Could Marathon games allow a vote to start a timer?

[isupreme]

Could Marathon games allow a vote to start a timer?

I.E.   The game is ongoing a while,  and lets say both sides have had lost buildings.   The game is starting to look like it will be a long one.

Could the players be allowed to vote for a timer to end the game in half an hour or something.

 

[OTT]

Interesting idea,but then one of the teams could have a far higher score,and they will most likely be the winners when the timer ends.
Maybe when the timer starts, 

-make everyone Heroic(if some aren't already),even if they join later after the timer starts.

-give everyone good/huge amount of credits(3000-5000 maybe)

-Maximize the commander CP

This way the teams have enough to do any kind of rush possible(considering what buildings are left),and try and end the match with one or 2 last organized rushes.

The 2 teams have until the timer ends to destroy the enemy base,if they fail,both teams lose (shouldn't be a draw)

Another thing that could be added when the timer starts,is to give temporary access to all vehicles/infantry(in case teams lost bar/hon or wf/airstrip),not sure if this is a good thing(depending on the situation) or even possible.

just an idea,could be edited when something hits my mind.

[vandal33]

I think players mostly don't mind playing 6 hours long game. Otherwise, they won't join unlimited time games in the first place.

[limsup]

19 minutes ago, vandal33 said:

I think players mostly don't mind playing 6 hours long game. Otherwise, they won't join unlimited time games in the first place.

In my humble opinion, that's debatable. Considering most people have a finite time per day to spend playing the game, I sincerely doubt that most of them would desire to spend their entire evening locked in a single long game, which often means having one team be constantly on the defence. Of course, we could do a poll...

[Molested Bunny]

6 hours ago, vandal33 said:

Otherwise, they won't join unlimited time games in the first place.

You realise we just have enough population to maybe fill 1 server at any given time. So if that server is locked in a 5 hour Under marathon, the question becomes do i want to struggle another 3 hours in a really un-fun game, or play something decent this evening, like Battlefront II, or Call of Duty Ghosts. With a steering wheel. On a PlayStation 3.

 

See the game has some shortcomings that may turn away newcomers from the game, but bloody hell, a 5 hour Under match(or old Field for that matter) where his team is being permacamped, and he gets farmed non stop(and this is without the Cult Of poi making matters worse) will surely give him instant PTSD, and will make him cleanse his RenX install drive with fire.🔥🔥🔥

[Calvin]

I played a 12 hour under game in old Renegade

Maybe try allowing a timer after 4 hours or so

Edited May 31, 2018 by poi

[TK0104]

I was going nuts after 1 hour of Under so I can't stand 5 hours!....🤣

[Madkill40]

On 5/31/2018 at 2:02 PM, Molested Bunny said:

You realise we just have enough population to maybe fill 1 server at any given time.

This just isn't true, we have enough for two servers if only players joined and filled a 2nd server then we'd be fine

If servers could lock themselves after a certain amount of time forcing players to fill up a 2nd server rather than players waiting for someone to drop out of a full server then that'd be interesting

But I doubt this is even possible without modifying the game code...

 

Perhaps a Marathon server should have a 3 hour time limit instead of no time limit? 3 hours is still kind of a marathon

Edited June 1, 2018 by Madkill40

[Canucck]

Games should end before the entire server turns over. Lots of people complain about balance/stacking, but a lot of people filter through a 2h+ game, it's never going to remain balanced the entire time due to the massive turnover. Imo if you end the game without the majority of players that started it, the game was way too long.

People get bored and leave, and just because more players joined the only populated server doesn't mean marathon is working well...

[Madkill40]

13 minutes ago, Canucck said:

People get bored and leave, and just because more players joined the only populated server doesn't mean marathon is working well...

Maybe servers should lock once a session is in progress >if there are more than 32 players in a game?

[NodSaibot]

2 hours ago, Canucck said:

People get bored and leave, and just because more players joined the only populated server doesn't mean marathon is working well...

I don't particularly have a love for either mode, but I think the game is built around marathon, concerning veterancy and all.

[Canucck]

The last couple years worth of patches have been trying to compensate for the shitty aspects of marathon games, again I don't think that means it's working well. I dunno what choice there is though when there's only 1 server, and the server owners pretty much have more control over balance than the devs by using mutators

[NodSaibot]

2 hours ago, Canucck said:

The last couple years worth of patches have been trying to compensate for the shitty aspects of marathon games, again I don't think that means it's working well. I dunno what choice there is though when there's only 1 server, and the server owners pretty much have more control over balance than the devs by using mutators

You want 1 week of aow? lol

[Madkill40]

There has been a discussion on AOW servers having an faster gain for Veterancy due to the 45min/60min time limit but nothing was really done about it. 

[Sn4ke]

6 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

There has been a discussion on AOW servers having an faster gain for Veterancy due to the 45min/60min time limit but nothing was really done about it. 

I guess you're referring to the devs / the core game. But as it is now @Canucck is totally right with this:

7 hours ago, Canucck said:

... I dunno what choice there is though when there's only 1 server, and the server owners pretty much have more control over balance than the devs by using mutators

#########

A few months ago people used to play more often on AOW servers, especially during low pop times as CT offered an AOW (Timed Match Server) with higher initial credits and (not 100% sure about this) also some different settings and a "grind" Marathon Server with low (or 0) initial credits. Usually people switched to Marathon at some point as the high starter creds used to ruin the matches to a certain degree.

But as it is now, people are joining Marathon with a high amount of initial credits

[vandal33]

Timed matches are good because it will end the map before people starts getting bored and leave. People will get bored and ask for a map change after 45-60 minutes anyway in unlimited time. Making marathon 2-3 hours would be nice if AOW is too short.

[Eagle XI]

What about an dynamic timer, that gives more time when a building dies. You have initial 1.5 hour and each destroyed building gives +15 min to the game's timer.

[Sn4ke]

1 hour ago, vandal33 said:

Timed matches are good because it will end the map before people starts getting bored and leave. People will get bored and ask for a map change after 45-60 minutes anyway in unlimited time. Making marathon 2-3 hours would be nice if AOW is too short.

that's true. the problem with this is the current vote system though. maybe a slight change of that system (how many votes are needed proportional to the current server pop...) might be the easiest solution to implement.

[Madkill40]

4 hours ago, Eagle XI said:

What about an dynamic timer, that gives more time when a building dies.

Something which has not yet been suggested before which would really benefit an AOW server

[Eagle XI]

6 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

Something which has not yet been suggested before which would really benefit an AOW server

The idea was a bit different initially in my head: The match would start without timer, the first time an base-building dies an generous timer would kick in, every other non-defence building destroyed substracts from time remaining.

[isupreme]

I am intrigued now by the concept of tuning the length of the game.  

 If as suggested, besides a vote by the teams to limit the time....  additional changes could happen that encourage the game towards a  satisfying  end. 

If things like increased vetrancy rates, funding,  etc could change the tempo of the game.....

 

With or without these changes i wonder if allowing teams to vote  on a timer could be good for us.