Human Shield

As it is now the maps drag on for 2 hours with 500 tickets. With the new spawning and bunkers not using tickets, they last longer.

250 or 300 tickets would be better sized games.

Ferris Bueller

Are you kidding? In 0.613, we had games on kashan that went over three hours on AVERAGE. Now they last maybe two, which is fine by me as that allows me time to witness two JDAM pops in one round.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

TurkishDelight

Games are fine. Nuff' said.

__________________
|TG-X|Turkish

Elwenil

I really have to agree. Win or lose, I feel somewhat cheated when a map is over in 45 minutes. I'm here to play and the less time I spend loading a map, the better. Plus with the long games, you really have a chance to try strategy and tactics. I really hated vBF2 on this point. You spend a lot of time flanking and the map is over before you even get to your objective. Long maps are good. I think they can be a pain to some when resources are squandered early in the match and there is a bit of a wait until they respawn and it can be frustrating with no armor or air support. Some caution is needed with those assets to keep them in the fight and quite honestly, keep the team's morale up so players don't get frustrated with getting waxed over and over with no support.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

oldirti

Either way, TG has nothing to do w/ adjusting the tickets AFAIK.

__________________

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

I thought servers could adjust minor settings like that.

90 mins (maximum) is a good game generally but if its a favourite map I prefer as long as possible of course


Is helmond gone now :/ Just trying to think of possibly quick maps because qinling and kashan are right next to each other now, thats like 6 hours :O

__________________

WWII German infantry weapons in detail

Human Shield

Ending early when fighting is still going on is bad but when it takes two hours just to camp the last two CPs I don't see a point. Without maneuvering there is much less strategy and gameplay is indecisive.

You have to realize that with the new spawn system and no ticket costs (but still revenue) having a ticket lead doesn't give you much advantage. Before you could rush more and build more when you had a lead but now you are stuck in logistic stalemate closer to the enemy flag.

The server should be able to set map time. 60-90 minutes is what most prefer (just do it on certain days if enough prefer it and everyone should be happy).

Ferris Bueller

If it takes any team two hours to take two CPs in 0.7, then they are either stupid or doing something VERY wrong. There are so many tools and weapons at our disposal that wiping out an enemy force en-masse is easy to do.

Bottom line is there are several maps that people expect to have LONG games on:
Kashan
Qwai
Al Kufrah
Kyongan'Ni
(and as of now)
Fools Road
Qinling

The reason is simply because they are huge maps and it takes forever to move across one and get your support system in place. I personally think that lowering the ticket count would be cheating people out of an otherwise good game. We've been doing it this way for a long time and it has seemed to work just fine. Give things a few days to level off before you jump to judgment, the new version just came out yesterday and it does take a lot of getting used to.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

TurkishDelight

Games are fine. Nuff' said.

__________________
|TG-X|Turkish

A_Grounded_Pilot

I wonder how Turkish feels about all this?

OneTinSoldier

I'm not so sure I wholeheartedly agree with this. It could be that both teams are are having one helluva fight over those CP's and it's just a really great game!! That's just my way of thinking though. Those tools are available to both sides!

We JUST finished a game on Al Kufrah by where the Brits won by THREE tickets. It was a really great back and forth game that lasted 2 and a half hours... the way it should be.

In reality, many battles last days, or many weeks. I think it's probably part of PR's vision to make you feel as if you have played an epic battle, not some short little skirmish like you do in vBF2.

Of course it's all relative from one's own perspective, some people may read that and go... 'damn, you think the 30-45 minte battles in vBF2 are short little skirmishes!?' Anyway, personally I really like the looonger battles.

Keep the ticket ratio right where it is please!!

Morganan

The "bleed drain" needs to be adjusted, not the stock ticket count. The bleed drain of tickets should be adjusted so once a team achieve's said "bleed" by controlling the required number of points it forces more of a sense of urgency to the team bleeding tickets. As it stands the bleed is set at what when up 1 cp? 6 tickets/minute? 12 tickets/minute? That number should be closer to 30 tickets/minute when up 1 cp, and escalating accordingly.

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

To be fair 12 tickets a minute is the same as 2 squads assaulting and dying at that flag every minute, thats fairly urgent.

I like it when the bleed starts as soon as one team has half the flags + 1

__________________

WWII German infantry weapons in detail

Morganan

Ya, but with such a slow bleed, a smart squad will sit back and pick off the attackers and negate that advantage. The only way a round should last longer then an hour is if you have a good match between evenly balanced teams where there isn't ever a bleed situation.

Slow bleeds+large ticket counts=no urgency

|TG-X|Bootytrap

anything over an hour and a half gets to be a bit much for this soldier.