A thought: Timed matches

Mouse

<div class="IPBDescription">Would it be worth experimenting with?</div>As much as epic back-and-forth matches can be quite awesome, they can really throw out the schedule of a tournament. One way to deal with this would be to place a restriction on the length of matches.. say.. 15-20 min.

But what should happen if the time ran out? A draw or should the winner be determined on points?
If it's points, what should those points be based on?

Thoughts?

JuCCi

No time limits. It's over when it's over :) You would be cheating teams imo.

Mouse

It'd definitely be cheating them if the match was ended without warning. But if both teams knew well ahead of time that there would be a time limit, they would be able to develop their strats around it.

fanatic

Not feasible, period.

Mouse

<!--quoteo(post=2009375:date=Nov 4 2012, 08:56 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Nov 4 2012, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2009375"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not feasible, period.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Care to elaborate?

AurOn2

Time limits in a strategy game is like giving a cake to a baby but he can only eat so much, for a limited amount of time.
mattering on how its done, it could be a good or a bad thing.

wiry

Nice brain fart OP.

eh?

Time limits just encourage the suspected weaker team to turtle up and take some easy draws.

Just not going to be fun for anyone.

SoundFX

<!--quoteo(post=2009339:date=Nov 4 2012, 05:19 AM:name=Mouse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mouse @ Nov 4 2012, 05:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2009339"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As much as epic back-and-forth matches can be quite awesome, they can really throw out the schedule of a tournament. One way to deal with this would be to place a restriction on the length of matches.. say.. 15-20 min.

But what should happen if the time ran out? A draw or should the winner be determined on points?
If it's points, what should those points be based on?

Thoughts?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Time-limits in general are usually a negative experience for the gamer. Think of all those timed missions that pissed you off over the years. Timed play in competition is not good for the competitive spirit, at least in a game like this where there isn't a score/clear winner like in football or baseball; Like people said, we're done when there is a winner.

ColtColt

I think implementing a time limit in a game like this would be essentially forcing your teams (all of them) into a very limited set of strategies instead of the currently viable various strategies.

You'd see a massive favoritism of 'early wins', and 'quick techs' to race to a specific beneficial item or positioning.

I don't like the way this idea sounds at all.... not at all.

I think it's a good consideration and I see how the schedules can get thrown off, but that's just an unfortunate reality of a game with a length 'between' 30 seconds and an hour and a half. :P

swalk

Doesn't work with a game like this, you will just force rushes or have games end up in ties. Which is pretty bad.

ScardyBob

Draw-based time limit wouldn't work, but I could see an overtime system working. Essentially, if the match goes over the timer, you start disabling things like resflow, respawning, start doing DOT to all structures, etc.

GORGEous

No. If you want in game time restrictions then put a cap on possible res gained from each RT point.

eh?

And definitely don't do that.

SkulkJester

No, never!

ScardyBob

Personally, I'd prefer a BF3 or Empiresmod-style ticket system in which each team has a set number of tickets that are drawn down by one per each player spawn. It worked wonders in reducing the number of tedious, multihour stalemates in Empiresmod.

Mouse

If matches were decided on points, I'd think "number of tech points destroyed" would make for a good metric.
Most other metrics I can think of - K/D, res gathered, sum of player points, etc. - almost always swing one way or the other, with little correlation to who's actually winning.

fanatic

That metric is no different; no necessary correlation to who's actually winning.

Vile | Frisky

Seeing as how most matches start to really hit the flow of mid game right around the 15 minute mark, I'd say this would be a terrible idea. Not to mention, some of the fun of spectating NS2 is watching some teams manage to survive a base disadvantage and come back to beat the opposing team. Upgrades, upgrades, upgrades!

Kouji_San

The BF franchise probably is the only one that did the time/ticket thing correct and maybe Company of Heroes with their Victory point system. In any case it would be a different game mode that would make this feasible...

GORGEous

I can't see any score metric being a good way to determine games. KDR, resources, tech points, building kills, lifeform kills, whatever. It's all just part of the story as to who is winning the game. And the actual winner of the game can be someone who is losing in all of the above categories, though it is unlikely.


If you were to add some sort of ticket mechanic then I think that would be a different gametype all together. If the victory condition is changed, it shouldn't be called NS2. It should be called NS2-control or NS2-deathmatch.

ScardyBob

<!--quoteo(post=2010612:date=Nov 4 2012, 07:35 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Nov 4 2012, 07:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2010612"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you were to add some sort of ticket mechanic then I think that would be a different gametype all together. If the victory condition is changed, it shouldn't be called NS2. It should be called NS2-control or NS2-deathmatch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Make it a server-side option so people who want 1+ hour pub stalemates can still enjoy themselves.

Also, having extensively played another FPS/RTS with a ticket system (Empiremod), I think the system could work well in NS2. It adds strategic depth as teams have to consider ticket management in addition to build order or tactics. I saw and participated in quite a few games where a clever team forced the opposing side to overextend by dying too much and was able to make a comeback after they depleted their tickets.

GORGEous

I don't think you ever have "teams" consider anything in pubs. The stalemates in pubs are absolutely horrendous, but they're also the fault of the game. GL's splash damage, insanely fast armory healing, insanely fast respawning, no effective siege methods other than "MOAR ONOS!!!!!"I'd hate to lose a game our team was clearly winning because of four 2-40 players at the bottom of the team list.

I think you could design this as another gametype. As a default NS2 style or default competitive gametype it would fall flat.