We should have Overwatch tournaments once more maps(such as the ones that are scheduled for release from the Epic Quest for Goodies contest) are released and brought into the game. Maybe develop some sort of system for tournaments that could be accessed from the main menu, including options of how to apply, requirements etc. Everyone LOVES competitiveness, and it could bring it a lot of players, publicity, and support for the mod.
Don't get me wrong, I believe everyone loves to play to win and for others to lose. Its just how we are, we're competitive. With tournaments against eachother, maybe teams or something, and maybe even against the developers, Overwatch could be seen as the next all-out competitive Source modification. Having tournaments would also emphasize that you need to be a good Rebel or GM, such as learning to be a good team player, have strategic experience, all that jazz.
0
26 replies to this topic
#1
-
- Community Contributors
-
- 363 posts
CC Contributor for OW
- Facebook:adrianl1996
- LocationCalifornia, USA
Posted 22 January 2011 - 07:46 PM
#2
-
- Community Contributors
-
- 319 posts
CC Contributor for OW
- LocationAustralia
Posted 22 January 2011 - 09:04 PM
Perhaps so, but firstly I think it would be better to implement a simple scoring system for the game in general. This way people know who's playing well, who's a good team-player, etc.
For example, 1pt (point) is awarded for each enemy killed, 10pts for reviving a fallen comrade and -5pts for each time you become incapacitated. Points could be given to the Overwatch player too. Something like 50pts for incapacitating a resistance member would certainly persuade more players to have a go as the GM. Of course there would be points for completing objectives as well. Say, 20pts to each player within a capzone when it is 'hacked', or 5pts for each gas canister brought to its destination, etc.
Allocating points for objectives would be entirely up to the mapper, but as you can see a simple scoring system adds so much more to the game than competitiveness. It encourages team-work and rewards players for completing those dangerous objectives.
For example, 1pt (point) is awarded for each enemy killed, 10pts for reviving a fallen comrade and -5pts for each time you become incapacitated. Points could be given to the Overwatch player too. Something like 50pts for incapacitating a resistance member would certainly persuade more players to have a go as the GM. Of course there would be points for completing objectives as well. Say, 20pts to each player within a capzone when it is 'hacked', or 5pts for each gas canister brought to its destination, etc.
Allocating points for objectives would be entirely up to the mapper, but as you can see a simple scoring system adds so much more to the game than competitiveness. It encourages team-work and rewards players for completing those dangerous objectives.
#3
-
- Community Contributors
-
- 363 posts
CC Contributor for OW
- Facebook:adrianl1996
- LocationCalifornia, USA
Posted 22 January 2011 - 10:07 PM
WAXT, on 22 January 2011 - 09:04 PM, said:
Perhaps so, but firstly I think it would be better to implement a simple scoring system for the game in general. This way people know who's playing well, who's a good team-player, etc.
For example, 1pt (point) is awarded for each enemy killed, 10pts for reviving a fallen comrade and -5pts for each time you become incapacitated. Points could be given to the Overwatch player too. Something like 50pts for incapacitating a resistance member would certainly persuade more players to have a go as the GM. Of course there would be points for completing objectives as well. Say, 20pts to each player within a capzone when it is 'hacked', or 5pts for each gas canister brought to its destination, etc.
Allocating points for objectives would be entirely up to the mapper, but as you can see a simple scoring system adds so much more to the game than competitiveness. It encourages team-work and rewards players for completing those dangerous objectives.
For example, 1pt (point) is awarded for each enemy killed, 10pts for reviving a fallen comrade and -5pts for each time you become incapacitated. Points could be given to the Overwatch player too. Something like 50pts for incapacitating a resistance member would certainly persuade more players to have a go as the GM. Of course there would be points for completing objectives as well. Say, 20pts to each player within a capzone when it is 'hacked', or 5pts for each gas canister brought to its destination, etc.
Allocating points for objectives would be entirely up to the mapper, but as you can see a simple scoring system adds so much more to the game than competitiveness. It encourages team-work and rewards players for completing those dangerous objectives.
Not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people spectating, and players duking it out against eachother on various maps for rewards, respect, recognition etc. Points and such could be added and overall it would be some sort of competitive tree. Out of eight players, four could advance. People could then continue, and at the very end, the top three players with the most points/wins/ etc. of the entire tournament would win. Sound good?
#4
-
- Members
-
- 49 posts
Headcrab
Posted 23 January 2011 - 02:42 AM
How about making the following for Lone-wolf-tournaments:
Server Server Server
8 Players 8 Players 8 Players - The Players have to sign up between 48 to 2 hours before competition
Match one Match one Match one - Same map on every server. Lets say its ... breach?
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out - Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
Match two Match two Match two - Another map, still same on all servers ( lets say Canals?)
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out - Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
Match three Match three Match three - Another map, still same on all servers ( How about Crossroads?)
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out -Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
---> Server <--- -The remaining Players now all go onto one server.
6 Players -Those Players haven´t lost their chance yet. They are indeed very good players.
Match four - Map: Citadel(?)
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match five - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match six - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match seven - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Final Match - Final match, the moment has finally arrived. The spectators are watching the players that made it to the end. Map:Citadel/other?
2 Rounds, both Players do OW and Rebel once.
The person that went further on Rebel wins.
Maybe making a map for it?.gif)
The Player that won the competition is the offical best Lone-Wolf-Player of the game. Everyone will know his name and the people he fought will be afraid of him. He is indeed the best player of Overwatch. Nothing can stop him. Nothing you can do. Expect from, you know.. spam... but thats not okay and will be forbidden in the contest.
Ill might make up a design for Team/Group/Clan tournaments too. Still thinking bout it.
Server Server Server
8 Players 8 Players 8 Players - The Players have to sign up between 48 to 2 hours before competition
Match one Match one Match one - Same map on every server. Lets say its ... breach?
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out - Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
Match two Match two Match two - Another map, still same on all servers ( lets say Canals?)
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out - Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
Match three Match three Match three - Another map, still same on all servers ( How about Crossroads?)
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out -Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
---> Server <--- -The remaining Players now all go onto one server.
6 Players -Those Players haven´t lost their chance yet. They are indeed very good players.
Match four - Map: Citadel(?)
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match five - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match six - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match seven - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Final Match - Final match, the moment has finally arrived. The spectators are watching the players that made it to the end. Map:Citadel/other?
2 Rounds, both Players do OW and Rebel once.
The person that went further on Rebel wins.
Maybe making a map for it?
The Player that won the competition is the offical best Lone-Wolf-Player of the game. Everyone will know his name and the people he fought will be afraid of him. He is indeed the best player of Overwatch. Nothing can stop him. Nothing you can do. Expect from, you know.. spam... but thats not okay and will be forbidden in the contest.
Ill might make up a design for Team/Group/Clan tournaments too. Still thinking bout it.
#5
-
- Community Contributors
-
- 363 posts
CC Contributor for OW
- Facebook:adrianl1996
- LocationCalifornia, USA
Posted 23 January 2011 - 04:34 AM
Raphi123, on 23 January 2011 - 02:42 AM, said:
How about making the following for Lone-wolf-tournaments:
Server Server Server
8 Players 8 Players 8 Players - The Players have to sign up between 48 to 2 hours before competition
Match one Match one Match one - Same map on every server. Lets say its ... breach?
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out - Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
Match two Match two Match two - Another map, still same on all servers ( lets say Canals?)
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out - Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
Match three Match three Match three - Another map, still same on all servers ( How about Crossroads?)
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out -Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
---> Server <--- -The remaining Players now all go onto one server.
6 Players -Those Players haven´t lost their chance yet. They are indeed very good players.
Match four - Map: Citadel(?)
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match five - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match six - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match seven - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Final Match - Final match, the moment has finally arrived. The spectators are watching the players that made it to the end. Map:Citadel/other?
2 Rounds, both Players do OW and Rebel once.
The person that went further on Rebel wins.
Maybe making a map for it?
The Player that won the competition is the offical best Lone-Wolf-Player of the game. Everyone will know his name and the people he fought will be afraid of him. He is indeed the best player of Overwatch. Nothing can stop him. Nothing you can do. Expect from, you know.. spam... but thats not okay and will be forbidden in the contest.
Ill might make up a design for Team/Group/Clan tournaments too. Still thinking bout it.
Server Server Server
8 Players 8 Players 8 Players - The Players have to sign up between 48 to 2 hours before competition
Match one Match one Match one - Same map on every server. Lets say its ... breach?
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out - Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
Match two Match two Match two - Another map, still same on all servers ( lets say Canals?)
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out - Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
Match three Match three Match three - Another map, still same on all servers ( How about Crossroads?)
2 go out 2 go out 2 go out -Spectator-judges (Devs?) throw out the 2 worst rebels. ( means the rebels that hold others up, mess around with ammo, steal HP)
---> Server <--- -The remaining Players now all go onto one server.
6 Players -Those Players haven´t lost their chance yet. They are indeed very good players.
Match four - Map: Citadel(?)
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match five - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match six - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Match seven - Still map from four
1 out - Worst Rebel out
Final Match - Final match, the moment has finally arrived. The spectators are watching the players that made it to the end. Map:Citadel/other?
2 Rounds, both Players do OW and Rebel once.
The person that went further on Rebel wins.
Maybe making a map for it?
The Player that won the competition is the offical best Lone-Wolf-Player of the game. Everyone will know his name and the people he fought will be afraid of him. He is indeed the best player of Overwatch. Nothing can stop him. Nothing you can do. Expect from, you know.. spam... but thats not okay and will be forbidden in the contest.
Ill might make up a design for Team/Group/Clan tournaments too. Still thinking bout it.
Nope, this system won't work.
#6
-
- Members
-
- 49 posts
Headcrab
Posted 23 January 2011 - 04:42 AM
How could you tell? Any suggestions then?
#7
-
- Members
-
- 161 posts
Barnacle
Posted 23 January 2011 - 08:49 AM
It's really hard to create a tournament system for Overwatch : they don't have team but players only.
Idea for team vs team match : each team have 7 player, one of them is choose as Overwatch (by the team).
Round 1 : Team1 vs Overwatch of the Team2
Round 2 : Team2 vs Overwatch of the Team1
The best team/Overwatch win. Now the hardest is to know how to determine who is the best....
About tournament, we could have
-A Team tournament (such what I said before)
-A Solo tournament (the best player win)
Idea for team vs team match : each team have 7 player, one of them is choose as Overwatch (by the team).
Round 1 : Team1 vs Overwatch of the Team2
Round 2 : Team2 vs Overwatch of the Team1
The best team/Overwatch win. Now the hardest is to know how to determine who is the best....
About tournament, we could have
-A Team tournament (such what I said before)
-A Solo tournament (the best player win)
#8
-
- Community Contributors
-
- 252 posts
CC Contributor for OW
Posted 23 January 2011 - 08:55 AM
You could just have a normal team based system where each team picks who they want their GM player to be. You could also have two tournaments run at once, one for the GM side, and one for the player side.
That said, I think WAXT makes a good point and that a working point system would really be needed.
Honestly though, I highly doubt competitive Overwatch would ever take off. It's not a game that really lends itself to being played competitively like ET, CS, DoD, or LoL.
That said, I think WAXT makes a good point and that a working point system would really be needed.
Honestly though, I highly doubt competitive Overwatch would ever take off. It's not a game that really lends itself to being played competitively like ET, CS, DoD, or LoL.
#9
-
- Community Contributors
-
- 363 posts
CC Contributor for OW
- Facebook:adrianl1996
- LocationCalifornia, USA
Posted 23 January 2011 - 02:03 PM
Quenquent, on 23 January 2011 - 08:49 AM, said:
It's really hard to create a tournament system for Overwatch : they don't have team but players only.
Idea for team vs team match : each team have 7 player, one of them is choose as Overwatch (by the team).
Round 1 : Team1 vs Overwatch of the Team2
Round 2 : Team2 vs Overwatch of the Team1
The best team/Overwatch win. Now the hardest is to know how to determine who is the best....
About tournament, we could have
-A Team tournament (such what I said before)
-A Solo tournament (the best player win)
Idea for team vs team match : each team have 7 player, one of them is choose as Overwatch (by the team).
Round 1 : Team1 vs Overwatch of the Team2
Round 2 : Team2 vs Overwatch of the Team1
The best team/Overwatch win. Now the hardest is to know how to determine who is the best....
About tournament, we could have
-A Team tournament (such what I said before)
-A Solo tournament (the best player win)
This system would work out a bit better, as the players would do their absolute best to defeat the other team. As for the Last Man Standing Tournament, we could do that as well with WAXT's point system.
#10
-
- Members
-
- 248 posts
Zombie
Posted 25 January 2011 - 12:36 AM
Alright, I made the “Overwatch Competitive Rules” topic just for thinking-up rules for a tournament.
My idea has a simple and concise set of rules, allowing for a wide array of tactics and counter-tactics.
Firstly, the maps for competitive are specially-made so that one side is destined to lose, and one is ensured victory. This removes the variable of possible winning the map, which would put a cap on how good or bad the Overwatch can be. On the server’s side, the time it takes for the winning side to win, who the Overwatch was when the time was recorded, and how many Rebels the Overwatch faced during said round are recorded. These are then displayed for that map’s scoreboard ranked from lowest to highest of the Overwatch is to win, and highest to lowest if the Rebels should be the victors. Once everyone has had their turn to be Overwatch, the best time is the winner.
Now it is "Rebels vs. the Overwatch". In order to win, you must not only defeat the Rebels as well as you can, but do everything in your power to make your opponents scores worse than yours. And without the element of the Rebels individually scoring points, you do not have to worry about a lack of teamwork.
Examples of competitive conversions:
My idea has a simple and concise set of rules, allowing for a wide array of tactics and counter-tactics.
Firstly, the maps for competitive are specially-made so that one side is destined to lose, and one is ensured victory. This removes the variable of possible winning the map, which would put a cap on how good or bad the Overwatch can be. On the server’s side, the time it takes for the winning side to win, who the Overwatch was when the time was recorded, and how many Rebels the Overwatch faced during said round are recorded. These are then displayed for that map’s scoreboard ranked from lowest to highest of the Overwatch is to win, and highest to lowest if the Rebels should be the victors. Once everyone has had their turn to be Overwatch, the best time is the winner.
Now it is "Rebels vs. the Overwatch". In order to win, you must not only defeat the Rebels as well as you can, but do everything in your power to make your opponents scores worse than yours. And without the element of the Rebels individually scoring points, you do not have to worry about a lack of teamwork.
Examples of competitive conversions:
- OW_Crossroads loses Poison Zombies (to make Rebel easier), the perimeter explosives take longer to detonate, and the five-minute timer is removed. Whichever Overwatch can exterminate the Rebels soonest wins. As time progresses, the ammo slowly takes longer to respawn. This is to ensure that the Rebels cannot hold-out indefinitely. Whichever Overwatch exterminates the Rebels fastest wins.
- In OW_Canals, the Rebels are respawned at latest respawn area 5 seconds after being killed. This creates the increase in difficulty for the rebels as the progress without the possibility of defeat. Every minute, the Overwatch’s current available troop take 15 more seconds to spawn. That way the Overwatch cannot defend indefinitely, but will get renewed effort to defend the next section.
- OW_Citadel, the Rebels are granted hacked ceiling turrets defending every rebel spawn, and will auto-respawn after 15 seconds dead. As the Overwatch progresses in defending, his ability to defend degenerates similarly to that of Canals.
- OW_Breach is not done competitively, partially because its name does not start with “C” and partially because the variable objectives make it too unpredictable. And removing that element would remove the reason the map is so special.
#11
-
- Community Contributors
-
- 363 posts
CC Contributor for OW
- Facebook:adrianl1996
- LocationCalifornia, USA
Posted 25 January 2011 - 06:29 PM
ScrooLewse, on 25 January 2011 - 12:36 AM, said:
Alright, I made the “Overwatch Competitive Rules” topic just for thinking-up rules for a tournament.
My idea has a simple and concise set of rules, allowing for a wide array of tactics and counter-tactics.
Firstly, the maps for competitive are specially-made so that one side is destined to lose, and one is ensured victory. This removes the variable of possible winning the map, which would put a cap on how good or bad the Overwatch can be. On the server’s side, the time it takes for the winning side to win, who the Overwatch was when the time was recorded, and how many Rebels the Overwatch faced during said round are recorded. These are then displayed for that map’s scoreboard ranked from lowest to highest of the Overwatch is to win, and highest to lowest if the Rebels should be the victors. Once everyone has had their turn to be Overwatch, the best time is the winner.
Now it is "Rebels vs. the Overwatch". In order to win, you must not only defeat the Rebels as well as you can, but do everything in your power to make your opponents scores worse than yours. And without the element of the Rebels individually scoring points, you do not have to worry about a lack of teamwork.
Examples of competitive conversions:
My idea has a simple and concise set of rules, allowing for a wide array of tactics and counter-tactics.
Firstly, the maps for competitive are specially-made so that one side is destined to lose, and one is ensured victory. This removes the variable of possible winning the map, which would put a cap on how good or bad the Overwatch can be. On the server’s side, the time it takes for the winning side to win, who the Overwatch was when the time was recorded, and how many Rebels the Overwatch faced during said round are recorded. These are then displayed for that map’s scoreboard ranked from lowest to highest of the Overwatch is to win, and highest to lowest if the Rebels should be the victors. Once everyone has had their turn to be Overwatch, the best time is the winner.
Now it is "Rebels vs. the Overwatch". In order to win, you must not only defeat the Rebels as well as you can, but do everything in your power to make your opponents scores worse than yours. And without the element of the Rebels individually scoring points, you do not have to worry about a lack of teamwork.
Examples of competitive conversions:
- OW_Crossroads loses Poison Zombies (to make Rebel easier), the perimeter explosives take longer to detonate, and the five-minute timer is removed. Whichever Overwatch can exterminate the Rebels soonest wins. As time progresses, the ammo slowly takes longer to respawn. This is to ensure that the Rebels cannot hold-out indefinitely. Whichever Overwatch exterminates the Rebels fastest wins.
- In OW_Canals, the Rebels are respawned at latest respawn area 5 seconds after being killed. This creates the increase in difficulty for the rebels as the progress without the possibility of defeat. Every minute, the Overwatch’s current available troop take 15 more seconds to spawn. That way the Overwatch cannot defend indefinitely, but will get renewed effort to defend the next section.
- OW_Citadel, the Rebels are granted hacked ceiling turrets defending every rebel spawn, and will auto-respawn after 15 seconds dead. As the Overwatch progresses in defending, his ability to defend degenerates similarly to that of Canals.
- OW_Breach is not done competitively, partially because its name does not start with “C” and partially because the variable objectives make it too unpredictable. And removing that element would remove the reason the map is so special.
Take it easy. Its a suggestion, thats all. No need to get in depth.
#12
-
- Members
-
- 161 posts
Barnacle
Posted 26 January 2011 - 10:25 AM
And we can still made map for tournament only, for example : ow_citadel_tournament.
After, it's the choice of the devs, they have so many possibility to check....
After, it's the choice of the devs, they have so many possibility to check....
#13
-
- Members
-
- 248 posts
Zombie
Posted 26 January 2011 - 11:24 PM
The Joker, on 25 January 2011 - 06:29 PM, said:
Take it easy. Its a suggestion, thats all. No need to get in depth.
Sorry for the massive post-size. I already went in-depth in my thread.
#14
-
- Community Contributors
-
- 294 posts
CC Contributor for OW
Posted 02 February 2011 - 01:46 PM
how about this idea,
there are two teams, an OW is chosen from 1 team and the rebels are chosen from the other.
a timer starts as the round begins. which ever team can survive the longest, or complete the objectives quickest. wins
So if all the rebels die in round 1, and the teams switch sides, the other team must beat their survival time OR complete all the objectives.
if in the first round the rebels win, the other team must do the same, but faster.
EDIT: That would make a great competitve gamemode/map. a mode where the rebels must defend/survive as long as possible. and then the other team must survive longer to win.
there are two teams, an OW is chosen from 1 team and the rebels are chosen from the other.
a timer starts as the round begins. which ever team can survive the longest, or complete the objectives quickest. wins
So if all the rebels die in round 1, and the teams switch sides, the other team must beat their survival time OR complete all the objectives.
if in the first round the rebels win, the other team must do the same, but faster.
EDIT: That would make a great competitve gamemode/map. a mode where the rebels must defend/survive as long as possible. and then the other team must survive longer to win.
#15
-
- Community Contributors
-
- 363 posts
CC Contributor for OW
- Facebook:adrianl1996
- LocationCalifornia, USA
Posted 02 February 2011 - 05:55 PM
Jgoodroad, on 02 February 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:
how about this idea,
there are two teams, an OW is chosen from 1 team and the rebels are chosen from the other.
a timer starts as the round begins. which ever team can survive the longest, or complete the objectives quickest. wins
So if all the rebels die in round 1, and the teams switch sides, the other team must beat their survival time OR complete all the objectives.
if in the first round the rebels win, the other team must do the same, but faster.
EDIT: That would make a great competitve gamemode/map. a mode where the rebels must defend/survive as long as possible. and then the other team must survive longer to win.
there are two teams, an OW is chosen from 1 team and the rebels are chosen from the other.
a timer starts as the round begins. which ever team can survive the longest, or complete the objectives quickest. wins
So if all the rebels die in round 1, and the teams switch sides, the other team must beat their survival time OR complete all the objectives.
if in the first round the rebels win, the other team must do the same, but faster.
EDIT: That would make a great competitve gamemode/map. a mode where the rebels must defend/survive as long as possible. and then the other team must survive longer to win.
That works well, but points would make it more complex, and more fail-safe.
As for the gamemode thing, thats what OW_Crossroads is. Its just that they added logic to it.
#16
-
- Members
-
- 248 posts
Zombie
Posted 02 February 2011 - 10:04 PM
The Joker, on 02 February 2011 - 05:55 PM, said:
That works well, but points would make it more complex, and more fail-safe.
Fail-safe is good, complex is bad. The more rules you tack-on to a game, the less people will be willing to play. Timer is the most fail-safe method measuring skill. It encompasses an almost infinite array of skills and tactics, instead of limiting the evaluation to how much murder you can accomplish. Overwatch has so much potential for trickery, feints, and efficiency that narrowing the training Overwatch players put themselves through to just hunting Rebels would be a horrible shame.
#17
-
- Coordinators
-
- 889 posts
Evil Bunny
- Twitter:@redMatterCorp
- LocationMontreal, QC
Posted 13 February 2011 - 11:46 AM
Tournaments might be tricky, for the reasons stated above (mostly because there's only 1 GM, so an entire team would need to sit out during that round). It wouldn't be a whole lot of fun for them.
On the other hand, if we implemented a points-based system that rewards cooperation and teamplay, wouldn't a stats-based system work better?
Players could gather points with every game they play, and the better they do, the more points they get. You'd be able to see the top-scoring Rebel and the top-scoring GM, and we could crown two winners every two weeks or once a month. We'd then reset the stats to give everyone an equal chance.
Thoughts?
On the other hand, if we implemented a points-based system that rewards cooperation and teamplay, wouldn't a stats-based system work better?
Players could gather points with every game they play, and the better they do, the more points they get. You'd be able to see the top-scoring Rebel and the top-scoring GM, and we could crown two winners every two weeks or once a month. We'd then reset the stats to give everyone an equal chance.
Thoughts?
#18
-
- Members
-
- 248 posts
Zombie
Posted 13 February 2011 - 01:21 PM
AndY, on 13 February 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:
Players could gather points with every game they play, and the better they do, the more points they get. You'd be able to see the top-scoring Rebel and the top-scoring GM, and we could crown two winners every two weeks or once a month. We'd then reset the stats to give everyone an equal chance.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Again, a points-based system is going to be either ridiculously complicated or it will not encourage teamwork. A time-based system that challenges the GM only would encourage the Rebels to work together in possibly interesting ways and provide a clear and concise goal for both sides. Either stall or complete and in all cases, survive.
If you try to place any rebel above the rest of the team in any way, there will instantly be a rift in teamwork. Rebels will be fighting over point-bearing actions like killing a combine, reviving a player, or completing an objective. There will be Rebels that point-farm instead of trying to win.
The first-person aspect is not the "seller" of this game. Its the fact that they fight an RTS human that makes the game worth downloading. I really think it would be a good decision to capitalize on this conflict and measure that instead of each individual player. What better way than to see which GM can stall the Rebels from winning, or which GM can most swiftly take down the Rebel team.
This brings me to the time-based system. The duration of a battle can almost directly reflect the skill of a GM. For example: A GM that could stall the Rebels in the Canals for 3 minutes is obviously more skilled than a GM that only defends for two minutes. Alternately, a GM can takes-down the Rebels in Crossroads in two minutes and thirty seconds must have more skill than a GM can takes-out the Rebels in four minutes.
#19
-
- Coordinators
-
- 889 posts
Evil Bunny
- Twitter:@redMatterCorp
- LocationMontreal, QC
Posted 13 February 2011 - 02:10 PM
Ah, that's actually a pretty good idea, and is a lot easier/quicker to implement than points.
Let's see what the others think.
Let's see what the others think.
#20
-
- Members
-
- 161 posts
Barnacle
Posted 13 February 2011 - 05:43 PM
AndY, on 13 February 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:
Tournaments might be tricky, for the reasons stated above (mostly because there's only 1 GM, so an entire team would need to sit out during that round). It wouldn't be a whole lot of fun for them.
You are talking about a Team vs Team match? Because for me, we need two different tournament system :
-Player vs Player (no team)
-Team vs Team (8 vs 8 where 1 player per team is the Overwatch for his team)
Waiting is not a problem ; personally, I love watching an Overwatch match : see the Overwatch tactics, Rebels tactics.....lot of stuffs who can change the match. Whit this, maybe we will need more than 2 rounds to know who is the winner.
Finally, I like the time based system to know who is the winner, but a spammer who win in 1 minute is better than a non-spammer who win in 2 minutes?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
