Timers in the game, necessary?

(Seyu) #1

“In a bid to not keep players on the field longer than they should be, each leg of the multi-staged level has a timer - you know, to stop people sticking around for 30 mins when there is no chance of winning. Around 4 or 5 minutes according to Wedgwood. The additive time does not apply in Stopwatch mode.” Source

I think this is a bad idea, a deadlock sucks, yea, but such things don’t really occur that often to warrant time constraints in multiplayer. I think giving players a health pool, like in Rush mode of Bad Company 2, would be a much better idea. Or perhaps the limited lives feature in W: ET but then again it was used rarely for a reason.

I know the game is too far into development now but I feel that this should still be discussed.

(DarkangelUK) #2

I’d say they implemented it because deadlocks DO happen enough to warrant it. SD aren’t in the habit of adding stuff for the hell of it, or without thought or reason. There was nothing worse than spending an entire match in ETQW on the 1st or 2nd objective knowing fine well you were going to get nowhere in 20mins. The flipside was spending 15mins on the 1st objective and only having 5mins left for the next 2. When you complete an objective in Brink, the timer resets for the next objective meaning your fight hasn’t been completely in vain.

(tokamak) #3

A sudden death isn’t fair on the winning side.

Some games simply can’t be won anymore, and in Brink, winning matters a lot more to players who play a campaign. They would rather start over again after it’s clear they’re losing than sitting out another 20 minutes.

(Humate) #4

The ‘merging of the singleplayer and the multiplayer’ warrants these restrictions, because if it was a 20 minute match and a team gets full held on the first objective - they have to play the map again against another team, to find out what happens in these cutscenes. It would probably make a lot of newbie players rage, particularly the singleplayer only types.

(Seyu) #5

Yea, it seems likely, my gaming catalogue doesn’t have a lot of objective based shooters in it (just W:ET and the BF series) and hence my ignorance on this. But there surely are better ways to deal with such a scenario like having a life pool, an inter-team vote function could be a viable thing too, eh?

And why is spell-check going nuts over ‘catalogue’?

(tokamak) #6

A life pool isn’t fair as attackers usually end up dying more than defenders.

(MrX) #7

I think a timer is the best way to go cause you focus on defending or attacking the objective rather than how much kills u get to run down the life pool.Timer works great in team fortress. Also its a bit unfair for the attackers as mentioned above.

(tokamak) #8

I like the generous overtime in TF2.

(Scip) #9

This

a life pool/spawn tickets and everything which could force some people to behave like cowards or campers or just weirdos should be avoided in an objective based fps

(Crytiqal) #10

Still, it was nice to have a massive struggle for the first objective and once that was fallen still win the map in the nick of time

Eat that Strogg!

(andredoc) #11

When the timer ends they could make it so no players would respawn until next stage is reached, this way that staggering match would at least have an intense moment, and it could even happen a “turn the tables”

although under the current FPS playerbase ppl would just camp, humm yeah :S

(tokamak) #12

[QUOTE=Crytiqal;259348]Still, it was nice to have a massive struggle for the first objective and once that was fallen still win the map in the nick of time

Eat that Strogg![/QUOTE]

Yeah but you got to play a different map after it. Getting stuck at one map for a whole evening is frustrating.

Not fair to those who are winning, IE the defenders. They worked hard to keep the opponents at bay and then suddenly they can lose within seconds?

(Seyu) #13

I my opinion a timer wouldn’t be fair to the attackers either, given that the defenders wouldn’t be under constraints wouldn’t they have a tactical advantage?

One option would be to have mechanics to allow the attackers to add additional time to the stop-watch via xp gains or something.

(MrX) #14

[QUOTE=tokamak;259335]I like the generous overtime in TF2.[/QUOTE] I Like it too :stuck_out_tongue:

Actaully when the timer runs out you should lose or win depending which side u are playing .An ovetime mechanism like in tf2 would be cool!

(tokamak) #15

A sudden death will require a timer as well. However, instead of simply letting the defenders win, it turns the whole deal into a toin coss.

(Weapuh) #16

Again, about the life pool, when it reaches quite low you KNOW that the def will just hide in their defense spawn and camp forever like BF.

I think if time runs out as attackers, you just lose and try again vs. another team… the whole idea of the game (it’s been said again and again) fast paced. Sudden death over time is not fast paced. It’s just short. and wouldn’t make sense in campaign mode. or even online with multiple objectives on one map.

(Weapuh) #17

[QUOTE=Seyu;259365]I my opinion a timer wouldn’t be fair to the attackers either, given that the defenders wouldn’t be under constraints wouldn’t they have a tactical advantage?

One option would be to have mechanics to allow the attackers to add additional time to the stop-watch via xp gains or something.[/QUOTE]

That’s the whole point… Defenders have an advantage in all SD games, whether it be positional(usually) or otherwise the attackers must overcome the defenders advantage with a strategy to win.

And i think by hacking command posts attackers are given a small advantage, reduced spawn time perhaps.

Timers are the right way to go.

(Cankor) #18

I’m not real fond of tickets (but less so since playing BC2). On the other hand, timers work extemely well as proven by previous SD games.

And it’s called stopwatch for a reason :slight_smile: