Yup, you read that right. We are asking you guys if you think we should change from our usual 15min time limit to a score limit/shorter time limit.
Another thing suggested that was brought up in our war council meeting among other things.
Printable View
Yup, you read that right. We are asking you guys if you think we should change from our usual 15min time limit to a score limit/shorter time limit.
Another thing suggested that was brought up in our war council meeting among other things.
I feel like 15 is fine, it's just long enough for some crazy things to happen. epic comebacks, etc.
This pretty much sums up Vague Memories vs Equinox on RemnantQuote:
Originally Posted by silversleek
I am for adjusting either the time limit or score/kill cap. I would like to see some testing though to find a good balance between the two though. 15 minutes is a long time; reducing the time limit and/or setting a score cap would also alleviate some of the games in which some teams get down on the score board by a large margin.
I'm really torn on this issue.
There have been numerous games that my team has been playing until the last seconds in a 15 minute game and the winner was decided within the last couple of seconds. But I'm also played too many games that have been decided within the first minute of the game starting and the remaining 14 minutes are boring with one side running away with an easy win.
To me adjusting the score limit/time limit is attempting to address a symptom of a larger issue (skill balance). I don't think anybody complains that intense games that go down to the 14th minute are too long or not fun. People don't like playing long games when the winner is decided within the first minute.
Balancing a score limit will be extremely difficult. The score limit will either be so high that nobody will ever reach it (making it kinda pointless) or it will be too low where games will be ending early when the game is still close. Having a score limit is not necessarily a bad thing, but it will change a lot of the incentives in the game.
Luckily we have lots of data that can be analyzed to see if it is really possible to pick a hard limit on scores that archives the desired effect. I'll post again when I run a few calculations.
NO MERCY >:D
A possible solution is a SCORE GAP? Once the difference in score gets to exceed said amount the match is to be ended? For Hill 30, Oddball, and Slayer. CTF seems like one of those play til the end ya know
exactly, that kind of thing wouldn't be possible with a shorter time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mos Deaf
I would have thought you'd be for keeping the 15 minutes, vbd has historically performed better in the last half of their games. (from my observations)Quote:
Originally Posted by Guzzie
Basically my stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Houdini
^Quote:
Originally Posted by Houdini
I think the time is fine at 15 minutes, but there should be some sort of score cap to stop steamrolling games.
I suggest paying attention to the next week or so and looking back at older weeks and seeing where the scores are in regards to close games and runaway games. If then there was some way to have a score so high, that if both teams were even, it would be practically impossible to get to, but low enough that a runaway team would reach it and end the game early, that would be best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silversleek
Because first half of the match is our warmup since we go into battle night pretty much blind.
I think we should keep the time limit but make it so that after 5 minutes have gone within the match if a teams score is double the other teams the game ends and that team wins. Obviously not for CTF or Oddball though. I'm meaning for Slayer, KOTH etc...
I mean, if people dislike the matchup THAT much, they can always concede...Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Exsequor
I think a score limit larger than normal matchmaking games is a good idea. Could fix multiple complaints; I've seen and heard people who are more demoralised than ever seeing a ridiculous score on the statbook, as well as playing for 14 minutes feeling like they can't change the course of the game.
^^^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Soap
So you want a score limit that isn't enforced in the game settings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Exsequor
I would say so, yeah. More of an honour ruleQuote:
Originally Posted by Houdini
Don't we already have something like this? Teams can quit whenever they want, if they feel like they are being beaten too badly they can just leave the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Exsequor
- - - Updated - - -
If we were going to implement a score limit enforced by the game. These are the limits that would have allowed all of the close games to run for the full 15 minutes but prevent lopsided games from lasting the entire 15 minutes.
Gametype - Score Limit - % of games ended early (were final percent difference in score > .3)
Single Sabotage - 3 points - 100%
Single Liberation - 3 points - 100%
Ricochet - Not Enough Data
Occupation - 460 points - 54%
Multi-Sabotage - Not Enough Data
Multi-Liberation - 6 captures - 55%
Hill 30 - 545 points - 28%
Extraction - 13 captures - 100%
Conflict - 113 kills - 60%
Asset - 355 points - 48%
pretty sure they can, don't know if its been added to the accords thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Houdini
The reason I'm strictly against a score limit is because it goes against the foundation of FC and why we created this community: To simulate a war-like experience as well as to escape matchmaking. Including a score limit essentially pushes us closer to becoming simply like gamebattles & matchmaking.
As I said, we created FC to be a war-like experience. Sometimes in war there are battles where some armies that get wrecked, some are balanced, there are comebacks, and sometimes there are surrenders. Including a score limit would reduce many types of potential comebacks. I have been on all sides of battles in my time here, and I strongly believe a score limit would severely damage the foundation that FC was built upon.
^Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartanbh
I just find a score limit redundant with the forfeit system we already have. I wouldn't be completely opposed to trying it, but it just seems like we already have a way to end unfair games.
We have a forfeit system?Quote:
Originally Posted by silversleek
Quote:
Originally Posted by VerbotenDonkey
yeah, it's called saying "we're getting slaughtered, we give up." in a message to the game lobby leader. Just most people are too proud to do it.
Raz once used it against me when we were whooping his army in a game of Hill 30 on Coagulation on Halo 2 back in the day ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by VerbotenDonkey
See this is the exact problem. People who play in the wars actively and know what it's like to play on a bad system want to change it because 9 years of the same thing is just strange. We're in a bad spot numbers wise, and we lose members because they don't want to come to battle night just to get slaughtered. Maybe the vets want to do some recruiting for us, which would be great, because a lot of squads put in hard work for new people just to get stomped on. But most of these suggestions just come back to vets, most of which don't even play in the wars, saying "it's always been that way, we shouldn't change it."
^Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Soap
You can't have a war-sim without people to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartanbh
@spartan, I think you are severely overestimating the effect setting a score limit would have on the community. We will be trying something different, if it works, well adjust it and perfect it; if it doesn't work, we will scrap it.
If your concern is a lore based, war sim, feeling being gone then I have to disagree with you on that. Wars or battles do not last a specified time. They last until one side reaches an objective and/or the other side surrenders/forfeits. Having a score cap would resemble that aspect a bit more accurately than say playing for 15 minutes regardless of what is going on on the battle field.
I will agree that if you aren't actively participating in the wars, you have no business voting on how the wars are conducted.
This and I would also suggest that you must be active in a war for a month before being allowed to vote. Applies to new recruits.Quote:
Originally Posted by silversleek
This should've been in place a while ago. Would've settled many other things much fairer
- - - Updated - - -
We need to evolve. Rather than live in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartanbh
I have a better solution tbh. Rather than have the time limit, just replace it with a score limit. It brings a real war aspect in where (like said earlier) a squad reaches the goal. It's more war-like that way than to have a time limit and no score limit
Until there's that one neverending game of Liberation where neither side can capture the other sides flag. You need to have a counterweight to these thingsQuote:
Originally Posted by Solus Exsequor
Obviously things like flag have to have it due to one flag etc
Thanks for the feedback
The poll is closed, WC will have meeting on it sometime this week so we can change this upcoming Battlenight
Don't worry we know who voted in the polls.
New recruits should be allowed to vote. They are playing; they shouldn't be prevented from expressing their opinions and voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer
- - - Updated - - -
How can you have a counterweight when squads are equally matched? What solution would prevent games from staying tied 0-0?Quote:
Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer
I think Nervy was thinking about having a game end in a Tie versus having a never-ending match.Quote:
Originally Posted by Houdini
Honestly I feel we should test this out! It would be great to not have landslides in games for those teams having trouble. I am leaning on a scoring side but If time is reduced that is fine as well. I agree with what Barry stated though have a higher score limit than regular matchmaking game types.
Then at least apply it to FM elections. Honestly, recruits don't know anyone but their squad leader. If their squad leader happens to be running regardless of who it is, it can cause others to get upset and feel cheated. It was a problem, a lot of people got salty, this is an easy fix to keep the peace. It's not like a month is that long...Quote:
Originally Posted by Houdini
This is a different topic, but definitely something that needs to be discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer
Keep in mind that both FMs have to be approved by WC even after the vote (unless we changed that). I'll give you the REV II BLUE FM elections, the 2nd war of REACH, for an example. Johnkilla won the vote, mostly due to popularity, but WC felt he wasn't quite ready for the position. So Max was placed as FM to help John easy into the position as he won 2nd place and had been in HC before. End result was John proved he wasn't ready and Max stayed FM for the rest of the war. So there are some fail safes to prevent the FM position to become nothing but a popularity vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer
Can confirm: Johnkilla was a whiny "I'm better-than-everyone else" teenager not ready for the position. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Silko
On topic though, I'd be willing to test out different time limits/score limits this week.
This is what FC needs to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxdoggy
Going to be honest, having the same stuff and tradition for 9 years is very odd! We need to make a change! Games change over time I mean look at Halo 5, but that's a little off topic I just want recruits coming into battle nights with better experiences rather than getting bored for playing 5 matches for 15 mins or getting completely slaughtered. Also I feel vets yes I'm talking to you! Is that maybe you should let some change take effect I understand things wont be like they used to be but we gotta change we need more people! So please think about it and at least let us test it!
I think the Vets that no longer take part in the war should take a step back and not vote. How can they possibly make any kind of informed choice for us when they aren't experiencing it. We need to shake off the overbearing nature of some people
Alright so, tbh, I'm getting real sick and tired of all the disdain toward the vets. Yeah they're not currently active. Life has a way of being lifey. They have a right to comment as much as you or I. It's a fucking opinion. That's what all this is, opinions. Do I think vets should not vote on polls? Yes. However, they can comment on the thread to make their opinions known. Free to disagree that's the beauty of an open discussion. Stop it
kk thanks for all the feedback no need to get off topic anymore :)