Game Length
Drown
Underwater Join Date: 2002-12-02 Member: 10392Members
Underwater Join Date: 2002-12-02 Member: 10392Members
In the strategic mode, aka 'classic', what kind of a game length do you prefer? Most games try to appeal to a quick skirmish type of match these days, dare I say they appeal to the ADD in the contemporary gamer... usually aiming for the 15-20 minute kind of match. I think I prefer a good 45 minute match, with a variance of 30 minutes on either end. At least that's what I recall enjoying in NS1. Some games of epic length went on for delicious eons. Rush games (despite being a necessary and important strategy) tend to be over too soon to really enjoy for either team. In terms of design I get the feeling that the NS2 match length will be reduced and it'll be considerably more rare to see games of length.
Comments
So games should vary from 3 minutes to an hour+ It would be a tragedy if this game has a consistent time frame of length.
At least I'd like to see 10-20 minute average rounds with the time used efficiently. A 30-45 minuter here and there doesn't hurt one bit, but it should require a decent round with even teams.
now that is a fascinating idea. like power surges or something... say when all res nodes are capped suddenly they all double produce for a few minutes. That would really be fascinating as a feature to add to specific maps.
What I said was that <i>everything</i> would go faster/slower. So at such a moment the script would instead of only increasing producing rate, increase whole gameplay speed. Walk speed, rof, reload time, produce rates, timers on bombs/nades, physics, everything.
What I said was that <i>everything</i> would go faster/slower. So at such a moment the script would instead of only increasing producing rate, increase whole gameplay speed. Walk speed, rof, reload time, produce rates, timers on bombs/nades, physics, everything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
would be interesting.... but I'd rather prefer if say tech rate and res production only sped up. Forcing people to run around and aim faster and making lag more of a problem isn't a good idea in my mind.
And Zek is right. Games should be designed with some kind of target game length in mind. I think SC2 is aiming for around 15 minute matches, but obviously the more epic length ones are viable. Sins of a Solar Empire aims for around 1-2 hours. Heroes of Newerth aims for around 40-50 minutes, League of Legends seems more like 30-40 miuntes. It's all about tech rates, res production, and how many element are available to help defend or cushion screw ups.
Really I've immensely enjoyed epic 1.5 hour matches as a comm. But yes, I hate stalemates. We traded over 6 hive locations in one epic match of NS at a LAN party once. Siege, Heavy Armor Trains, Oni and Fades galore. I eventually even had my Marines turrect factory our way to a Hive because Lerks and Skulks kept killing them. Then they got Onos....
That being said, making a round a matter of endurance isn't a bad thing, but aiming for 1 hour long matches isn't a good idea. Especially with the intensity of battles as we saw in NS1 where each one could matter for huge turnarounds. It's what made NS1 so riveting, that each battle counted, but it also put huge strain on the players to keep playing at their best for the entire round. On the other hand, see a game like Empires where individual battles don't matter quite as much and many feel useless as a result.
with the popularity of steam through games like tf2 and CSS, the target market that NS2 is geared towards, are gamers used to playing quick rounds.
i think if UWE is going to play to the masses (which is where the money is) this will have an impact on their balancing choices, which as discussed above, is what controls game length.
i think 15-20 mins is a good point to start from.
plus i think its already been said in a previous news post that round lengths of 7-10 mins was what the devs where aiming for.
No. He's talking something more intuitive, think Starcraft's "Game Speed". This is a good idea - to have research times, res production, etc, being able to be tweaked easily.
<!--quoteo(post=1773155:date=Jun 3 2010, 12:20 AM:name=MotherGoose)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MotherGoose @ Jun 3 2010, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773155"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i think if UWE is going to play to the masses (which is where the money is) this will have an impact on their balancing choices, which as discussed above, is what controls game length.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that NS2 isn't marketing to the masses. It may be aiming for a <i>wider</i> market than NS2, but it's not yet at the point where it panders to the casual gamer (I hope). If it were, it wouldn't be a FPSRTS. So my preference is for the longer games. To those that think longer matches may not work, you have only to look at one of the reigning FPSRTS hybrids, BF2, in which 45min+ pub matches are the norm.
BF2 isn't a RTS hybrid though, and at least for BFBC2, matches usually don't go for more than 15 minutes there, the ticket system really is the prime reason for that.
I certainly hope NS2 does market at least somewhat towards the casual gamer, while I am not one, having something that is approachable in that manner adds a lot to the longevity of a game, and doesn't need to take away from the depth.
I'm starting to realize, after playing a few 45+ min games of starcraft 2 that perhaps that game length is a little long. Despite loving those epic rounds, there is a lot to be said for shorter rounds, as long as it's not 7-10 ADHD short. mean average of 16 minutes plz!
There needs to be a similar respawn stall for the marines if there isn't already. Perhaps marines should spawn on TPs with lengthy cooldown?
The TPs would be linked to the com station at tech points with a limit to how many.. 2/3 or whatevs.
On another note it might be nice to have 2 classic game modes. The traditional 20-30 min with the chance for epic ~hour games, and a classic "express" mode where res ticks faster and or research times are decreased. This would cause whichever team gets res nodes quicker to have the upper hand much faster and potentially end the game quicker too. This might be a good idea because it would be a huge disappointment to all the longtime fans to see the classic mode shortened even more. (seems it got shortened a bit between NS patches back in the NS1 days)
On another note it might be nice to have 2 classic game modes. The traditional 20-30 min with the chance for epic ~hour games, and a classic "express" mode where res ticks faster and or research times are decreased. This would cause whichever team gets res nodes quicker to have the upper hand much faster and potentially end the game quicker too. This might be a good idea because it would be a huge disappointment to all the longtime fans to see the classic mode shortened even more. (seems it got shortened a bit between NS patches back in the NS1 days)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Couldn't have said it better myself... 10 minute average games sounds horrible.
One of the things that makes NS special is the long rounds... if they change everything to the lowest common denominator just to appeal to the biggest market possible they can just market the game as "Modern Warfare 2, now with some RTS and some Alien models".
I mean combat got added for a reason, so the core vanilla NS experience doesn't get dumped down while offering a "quick game" alternative. Why throw that out of the window now?
<!--quoteo(post=1773245:date=Jun 4 2010, 03:35 AM:name=Drown)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drown @ Jun 4 2010, 03:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773245"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BF2 isn't a RTS hybrid though, and at least for BFBC2, matches usually don't go for more than 15 minutes there, the ticket system really is the prime reason for that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well BF2 had a commander that had some impact on the battlefield and the option to set waypoints, it's at least somewhat RTS'ish. And i don't know what BFBC2 you are playing but most Rush rounds (the by far most popular mode) last 30+ minutes unless one of the two teams is heavily outskilled. And i don't remember the old battlefield games rounds beeing 10 minutes average either, it's usualy been rather long rounds.
So when it works for battlefield to have such long rounds why shouldn't it work for NS2?
10 mins sounds too short, i want feel the transitioning of the game to the higher lifeforms/tech.
I'm personally kinda frustrated, when I join a combat server with a timelimit bigger than 15 minutes without xmenu.
I even get bored on xmenu servers, if they extend a certain timelimit.
So when it works for battlefield to have such long rounds why shouldn't it work for NS2?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) I don't consider the Battlefield genre to be actual FPS/RTS. The lack of tech progression is the main weakness. It's more of a team-based FPS with potential for commanders to influence things. Really Project Reality is much closer, but still not quite a true blend in my mind.
2) Because NS had a larger focus on smaller teams and smaller maps, each person had to perform at optimal performance, which is a huge strain, making really long games a huge burden. Plus, setting up competitive games took forever. Also, res-for-kills makes your death extra important. Battlefield avoids this with larger team sizes, so the strain is distributed and a longer battle makes more sense since you're covering more ground. For NS2, they claim it can scale to epic levels of players, so a longer game on a map designed for 20v20 sounds completely reasonable (and epically AWESOME).
3) Because of the larger tie-in and individual importance and tech progressions, players felt compelled to stay in the match the entire time more often. Battlefield is more forgiving on leaving or joining mid-game in my experience.
So, this is why people think NS2 matches should aim for <30 minutes, even though epic matches are epic. Now, if NS2 addresses these points, people would be more forgiving of a longer game time, but they risk losing what made NS1 special.
<!--quoteo(post=1773269:date=Jun 4 2010, 06:53 AM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Jun 4 2010, 06:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773269"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On another note it might be nice to have 2 classic game modes. The traditional 20-30 min with the chance for epic ~hour games, and a classic "express" mode where res ticks faster and or research times are decreased. This would cause whichever team gets res nodes quicker to have the upper hand much faster and potentially end the game quicker too. This might be a good idea because it would be a huge disappointment to all the longtime fans to see the classic mode shortened even more. (seems it got shortened a bit between NS patches back in the NS1 days)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fun idea. Servers tagged with "Epic" mode versus normal mode. Kinda like playing Civilization on slower or faster speeds. Sometimes you want a quicky, other times you want epic grandiose battles.
2) Nobody forces people to play, if playing for more than 20 minutes is a burden to anyone he maybe should consider another hobby than gaming? ;)
And the individual burden on a player doesn't change that much when more players are involved. The team with more "slackers" has allways a bigger disadvantage no matter if the round is 20 vs 20 or 4 vs 4.
Never felt like competive games are hard to setup, or took forever. That's why mostly only 2 maps got played compared to 3 maps in most other FPS games. The "long rounds" worked for competive NS1 i don't see a reason why it shouldn't for NS2. The NS competive scene even had been rather big without RfK.
If all else fails there is nothing stoping them from adding a "league mode" like with NS1 but this time with more gameplay impacting settings like build/upgrade time, res ticks, different RfK and whatever.
3) Especially because of the larger tech tree long games had been fun, it's also a motivation to play long games. Getting an HA train/JP rush going should be reserved to "longer" rounds (as in 15-20+ minutes) and not allways happen after 10 minutes and beeing the game ender.
So NS offers more of a motivation to play longer than your usual BF round, just like in BF you won't see the outcome of the round when leaving sooner but you will have more reasons to stay compared to BF.
And <30 is something different than "10 minutes <b>average</b>", i don't need 30+ average rounds but i despise the idea of having 10 minutes average games. Because 10 minute average would end up with many games beeing only in the 5-15 minutes ranges which is way too short in my opinion.
<!--quoteo(post=1773311:date=Jun 4 2010, 12:55 PM:name=rebirth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rebirth @ Jun 4 2010, 12:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1773311"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And <30 is something different than "10 minutes <b>average</b>", i don't need 30+ average rounds but i despise the idea of having 10 minutes average games. Because 10 minute average would end up with many games beeing only in the 5-15 minutes ranges which is way too short in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Definite agree. I think a target I would like is aim for is around 20 minutes per round, but epic is still viable. So, perhaps on average games will end up around 30 minutes because of the huge potential for epic games messing with the average (woot statistics).
So, perhaps instead of saying "average game length" we should say "typical game length". Average probably might be higher since everyone seems to agree having the potential for maybe 10% of your games to be epic (i.e. 40+minutes) is a good thing.
The only thing that ticked me off had been that mothergoose said:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->plus i think its already been said in a previous news post that round lengths of 7-10 mins was what the devs where aiming for.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what i don't agree with. 7-10 minutes? Most counter strike maps last longer than that...
Can't decide how much of that is true because following information about NS2 is an art in itself with bits of information hidden in forum posts, twitter feeds, news posts and interviews all over the place.
So i can't really remember if i read something similiar... if it's true than i'm really dissapointed.
Don't let your experiences of NS1 color your opinions, people. Just think of the time preference and nothing else. I'd like to have a lot of fun games one after the other, short in length so I can finish the current game and sign off when I need to. If the game isn't finished in the early game, then having a back and forth mid or late game occasionally would be awesome.
But if NS2 can't be condensed into a 10 minute average game without losing fun, it shouldn't be condensed that far.
Then ofcourse I still think the maps is what decides the game length more then anything.
Long routes to get from a to b means long game length, and short travel time would be shorter games (altough also mean less long corridors, so khaara would get it easyer).
I also still think the scale option for game speed would be good to have, which like someone compared it to, would work alot like ra2 game-speed option.
This would let servers select to be hectic or slow. Or in other terms, experienced commanders/me as a commander (tried once :P).
In combat mode it would also be interesting as not only new commanders have it easyer at slower speed I think, but also new normal players.
The main problem would be that I think marines have it easyer to aim and hit skulks/lerks during slow games, but that would also mean it could be used together with a script you set a value for different maps, to make everything more balanced/unbalanced.
As regards game length, remember everyones different. For every person who wants epic, hour long games theres someone who wants quicker games so they can fit RL stuff around NS2. 20mins is a good, not too short, not too long length - longer then most FPS rounds but not so long you have to free up a chunk of time to just play a single round of NS2.
As per usual theres also ye olde rose tinted glasses coming out here - I bet many of these 'epic' games followed the pattern of marines being pushed into marine start, nade spam resulting, aliens not being co-ordinated enough to kill them off, marines teching up off their one RT and eventually winning. Thats not epic, thats a drawn out boring stalemate for a large portion of the game. The actually epic games were few and far between in comparison.