|
Is this a point to consider?
In the making of the game to make sure that the game can not easily be ended in 6 min but also will not likely last 36min?
It seems that in order to do this, higher tech lvl units would need to take just a few seconds longer to get to (except for the fire bat)
And there are soem crazy upgrades latter on that you could win the game with?
My solution might be out of whack- Is this even a problem worth considering?
|
Yes. Blizzard have stated that they want the average game to be short. This is a good thing. You want a game where a difference in skill levels shows quickly and leads to a quick and decisive victory. You do not want a game where you know your better than your opponent but it still takes ages to grind him down and make that victory certain.
It also means you get to play more games wich is good. And it means that longer games are better.
I think Blizzard said they wanted ~20 minute long games?
|
I def think this is a point to consider. I dont like the fact that most CnC games are over in less than 10 minutes, and that many other games take almost an hour to complete. I love the average time in starcraft (15-20 minutes?), I hope they can match this.
|
well it is, but i don't see why it should differ much from sc1 from what i know about protoss and terran right now.
|
Vatican City State1176 Posts
what's the average bw game duration? 12 - 15 minutes?
|
My bwchart says 12:27 (last 400 games, i think 300 of them on iccup) i'm C+/B- zerg :o I think 12-15 minute is quite true, beeing different for each players style.
|
16:37 for 8000 replays in my BWChart
|
is awesome32269 Posts
On December 10 2007 07:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Yes. Blizzard have stated that they want the average game to be short. This is a good thing. You want a game where a difference in skill levels shows quickly and leads to a quick and decisive victory. You do not want a game where you know your better than your opponent but it still takes ages to grind him down and make that victory certain.
It also means you get to play more games wich is good. And it means that longer games are better.
I think Blizzard said they wanted ~20 minute long games?
I agree with everything the cute kitten said :3
|
12 minutes is the average if both people know what they're doing, but one has a better strategy. Longer if it turns into a huge macro game. I just hope that it doesn't end up like War3 with the game coming to a cataclismic end at 20ish minutes no matter what.
|
On December 10 2007 09:18 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2007 07:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Yes. Blizzard have stated that they want the average game to be short. This is a good thing. You want a game where a difference in skill levels shows quickly and leads to a quick and decisive victory. You do not want a game where you know your better than your opponent but it still takes ages to grind him down and make that victory certain.
It also means you get to play more games wich is good. And it means that longer games are better.
I think Blizzard said they wanted ~20 minute long games? I agree with everything the cute kitten said :3
Seconded, meow!
|
I like how current games can last from 5 minutes to an hour or more
|
On December 10 2007 09:24 IaniAniaN wrote: 12 minutes is the average if both people know what they're doing, but one has a better strategy. Longer if it turns into a huge macro game. I just hope that it doesn't end up like War3 with the game coming to a cataclismic end at 20ish minutes no matter what.
?
Most games last about 14-16 minutes in WC3, and you'll often see even games go to 30-40 minutes.
|
I hope they can try to keep it at 10-20 minutes average.
|
I don't think there will be super fast zerg cheese wins because you start with more workers. Who knows though I would prefer 7-15 minute games. 20-25 if its a really good match and 5 minutes if its something clever like a cannon rush =D
|
I have mixed feelings on this. in BW, there's a huge amount of variation in game lenght. Some times they're over in 5 minutes, other times it takes 2 hours. Now, on the one hand, that's nice because it adds a lot of variation to the game, which keeps it interesting. On the other hand, it can be very frustrating when you sit down to play a quick game of BW and end up having to leave before it's over because the game went long and you've got to get to work. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, if you're expecting to watch an epic 5 game championship series, and boxer ends it in 20 minutes with 3 bunker rushes- that sucks.
|
|
On December 10 2007 14:54 Luddite wrote: I have mixed feelings on this. in BW, there's a huge amount of variation in game lenght. Some times they're over in 5 minutes, other times it takes 2 hours. Now, on the one hand, that's nice because it adds a lot of variation to the game, which keeps it interesting. On the other hand, it can be very frustrating when you sit down to play a quick game of BW and end up having to leave before it's over because the game went long and you've got to get to work. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, if you're expecting to watch an epic 5 game championship series, and boxer ends it in 20 minutes with 3 bunker rushes- that sucks.
ahahahahaha. boxer. poor yellow.
|
i have noticed that top players in ladder have very short game lenght, whatever the race.
|
On December 10 2007 19:44 axel wrote: i have noticed that top abusers in ladder have very short game lenght, whatever the race.
Fixed
|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
I think it was Chris Sigaty (might be Dustin) who said in a video-interview back when SC2 was announced, that they were aiming towards games that took about 15 minutes to play. He compared it to WC3 games, which according to him took about 20 minutes to complete. He also told some whiny game-mag-journalist who complained about people 'disregarding the entire techtree and just trying to get 6 lings into your base asap' that they thought rushing was a vital part of the game and they'd keep it as a valid strategy, so games could end in 5 minutes as well.
I'm sorry for the lack of source but I'm 100% sure this is what he said (I think it was Chris).
Now for some speculation: I don't think 40-minute games will be as 'common' (you can't call them common I know, but they'll be even less common) in SC2 because a few 'sex-it-up' factors Blizzard has added, like yellow minerals and observatories giving a pretty strong advantage to the dominant player in terms of economy and mapcontrol. Seems like a conscient effort to keep games shorter =)
|
|
|
|