Community Input!!

[FML|red7z7]

Average game length is around 90 mins:
http://ffamasters.net/index.php?topic=1839.msg33300#msg33300

I think 2:15 is the perfect timer. 15 minute count down starts at 2:00. It's well beyond the average game length, it's at the point where the map is almost certainly mined out, and when people are probably just camping their bases if the game is that long.

[Magadansky]

I dont think timer will hurt the game as you picture it Eshan. In scenarios where one guy has obviously won and the other(s) is/are just delaying by hiding buildings, admins can enforce the win even if the other has higher score. But only if its obvious (like hunting buildings down, barely any units/heroes).

I am all for something new that will spice things up (like the ban on PM did).

[j33.]

I vote NO for timer. I guess this timer will happen anyway but here is some of my toughts.

Timer will benefit battle winners and micro monsters. It will harm players who don't rely on their micro and ability to win every 1v1 fight but cunninges and long time planning. Timer will boost micro aspect of FFA too much and hurt "smart play" aspect too much.

I don't think microers need this boost. They win games as do players like me and Mog. Timer will make comeback wins rarer.  Maybe that is what majority wants. No more noob(elf)s stealing wins they dont deserve.

I have always been fan of smart ffa play. All my favorite players (maga, renaud, mog,..) are all extremely Intelligent players (maga being also a micro monster) and they tend to produce long games. As an obs I don't mind long games. I love to see players out smarting their opponents and making better decisions in long run. Timer will force bad and hasty decisions.

Lets say 3-way starts 1 player being significantly behind 2 others. His first object is to stabilise the game so it won't end any time soon. Then starts the hard and SLOW process of weakening them both and not pissing them off too much. This is slow since you can't let neither die before both are weak enough.

If there is a timer it is propably better for the weak player kill him self than waste 90 mins for a game he can't win. 90 mins is too short time to kill all buildings of 2 dominant players. Winning by score is not possible for the weak player.

Maybe this is how it should be. Failing in your 1v1 means you dont deserve the win and you should get OUT NOOB.

I also agree on every thing Eshan said. It seems this timer will happen so I propose  it will be 180 mins.

One question. what if time ends and it is "clear" who is the winner but loser graps the win by points. For example higher score player has no heroes or units, only 1 peon hiding buildings. What if time ends while there is extremely thrilling (1v1) end game going on. How ending the game there would benefit observers?

[Pinballmap]

I think you bought up interesting arguments about the timer. We did not agree on how it will work exactly but i think winning by highest score seems not the best option. (Like in ur example someone with incredible high heroes died and he is just farm-hiding and survive the time-up to guarantee his 25 points. I got a little penalty in my mind which would apply in this case.

Another idea would be a split-point scenario if the timer is up and we got 3 players with noone clearly dominating. (like (25 + 10 + 10 )/ 3 =15 for all remaining players adding a potential TB point for the one with highest heroes/score)

[Magadansky]

Draw should not be an option. It will force passive players turtle even more (why lose the 10 pts by trying to win, when you can get 15 by doing nothing).

The timer's duration is a valid point as 90 min would be short in scenarios j33 described. For small maps (see Emerald, Twisted Meadows, Fountain of Manip), 90 mins should be more than enough. You basically cannot rebuild there.

However, for bigger maps, 90 mins is not enough and scenarios where someone rebuilds and wins are present. 120 min, or even 150 min though I think should be good enough and it gives you an opportunity to win by rebuild. If someone hides buildings knowing he has best heroes but no chance of winning anymore, just to waste the timer, then admins should take away the win and enforce a penalty. That will stop those attempts.

[fetta_ook]

I notice that most of this discussion is about the length of the games, on which I will just give my short point of view, and then focus on what I find most important: the player pool.

However, I totally agree with Eshan. At the end of the day, we are all FFA players and this is the kind of game we want to play. Adding a timelimit only to appeal more to the observers? Lets face it, we are playing w3, the potential audience is very limited so there is no need to chase some extra viewers. And regarding Red's comment: why would we try to modify the game and make them shorter only because circumstances are changing in our lives? You cant just modify the game incrementally depending on changing factors in the players' personal lives, that would be just as stupid as allowing the ball to bounce twice in our tennis matches only because we are older...

This brings me to the concern regarding the player pool. Since I am a rookie in this community, ofc I don't like the idea of making the next season exclusive to "older /well known players". Honestly, that would be like a "Tomb of Relics". Many of the older players are more busy nowadays I guess, since they are never playing except for the 5-6 FML-games they play per year, which means that their skills are probably more likely to decay than to enhance. I travel quite much in my work, but when I don't, I play inhouse FFAs every day with players like Maga, zTsoso, Alien, Letshave, Valefort etc, and I feel that no matter our initial skill level, all of us are improving a lot (except for Maga who hit triple-10 ages ago). Some of the newer players, not me though, have leapfrogged the older/well known players which is why I think a competitive moment is necessary to decide which players should be qualified for the next season. Also, this is a moment for the older players to prove me wrong and show that they are not just old relics.

[Seksi]

Eshan, you bring up good points, I think it needs testing for sure.  However if there is enough time allotted (I thought 2 hours would be good, but 2h15 or 2h30 could work also) - there should still be plenty of time for a 'Complete FFA game'.  I understand the winning by points wouldn't be great, its a valid point, but it can be tested and probably worked around if need be as Maga is referring too.  And I don't endorse or sell the idea because I had it lol that doesn't matter, I think it's a good idea to freshen up the format.  It could work out well, worth some testing at least don't you think? 

When I said showcase our players at their finest, I mean all players (all types) will play to win the game, not wait for the win to come to them.  You can still be smart and strategic in your moves without sitting and waiting for the first player to make a move.  The idea of a timer (it can be a long timer, like 2+ hours) is to prevent the sitting and waiting in bases, passive style of games. 

j33, good points, though I don't think it will be the disadvantage you imagine for players who fall behind in battles.  The dominant player will still be teamed either way, but maybe the decision and moves would just be quicker.  I think its key to have a long enough timer to not force players to make rash decisions.  Over 2 hours shouldn't do that, but we'll see. 

I will say I can see the problems if points determine the winner, but with a long enough timer and possible workarounds I don't think it would be the issue it seems to present. 

[Valefort]

A flat timer will deal adequately with most games but might butcher longer and legitimate other games, there needs to be a way to adjust to the specific game.

How about adding a timer based on a vote by the players ? It would only be to break long 3 ways.

A majority vote could also break games (for examples 2 dominant players and the third trying to snipe a win and playing a longer game) so it needs to be a consensus, all last 3 players must agree to a timer (45 minutes ?) else the game continues normally.

That's assuming it's possible in the first place though.

[Peregrine]

Valefort coming up with new ideas! Maybe a timer that can be voted on in the case of a 3way...that requires all players to vote yes. A 45 minute timer up for vote. That makes it interesting. And if one player votes no, you can team him :) cause maybe that means hes got 30k gold. Or maybe you team him and you end up teaming the wrong guy. Keeps the strategic aspect, just adds a new wrinkle to play with, i like it. Games can end faster if all players agree, but its not FORCED. The points issue is still a problem

J33 said what I was trying to say even better - timer really caters to a more micro style play and it hurts strategic players. Some of us enjoy the long games. And fetta said it too - we shouldn't change the game in a way that might hurt the players just for the sake of observers. Its good to make the game better for observers and to bring new people but not when its hurting the game itself...

The thing that makes timer completely ridiculous is the win by points thing. The timer itself isnt horrible its just that when its over, the win goes automatically to the highest points which is a TERRIBLE way to judge the winner. Who came up with how the points are scored anyway? What is it based on? Its just some interesting statistics that was mostly geared for solo games. Like if you won a game with one hero, you would still lose in points to a guy you killed who had 3 heroes. Sometimes the guy with the highest points isn't even in the game anymore etc.

Seksi its worth a try but it really doesn't work unless you can figure out the points thing...but maybe if you incorporate Valeforts idea and have a vote on timer in games, that is something that is definitely worth experimenting with. But even when the vote timer is up...the win by points thing is still weird. Anyone have any ideas on how to better judge the winner when time is up?

Even in Bnet tournaments, if youre in a 1v1 and the timer finishes, you only get a win by points if you have a LOT more points than your opponent. If its close they give you a draw. You can't have draws in FFA so...its a weird problem.

[SteppinRazor]

I would think a timer might cause lots of unfinished games and lots of drama about who wins in those games because anyone who knows FFA knows that score is never a reliable indicator of who would win the game.  I don't think there's really anything to add that Eshan or j33 didn't already say, but I would be against it.

Depending on the turnout for this season, I liked the format best a few seasons ago with lots of players and elimination every 2 rounds and 6 rounds total before playoffs.  BTW I'm glad to see many people posting, FFA/FML has seemed rather slow for the past month :)

[Magadansky]

I still think the scenarios you portray are not THAT often and usually these are the games where the boredom is omnipresent. I am still for to try the timer and 2 hours/ 2h : 30min should be long enough for any decent/ good game to end. It wont limit the strategies, except one which was present at the semi - sitting and doing absolutely nothing. And I already suggested that an admin can decide whether the game was won by someone even if the timer ran out (hiding buildings etc.) It shouldnt be a problem.

[GM]

In the aspect of long games with lengthy periods when nothing happens have you considered drastically reducing gold amount in expands (like x/2 or 2*x/3)? It will naturally lead to faster, more aggressive and intense games with less towers (due to reduced economic efficiency of mass towers) and without shady factors of point calculation, additional pressure of timer and questionable admin's decisions

[GM]

never mind, I didn't read the topic thoroughly enough :D

but for the record: I don't agree with Renaud, less gold wont lead to longer games

another "timer"-like idea: after certain time point (90 minutes for example), every player will receive gold penalties over time (every minute), like 0.9*X/Y (where is X is a current gold amount, Y - number of minutes in which players will lose 90% of their gold), it will force players to spend their gold and not to sit on it

[CallMeImba]

If i got the whole topic right it is all about to prevent long and boring 3-ways.

The most discussed idea was the timer. Many different ideas about the timer came up but mostly lacked the certain point about the deciding part (Points, Gold or what something else which is taken into consideration). Someone came up with the idea about giving the 3 remaining players the chance to vote for or against the timer. Since 4-ways mostly are fun to watch you should stick the timer to 3-ways only, meaning the timer has to start AFTER the 4th player died. In doubt that the timer will be voted by all 3 players that often. So why dont we try a fixed timer? Whenever the 1st player is dead the timer starts. The amount of time is also often discussed. In FML we dont play on that big maps. Therefore i would stick to one time. 90 mins should be fine for all different maps and different 1st-player-defeat-times.

[Magadansky]

Actually I kinda like that idea. A timer after the 4th player dies sounds good to me.