Community Input!!

[FML|Renaud]

@eshan
Timer could actually help the most patient players; once the timer starts to get low, some players will get stressed and try to do risky play in order to secure more points, but doing that will likely make him vulnerable! It could also give a reason to team a player (the one we assume has the most points).

I'm actually a fan of long games, but I wouldn't mind seeing what the timer does :)

@valefort
less gold could actually make longer games, since there are less chances for a player to become dominant. If everyone only has a little resource, they might become more careful with how they spend it and turtle up even more than before!

[zTsoso]

Just a few comments on Eshan's arguments against a timer:

First of all you argue that a timer is best for solo players with good micro. This is something that I doubt is true because the timer gives room for 3-ways with a time limit on 1½ hour to 2 hours.

First, 3-ways will still have a big significance in the game even if it's 4-ways or 6-ways since 1½-2 hours is more than enough to finish 1v1s. Second, in 4-ways where a player is fast taken out the player who is most dominant in micro, profile etc. may get teamed straight after and never get the time to rebuild. So i wouldn't say it necessarily favors stronger  players.

Your argument that the more experienced players are the shorter 3-ways will  get.. I very much doubt that. In the last season we've seen how a FML game takes about 2-2½ hours on average where half of that time is spent on 3-way sitting and chatting. This happened regardless of whether players were experienced with 3-ways or not, and the longest game in FML history has been with experienced players (with few exceptions that has to do with player style more so than experience). Frankly only about 10% or less of these games were enjoyable to watch, and i dare say that most players don't find it fun to play the stalemate 3-ways, especially high-profile strong players.

I would also contest  the argument you make about a timer being a subtype of FFA and not the real thing. First, FML has in itself favored a certain subgametype of FFA - we are playing 4-ways that are non-anonymous, no time limit, chat allow etc. In contradiction to this, the ladder on playffa favors different subgametype aspects of ffa that are anonymous, where u can choose from 4-ways, 6-ways, 8-ways (...) and rdm heroes and so forth. 
 
Secondly, the timer is not just for the viewers. Yes, it is an important reason that the games interesting to watch and actionpacked, but it is also for the players and newcomers who find long 3-ways very boring. I myself have said to myself that I will not play FML next season unless it changes up on the 3-ways because it's not fun to get slowly teamed for hours (in 4-ways u get zero advantage from winning ur 1on1 fast). It's not even fun if the game is just balancing slowly, or people sit and manip in their base for hours and nothing happens - there are so many examples of this in the last seasons.

You conclude that "All in all, a timer would favor a certain type of play, which means it would favor a certain type of player, and that would be unfair".

How is adding a timer different from any other subgametype in FFA? I mean, why is it unfair with a timer more so than a 4-way without time limit format? As is, FML games are played out with specific format, rules etc. that favors some play styles (or players) over others. This is nothing new - all rules/formats are designed with a specific purpose that favors certain playstyles over others and apply for everyone - thus they are not unfair. The best players will in my opinion learn to adapt their play style to new changes and take advantage of that.

For the same reason I don't think 6-ways or 8-ways that have the same rules for everyone can be considered unfair. They apply for all players and should therefore be legit.

[FML|red7z7]

I used to be opposed to timers for many of the same reasons as Eshan. But now I'm much more willing to try it out. The long games are a burden for many reasons:

• Long games are considered boring for 80% of players
• Long games are considered boring for 99% of spectators
• It is a huge time investment for people to play 3+ hours (this is on top of the ~15-30 mins it takes to get a game started)
• It makes scheduling easier because you know exactly how much time you need to allot for a game
• We are all getting older in this community, time is becoming an increasingly scarce resource for us between school, jobs, relationships, etc. Forcing games to be shorter makes fitting FFA into our lives just a little bit easier

It's hard to predict all the outcomes of a significant change such as timers. But I imagine that at first people won't be used to it, and in the early games, the game will end and it will seem premature and disappointing to some players who thought they had a chance to come back from behind or snipe a win. Then people will adopt more aggressive strategies, do more "all-or-nothing" attacks and manip harder, faster and earlier. At that point games will be more dynamic and fun, and more entertaining as well.

@Valefort: Reducing gold amount in mines has been tried before and usually results in longer games. The point where mines run out is usually when people starting camping their bases.

Games evolve, and rules change over time, and in the long run it's always for the best. We made a rule to stop feeding and exchanging items -- I think most everyone would agree that made the gametype better. We banned private chat -- I think most people would agree that made the game better. We stopped using Gold Rush. I think most people would agree that made the game better. Now we are going to try timers, and I think there is a good chance this will make the game better.

[FML|WorpeX]

Wait, we stopped using Gold Rush?? Nooooo

But wait... With timers, we can bring it back!

[Dovekie]

1.5/2+ hour games are frequent enough and they are not enjoyable for at least 80% of the player base.

[normalice]

I could easily write a script that shared resource information among those who agreed to share it, to cut down on manip - or at least expedite it - if that's of any interest..

also, i could write a script that in some way incentivized activity - i.e. by not counting food costs for units in the middle of a map or something..

if you can think of some mechanic that would speed things up, just let me know and I'll see what I can do.

[FML|WorpeX]

Really appreciate the feedback here guys, keep it up! We've basically scrapped our original ideas (which were not very good, imo) and completely reworked our plans to match what you guys want to see! I'm really excited for what we've got cooked up behind the scenes... rumor has it that our king is getting tired...

[Pinballmap]

Can you put a  gametimer visible for all (obs + players) and a Ressources board of all players? (just visible for observers) into a map?

Edit by WorpeX: I have this under control Pinball.

[Peregrine]

Okay once we talk about scripts to share resource information this is getting WAY out of hand

The game of FFA includes manip, secrets, scouting, thinking about unknown factors, all that stuff. If you want to dumb it down you are ruining the game that some of us have been playing for 8+ years. Seriously dont be ridiculous. I know its a hard gametype, and theres a learning curve etc, so that even amazing microers dont win every time, and i think thats a GOOD thing. Thats part of what makes FFA so unique.

ZtSoso, Playffa came out in the past two years or so, FFA as a specific gametype  has been around since WC3 came out, and the original, most free version of this gametype allowed everything - any chat, no time limit, etc. I enjoy Playffa games for a change, but the highest level of competition lies closer to the original gametype. (This isn't just my opinion, the best FFA maps are all geared towards 4 way games. If someone wants to take the time and forge some terrific 6way maps be my guest, although we'll still run into the scheduling/scoring nightmares i mentioned in my last post).

Theres a lot of new blood in FFA these days and I love that, and with new players will come new ideas which is great, but some things have withstood the test of time, and the fact that many many of us have been hooked on this gametype for so long, means that its doing something right. I've spent more hours in long games in FFA than doing any one other game in my life and thats a lot of time and I still wouldn't have the gametype any other way.

Yes we have made some changes for FML: we took out Private chat (athough I dont believe in restricting the tools in your toolbox once youre in a game) and banned preteaming for competitive reasons because they allowed for OUTSIDE of the game decisions, and I wouldn't mind anonymous FML games, but these never affected the way you WIN the game.

The worst thing about a timer is that it changes the way you win the game. Its not about killing your opponents buildings like youre supposed to do in every gametype of WC3. Instead it becomes about this strange abritrary thing called POINTS. Points is just a bullshit scoring mechanism that shows up at the end of the game that is largely based on hero levels and has NOTHING to DO with actually defeating your enemies.

I JUST played a game with a timer in Ugri's tournament where the time ran out, I had both of my opponents down to their last army/buildings, they were teaming me and running around hiding to waste time because they had higher hero levels and they wanted to steal the win through POINTS when the time ran out. Points are not a valid way to win the game. They make very little sense, and I would fucking kill someone if I spent 2 hours on a game, almost won, and lose because a timer ran out and someone had higher points than me. Thats bullshit, thats not FFA, thats not even WC3, thats just a weird timer game based on an arbitrary point system that rewards good heroes.

FFA should be a gametype where players who have incredible micro like maga, tyrant, soso, etc can win...but ALSO where the other side of the spectrum can win too: players like Camp_and_Spank who go AM towers tanks and make it to the finals. And for every type of player in between. So please... Don't ruin the game

[Peregrine]

Zt I dont care about 3ways, I care about changing the face of this game completely and making it something else entirely

And theres no doubt at all that a Points system favors micro players. Many of the ways to win the game dont involve points at all. And I dont think anyone is in favor of a game where elves mass wisps in order to get more lumber points...

[Peregrine]

Just FYI - if theres a timer based system you will see this often: race to get high heroes, win your 1v1 and get the highest heroes, TURTLE FOR THE REST OF THE GAME.

[Peregrine]

I think Valeforts idea about lowering gold mines might have something to it

[FML|Renaud]

Okay once we talk about scripts to share resource information this is getting WAY out of hand

It's harder to read because it's crossed out, but he said for the obs :)
Just so we don't have to click a building to see the info, it's especially usefull during a battle to see how the food is going down for both player, while looking at the action

[Seksi]

Nice to see so much passion for FFA still! 

I'm glad most of the feedback is positive on the timer idea.  Eshan, I understand your points too but at least we will try it out and see how the games go.  The thing if it is set at, say 2 hours, games very rarely will be decided by points.  The term to use is a "Complete FFA game" and that can be done in under an hour but on average somewhere between 1 hour and 1.5 hours.  Anything past 1.5 hours is almost always a passive 3 way where the advantage lays in sitting rather then acting. 

Players that win their initial 1v1 and turtle will be teamed, I mean if they are the strongest they will be teamed (and other players will catch up in score).  if not, the other players will fight each other more and catch up in score (while the previous leading player sitting does not gain much).  And then this will make the leading player go out and fight, seeking the win through action!  (side note: Resource scores have very little weight in total scores... you could get 2 shredders or make mass wisps for lumber without seeing any significant difference)

In Theory you'll want to pursue the victory instead of sit and wait for it.  But still, there is PLENTY of time in a 2 hour game to be patient and wait for your opportunities.  If the time limit is too restricted then players will be forced to play differently, but if the time limit is enough it should just promote action and decisive moves rather then playing passive.  More then anything, adding a sufficient timer will promote players seeking fights to gain the advantage!! And that is great. 

My prediction is that the games will heat up after the first hour and be decided sometime around the 90 minute mark.  Players will play normal FFA games and then make the moves they would otherwise wait for other players to make as the 2nd half (2nd hour) begins.  The map will be fought for and we will have many interesting, action packed games showing our players at their finest!

As far as suggesting the 6 or 8 player games, after reading your replies and thinking more about it, I like the thought of one 6 (possibly 8) player game in the season (the rest normal 4-ways).   

One quick note on the advantages of 6 ways vs 4 ways: Yes, while there can still be a long 3 way in a 6 player game, its much better then a 3 way in a 4 player game.  With 4 players, the 3 way is sudden and players are familiar with their spots in the game.  The dynamic is boring and straight forward.  With 6 players, however, once it gets to a 3 way there is a lot more going on and different considerations.   The players probably have not been primary 1v1s with each other and hold various amounts of the map and experience.  Plus, it is not too early in the game where many times the final 3-way in a 6+ player game will play out quicker and smoother. 

6 player game can be great on 6 player maps (like Silverpine), but can also be very good on select 8 player maps too (Twilight, Sanctuary).  On these 8 player maps, some will have better spawns, but those mines will be contested and won't give too much of an advantage.  You may be forced to fight for your position but ultimately the games are almost always good on these maps too. 

If we have one game a season with 6 players, it could be in round 2 or round 3.  I like a point distribution of 30/15/10/10/5/5.  30/20/10/10/5/5 could work too, but I believe giving 2/3rds of the winner's point total is too much for 2nd place.  30/15/10/10/5/5 seems optimal.  The 6 player round would be worth a total of 75 points (to continue the pattern, 4 player rounds are worth a total of 50 points)

TL;DR: Timer should be set at 2 hours.  Each hour can be seen as the first and second halves of a game.  This will give plenty of time to ensure a "Complete FFA game" while promoting action and decisive moves. 

There should be one 6 player round, preferably in Round 2 or 3.  Silverpine would be a great map, though select 8 player maps would work well also.  Suggested point spread of 30/15/10/10/5/5. 

[Peregrine]

 Seksi its a good idea in theory, but you don't have to sell it like youre selling some sort of product. "Showcase our players at their finest!" I understand you came up with it but you have to admit the glaring hole it has: points. No game should be decided by points at all. Or anything except a true winner. So many games are decided by the smallest factor, like the Finals even. And the fact that youre trying to predict what these games will be like makes it even worse: predictable. Do you really want FFA to turn into a predictable game type mash fest where players try to either raze each other as fast as possible or accumulate enough points to coast through the timer? Unpredictability is one of the best qualities in FFA

If a timer could work in a way that didnt have some arbitrary way of deciding who wins when the time runs out it would be a lot better. But with victories being given out for stuff that doesn't reflect the actual winner, its unfair. And youre promoting a type of game that won't have last second building kills, epic cross map comebacks, etc. I don't see how a timer would work without ruining the way the game is supposed to be won...

Maybe another way to shorten game lengths or make them more dynamic. People are saying the average FML game length is over 2 hrs. So if you make all the games end by the 2 hour mark, youre not even allowing for the AVERAGE game length. I think if theres a cap it should be much higher, so that games dont become ridiculous, like 3 hrs.

Again the two halves to game sounds cool and the push for dynamic play sounds good, but you gotta have a real winner, not some timer based points BS...Its like FFA is a jungle where anything can happen and youre trying to chop down the rainforest into some predictable park looking thing

I mean go ahead and try it out but it got tried out during the playffa cup and there was controversy (and those were small maps)