Jump to content
rawalanche

Changed match time from 45 to 40 minutes - seriously?

Recommended Posts

Come on guys,

I've defended you ever since you released the game, even through the very rocky launch, with servers not working. I always tried to see things from the developer perspective, but this feels like you are just mocking us.

Many of us have complained about ridiculously long matches, where the match duration is so long it literally requires an uncomfortable, fun ruining amount of willpower to force yourself to complete a match on a nearly monochromatic, monotonous looking maps. 45 minutes is way too long match duration for a game, especially if you have a life (job and a family) to attend to. So when I've read on this forum that the match duration issue is acknowledged and being resolved, I was sure you will do the right thing, and cut the match length in half.

Yet here I sit, staring at a line saying "Changed match time from 45 to 40 minutes." and really contemplating if this is some kind of prank. 

On a serious note though:

20-25 minutes is borderline of tolerable in moderate scale games like WW3.

30 minutes is already way too long and feels like a chore.

40+ minutes will mean many of the people won't bother to stay till end of the match, and possibly miss out on mission completion reward, depending on how the system is implemented.

Reduction from 45 to 40 feels like going to an emergency room with arterial bleeding where doctor puts a small band-aid over it :|

Edited by rawalanche
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Angry 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss the bit where they said they reduced points from 5000-4000? That's a pretty big drop and should mean matches end before the timer expires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cral said:

Did you miss the bit where they said they reduced points from 5000-4000? That's a pretty big drop and should mean matches end before the timer expires.

I have yet to play a single match in this game where the game ended before the timer expired. So if the point amount is reduced by 20%, that means there will still be at least 36 minute long matches. That's still way too long.

30 minutes and 3000 points would probably at least approach the right values for the game of this type.

Edited by rawalanche
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your getting bored of playing maybe this game isn't for you? .... Im 29 hours in to far and i have yet to play a game where im looking forward to the end of a match!

Edited by ATOJAR
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rawalanche said:

I have yet to play a single match in this game where the game ended before the timer expired. So if the point amount is reduced by 20%, that means there will still be at least 36 minute long matches. That's still way too long.

Agree to disagree, fairly long matches give teams a chance to turn a game around, though you're right that currently they're a bit too long. Based on what I've played so far I could see 30 minute matches being ideal, but 20 just seems too short for the current mode.

 

Part of the reason matches drag towards the end is that the balance of the game is a little off, no matter how tightly contested a battle is it always seems to end with one team eventually getting a firm grip on all points. If they improve the balance the longer matches won't drag towards the end.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cral said:

Agree to disagree, fairly long matches give teams a chance to turn a game around, though you're right that currently they're a bit too long. Based on what I've played so far I could see 30 minute matches being ideal, but 20 just seems too short for the current mode.

 

Part of the reason matches drag towards the end is that the balance of the game is a little off, no matter how tightly contested a battle is it always seems to end with one team eventually getting a firm grip on all points. If they improve the balance the longer matches won't drag towards the end.

That actually makes even less sense. If one team dominates the other it actually means the points will reach the limit faster than the timer ends. More even battle will mean the opposite. Even now it's already hard to end the game by point limit and not time limit. Now if balance gets better, it will get even harder and will be pretty much guaranteed that it will be the time limit what ends the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ATOJAR said:

If your getting bored of playing maybe this game isn't for you? .... Im 29 hours in to far and i have yet to play a game where im looking forward to the end of a match!

Well, what can I say, everyone's different. Some people have families, jobs and hobbies, so they can afford to play only during a limited time, while others may have tons of time to play on their hands living in their parents basement living off the welfare checks. (Not implying you do, just pointing out that life circumstances significantly affect how much time can you invest in a video game).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rawalanche said:

That actually makes even less sense. If one team dominates the other it actually means the points will reach the limit faster than the timer ends. More even battle will mean the opposite. Even now it's already hard to end the game by point limit and not time limit. Now if balance gets better, it will get even harder and will be pretty much guaranteed that it will be the time limit what ends the game. 

What I meant was, currently matches last 45 minutes but the last 10-15 minutes can just be spent with one team crushing the other, which makes it feel like a drag. If they were to lower the points required to win and make games stay tightly contested until the end, a 40 minutes match wouldn't feel like such a drag because you'd still be trying to secure the win right up until the end.

 

This is just their first attempt at tuning the numbers too, there's nothing to say they won't lower it further if/when they manage to improve the balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i felt more or less bumbed out and wont try to reason bc they shown to want long matches. i dont know if its to start slow and work thier way down for balance, or they have a very heavy stance not to change it. 5000 down to 4000 will help reduce match times a little bit. probably 35 minutes to finish. it'll help shorten matches but at the same time it might not. i rarely have matches that peak to 5000. the highest i personally seen was 4,300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long matches are, at least for me, no problem at all as long as they are somewhat even and fun. Personally I would rather have seen a tweak to the score system itself. For example the score for your team speeds up if you hold 2 out of 3 objective pairs uncontested and gets kicked up another notch for holding them all. This will make really one-sided matches not drag on as they currently do but still allow for nice, long even matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rawalanche said:

especially if you have a life (job and a family) to attend to

Get off ur high horse, everybody has "a life" in whatever shape or form. If you can not spare the time then simply do not play. Your arguments are mute and sound selfish.

Go ... Go tend to your "job and family" allready if it is that urgent. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long matches are fun, I dont necessarily like the 40 min long matches and though that 45 min matches were fun and great. I didn't even notice that I was playing for 45 mins.

I kinda understand they did it to please some people but I really do not want matches shorter then 40 mins. any thing less will be too short to enjoy the game. 40 is palatable but not savory.

People want like 20-25 min games and I'm wonder how do they think that will turn out in this game. Because it wont turn out good when you run for a minute half of each of the times you die ending up spending a good chunk of the game not playing,. Along with cramming all of the aspects of the game into that small of time will result is a spamy mess of strikes every where and a overabundance of getting tanked. 30 mins to 35 would also be too much of a rush. I really enjoy the last moments of a 45 round that wont be there after this patch. RIP.

 

A change should happen to the score system to keep a possibility of a comeback while incentivizing the losing side to still play.

I would say lower the amount of points a team gets for each consecutive objective point they hold

And or, have a timer that lowers the points a objective produces based off of how much a point has been held for a long time by the other team. Such as if A1 has been producing 8 mins worth of points over the course of gets bracketed down. With also if a point was has not changed hands for some time it will on top of that have a point modifier like .75-.5.

Also a reinforcement feature for the losing team to give them a reason to stay would be good such as cheaper strikes and possible cheaper vehicles to the leading squads of the losing team as a psuh back that will hamper the war effort if they lose after that with also a less exp for after the match from that point on.

 

 

If you cant spare the time to play dont ruin it for the rest of us please but lowering the quality of the game. Playing video games less doesn't make you a better person or more entitled to what others enjoy for longer then you.

I'm not about saying a game isn't for you because X,Y,Z get over it. But I'm definitely not about hurting the game to be inclusive to all, by catering to a segment that doesn't want to put the time or effort into the game. Its your kids and your family not my own. You got the ball and chain now dont force your choices on to the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem is that if you are in 45 minute long match, and really playing actively, capturing points and contributing to your team, you will quickly find yourself doing extremely repetitive task on extremely monotonous map. It's quite hard to keep up the level of attention necessary to be doing well in the game. Gaming is mainly about comfort and enjoyment. If you do the same repetitive task of defending and attacking the same points on the very same looking map for 45 minute straight, it's just not enjoyable anymore as brain requires some variety.

6 hours ago, Bigfeet said:

Get off ur high horse, everybody has "a life" in whatever shape or form. If you can not spare the time then simply do not play. Your arguments are mute and sound selfish.

Go ... Go tend to your "job and family" allready if it is that urgent. 

 

Well, at least I have a high horse to sit on in the first place :)

Seriously though, it's not just my argument. How can you possibly say my arguments are selfish, when point of matches being too long was raised by many people both on and outside of this forum? It wasn't just me at all. Furthermore, you are claiming I am being selfish by requesting that the gameplay has a possibility to be partitioned into smaller chunks of time, so that I don't need to plan ahead for 3 hour long session just to play 3-4 matches, so that I can do other things in life, yet in the very same post you acknowledge everyone has a life in some shape or form.

I mean, EXACTLY! Not everyone is the same, some people have more time than others, but it's in your best interest to cater to as many people as possible. More players = less chances of the game dying. People may stop playing it because it just takes too large of an uninterrupted time segment, and the playerbase may dwindle. Look, if the matches get shorter, then what's the worst thing that can happen to you, if you want to keep playing? Well, instead of 1 match in one hour, you will be able to complete two. Instead of one map, you will see two. Is that really so horrible?

Even if I can spare the time to play a long session, I want to enjoy that time. Doing the same thing for 45 minutes straight on a very same looking map is just not fun, plain and simple.

There's a reason you see AAA games have somewhat limited match lengths. It's not because "that's the way it's done". It's because those companies pour obscene amounts of money into researching player retention (so that they can sell more DLC and microtransactions). While intentions of Farm 51 likely aren't that, they could still adopt some of those learned lessons, in order to retain players playing for a longer period of time. Lessons like that it's good to switch around the game setting after certain period of time to prevent perception fatigue and keep the brain interested. Something the game in its current form fails at.

Edited by rawalanche
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If playing for that long is too hard for you sorry but playing of so short of a time is so mind numbingly shallow and uninteresting. 

If you are a casual yeah you arent trying to try hard at the game so sitting back in you lazy boy being lazy works you you but that level of play for the type of person that this game is mainly targeting is so easy its boring and unchallenging. Gaming for others is about accomplishment, competitiveness and progression of skill or in game. If people dont ahvea  attention span then dont bother then.

Im ok with variety in game which it already has as no two games are similar. Adding more would be great but you dont do that by shortning the game that jsut puts you back at square one and keeps the fights from evolving becoming truly tedious.

 

They have short matches becasue they are trying to cater to a larger audience of non gamers so they can sell more copies. It also helps with the short attention span kids.

I rather have a better game then a worse one that was behaviorally engineered for the sheep just to make more money instead of a better game. If you are only playing a couple short 25 min rounds a say how much would you even notice or care about the depth of a game? You wouldn't becasue you are just playing shallowly with out caring or thinking in depth.

 

It is defiantly not in our best interest to cater to as many people as possible examples being what happen to COD and BF. They wanted to make as much money as possible and scarified the game and loyal playerbase by dumbing down the game so every joe could run around and enjoy it with out even having to try it. Catering to every one is the reason the gaming industry is trash right now, money over making a good product. It may seem like a product is bad no one would buy it but it doesnt matter to the mainstream video game consumer, they arent the most deep thinking people.

Inclusivity is a lie, you cant force people to all like the same thing. You cant cater to every one, they are specifically trying to make a game for the players that miss the good days of BF/gaming.

 

The "long" matches work for this game as that is how its is designed around transitioning from types of play. The start to the middle is meant for infantry and some weak vehicles while the end is meant for the vehicle users to get their Vics and have  combined arms. If they lower it to last as long sneeze like 25 mins then you wont have this progression though out the match and it will be extremely boring as nothing of interest could happen.

Its fun for us who enjoy the playing the game and give variety ion the match as the game progresses from start to infantry centered to infantry and vehicle centered. The game is designed to have people work for their streaks then allow them to use it. Having a short match would result in boredom as you dont get the time to do anything or actually enjoy the game.

Others and I enjoy playing the game in a way that promotes smart though out and rewarding gameplay not some superficial, shallow get in get out game that leads to every game being the same and tedious repeat of its self over and over again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see both sides of this coin.

Rarely do the matches end by points though. 95% of the time it's the timer that ends the round. I think them  lowering the ticket count and timer is a good move. We'll just have to wait and see how game play is(as well with all the other tweaks).

I think more balancing is needed, more so than ticket count or timer. It's hard to "come back" and try secure a victory when the other team:

  • Controls 2/3 of the objectives
  • Has 2-4 more players
  • Big advantage in ticket count

I think this game plays pretty well....not great atm(it is Early Access though).

I'm patient, and I think they have a great base game. If they go trying to please everyone it won't be as unique as it is now though. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Hequaqua said:

I can see both sides of this coin.

Rarely do the matches end by points though. 95% of the time it's the timer that ends the round. I think them  lowering the ticket count and timer is a good move. We'll just have to wait and see how game play is(as well with all the other tweaks).

I think more balancing is needed, more so than ticket count or timer. It's hard to "come back" and try secure a victory when the other team:

  • Controls 2/3 of the objectives
  • Has 2-4 more players
  • Big advantage in ticket count

I think this game plays pretty well....not great atm(it is Early Access though).

I'm patient, and I think they have a great base game. If they go trying to please everyone it won't be as unique as it is now though. 

 

 

 

One good thing about the paired objectives system is that you can play the system to enable a comeback by making sure that even if the enemy has multiple points under control, they never have a pair earning points for them. I've seen matches where the losing team turned it around by just always blocking the enemy from holding both A/B/C points (if they start capping A1, you start capping A2). Unfortunately most people don't play too smart and just rush into the nearest choke point.

 

I wonder if holding multiple points should have a diminishing return, so holding all objectives for a brief time won't allow a team to rack up an insurmountable lead. Points scored could look like this:

1 set held: 1.0 points per tick.

2 sets held: 1.7 points per tick.

3. sets held: 2.1 points per tick.

 

This would stop a huge gap from growing between teams in the early stages, allowing a losing team to turn things around by stopping the enemy from holding any sets of objectives. Whether this would make a significant enough impact in practice is hard to guess, but it might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cral said:

One good thing about the paired objectives system is that you can play the system to enable a comeback by making sure that even if the enemy has multiple points under control, they never have a pair earning points for them. I've seen matches where the losing team turned it around by just always blocking the enemy from holding both A/B/C points (if they start capping A1, you start capping A2). Unfortunately most people don't play too smart and just rush into the nearest choke point.

 

I wonder if holding multiple points should have a diminishing return, so holding all objectives for a brief time won't allow a team to rack up an insurmountable lead. Points scored could look like this:

1 set held: 1.0 points per tick.

2 sets held: 1.7 points per tick.

3. sets held: 2.1 points per tick.

 

This would stop a huge gap from growing between teams in the early stages, allowing a losing team to turn things around by stopping the enemy from holding any sets of objectives. Whether this would make a significant enough impact in practice is hard to guess, but it might help.

I agree.....again, we are in the early stages....I think the game has plenty of room to grow. Just hope enough players stick through it to see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2018 at 8:33 AM, TZoningHard said:

If playing for that long is too hard for you sorry but playing of so short of a time is so mind numbingly shallow and uninteresting. 

If you are a casual yeah you arent trying to try hard at the game so sitting back in you lazy boy being lazy works you you but that level of play for the type of person that this game is mainly targeting is so easy its boring and unchallenging. Gaming for others is about accomplishment, competitiveness and progression of skill or in game. If people dont ahvea  attention span then dont bother then.

Im ok with variety in game which it already has as no two games are similar. Adding more would be great but you dont do that by shortning the game that jsut puts you back at square one and keeps the fights from evolving becoming truly tedious.

 

They have short matches becasue they are trying to cater to a larger audience of non gamers so they can sell more copies. It also helps with the short attention span kids.

I rather have a better game then a worse one that was behaviorally engineered for the sheep just to make more money instead of a better game. If you are only playing a couple short 25 min rounds a say how much would you even notice or care about the depth of a game? You wouldn't becasue you are just playing shallowly with out caring or thinking in depth.

 

It is defiantly not in our best interest to cater to as many people as possible examples being what happen to COD and BF. They wanted to make as much money as possible and scarified the game and loyal playerbase by dumbing down the game so every joe could run around and enjoy it with out even having to try it. Catering to every one is the reason the gaming industry is trash right now, money over making a good product. It may seem like a product is bad no one would buy it but it doesnt matter to the mainstream video game consumer, they arent the most deep thinking people.

Inclusivity is a lie, you cant force people to all like the same thing. You cant cater to every one, they are specifically trying to make a game for the players that miss the good days of BF/gaming.

 

The "long" matches work for this game as that is how its is designed around transitioning from types of play. The start to the middle is meant for infantry and some weak vehicles while the end is meant for the vehicle users to get their Vics and have  combined arms. If they lower it to last as long sneeze like 25 mins then you wont have this progression though out the match and it will be extremely boring as nothing of interest could happen.

Its fun for us who enjoy the playing the game and give variety ion the match as the game progresses from start to infantry centered to infantry and vehicle centered. The game is designed to have people work for their streaks then allow them to use it. Having a short match would result in boredom as you dont get the time to do anything or actually enjoy the game.

Others and I enjoy playing the game in a way that promotes smart though out and rewarding gameplay not some superficial, shallow get in get out game that leads to every game being the same and tedious repeat of its self over and over again.

You make very little sense to be honest.

You are implying that the length of the match would somehow affect the skill/challenge level of this game, which is not true at all. You can't possibly back that up. Shorter duration would not modify the game mechanics in any way, the game would just end sooner, that's it.

Then you proceed to talk about the laziness and attention span. Those two contradict each other. Having to be very active in the game and constantly focused on staying on the very top of scoreboard through both high K/D as well as constantly capturing and defending points requires a lot of energy, the exact opposite of being lazy. That's the exact reason I prefer shorter matches. By shorter I don't mean 10 minutes, I mean like 25-30, which is about 2/3rds of what it is now. So that the last 10 minutes of the game, I don't feel like the game is a chore and instead I am motivated to play another match. If one is a lazy player, then THAT'S when the match length doesn't matter that much, because you don't need to pay that much attention and focus to the game.

It has absolutely nothing to do with inclusivity. What is it with the modern kids having to drag politics into everything. This is simply about making the game more fun by not making the matches obscenely long. You want your killstreaks? Fine, if matches are now 2/3rds long, let's just reduce battlepoint requirements for them by about 25%.

Nearly every match I've played past 5 days, I've always ended up among top 3 players on the scoreboard on my team... did I have fun? Yes, but only about first 30 minutes of the game, after that I started praying for the match to finally end so that I can see a different map, customize my loadout again, or just quit the game because I am uncertain what's the penalty for leaving the match before it ends. Last 10-15 minutes of a match which is ended up by a 45 minute timer feel just annyoing, especially if you are the kind of non lazy player who wants to keep up the energy and effectivity throughout the whole match.

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the idea. I am not saying we should have CoD like 10 minute matches. I am saying that we should have about 30 minute matches. 30 minutes is still plenty of time. There are 2 dimensions to any extremes. In this case, very short matches can be equally as bad as very long ones. I agree with you completely that too short matches would ruin the game.

My point is that a right balance needs to be found, but (as I wrote in my original post), I don't think that the right balance will be found by so weak and excessively careful tweaks in order of few %.

Edited by rawalanche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I like the longer match time in balanced games, where neither team really has an advantage, and I'm trying to grab different objectives.  But in games where we're stomping, I could use a shorter match.  

With that said, I think it's good that they're not jumping the ball, and are taking smaller steps in testing shorter game matches, instead of just jumping the gun down to whatever.  I think that maybe the ticket count could be further reduced to 2500, so stomps will end faster (or increase ticket bleed speed for multiple pairs of objectives taken), but that 40 minutes is probably good for engaging matches where both teams are playing intelligently.  

But that's me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here I am, back in this topic I've created. I owe developers an apology, especially for my harsh tone in my original post. 

I've just seen the 0.1.1 in PTE with different changelog, where time limit is changed to 30 minutes and battlepoint limit to 3000. I know it's easy to say now that the exact wish I formulated few posts above got fulfilled, but I am not saying it because of that. I don't expect developers to do exactly my bidding, I am just really happy that they listen, and sorry that I was being an ass. Even if this wouldn't happen again in future, it will still do my best to choose my words carefully next time I am dissatisfied with something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or its a test so they shorted it too much for ease of testing.

30 min is way too short to be playable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TZoningHard said:

or its a test so they shorted it too much for ease of testing.

30 min is way too short to be playable.

I have yet to hop in a game, but yeah, 30 minutes is too short for a match, IMO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but its only on the test server the actual patch notes haven't been adjusted its probably only for testing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too long. Too short.  That was about maps...

C'mon guys. There are always someone needs to do something vice versa. There always someone not satisfied. 

And if your life can't give you opportunity to play game for 40 minutes, than maybe play some other games? (I'd adviced you to do smth with your life, but that not my business)

And we, nolifers, will stay here totally happy with 40 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in that matter devs need to step in. I would even prolong battles up to 50 min, but that's just me.  @rawalanche i feel, you are in minority.

But 25 min? Often That's not enough time to get enough BP for my 7kBP leo2 :v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...