PDA

View Full Version : Resign + Time limit in multiplayer?



GimbleFIN
1st Aug 2008, 15:24
Sometimes in Midway battle is "over" pretty fast. For example if you play with random people 3/4 players in team can just leave...or somebody makes some terrible misstake immediately, which makes the battle just hopeless and there is no way of winning and point for contie playin because it's really not playing if there is no chance any more. And this can happen within the minute or two after the game has began...sometimes it feels so pointless to continue and you would just like to restart.

Many people have a solution for this, which is just leaving...but i'm usually hosting so i can't leave. Well...i could but it would be even worse for other players and then you would have to start find the people to play with from scratch again.

Sometimes in this kind of situations i could continue playing but i think it's quite pointless? Especially if you have some people spectating...it can be so boring to watch...

Question number one is: Will you be able to offer to resign in Pacific? :confused:

Another thing is that there is no time limit in Midway. For example that one battle where the setup is that Americans should attack to some island (sorry i don't remember the map btw) but they don't! They just put the carriers together and just sit there...maybe put couple of fighters to air and fly circle by carriers -> This can lead to the situation is that nobodys going to attack. That can be SO boring...

Question number two is: Will you be able to set a time limit for a attack/defend scenario in multiplayer in Pacific? (so that attackers have Time X to do their thing, if they can't -> defenders win) :confused:

If anybody has an idea about this stuff, then please let me know. If not, then i hope this feedback will go to devs. These are technically very little things and probably pretty easy to implement. But these things can mean quite a lot for the overall online experience. Midway is really nice, but there is still some room for improvements :) Pacific looks really promising, keep up the good work !

PS. An adjustable "AI shoting skill" -setting for multiplayer would be really nice too ;) There could also be a "random" option. (some crews can do better than others)

crazyhorse128
1st Aug 2008, 15:33
As far as people leaving games goes, I suggest adding a 'user disconnection rate' beside gamertags in the pre-game lobbies. So now you could see before hand players likely to ruin your game and kick them early.

Time limits are a no go, in my opinion. But if you were to have them make them strictly optional, and not a complusary feature.

And welcome to the forums :thumbsup:

GimbleFIN
1st Aug 2008, 16:15
As far as people leaving games goes, I suggest adding a 'user disconnection rate' beside gamertags in the pre-game lobbies. So now you could see before hand players likely to ruin your game and kick them early.Good idea! I don't exactly know what you mean but if that's somehow possible i will then definitely look into that.


Time limits are a no go, in my opinion. But if you were to have them make them strictly optional, and not a complusary feature.

Sorry if i was unclear...of course, i ment that optional and naturally adjustable too. Options never hurt anyone, but too often lack of them does...especially on consoles which allways tend to get really simple, dumbed down games with no options to fine tune anything.




And welcome to the forums :thumbsup:Thanks! I should've register a long time ago. Nice forums! :)

Red October
1st Aug 2008, 18:04
As far as people leaving games goes, I suggest adding a 'user disconnection rate' beside gamertags in the pre-game lobbies. So now you could see before hand players likely to ruin your game and kick them early.

Time limits are a no go, in my opinion. But if you were to have them make them strictly optional, and not a complusary feature.

And welcome to the forums :thumbsup:

What if the user unwilling disconnected do to crappy servers *cough* gamespy *cough*, then that user will get a bad reputation.

crazyhorse128
1st Aug 2008, 19:10
You dont however usualy expect such bigname servers such as Gamespy to be so bad :o

Arrow
1st Aug 2008, 20:36
One thing that might work is allow voting to speed up games that people intentionally extend to inordinate lengths of time (i.e running a BB around and prolonging a fight to "win"). Unless the entire team decides to run around in circles, everyone should get a vote whether or not to end the game, and if enough people do (not just those that matter, like the currently implemented surrender system) then the match should end. The main difference here is that players-gone-spectators (and not spectators who joined as spectators, assuming BSP has such a feature) get to vote as well. Since there's little to do as a spectator, chances are the specs will vote to end the map.

GimbleFIN
2nd Aug 2008, 10:16
As far as people leaving games goes, I suggest adding a 'user disconnection rate' beside gamertags in the pre-game lobbies. So now you could see before hand players likely to ruin your game and kick them early.

Oh, now i see...i missunderstood and thought that there is some option allready for that in Xbox Live (so you could add some comment to your frends and recent players (btw. that would be usefull)

But it's not possible and you were talking about this kind of "improvement" for Pacific. Yes, that kind of thing would be ok, but if somebody is having connection problems and not quitting then he would be punished for it -> a bad thing. :scratch:

Maybe that kind of discussion would go to some other topic (some lobby discussion maybe) and focus here about those 2 things mentioned in subject.

Things in lobby and ongoing game are so much different topic. The problems i intended to dig in here are:

1) The game was over before it even started, but you are forced to play until you lose. (waste of precious playing time)

2) The battle is not leading to anything. (waste of precious playing time)

In addition of "waste of time" is these two things causes people to leave lobby and you have to waste even more time to find the people to play with again...

andy3536
2nd Aug 2008, 10:52
Having a truce and a withdraw option is not by any means new, and again has been mention many times before after the initial games release.
I'm sure they've included some feature to stop dropouts, we'll just have to wait and see just what they've done.

M0n3y
2nd Aug 2008, 11:10
i think the host might be able to put a time limit
when the time is over, the AI determines who won the battle
bhut no time limit like attackers have x amount of time to capture a certain island or sink a certain ship, otherwise they lose :(
this is my idea!

Arrow
3rd Aug 2008, 00:00
i think the host might be able to put a time limit
when the time is over, the AI determines who won the battle
bhut no time limit like attackers have x amount of time to capture a certain island or sink a certain ship, otherwise they lose :(
this is my idea!

This CAN be a good idea, but only if done properly. I think a reasonable time limit for a game is about an hour. Most of the games I play (single player anyway; I forget how long the average multiplayer game lasts) last around 20-30 minutes.

battleshipman
3rd Aug 2008, 00:28
This CAN be a good idea, but only if done properly. I think a reasonable time limit for a game is about an hour. Most of the games I play (single player anyway; I forget how long the average multiplayer game lasts) last around 20-30 minutes.

An in depth battle with 2 matched sides at coral can last 2-3 hours depending on the tactics used.

David603
3rd Aug 2008, 00:50
An in depth battle with 2 matched sides at coral can last 2-3 hours depending on the tactics used.
Yes and while I have to say that a battle lasting more than 1-1.5 hours would be rare for me, its these long hard fought battles that are the best, and I would hate to be forced to hurry because the host had set a time limit.

Arrow
3rd Aug 2008, 15:13
Maybe voting then is the way to go. If you get a majority vote to end the match then you get a victory. Putting the host on the same terms as the other players might curb kicks-because-you-are-too-good or whatever.

The M00ps
3rd Aug 2008, 23:08
You can 'resign' in a way already, simply by sailing all of your ships off of the map. The only problem is that this requires that your entire team agree to do so. Of course, you could always sink the dissenters yourself, although I normally frown upon team killing (unless you come out with a submarine on Solomon Islands. Then I'll kill you myself)

GimbleFIN
4th Aug 2008, 07:36
You can 'resign' in a way already, simply by sailing all of your ships off of the map. The only problem is that this requires that your entire team agree to do so. Of course, you could always sink the dissenters yourself, although I normally frown upon team killing (unless you come out with a submarine on Solomon Islands. Then I'll kill you myself)

Well, yes. But you are forced to waste tour time which is the "Main problem" :mad2: Also you are not able to sail your ports or airfields anywhere.

But actually i have now learned (http://support.eidosinteractive.com/index.php?_m=downloads&_a=viewdownload&downloaditemid=189&nav=0,50) that surrender option was allready added to PC-version of Midway. Too bad it never made to Xbox version and we still have to use "a workarounds" to surrender :(

But this new info indicates that issue # 1 was identified a long time ago and has been fixed. I would assume that Pacific will have that surrender option too, also on a Xbox version.

So, i consider the first issue now solved. We will not be forced to continue playing in pointless situation anymore in Pacific -> Good!

So now we only have the # 2 problem left to discuss. Let's focus for that then. Maybe this issue has been also solved by now, but we cannot know since devs and designers of the game are not participating here. I wish they were, but i bet they are quite busy now with the game so i kind of understand that fine.

There has been some nice proposals about time limits. I still think the adjustable time limit would be way to go maybe? So that we would avoid the root problem in Attack/defend maps.

I copy paste my orginal post here again. I think it's really stupid that when you are supposed to attack you then put your carriers together and start to defend...

Another thing is that there is no time limit in Midway. For example that one battle where the setup is that Americans should attack to some island (sorry i don't remember the map btw) but they don't! They just put the carriers together and just sit there...maybe put couple of fighters to air and fly circle by carriers -> This can lead to the situation is that nobodys going to attack. That can be SO boring...

Question number two is: Will you be able to set a time limit for a attack/defend scenario in multiplayer in Pacific? (so that attackers have Time X to do their thing, if they can't -> defenders win) :confused:

M0n3y
4th Aug 2008, 16:00
There has been some nice proposals about time limits. I still think the adjustable time limit would be way to go maybe? So that we would avoid the root problem in Attack/defend maps.

I copy paste my orginal post here again. I think it's really stupid that when you are supposed to attack you then put your carriers together and start to defend...

Another thing is that there is no time limit in Midway. For example that one battle where the setup is that Americans should attack to some island (sorry i don't remember the map btw) but they don't! They just put the carriers together and just sit there...maybe put couple of fighters to air and fly circle by carriers -> This can lead to the situation is that nobodys going to attack. That can be SO boring...

Question number two is: Will you be able to set a time limit for a attack/defend scenario in multiplayer in Pacific? (so that attackers have Time X to do their thing, if they can't -> defenders win) :confused:
like we said before, no time limit like attackers have x amount of time to capture it, otherwise they lose

what might be good is that the host puts up a time limit (1,5H for example)
bhut the longer the battle, (mostly of the time) the nicer the battle...
i wouldn't set a time limit less then 1H (unless you play a short one like Surigao for example)

Arrow
4th Aug 2008, 18:18
As Battleshipman once said, though, some games of Coral can take 2+ hours.

To compensate, perhaps we should take into consideration the average length of time it takes to finish one game. So a map like Vella can have a max time limit of an hour, while a map like Coral would have a max time of twice that.

battleshipman
5th Aug 2008, 00:55
I like the idea of a host set time limit. There's been times when I've hosted a game and ended up chasing the the enemy alot longer than I wanted to. I ended up asking them to turn and fight or the server had to close (I gotta sleep sometime). They turned around, but I hate asking for people to do that. It makes me sound like I want them to just surrender (BTW thats what I would have done if they said "no" I like to see my score :cool: )

Arrow
5th Aug 2008, 01:51
I imagine the default limit should be 1 hour, since that's how in my experience most fights don't last longer than that. For other maps it might be shorter or longer, but 1 hour I think is a great place to start.

An hour and a half to two hours for coral, IMO. It's not so much as that you'll have a clear-cut winner in that time, but rather, I think I'd start getting bored after an entire hour's worth of a single map...