Community Poll. Unlimited timed matches be default.

[ShrewdTactician]

Community poll.

Here is a poll for the community. In general, by default do you think Renegade X matches should have a time limit or be unlimited?

[limsup]

Unlimited. In my humble opinion, adding and defining a time limit should be at the liberty of a server owner/administrator. I say this as one, who is not particularly fond of games dragging into hours - a game should eventually end, but not by an "artificial" solution, such as a ticking timer, it just feels for me a bit unnatural...

[AlienXAXS]

As a server owner, I think this topic should be called: "Should RenX ship with a basic server configuration tool".
This is not an issue of what the setting should be, rather an issue of letting people know that the setting is there in the first place and what it can be changed to.

This of course applies to all of the settings.

However, in terms of this poll - I cannot vote, as either option does not matter, if the above statement is solved.

[RypeL]

From what i remember from earlier discussion it came down to one goal that pretty much devs and community agreed on:

Goal: "We want the game to end by base destruction as thats the more exciting way"

Im in the boat that wants games to not last longer then like 45 minutes and was on the fence against Marathon for that reason. But we did two major things to the game that made Marathon more viable: Building Armor and Veterancy. Both are in line with the goal to end the game "naturally".

Im not sure right now how close we are on ending games kinda reliably within 45 minutes. If too much games drag on for over an hour i think we should do more things to make it quicker.

So for me im kinda neutral on this cause i have reasons for both:

- basically i prefer AOW over Marathon

- but i also wanna reach the goal we set to "naturally end the game by base destruction" within a reasonable time. Im just not sure if we are quite there yet

[NodSaibot]

41 minutes ago, RypeL said:

From what i remember from earlier discussion it came down to one goal that pretty much devs and community agreed on:

Goal: "We want the game to end by base destruction as thats the more exciting way"

Im in the boat that wants games to not last longer then like 45 minutes and was on the fence against Marathon for that reason. But we did two major things to the game that made Marathon more viable: Building Armor and Veterancy. Both are in line with the goal to end the game "naturally".

Im not sure right now how close we are on ending games kinda reliably within 45 minutes. If too much games drag on for over an hour i think we should do more things to make it quicker.

So for me im kinda neutral on this cause i have reasons for both:

- basically i prefer AOW over Marathon

- but i also wanna reach the goal we set to "naturally end the game by base destruction" within a reasonable time. Im just not sure if we are quite there yet

This can be hard, as not every setting works for every map. It also depends on the players as well... or just the luck of a sneak or something. 

[RypeL]

Yeah but whatever a team does atleast someone is accumulating VP and once they reach heroic they can make quite a difference.

(Also another thing i forgot to mention above that we did to make Marathon games end more reliably: The respawn time is slowly increasing over the course of the game and we added a coolwon to PT usage. For example the max respawn delays could be tweaked further to make any game on any map end more reliably. theoretically we could even make them different per map - just theocrafting)

[isupreme]

well,...   I highly favor timed matches and think it should be a part of the game.     I can see that is not the favored opinion, but i offer mine for the record.

I like timed matches for several reasons.  

1.  I know how long a time commitment i am engaging in.    I can commit more to immersion of gameplay if there is not a part of my brain that has to remember to check the time.  And I can play a few games before i have to go back to real.   With marathon i may only get one game... be it good or bad or draggin on forever.

2.  I find i will more likely join a losing team if the time left is not too much.  Where as in Marathon i tend to not like joining ANY game where there is a building lost.  Not that it ruins it for me,  (cause i know gameplay can still be good)  but because the moral of the team is so often  in the pits.   They believe the end is inevitable.   THIS IN PARTICULAR is why i like timed matches.

3. Timed matches teach players  the value in valiantly fighting in the face of  obstacles.    When your team is losing buildings, but you are fighting strong and players are really give it their all....  and manage a win by  points ....   That is why i like timed.   I do not get that ending in marathon.

4. Timed matches represent another way to win.    The game benefits from having multiple paths to winning.  

I hear the complaint that timed matches are an artificial ending and that base destruction is the desired result.    I respect that and the advancements made to that end.   I will always remember and hope for the return of the intense team action involved in a good points win.   Those games would be incredibly close!  Sometimes only  a few points of difference.     I found the chat and teamwork levels  exciting.   I found the end game equally fun to hearing that the last enemy building has been destroyed.

[Madkill40]

Timed matches need a lower VP requirement per rank based on minutes in a game (somehow) and for the last 5 minutes of the game to grant 'Heroic' to the team with the best average score, their opposing team keeps their veterancy, the last 5 minutes then leave both teams an advantage to end the game more naturally.

If one building still stands for just one or both teams then the game should be a draw.

[Agent]

6 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

Timed matches need a lower VP requirement per rank based on minutes in a game (somehow) and for the last 5 minutes of the game to grant 'Heroic' to the team with the best average score, their opposing team keeps their veterancy, the last 5 minutes then leave both teams an advantage to end the game more naturally.

If one building still stands for just one or both teams then the game should be a draw.

So basically some sort of overtime?

[Madkill40]

Just now, Agent said:

So basically some sort of overtime?

40 minutes +5 minutes 'overtime'

If VP requirements are reduced then Harvester team VP would probably need modifying for AOW.

This would have to be a preset, i.e. 'Command & Conquer Mode' (Marathon)

'All-Out-War Mode' (Timed)

[vandal33]

I kinda like timed games because of the secondary method of winning. I don't get why people are too desired to destroy all buildings to the point that the new surrender system had to be adjusted and made cringey.

Timed games will make people value their characters, vehicles and beacons more although I respect the fact that people dislike it because it makes people get annoyed by their teammates for doing bad and "feeding" the enemy points (but usually, they will blame the harvester or building damage thats giving the enemy points). Even teams with the leading score would take less risks, especially if point differences are low whereas the losing team will give an all-out push, spending all their resources, team donating and cooperation... knowing they got nothing to lose in that last 5 minutes of the game and sometimes, it works.

Unlimited time games would be boring (for me) if it doesn't end at a point where timed games would have ended already. It can be repetitive too, where one team is camping in front of the enemy base with repairmen farming points while the other team is busy defending and constantly repairing. I've seen this last for hours (not very appealing to attract new players, it seems dull) until one team gets bored and quit or doing some solo SBH work/sniper camping/etc. If it's timed, then the team who farmed points and controlled field should have won instead of dragging on.

And some players (myself, included) would help the team more on timed games instead of wandering around doing their own thing if they're afraid that they don't have time to do useless stuffs. In unlimited time games, I would think "i can help my team later, i got plenty of time. for now I'm just gonna roam in this stealth suit killing afkers, spawncamping and follow enemies and get easy kills when they stop to type in chat."

[Axesor]

Just throwing some idea. What about if there was also team VP bar. When team VP bar is filled, the other team gets destroyed with mega nuke or mega ion? Ofc it would need to take a hell of a work to fill that.

Maybe teams VPs could be used for something else? Make it divided in 4 phases, where reaching the end of the final phase would mean the end of the enemy team?

Edited January 21, 2018 by Axesor

[Guest once upon the time]

I cant vote for one, because I know from the past when TMX was AOW and EKT was Marathon,  i liked both. Was a different gameplay,  but it was nice.

I dont remember the settings on TMX, but I never found the point system unfair. 

In my opinion the new player after dying all AOW settings didn't know how this gameplay is. On the other hand ppl still join there where are the most ppl are.

Both Gameplay should be still exist and both have adavantages and disadvantages.

[Ryz]

On 21-1-2018 at 11:40 AM, SilentKnight said:

I cant vote for one, because I know from the past when TMX was AOW and EKT was Marathon,  i liked both. Was a different gameplay,  but it was nice.

I dont remember the settings on TMX, but I never found the point system unfair. 

In my opinion the new player after dying all AOW settings didn't know how this gameplay is. On the other hand ppl still join there where are the most ppl are.

Both Gameplay should be still exist and both have adavantages and disadvantages.

Guess they weren't comparable cause EKT had waaaaaaay more mines.
EKT was marathon with extra mines
TMX was standard AOW with a fixed time limit but standard rules

I prefered TMX more most of the times cause games would end before the day was over, the server got DDOSED or the game crashed  
Having that said: the old AOW had some issues where people would say: "We have 1k points more and the game lasts another 10 minutes... let's play conservative (aka camp) and not leave the base..."  I know this is my opinion but I rather lose the game with a good fight then get bored to win

Edited January 22, 2018 by Ryz

[SvN91]

Sometomes AOW would be fun tbh. Can't this be made into a vote before the game begins just like the map vote?

[roweboat]

Although I mostly prefer marathon. Yes back in the day, there were some clutch matches where we had no idea who won until the end game screen came up because the points were so close and it was down to whoever got the last shot on a building or something.

[Guest Gliven]

Orrrr, crazy idea. If a server owner wants to host an AOW server. The players can "vote" by joining the server they want.

[NodSaibot]

Just now, Gliven said:

Orrrr, crazy idea. If a server owner wants to host an AOW server. The players can "vote" by joining the server they want.

Not exactly how it works, but close. Basically, the server that is played for the day is determined by whichever server the first person joins. Or, whoever seeds.

[Guest Gliven]

If people joined the server they wanted, rather than worrying about the player count. We could probably get at least 2 servers going most days. Once a server reaches that 10-20 player threshold, others will join.

[roweboat]

'i think that used to be far less of a topic of concern when the player population was higher