Length of Games

Currently MP would be a nightmare

The current Game Length needs to be cut by about 75% IMO for MP to be viable. On small galaxies, games should NEVER EVER take anywhere near four hours, but they are. Even the longest games shouldn't be 4 hours really. I'm not saying that this is how it should be, personally I *like* long games, but it just won't work in random multiplayer games like on Ironclad Online. People have to go to bed, etc most don't have 4+ hour blocks to devote to one game, let alone the connection issues, ie people dropping etc.

1v1 games on a small map should last at most 45 minutes, that's for a really long game, average should be about 30 minutes or less. For mediums, say at most 1-1/2 hours, and large maybe 2 hours, even that's pushing it as the larger the map the more players involved and the harder it is to get that many people who can stay connected and commited.

Just increasing the overall game speed would turn it into a horrible clickfest with no time to strategise at all, it would degenerate into what most other RTS's are, he who clicks fastest wins. I got the game when beta 2 started, so I haven't experienced the game as it was, being able to jump anywhere in a system etc, that you all say was too fast, it may well be, but I think the biggest hangup is in ship movement and combat.

In my games, taking a well defended system even with overwhelming force takes a good 5 minutes, thats waaaay too long. I'd suggest increasing ship movement speeds in gravity wells, and especially increasing the rate at which ships fire.

Maybe they should use a different ruleset for MP, keep SP games at a more leisurely pace, and make MP games faster?
5,273 views 11 replies
Reply #1 Top
I feel the implementation of a game speed (slider bar) before starting any game (so it can be agreed upon all who are going to play) should be implemented. Its been mentioned elsewhere also...

I'd like it for single player too... I likewise have yet to have a game under 2 hours.
Reply #2 Top
I agree for MP there should be really small, quick games. However, for me personally the fact that I can crank it up to 4 systems with 40 planets each (or whatever the max is) and take weeks to win makes this game perfect for me.
Reply #3 Top
Agreed, game speed adjustment would help, but if you increase it to the point where MP is viable, you'd need the reflexes of a monkey on crack . I'd like to have MP not be merely he who clicks fastest wins. It'd be nice if someone with poor micro abilities but good strategy could overcome someone with great micro but poor strategy. In most RTS's I know of, the latter wins every game hands down, mainly because the strategies will eventually become kind of stagnated, whoever implements them best wins. Hopefully Sins will have enough depth to prevent this from happening somewhat, but I doubt it (not that sins won't have enough depth, but that eventually the strategies that work will be narrowed down to a certain number).
Reply #4 Top
or give each star less planets. If you wanted a short game you could have 15 planets on each star. That would be kind of hard on the rescorces tho.
Reply #5 Top
30 minutes? Lol. That's not much longer than a typical, say, 1v1 SupCom or COH game, and they can be pretty fast paced.

Besides, to be honest, game lengths are always exaggerated until people learn to play competitively.

Any multiplayer game will probably also have players conceding to a death-blow, something the AI doesnt do.
Reply #6 Top
I did a bit of poking around and found the file used to control the amount of planets in the game, as well as the asteroid amounts per planet. You'd be amazed at how different the game plays with 8 planets, and 6 asteroids per planet.

Personally, I think all they need to do is allow you to change the amount of planets and resources, and you would be set. (Although, that raises problems with the tech tree...)
Reply #7 Top
I got the game when beta 2 started, so I haven't experienced the game as it was, being able to jump anywhere in a system etc, that you all say was too fast, it may well be, but I think the biggest hangup is in ship movement and combat.

we never actually got that patch, the devs said "pfft" and dismissed our pleas.

but back to your original point: my recommendation would be to have MP battles occur where the entire map is nearly or completely taken over by each group of players, the maps should be symmetric for this to happen, but its one of the only ways to speed up the game.

and the logistics and fleet caps are NOT helping the situation.
Reply #8 Top
All good ideas. I'd like to also think that one possibility could be a accelerated start, with perhaps a few planets (equally) habited and a larger ready made fleet (semi-balanced /semi-adjustable). Just another tried and true idea.
Reply #9 Top
accelerated start is a good idea for quicker games, maybe start off with 2 asteroid planets - 1 alive, 1 dead, and maybe 20 frigates and 1 capital ship... and twice the starting credits we get now...

right there is a good 10-15 minutes saved!
Reply #10 Top
Hmm... Definitely agree that games right now play out way too long and would make MP unplayable

Some ideas on making MP "shorter" and bearable time-wise:

1)I recall there was supposed to be a point system of some sort, where you had to obtain a specific number of points to win - that would help...

2) Have a specific 'goal', e.g. first player/team to destroy the pirate planet, first player/team to find a specific artifact, first player/team to obtain a certain amount of bounty etc. That way, there's some sort of objective and would prevent an overly long game.

3) Being able to play on smaller galaxies - right now I think there's a minimum number of planets required (20 I think?) Allowing for making this amount less would help a lot in making games 'quicker'.

Reply #11 Top
Multiplayer will likely be balanced differently than single-player games. Also, you will be able to save multiplayer games in case you do want to play something epic over a long period of time.