Game Duration

Sirot

<div class="IPBDescription">How long should a round last?</div>I really liked how epic the longer games of NS1 lasted, since they often approached an hour in length and were simply satisfying to finish. However, I always disliked that it was sometimes difficult to jump into a match in progression and when you for all purposes lost, it often took another good 10 minutes before you actually did.

There is a growing trend in FPS and RTS (see RA3 and SC2) games to have shorter rounds that are around 15 to 30 minutes at most. This allows a person with less time to play a full game in one go and gives the game a fast pace since the winner is decided within a short time frame. More importantly, this helps keep a player's attention.

I personally think that an hour should be the definite limit for match because it is way too much of a time commitment if a round lasts longer than that. What does everyone else think? Give me a time range, don't say "NS1 is fine".

Some things to consider:
- How fast tech advances from early to late game.
- The pace of combat.
- The amount of time it takes to conduct a siege (destroy the enemy base).
- Opportunities for come back victories.

Bacillus

<!--quoteo(post=1693117:date=Nov 11 2008, 05:11 AM:name=Sirot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sirot @ Nov 11 2008, 05:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693117"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really liked how epic the longer games of NS1 lasted, since they often approached an hour in length and were simply satisfying to finish. However, I always disliked that it was sometimes difficult to jump into a match in progression and when you for all purposes lost, it often took another good 10 minutes before you actually did.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the optimal is that round ends quickly when its supposed to, but it can go up to 45+ minutes if both teams are equally good and pick the strategies aimed for longer games.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is a growing trend in FPS and RTS (see RA3 and SC2) games to have shorter rounds that are around 15 to 30 minutes at most. This allows a person with less time to play a full game in one go and gives the game a fast pace since the winner is decided within a short time frame. More importantly, this helps keep a player's attention.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you tell about sc2? Anyway, I don't think its much of a trend. Most games I've seens since starcraft last those 15 to 30 minutes on average. I'm not sure about DoW and Supreme commander though.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I personally think that an hour should be the definite limit for match because it is way too much of a time commitment if a round lasts longer than that. What does everyone else think? Give me a time range, don't say "NS1 is fine".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I think NS is fine, apart from the useless endgame when the winner is already obivious. Basic game should be somewhere around 15-20 minutes, maybe 25 on some maps. Nevertheless, if the teams are equal and both play well, the game should be able to go at least for 30-45 mins, even an hour on some rare cases. Over an hour sounds a little bit of a deadlock to me, but I guess its ok if its still back and forth gameplay.

ryknow69

I say 1 hour and 30 minutes before the game is timed out as a tie.

aNytiMe

Remove the useless endgame. Problem solved.

Align

<!--quoteo(post=1693128:date=Nov 11 2008, 12:01 PM:name=ryknow69)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ryknow69 @ Nov 11 2008, 12:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693128"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I say 1 hour and 30 minutes before the game is timed out as a tie.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But then noone is happy.

Sirot

For Starcraft 2, they openly said that they wanted multilayer games to last 15 minutes.

Radix

<!--quoteo(post=1693146:date=Nov 11 2008, 09:18 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Nov 11 2008, 09:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1693146"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Remove the useless endgame. Problem solved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It also depends on what you want to go after market-wise. Do you want to compete with TV shows (as Mr. Cleveland is doing currently) by attempting to make rounds last ~30 minutes. The older versions took longer, and so competed with less readily-available (less frequently-used) time slots in peoples' lives. The decision was, to my knowledge, purely a convenience factor, which isn't a bad thing (quality vs quantity gaming).

That said, my personal opinion is that I like epic games where the tide of battle actually <i>can</i> swing both directions (which is heavily a function of the skill cap of an individual), but when I get a career and other life complexities, I probably won't continue that stance.

aeroripper

I'd say around 20-25 minutes if the teams are somewhat equal. Although there should be room for the occasional epic game that goes back and forth for 45min-hour. Most games are too short in NS nowadays where its over in 10 minutes.

PhiXX

I also like the epic games in the older ns versions. I dont like the round to be decided in the first minutes.
A round should be around 30 minutes, but epic games should be also possible if both teams are equal. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tiny.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::onos::" border="0" alt="tiny.gif" />

Align

How do we prevent repeat stacking, so we don't get two dozen one-sided rounds in a row? Separate topic I guess, but if that's not solved, shorter rounds won't help.

MasterPTG

That won't be an issue w/ a large player base. Everyone is not going to know everyone's name. In fact, 95% of the time (hopefully) you'll be playing with people who are totally new players with random skills/skillsets. Right now, everyone good knows everyone else's name whose good. Even if they're smurfing, you can normally recognize whether they're good by what their score is. So then you just choose those guy's names.

But when a game first comes out, the playing field is -much- more level.

If the game is popular enough, stacking will never become a huge issue.

juice

There definitely shouldn't be a set time limit. Anticipation of this arbitrary mark might kill some epic games before they've had a chance. With LUA, maybe a scenario map...

As it stands, a game could last 4 minutes, or 40. I like it that way. If the game is decided in the first 2 minutes of play, it needs to end, and end fast. But epic games take time, time to invest yourself in the outcome, time to bond with your team, and time to experience the tension of a game that could go either way.

Tech that progresses in tiers solves this problem. If one team lags behind a tier, it should get crushed fast. But if the teams are at the same tier, then it should be likely that either will win. This happens in NS to a large extent, with hives/abilities and their counters as tiers. Epic games occur at tech 2. But if one side gets tech 3 for any length of time, it's game over.

PseudoKnight

I miss the incredibly short rounds (skulk rushes <3) and the incredibly long rounds. I don't have a problem with the average being 15 min (though I'd prefer more like 20-25 min) but many of the mechanics to force shorter rounds result in slippery slopes which make end-game's hopeless. Combine that with people discouraging others from F4ing and people get frustrated.

There's a number of possible solutions, I just hope people are open to them.