WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT HOW LONG A GAME MUST GO TO COUNT.

[Powerush]

Who's voices matter? The matter of REASON? If so, then I have the correct answer.

[SiRaLeX]

You don't decide how long a game must go to count. CnCNet does. They have good reasons for whatever time they pick.

 

If you believe you have a better idea, then come up with some properly thought out points and sound reasoning to back it up. I'm sure it will be considered.

 

[Powerush]

Games absolutely cannot start counting at 3 minutes. I believe the game should start counting once we get 30 seconds in. If you consider some of the smallest, legal, tournament maps- you can scout them with a rifle infantry within about 40 seconds into the game, potentially... Or scout them with a jump jet 1 minute 15 seconds into the game... Or take over one of their BUILDINGS! 58 seconds into the game.. (if it's multi engineer).

 

So as you can see, if you scout someone 40 seconds into the game with a rifle infantry, they shouldn't have 2 minutes and 20 seconds to decide if they still want to play in this game or just surrender and start over at no expense. Or people could get scouted by a jump jet 1 minute 15 seconds into the game, then get harassed and slowed for 1 minute and 45 seconds, then decide, I'll just surrender and start over and no expense. Or... someone takes over my MCV 58 seconds into the game and I can just surrender within the next 2 minutes and get no LOSS.

 

I hope everyone can see the point I'm trying to get across.

 

Clearly 3 minutes is not the correct answer. I strongly recommend 30 seconds in, GAME COUNTS.

[SiRaLeX]

I agree with you.  There's no sound reason for games to have a minimum duration of 3 minutes. The main reasons for a minimum duration are to avoid people abusing the ladder by gathering "free wins" and pushing themselves to rank #1 and to give people a chance to abort laggy games. But there's better ways to go about both of these issues instead of setting up a requirement for minimum game durations.

 

Not only doesn't it solve anything, it even creates more problems, because players can abuse it in so many ways:

• ... quit games when they spawn on a random spot that they don't like.
  
• ... quit after making a mistake (this completely renders the competitive aspect the ladder useless).
  
• ... quit after realizing that your opponent is not a noob.
  
• ... quit when you already are losing because your opponent rushed or yours failed.
  
• ... and so on...
  

 

I play RA2 (on XWIS) and matches, especially on small maps, can literally be determined in 3 minutes: http://xwis.net/ra2/games/10894/

 

I recommend it to be less than 30 seconds, perhaps 15 seconds although I'd prefer games to count immediately after they've been started.

 

[Grant]

It's currently set at 1 minute, not 3 minutes. Where did 3 minutes come from ? 

[cn2mc]

WOL rules.

[Grant]

WOL rules.

Ah then no, 3 minutes is too long.

[ugawtit]

I understand why you'd think its too long but isnt cncnet all about preserving the original gameplay? that includes when it should count. ya sure theres some strats you can pull off in 3 mins that can determine the outcome of the game but then that also prevents some cheap attacks from working and allowing the other player a little more time to explore and establish themselves. for example engi rushes in both ts and ra2 at the start can be done in just under 3 mins if youre able to pull it off it can be considered cheap/lucky/newb bashing. people should have a small time frame to bail in my opinion

[cn2mc]

No. 3 minutes is and always was bullshit. Even if it made some sense connection-wise in the 90's, the limit should be much lower now. You can't simply eliminate a bunch of strategies from the game on the grounds that they are 'cheap attacks', whatever that means. And I don't even care about the ladder, mind you.

[Powerush]

I agree with you.  There's no sound reason for games to have a minimum duration of 3 minutes. The main reasons for a minimum duration are to avoid people abusing the ladder by gathering "free wins" and pushing themselves to rank #1 and to give people a chance to abort laggy games. But there's better ways to go about both of these issues instead of setting up a requirement for minimum game durations.

 

Not only doesn't it solve anything, it even creates more problems, because players can abuse it in so many ways:

• ... quit games when they spawn on a random spot that they don't like.
  
• ... quit after making a mistake (this completely renders the competitive aspect the ladder useless).
  
• ... quit after realizing that your opponent is not a noob.
  
• ... quit when you already are losing because your opponent rushed or yours failed.
  
• ... and so on...
  

 

I play RA2 (on XWIS) and matches, especially on small maps, can literally be determined in 3 minutes: http://xwis.net/ra2/games/10894/

 

I recommend it to be less than 30 seconds, perhaps 15 seconds although I'd prefer games to count immediately after they've been started.

[Powerush]

I agree bro and I'm glad you agree. I think 15 seconds so you can immediately abort if mass lag... 3 minute is absolutely ridiculous..

[Tahj]

How did we get stuck on 3 minutes? And why do we continue making separate topics about the same thing?

 

Even if [3 minutes] made some sense connection-wise in the 90's, the limit should be much lower now.

 

It is much lower; in fact, it's 2/3 lower lol (I'm sure even SiRaLeX can do that math)

 

Overall, this is a current discussion among the CnCNet team - we're looking for a proper solution.

Is it becoming a major issue? Are we seeing players quit under the [1 min] threshold without consequence?

[SiRaLeX]

How did we get stuck on 3 minutes? [...] It is much lower; in fact, it's 2/3 lower lol (I'm sure even SiRaLeX can do that math)

No need to, I use Wolfram|Alpha now: 3 minutes - 2/3 * 3 minutes.