Ah, you are right! Thank you for proving my point. Games are already short enough as is, there is no need to make them shorter!
If that is the case it sound to me like an issue of map design or perhaps an issue with balance of game mechanics in regards to defenders actually having the opportunity to defend at each point, and instead give up, fall back and try to make a last stand at the last objective.
so your point is that you want to extend bad matches? ffs if you spend more than 15 minutes on one cap it is bad match. that is more than 500 tickets spent on one cap.
what point was proven exactly? besides first cap lasting 25 minutes, i dont think i have ever seen timer run out on any other cap point. your 25 minutes on 3rd and 4th point is anecdotal cause that would mean that rest of the map is just utterly terribly balanced considering max match time on invasion game modes.
to provide clarification i have not seen 25 minute on 3rd and 4th point expire in âCLOSE MATCHâ.
My opinion is that makes for a much more interesting game than 4 or 5 short fights per game (avg 100-200 tickets per). ESPECIALLY when on defense.
Even on offense, if a single point is holding that long it means that the other team is actually trying HARD to keep that point. Therefore making it a very fun game!
Do you fail to remember just how many suggestions that I put up pushing for better dynamic play through various elements, such as engineerâs fortifications, or allowing defenders a chance to fortify instead of the greyzone instantly opening up, that you and others continuously shoot down?
If the balance were better adjusted in the ways that Iâm talking about, you would have an interesting fight on EVERY Objective, rather than just 4 slaughters and one fight at the very end.
I have absolutely no interest in making the game into â5 objectives where exactly the same thing happens on every single objective because of ridiculously short timersâ.
And to provide clarification to you, I HAVE. They are hard fights where both sides are evenly skilled, both sides using a combination of assault and support, and both sides fighting very hard for control of the point.
Where the capture is almost complete with several hundred tickets left but through sheer determination defenders manage to hold it. Where attackers realize how low they begin to get on tickets and rather than rushing in like individual solo players, they start better coordinating their attacks to swarm defenders.
so close fight and attackers actually didnt spend more than 12 minutes per cap.
so instead of speaking hypothetical, show me examples of those close fights with more than 20 minutes per cap. 99% of the games that attackers win or narrowly lose dont go over 15 minutes per cap.
lets leave other suggestions that wont be implemented and focus on situation in current game.
give examples. checked few longest matches in last few hundred matches and max cap time i have seen was ~16 minutes (they could have easily capped it much faster if few people didnt camp or were on the ground with infantry). btw it was for both console and pc matches.
You mean in the last 2 weeks when Iâve barely had time to play? ROFL, not any good indicators. None of those games I would call remotely âof interestâ.
Iâll work on that when I have a bit more time on my hands.
Well you definitely got the first part right.
Throwing data at a situation doesnât always tell the full story though eitherâŚ
Some fun parts to games doesnât come from xnumberofkills, xamountoftimespenthere, xnumberoftickets.
Some things are even as simple as âholy shit, they are breaking through, lets keep holding themâ kind of moments.
Or lets not forget moments of âif that bomb had landed even an inch closer, we would have been screwedâ. Those are moments you canât put a number too, and honestly, a lot of them occur when time and tickets are dwindling down after or during an intense fight.
So stop focusing so hard at being petty, and maybe listen to what I said in the first place!