Matches length

I truly believe that a time limit of a hundred minutes is unnecessarily long. That long of a time limit can be a turn off for new players, as most of the time going to time limit is not the most enjoyable experience. I would suggest reducing the time limit to sixty minutes, as past that time nothing truly ever happens. Keep in mind that if something interesting happens near the hundred minutes mark, that is because the match is almost over and teams try anything, as risky as it can be, simply because they do not have anything to lose anymore, creating those famous “incredible” last minute moments. Having that in mind, the same would happen if matches had a sixty minutes time limit. It would simply push it to happen quicker.

by Matsuzen — posted in General Discussion
Matsuzen

We should attempt to understand why some matches take so long. In my view, it’s because teams don’t feel like they’re on a clock, which push them to take a lot of time to make their move and thus slowing down the pace of the game. At the moment, if the timer hits 30 minutes, teams still have another 70 minutes to make their move, which makes them play very slowly. If a match length is 60 minutes, and the timer hits 30 minutes, teams will feel more pressured by the time constraint, which will make matches more dynamic as teams will attempt to react faster and try more potentially risky strategies. It will fasten the pace of the game, and maybe make it more enjoyable to watch.

Contranaut

You are proposing a gigantic change which will have very unknown effects on RFW. Yes, this change could potentially be great for RFW, make bo3 more viable, attract more people into the game, etc. But I can also speculate on how this tactic map harm the RFW meta.

This change makes stall strats and VM lockdown strats a LOT more viable. This will probably cause more matches to go to 60 minutes then do now, because more teams will employ stally strats. So by reducing the time limit on matches, it could actually cause the average length of RFW matches to increase from where they are now with an hour 40 time limit.

Even if match times stay about the same, some closer games that have already been mentioned would be decided on the monument, which in my opinion is not a good way at all to decide matches. In a match on a longer, more “difficult” map, one team could totally out-play another team, but as long as the first team holds a single lockdown for just 60 minutes and waters their wools on the monument first, they will win. I would hate to see a large proportion of RFW matches go to match limit and be decided by which team placed their wools first, because that’s not a convincing way to win at all.

I speculate that in this new 60-minute meta shorter maps will become more competitively viable then longer maps with more heavy resources, harder resources, and overall more strategic depth. Great maps today may become a lot worse in this new meta.

We also can’t just test the many uncertainties of 60-minute time limits out either. It would probably take more than 10 high-level matches between great teams to determine whether or not this change helps or harms the RFW meta. A single tournament isn’t enough, because the meta doesn’t change that fast, and tournaments usually only produce 3-4 high-level matches anyway.

In summary, I think changing RFW to 60-minute match limits comes with too many risks. It could turn out fantastically, but could also permanently damage the RFW gamemode. Rather then taking this huge risk, I suggest that we instead take a smaller risk and make match limits an hour and 20 minutes. Play 2-3 tournaments using this new match limit, and then decide from there whether or not we should move to 60 minute match limits, move back to hour 40, or stay at an hour 20.

SkiTrip

There have actually been a fair few matches that have lasted over an hour and haven’t gone to time. For example:

  • USNZ vs BPF on Candyland - 1:01
  • USNZ vs Kenny’s Wet Dream on Tunnel Vision (rematch) - 1:23
  • Debate Team vs Penumbra on Norway - 1:26
  • KappaPride vs KappaRoss on False Respite - 1:33
  • Dixin Cider vs Hourglass on Arcane Realms - 1:20

Also, for most of these, interesting things were still happening after the hour mark that I don’t think had anything to do with the time limit approaching. For some maps a shorter time limit would work fine, but there are a lot of maps where I don’t think that’s a good idea. Perhaps 1:30 would work, as the only recent match to go over that (and not go to the time limit) was Kappa vs Kappa, and that was hardly a typical RFW match, but I’d be uncomfortable with reducing it below that.

csarpaul

That USNZ vs KWD is a perfect example of why the time limit does not need a change. That match was great to watch from start to finish of it. This can be a slower paced gamemode and should not be rushed.

Matsuzen

We have to look at the grand scheme of things. In order to grow, there needs to be changes in the gamemode, and this is an important one to allow it to become more attractive not only for new players but also for viewers, as those are also very important. The match you are talking about could have very well been as interesting, if not more, if the time limit had been 60 minutes.

ChillerFrost

But was it really that fun to play after 60 minutes? It feels like there is really no point in hurrying to get wools with the current time limit. At that point playing RFW feels stale.

SkiTrip

I think it depends. If you’re painlooping a wool or just shooting at the same dungeon from the same spot for a prolonged period of time, then that isn’t fun, and of course some long matches end up like that. However, I don’t think all long matches end up like that.

For example in Penumbra vs Debate Team, the least fun part of that match for me was actually the beginning when I was painlooping trying to get to 2nd resources. Later in the game, I was doing more interesting things like cannoning around 1st to destroy their progress and their PvP spots (and accidentally making a cobble curtain for them in the process), and trying to figure out how to get decent gear when the supplies we’d intented to go for were used up. Obviously this is pretty specific, but I think a games can still be really fun to play in after 60 minutes.

B_Wenz

Alright, I can answer for both USNZ matches in these 5 examples, The candyland one was just the fact that we didn’t strat, I handed out roles right before the match to the team, NY hadn’t seen the map before, so that one should have been completed way earlier if we knew what we were doing. The tunnel vision match in my opinion is possibly the worst example, we stratted that match entirely in spite as we all disagreed with the ruling that caused us to rematch. Our strat process was “ben figure out a way to run all 3 wools on your own and the rest of us are going to try and delay as long as possible, we don’t even care if you get all 3 just get one for sure and try to get the rest” Most of our team wasn’t in that game to win, we were mainly there to try and be the most cancerous we could to protest the ruling of the flying machine placement. winning was more of an added bonus.

SkiTrip

As you said, the reason for USNZ vs BPF going on for so long was you guys not stratting properly. Similarly, Hourglass barely stratted for Arcane Realms, and as a result, we hadn’t figured out how to deal with a 3rd lockdown, which was why that match went on for so long. This was also the issue with Kappa vs Kappa.

I think this is a common issue, especially for group stages and earlier rounds, and I don’t think you can expect teams to always strat. A shorter time limit would probably be fine for semis and the final, but I think if there was a 1 hour time limit in the qualifiers, a lot of matches would end up going to time.

Spr0k

There was also Left Lane vs Bulletproof on Erosion that went to approx 1:30.

mukmukchangedman

i support this