|
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 =)
|
yea, I hope that the fact that you start with more workers doesn't adversely affect too many cheese tactics.
|
The 15 min or so that BW is at is perfect imo.
|
Logically it should only affect 4 and 5 pool.
|
On December 11 2007 05:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Logically it should only affect 4 and 5 pool. 
but makes 6 pool easier :p
|
wow- so all new elements that will reduce average game time
starting with 6 workers (my favorite) - saves around 40sec? yellow minerals - this will be very interesting to watch players rush/ build up for. But will Terran be able to hold and harras the yellow mineral areas better or will it all balance out?
observatories on map for map control - I don't see this making games any shorter- but it will be an interesting point of conflict.
extra "sex-it-up" factors as stegosaur added.
So I think it;s currently looking like an average game length of 10-15min?
|
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
I actually disagree. Short games don't necessarily mean that the one who is better wins; there's more than enough instances where someone will pull some bs cheese build and end up winning by luck.
|
will starting with 6 workers make splitting them harder?
|
yes, definetly love the sc:bw average length.
It can be so fast jeez :D
anyways i would love to have it a little bit less in sc2 ^^ im just like a early and mid game fan
|
On December 11 2007 14:36 davidgurt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2007 09:18 IntoTheWow wrote: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 I actually disagree. Short games don't necessarily mean that the one who is better wins; there's more than enough instances where someone will pull some bs cheese build and end up winning by luck. I think he meant that its good that the one who is better can win faster than before, not that short games is better at deciding than long games.
Also that the games that are still long will have a higher quality to them than the old long games.
|
On December 11 2007 23:15 himurakenshin wrote: will starting with 6 workers make splitting them harder?
There's auto-assign for multiple workers to minerals, no splits. Its like wc3 which I won't complain about I like battles more than base building anyway and that's exactly where their shift is going towards.
|
I would say for the sum of most SC games ive seen killing outliers the games that are 1h+ and the ones that someone does something stupid and looses
a good time would be about 16-24 min a game most of them falling around 19 mins
|
On December 12 2007 12:57 Alizee- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 23:15 himurakenshin wrote: will starting with 6 workers make splitting them harder? There's auto-assign for multiple workers to minerals, no splits. Its like wc3 which I won't complain about I like battles more than base building anyway and that's exactly where their shift is going towards.
i was looking forward to splitting 6 workers. damn
|
The only matchup that I don't like in SC is TvT because like half of them are 40+ minute behemoths. Hopefully they'll fix that in sc2
|
On December 12 2007 18:20 blagoonga123 wrote: The only matchup that I don't like in SC is TvT because like half of them are 40+ minute behemoths. Hopefully they'll fix that in sc2
well maybe thors will end up being tvt only in most instances becuase im under the impression that it has a larger range than the tanks. just a thought. But they still seem like they will be hell on the mind
|
Stegosaur
Netherlands1231 Posts
Thors look like they can walk forward into a tankline and soak up a few hits while your own tanks siege up and start blasting
|
On December 12 2007 16:56 intotherainx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2007 12:57 Alizee- wrote:On December 11 2007 23:15 himurakenshin wrote: will starting with 6 workers make splitting them harder? There's auto-assign for multiple workers to minerals, no splits. Its like wc3 which I won't complain about I like battles more than base building anyway and that's exactly where their shift is going towards.  i was looking forward to splitting 6 workers. damn They auto split was really annoying imo, When I tried to divide them up myself slightly before they did it themselves it just slowed it down even more because the crystals i put half the workers on would already have a auto assigned worker going to them and one of them stopped and had to find a new one. Its like better to do nothing at all except click all 6 on 1 crystal. There should still be a benefit for having the ability to micro 6 workers to separate crystals if you have the skill.
I don't like the fact that you start with 6 in the first place either (maybe 5 would be fine, i dunno). 6 totally removes the threat of early economy sacrificing rushes. Because the buildings and tech still takes the same time. So by the time your 6pool arrives they wont have like 1-2rines and a bunker they will have 6 rines and an academy half way done.
|
CM, take your pills, please! So you want to have the benefit of splitting, when you are not actually able to do it? Not to mention the completely rediculous example about early game rushes, both players get the first 40 seconds of the game cut off, there is no way in hell that this will magically tranfer into a 3 times more time for the terran compared to the zerg, it's obviously the same and seriously take your pills.
|
Your missing my point. 6 marines is not just 6x more effective vs 6 zerglings, it doesn't work that way. I don't want to try and break it all down theorycraft style (mostly because we don't have the engine to test it anyways), but I know its going to change the whole concept of rushing drastically.
Its not 'just the same' for everyone but with more workers. Just try it in BW now, Make everyone start with 6 workers. I will guarantee you it will negate any 6 pool even if you do the most standard of builds.
|
are you actually basing that off of anything? because it makes absolutely no sense. the only thing that would change is z would be like 2 seconds behind since they can start their 6th drone before their 5th finishes with the current system. other than that it would be exactly the same as if you had 2 people playing for the first 40 seconds and then you took over for them.
|
The Bwchart data is flawed unless you save every single replay. Me personally , I only save replays which I consider good games (or for some specific purpose). Usually those criteria alone make every game longer than 7 or so minutes by default (I'm not saving 4pool reps and shit).
|
was that a response to me?
|
On December 13 2007 06:59 CharlieMurphy wrote: The Bwchart data is flawed unless you save every single replay. Me personally , I only save replays which I consider good games (or for some specific purpose). Usually those criteria alone make every game longer than 7 or so minutes by default (I'm not saving 4pool reps and shit).
If you use BWLauncher and you have the most updated version of ChaosPlugin, you can enable autoreplay saving, which saves every replay of every game you play.
Which would make your results accurate.
|
On December 13 2007 06:21 CharlieMurphy wrote: Your missing my point. 6 marines is not just 6x more effective vs 6 zerglings, it doesn't work that way. I don't want to try and break it all down theorycraft style (mostly because we don't have the engine to test it anyways), but I know its going to change the whole concept of rushing drastically.
Its not 'just the same' for everyone but with more workers. Just try it in BW now, Make everyone start with 6 workers. I will guarantee you it will negate any 6 pool even if you do the most standard of builds.
What about following your own advice and testing it in BW, so you can finally see what everybody, except you, considers freaking obvious... thinking before posting will also help, but I bet it's too much to ask...
|
|
|
|