Why round time? -1 reply

Please wait...

DirArtillerySupport

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

27th September 2004

0 Uploads

28 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

I ask this not because I don't understand the need for Adderall or Ritalin. I ask this because I just don’t understand the need for a round time…but then I’m only looking at it from a player’s perspective. From an admin’s perspective…does having a round time keep players playing on your servers longer? Or is this more of a “tournament” sort of rule? Does it keep people in the game that would normally disconnect and go to an “easier” server where they aren’t being flogged due to an unbalanced map or game? I can say from a player who wants to fight it out till the bitter end I feel cheated when the timer goes off just when the game is getting good and there are over 100-300 tickets left to go. Now you might say just go to servers that don’t have time limits. The problem with that is there are virtually no active regularly populated Forgotten Hope servers without time limited rounds. I have added this line (if roundTime ~!= "-1" remove) to my All Seeing Eye filter but whenever I click it…I’m presented with all of 10 servers (3 of which are moderately populated) from the usual 90 servers running FG. With so few servers running FG it doesn’t leave many choices. Perhaps if All-Seeing eye had included this as a standard filter more than a tiny few would start thinking about removing this limitation. After all…how can you put a time limit on fun?




MkH^

FH tester

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

2,286 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

Well, you answered the question yourself. It does keep the players on the servers longer; no one wants to play flag running map like Orel for two hours straight, so they leave the server. There are just too many maps that take hours to finish with timelimit disabled.

Another thing is the "tournament sort of rule". In FH Liga the timelimit is set at 30 minutes, so that's the timelimit on our server too.

I don't like the maps ending with hundreds of tickets left either, but in my opinion thats more of a map problem. They shouldn't have hundreds of tickets left after half an hour of playing.

Timelimit also adds a tactical element, although maybe not too visible in public games. If the other team can hold the attacking team long enough, they will not have time to reduce their ticket count low enough to win.




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

Some maps just refuse to end normally, they keep going and going and going and going.. even breaktrough gets boring.




Dee-Jaý

Always 1 point ahead of you

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

Thats because the ticket-bleed is fucked up on most maps !

I mean the ticket-bleed on breakthrough initiates if one team controlls 5 flags ! That just plain old sucks since it harldy ever happenes.

Tciket-bleed on Breakthrough should initiate as sonn as one team controlls 4 flags.

But Breakthrough isn´t the only map suffering fro this aspect ! All Maps could do with a ticketbleed starting earlier.

I say tickets should start bleeding as soon as one team controlls more flags than the other.




AussieZaitsev

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2003

0 Uploads

1,970 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

and wtf is with cretes double bleed....how can u have 2 teams bleeding at the same time???




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago
The 13th RaptorSome maps just refuse to end normally, they keep going and going and going and going.. even breaktrough gets boring.

:smack:

Dual bleed is, for lack of a better word, retarded. And I love those long rounds. You get going really good and feel like you're in a battle and not some computer game.




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

I hate dual bleed and actually don't like the bleed concept in general. Round time limits ought to be enough. Whoever's got more guys at the end of the time period wins. In real war you don't usually slaughter everyone on the opposite side down to the last man. You may sustain so many losses that the battle is lost, but your forces usually aren't totally eliminated.

This is one of the reasons I like breakthrough so much. We usually have enough tickets on Wolf that the bleed rarely occurs, and it's just a slogging fight for the majority of the map. I LIKE the fact that the fight lasts forever because, yeah, it feels like a real war not a goofy game.

I REALLY don't like the dual ticket bleed, and frankly, I don't like bleed overall. If you've got a round time limit, why bother with the bleed? I mean, maybe if you control like all of the capturable flags, yeah, or if you manage to cut off the enemy's supply lines (and thus, their reinforcements), but otherwise, it's a stupid concept.




ww2freak

Ingame name: Major.

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

648 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

The dual bleed is probably a code bug, but they have that bug since 0.5 and is still not fixed!!




Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

I like the idea of bleed, it can give a sense of urgency to battles. In charlie Sector, for example, IMO, it simulates the fact that the Allies needed to secure a beachhead before substantial German reinforcements arrived, not that they had to take the beaches before they ran out of soldiers. Ticket bleed, IMO, is also a useful balancing tool on maps with disparities in equipment or starting positions. It also is the only way of determining which team is to be the attackers. (Why would anybody leave their well-defended uncap to take a flag?) Without bleed, there is no incentive to attack (smart players who are not killwhores won't bother, since defense is easier) and if you have 2 well-organised teams, it would turn into a WW1-style stalemate, since both teams (if they are smart) would be seeking a defensive advantage. Then you would have to have a time limit, and the winner would be determined solely by kills (attrition). That may work great for BF1918, (as well as some WW2 battles) but WW2 was mostly a war of maneuver, and ticket bleed is one of the tools that helps FH represent it as such. Time limit does nothing for realism IMO, but can be necessary to keep players from becoming bored.

Solo4114 Whoever's got more guys at the end of the time period wins.

If you are trying to base a mod on attrition-style warfare, then that works fine. But for most WW2 battles, owning a particular piece of real state was more important than killing the enemy.




Dee-Jaý

Always 1 point ahead of you

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago
ww2freakThe dual bleed is probably a code bug, but they have that bug since 0.5 and is still not fixed!!

Its not really a bug: -The Allies loose tickets if they loose control of Hill 107 -The Axis loose tickets if they don´t control enough points (2 I think). Thats why you can have the double bleed. Still sucks though...