves as A's punishment for not killing the opponent (which should be easy) - and secondarily serves as B's reward for the surviving the (already received) punishment of having made mistakes/worse spawn.
            Had the primary goal been to reward B, an active mechanism would be more appropriate, as rewards should require active action.

            Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
            I kind of like your idea of evening everything out after the match ends to force a resolution but I think you'd still need a time limit. As soon as one player takes some damage, they will run and hide again. One option would be to take the Smash Bros. route and give both players extremely low health where whoever gets hit first will be dead
            Yes, there has to be some way to force an ending. Also in this case I think it is appropriate to punish both players for failing - make a mistake now and lose, a sudden death ending.

            To me increasing damage dealt (eg give both players amp) is a better route than reducing health, due to the risk of fall damage. Also usable weapons could be restricted, or not - if ammo turns out to become an issue at the this stage, that too could be a tactical point.
            If necessary due to slow play adding periodic/continuous damage after a certain time into sudden death is an option. Someone should always die at the end.
            Last edited by Pinguya; 08-15-2015, 01:26 PM.

            Comment


              #66
              continous damaging like in BTA/TAM is all it needs after a certain amount of time IMO to try force stalemate battles and makes it a bit of a gambling element too.

              Comment


                #67
                My previous post may have given an incorrect perception that I'm against letting the OOCP earn their way into a newly balanced game. I don't think so at all.

                I agree that you could argue that the ICP didn't do anything to win but it's possible that some activity has occurred with no clear outcome for a variety of reasons. Putting them back on even footing just seems unfair if one person has been able to maintain control for the entire match. That didn't come for free. I'm sure that's where the current scoring model comes from.
                HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
                  My previous post may have given an incorrect perception that I'm against letting the OOCP earn their way into a newly balanced game. I don't think so at all.
                  Absolutely not! I found that very clear. My inborn talent is writing walls of text - which isn't as much as an attempt to convince (or anything personal!), as an attempt to really pin everything down and increase clarity/decrease possible ambiguity and misunderstandings (I hope, at least).

                  Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
                  I agree that you could argue that the ICP didn't do anything to win but it's possible that some activity has occurred with no clear outcome for a variety of reasons. Putting them back on even footing just seems unfair if one person has been able to maintain control for the entire match. That didn't come for free. I'm sure that's where the current scoring model comes from.
                  I can see where you are coming from, and both agree and disagree.

                  However, I believe that at the root of (most of) the discussions in the thread, including this one, are the questions:
                  1) How should this gametype play and feel?
                  2) What should the flow of a round, of a match, be like?
                  3) Is the current state of the gametype matching 1 and 2?
                  4) If not, why? And, which mechanisms, dynamics, etc could and should be introduced/changed/removed to create this feel and flow?

                  While various ideas of development/improvement can be discussed concurrently (as possible answers to 4), questions 1 and 2 need to be answered. If those aren't answered, an answer to 3 and 4 can't be made either.

                  If I try to summarize, I guess everything boils down to approximately this:

                  Basics
                  - Showdown is a 1v1 mode (at the moment), as a complement/rival to standard duels, played as rounds.
                  - Its uniqueness stems from zero pickup respawn, including ammo and health - "what you get is what you have" - and instant armor/powerup spawn.
                  - This gives excitement as players cannot play safe, avoid battle and wait for respawns to (re)gain power/advantage - after all items have been picked up, it becomes slightly like a survival of the fittest. Prediction becomes harder.
                  - Results in every engagement being a continuation of the previous one, in a sense - players enter next one with the same weapons/ammo/health/armor as they ended the last one.
                  - Rounds have a time limit, resulting in a draw if reached.

                  I can't remember seeing this being explicitly stated (not that my memory is any useful), but my own interpretation of everything above is that the gametype seeks to encourage early and repeated active engagement between players, ending rounds quickly and thus be a fast-paced gametype: no respawns (discourages safe/waiting play), harder to predict (/ambush), next battle is continuation of last one (only gain from a retreat is change of location and chance to ambush), round time limit (to avoid long stalemates, draw if reached (to give kill incentive).
                  These would be my answers, if asked, to questions 1 and 2 above.

                  Issue
                  - After initial engagement, rounds too often end up with both players playing defensively and not actively seeking further engagement, until near the time limit.
                  - The weaker/more damaged player would risk too much by seeking direct engagement, instead preferring to try landing hits from a distance to weaken the stronger opponent - necessary to have a chance to win.
                  - The stronger/less damaged player is better off waiting for the weaker to make the necessary approach than to actively hunt, as that would risk exposure and being hit without retaliation, lessening the advantage - when close to time limit, the kill must be made, forcing the hunt.
                  - This defensive, non-engagement seeking play is in direct conflict with the goals of the gametype (as interpreted above): the rounds become unintendedly long and slow.

                  Details
                  - First off, my answers to question 1 and 2 (and thus, 3) might be completely wrong. Maybe the intention of the gametype is to encourage defensive play more often than not, which would make this a non-issue.
                  - If my answers are somewhat right (the gametype should be fast-paced, encouraging active engagment, and defensive play is an issue) - the answers to why are briefly described above and can be summarized: the lack of incentive to seek active and direct engagement. The gametype wants to promote a play, but does not reward players enough to encourage it.
                  - If players are even, both would want to sneak in damage from distance until close to time limit, where engagement is forced to have a chance to score.
                  - A weak player wants this too, but a strong player can safely turtle up as there's no need to inflict extra damage until close to time limit.
                  - A weak player has little to gain from this time limit engagement and is better off hiding to hope for a draw.
                  - This is a direct consequence of the unique feature of the gametype: no pickup respawns. The only way the interplayer dynamics can be altered at this point is by dealing damage. A stronger player doesn't need this - a weaker and even player do but are better off playing defensively as there's no way to recover if too much damage is received.

                  Now my mobile is giving up, but tldr of continuation would be something like: currently time limit forces engagement (else, no chance to score), and the question that needs to be answered is, what else can be used? (which everyone already knew.)
                  So, then - is a control zone suitable and in line with questions 1 and 2? Powerup? Tide turning? Anything else? These are questions up to the makers of the gametype, and others can merely suggest.
                  Last edited by Pinguya; 08-15-2015, 09:54 PM.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Don't worry about writing walls of text. I am known to do that when I feel passionately about something.

                    I mostly think you're right about how this works in a 1v1 scenario, the issue I have is the same as before: how does that scale to 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 which I feel are valuable modes to add for Showdown? This is largely why I believe that some kind of objective would be valuable and should translate tot he 1v1 game as well. It makes a lot more sense the more people you add to the game and it would keep the gametype consistent.

                    One thing I will take issue with is that the uniqueness of Showdown for me is tied more closely to how quickly the rounds can move. This is extremely important today and is something that UT has kind of lost since UT2003. It used to be easy to jump in a game and play for one round and leave and have a really good time. Now that attention spans and free time are shorter, a gametype that can really emphasize the fast pace and potential short round length like Showdown could be one of the biggest draws to the game since multiple game modes in 1999. That's really the only reason I care about Showdown at all It has the potential to be the primary and recommended gametype of UT4 and could really define what is the new generation of UT.

                    Compared to UT4 today, Rocket League eats its lunch in terms of how fast you can get into a game and play a single round. One of the most frequent compliments I see paid to Rocket League is how fast you can get into a game and finish a round if that's all the time you have to play. IMO that is something that UT desperately needs. Showdown can offer that.
                    HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                    BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Pinguya View Post
                      - Rounds have a time limit, resulting in a draw if reached.
                      Rounds where no player dies are decided by remaining health.

                      I am in favor of almost anything before adding powerup spawns, control points or the like.

                      1) Message who is leading the round somehow. Vast majority of players will not be able to gauge stack well enough to know if they are ahead.
                      2) Tweak round length to force players to fight. The consensus seems to be that players will fight, at the end of a round if they know they are going to loose based on health.
                      Posts are about duel unless otherwise specified. ut duel shortcomings | What is timing? | dm-twentyseven

                      Comment


                        #71
                        What's to stop the ICP from kiting all round if he knows he's in the lead?
                        Originally posted by Mysterial
                        An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by -AEnubis- View Post
                          What's to stop the ICP from kiting all round if he knows he's in the lead?
                          I imagine it would only reinforce that, because it already happens that whoever grabs the Belt goes heavy turtle in many games. And, again, it stops scaling very well when you add more people. I get wanting to leave the 1v1 aspect alone if that's what you really like. I just don't think the rules as they exist or with slight modifications will scale very nicely.
                          HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                          BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                          Comment


                            #73
                            I would simply worry about scaling until it's more solid for 1v1. Less dynamics to balance, so get it ironed out there first.

                            We had this same problem in TAM, and addressed it with pickups. It worked perfectly. We left it an option, so fell victim to "we want to play the way we're used to." If I did it again, this wouldn't be an option. They also don't have to be worth much. A bleeding timer, combined with just enough health to prolong your life through it will promote plenty of confrontation.

                            Originally posted by -AEnubis- View Post
                            Something as simple as respawning the health packs on the normal timer, or even a slightly extended one, would promote a surprising amount of aggression.
                            Both in testing for Evenground, and in TAM, small increments of health can center the action in situations like this. After playing Evenground in my LAN group for weeks, with the intent of playing something that was far less pickup driven, we found that action started to revolve around health, especially when a map had a double health. The notion that a pickup needs to be valuable enough to take a risk is patently false, and or relative to what else is available.

                            It would work perfectly for this game type, as it wouldn't even enter into the equation early when more valuable one time pickup are available, but only when they are expired, and the stage is set does it give just enough guidance to keep spectators from falling asleep.
                            Originally posted by Mysterial
                            An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by joellll View Post
                              Rounds where no player dies are decided by remaining health.

                              I am in favor of almost anything before adding powerup spawns, control points or the like.

                              1) Message who is leading the round somehow. Vast majority of players will not be able to gauge stack well enough to know if they are ahead.
                              2) Tweak round length to force players to fight. The consensus seems to be that players will fight, at the end of a round if they know they are going to loose based on health.
                              Expanding on this a little.

                              1) Indicate who is in the lead. Either via HUD or possibly a permanent player glow on the leading player to make +back more difficult.

                              2) Use health rather than total stack to decide winner. This pushes further importance onto vials giving another "important" choice from spawn, rather than a minimal health bump.

                              3) Tweak round length as the feeling is players will wait as long as possible to pressure their opponent. Lower time remaining to 60s once a player is in the lead (damage / vials / self damage).

                              As long as there is an odd number of vials or odd number of vial groups one player will be “ahead”. On ASDF one player gets vials and are ahead. On solo there are 10 vials in 3/3/4? In order to “tie” each player needs to pickup one lot of three then half of the remaining vials - unlikely to occur. On these maps someone will be ahead. On deck there are four groups of four vials, so a “tie” will occur if both players manage to take two groups. On tuba there are no vials so neither player has any advantage until damage is taken. I agree that if noone deals any damage and there are no vials on the map there may be a problem, but tuba is the standout rather than the norm for the lack of vials.

                              The timing of when to take vials is another matter. Does a player really want to pick them up as soon as possible? Could doing so cramp their options for getting weapons if a player glow was added? Dealing some quick early damage then going to get pickups is also an option. On the flip side the player on the down needs to decide if pickups is priority or pushing for damage on their opponent is.

                              You could set an alternating advantage at spawn as clawfist said, however this removes some of the dynamic nature the gametype could have. And with map spawn selection/knowing opponent spawn it will need all the help it can get in that area.

                              Finally the 60 second count down could be paused for 3-5 seconds when damage is dealt by the "down" player.

                              Originally posted by -AEnubis- View Post
                              What's to stop the ICP from kiting all round if he knows he's in the lead?
                              Nothing. The goal was not to create a specific type of combat situation (players fighting toe-to-toe), it was to make players fight and give a round an outcome. The consensus was that players will fight if they are going to loose. If one opts to +back in that manner then they will be able to, however the other player must push them if they want a chance of winning.

                              The round would have a resolution and with shorter round timer it comes around much faster.

                              Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
                              I get wanting to leave the 1v1 aspect alone if that's what you really like. I just don't think the rules as they exist or with slight modifications will scale very nicely.
                              Team and 1v1 can have different things, that is fine. Similar to discussions about duel having different armor systems. In both cases you win if you kill them OR *other*. Picking the other method is important. With additional players per side there is more opportunity for early chaos and player deaths as a result. Getting a weapon - esp one of the stronger ones - and going hunting straight away is even more relevant than in 1v1 as team mates will be picking up other items. But yes, TSD sound more interesting than 1v1.

                              Both of you should ease up with the in control/out of control rhetoric It does not describe the situation correctly - there is no "control" as there are no respawns. A player has a stack/health advantage, obtained either through damage or pickups.
                              Posts are about duel unless otherwise specified. ut duel shortcomings | What is timing? | dm-twentyseven

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Ok, show of hands, who posting in this thread has actually played more than one showdown game? How about at least one?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X