15minutes of gaming?
-
@Caliber said in 15minutes of gaming?:
I have to agree players spend 30 plus mins in lobby just to desperatly end the game quickly by shift g units, its pretty sad state of play.
i fail to see how this is different from just "not killing enemy commander when given the chance"
and how is that different from losing on purpose?imagine looking at your ally standing with his superior t1 army next to enemy commander and not killing him just because "it will end game to quickly". Wouldn't that be infuriating? He is 1 click away from wining. He will probably get pinged to death by his team
Sometimes you can look at player and think "he is not even trying to win"
Now i know that people like that actually exist.At the same time (even if that maybe contradicts my previous words) i can agree that some all-ins are probably lame and are not interesting to play against.
and i respect player's desire to play longer game with t2 and t3 -
@ZLO desire to win vs enjoyment from playing
- short games means less time playing and more time in lobby sim, which suggests that you dont enjoy playing but actualy only enjoy the concept of winning.
- long games means more time playing the game you like to play, sometimes although rarely it is possible to enjoy games that you lose if there are fun dynamic aspects to that game.
-
@Deribus said in 15minutes of gaming?:
There are two reasons:
- I play for the combat. I have little to no interest in playing eco-simulator or sim-city until I have 3 digit mass income. You can do that in single player or even in a spreadsheet. If I really feel like turning my brain off and making a Monkeylord as my first unit I would skip the queue entirely and go do a solo survival or campaign. So say I queue 15 minutes. I can then send my first raids out 5 minutes into the game for 20 minutes of total wait time, or obey some kind of non-aggression pact for 30 minutes for 45 minutes of total wait time. I'll chose the 20 minute wait time every time.
- I play multiplayer to play against another human playing to the best of their ability. This involves exploiting any gaps they find in my defenses to the best of their ability, and defending against me doing the same. To reiterate the point from section 1, if I didn't want this to be the case I can do campaign, survival, or even games vs AI and skip the queue entirely.
You kind of miss my point.
You play for combat? Who doesn't? Even if 2 opposing teams are relatively chill and everyone is going for a long game, there is still going to be combat and action throughout the game. The difference is, they are hoping to play for some eventual epic combat later on. Just because people prefer long game does not mean they are playing an eco-sim game. Everyone that says this is kinda silly to be honest. Just because someone is ecoing fast and efficiently does not mean they are not paying attention to the game and what their opponent is doing. The efficient fast eco player is still mindful of the game state and is ready to counter aggression. This is called min-maxing.
And I could say the same about 15 minutes of combat too in regard to a spreadsheet or single player. This argument is silly.
A 20 minute no aggression pact is obviously silly too. And would be quite boring. This is not my point. My point again, is why do players want to end a game as fast as possible. Why do they have more fun playing a game for 15 minutes as opposed to playing a game for 60 minutes.
Is watching a movie for 10 minutes really more enjoyable than watching all the movie?
Would it be more fun participating in a sports activity for 15 minutes and winning, or participating in a sports activity for 60 minutes regardless of the outcome?
-
@Caliber said in 15minutes of gaming?:
short games means less time playing and more time in lobby sim, which suggests that you dont enjoy playing but actualy only enjoy the concept of winning.
100%
-
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
The difference is, they are hoping to play for some eventual epic combat later on.
I'm not interested in "eventual epic combat later on". 5 mantis shooting at each other is functionally gameplay the same as 5 monkeys shooting at each other. Why bother waiting for monkeys to come online if mantis could give me the same gameplay 30 minutes sooner?
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Just because people prefer long game does not mean they are playing an eco-sim game.
It's not always, but often true. I don't know my Dual Gap slots, but many slots are going to be on full T2 mex before they build a combat unit. Some slots might even get to full T3 mex. That is eco sim.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Just because someone is ecoing fast and efficiently does not mean they are not paying attention to the game and what their opponent is doing. The efficient fast eco player is still mindful of the game state and is ready to counter aggression.
Never said they weren't
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
My point again, is why do players want to end a game as fast as possible.
Two reasons. The first is because I intend to play at full capacity. If the skill difference between myself and my opponent is great enough that the game ends quickly, then that's when the game ends. To artificially drag out the game would by definition mean either I, my opponent, or both are deliberately not winning, which is boring.
Let's say at the 15 minute mark I my opponent has 75% map control and vastly more eco than me. I want him to kill me at that point because there is little to no way for me to recover. Sure he can sit and wait for 30 minutes while I get all T3 eco, but in that time he's going to be ecoing too except much faster because of the map control and eco advantages. Even if I have 200 mass income I'm not winning against a 600 mass income opponent. Those extra 30 minutes would be a waste of both people's time. I'd rather be queueing for the next game than technically in a game but waiting to die.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Is watching a movie for 10 minutes really more enjoyable than watching all the movie?
10 minutes is the whole movie. This isn't a comparison of a 2 hour movie or just a 10 minute clip of the same movie, it's watching 2 hours of a movie that could have been 10 minutes. Have you ever watched the Hobbit trilogy? They tried to extend a book that was shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books into 3 movies. They accomplished this by filling it with all sorts of garbage and time-wasting nonsense that nobody cares about.
If given the choice of watching a single Lord of the Rings movie or all three Hobbit movies, I would watch Lord of the Rings every time.
-
@Deribus said in 15minutes of gaming?:
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
The difference is, they are hoping to play for some eventual epic combat later on.
I'm not interested in "eventual epic combat later on". 5 mantis shooting at each other is functionally gameplay the same as 5 monkeys shooting at each other. Why bother waiting for monkeys to come online if mantis could give me the same gameplay 30 minutes sooner?
5 mantis shooting at eachother is not the same as 5 monkeylords shooting at eachother. Beside which, you'd rarely if ever have a real game scenario where there would be a straight match up of 5 monkeylords vs 5 monkey lords, there would be supporting units and all kinds of other stuff going on most likely.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Just because people prefer long game does not mean they are playing an eco-sim game.
It's not always, but often true. I don't know my Dual Gap slots, but many slots are going to be on full T2 mex before they build a combat unit. Some slots might even get to full T3 mex. That is eco sim.
Call it what you will. Eco is half the game. You don't see "eco players" calling out aggression as "aggression simulator". Or "rush sim" when someone is fulfilling the 15 minute prophecy.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Just because someone is ecoing fast and efficiently does not mean they are not paying attention to the game and what their opponent is doing. The efficient fast eco player is still mindful of the game state and is ready to counter aggression.
Never said they weren't
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
My point again, is why do players want to end a game as fast as possible.
Two reasons. The first is because I intend to play at full capacity. If the skill difference between myself and my opponent is great enough that the game ends quickly, then that's when the game ends. To artificially drag out the game would by definition mean either I, my opponent, or both are deliberately not winning, which is boring.
Well sure, but you can also take the stance of giving your opponent a chance and allowing everyone to play on and enjoy the game instead of capitalising on the skill difference by ending the game in 15 minutes.
Let's say at the 15 minute mark I my opponent has 75% map control and vastly more eco than me. I want him to kill me at that point because there is little to no way for me to recover. Sure he can sit and wait for 30 minutes while I get all T3 eco, but in that time he's going to be ecoing too except much faster because of the map control and eco advantages. Even if I have 200 mass income I'm not winning against a 600 mass income opponent. Those extra 30 minutes would be a waste of both people's time. I'd rather be queueing for the next game than technically in a game but waiting to die.
In this case you can either recall or leave the game if you feel you have 0 chance of winning. If you have 3x less eco than your opponent that is not a 100% loss. Sure it's a high likelihood of loss but not 100%. The greater mass your enemy has doesn't mean anything if they don't know how to use it and finish the game.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Is watching a movie for 10 minutes really more enjoyable than watching all the movie?
10 minutes is the whole movie. This isn't a comparison of a 2 hour movie or just a 10 minute clip of the same movie, it's watching 2 hours of a movie that could have been 10 minutes. Have you ever watched the Hobbit trilogy? They tried to extend a book that was shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books into 3 movies. They accomplished this by filling it with all sorts of garbage and time-wasting nonsense that nobody cares about.
10 minutes is not the whole movie at all. I know what you're saying, but this seems like a fallacy. A movie is not just the key points of the movie, the open sequence, some action in the middle and an ending. Movies are an entire narrative, a story arc, that in most cases require a substantial amount of time more than 10 minutes. By this logic you can reduce every movie ever made into a sentence or two with a synopsis. Just make every movie into a 15 second tiktok short no problem. Yes problem. That is not a movie, that is a 15 second ultra boiled down summary of an otherwise long, fun and interesting story.
The main reason to cut the Hobbit book into 3 parts was 1) Money, and 2) Because why the hell not. If you're a proper fan of Tolkien and Middle-Earth you wouldn't complain at all about anything movie adaptation being too long. Maybe you have issues with use of "creative license" or interpretation. But as a proper fan you'd be glad you're seeing Middle-Earth on your screen for long periods of time.
So most Tolkien fans would probably disagree with you that the 3 movie adaptation of the Hobbit story is anything but time-wasting nonsense. They're no lord of the rings trilogy, but they're all still great movies and all received an extended cut release like the former. Because fans want that. They want 4 hour middle earth movies.
If given the choice of watching a single Lord of the Rings movie or all three Hobbit movies, I would watch Lord of the Rings every time.
Sure, there is no debate about this.
-
I don't think playing the game is inherently satisfying. When I play competitive games, I do so because it is satisfying to learn new things, improve at the game, and defeat increasingly stronger opponents. Once the learning and improvement have plateaued the game is no longer fun. There is generally nothing useful to be learned by extending the game time unnecessarily, so the optimal thing to do is win the game and go on to the next stronger opponent where you can actually improve and learn something. If the opponent is strong there will be no way to win in 15 minutes because they do not make game losing mistakes in the first 15 minutes. With stronger and more balanced opponents the game will naturally last longer.
It is a quantity vs quality debate, which gamers seem to be particularly confused about. Gamers typically want to spend money to receive a product which will occupy the largest amount of their time. Alternatively, you can spend time in order to receive concentrated quality experiences. If you value your time then you would prefer to watch many good, unique, short films as opposed to 4 hours of bloated fan service. What do you value more between time, money, and quality of experience? Do you just want something to keep you occupied until you die or do you want to have a variety of quality experiences? I tend to feel bad about myself when I think I've "wasted" a large amount of my life, but I actually think that all approaches are fine and it doesn't really matter in the end.
-
Wrong dychotomy. It's not "t1 gameplay vs t1/t2/t3/t4 gameplay". It's "turtle gameplay vs dynamic gameplay". Dynamic games generally don't last as long cause any mistake gets punished immediately, so games tend to be shorter. But long dynamic games are the best.
-
@Sainse said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Wrong dychotomy. It's not "t1 gameplay vs t1/t2/t3/t4 gameplay". It's "turtle gameplay vs dynamic gameplay". Dynamic games generally don't last as long cause any mistake gets punished immediately, so games tend to be shorter. But long dynamic games are the best.
That makes no sense. And you too fail to see the larger point.
Why are long games turtley? They're not. Long game does not = turtle game.
A long game can only occur if a game is launched to begin with. A long game can only occur once a certain amount of time has passed. A long game can only occur if the opening stage has passed. Which is the t1 phase, which is "dynamic" as you say. A long game will include way more elements of what the game has to offer than any almost any 15 minute game. Which is to say is more dynamic.
-
@ThomasHiatt said in 15minutes of gaming?:
I don't think playing the game is inherently satisfying. When I play competitive games, I do so because it is satisfying to learn new things, improve at the game, and defeat increasingly stronger opponents. Once the learning and improvement have plateaued the game is no longer fun. There is generally nothing useful to be learned by extending the game time unnecessarily, so the optimal thing to do is win the game and go on to the next stronger opponent where you can actually improve and learn something. If the opponent is strong there will be no way to win in 15 minutes because they do not make game losing mistakes in the first 15 minutes. With stronger and more balanced opponents the game will naturally last longer.
A games primary function is not to win the game. A game is not made so that one day someone will play the game and win the game, however that translates: a story campaign or online match. Every games function is by definition an activity that you engage in for amusement and fun. Most players playing this game are doing so to have fun. They are not entirely interesting in learning more about the game and improving their skill, although satisfying and rewarding this is. I believe it is not the reason most players play this game. They play this game because it is fun to play.
You can also make an argument that many of the top players in terms of skill have essentially plateaued already, since their rating remains relatively stable within a few hundred global points worth of rating. Yet they continue to play the game on a regular basis. Because the game is fun to play.
So whilst your comment may be true for you, it does not seem to be true for most players.
It is a quantity vs quality debate, which gamers seem to be particularly confused about. Gamers typically want to spend money to receive a product which will occupy the largest amount of their time. Alternatively, you can spend time in order to receive concentrated quality experiences. If you value your time then you would prefer to watch many good, unique, short films as opposed to 4 hours of bloated fan service. What do you value more between time, money, and quality of experience? Do you just want something to keep you occupied until you die or do you want to have a variety of quality experiences? I tend to feel bad about myself when I think I've "wasted" a large amount of my life, but I actually think that all approaches are fine and it doesn't really matter in the end.
This is all entirely subjective and depends on ones preference, and their prerogatives for what they personally deem worthy of the time. Which will further determine to what extent they use their time doing whatever thing it is they enjoy. I value my time, just as much as the next person. And I would value watching a 4 hour high quality, bloated service catering to my fandom of that movie, as opposed to many good unrelated and potentially obscure short movies.
-
Same thing with com snipes really, some players actively just try to kill coms as quickly as possible mostly with t2 air, but it just ends the game quickly and there is literally no enjoyment from either side, just one player who gets to say I win and its over. this is one of the issues that honestly make me just want to quit FAF altogether as theres no point in playing games that end quickly and in this way. I would rather just give a player 20 points than spending 10-12 mins in game and boom com gone, game over, next. What a complete waste of time.
-
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
@Sainse said in 15minutes of gaming?:
long dynamic games are the best.
That makes no sense. And you too fail to see the larger point.
Long game does not = turtle game.Well you failed to see a basic point that I didn't claim "Long game does not = turtle game", I even directly stated "long dynamic game" is a thing. My point was that dynamic games tend to end faster, so most of them is relatively short as a result.
You could just read other people's messages carefully before claiming they fail to see something
-
@Sainse said in 15minutes of gaming?:
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
@Sainse said in 15minutes of gaming?:
long dynamic games are the best.
That makes no sense. And you too fail to see the larger point.
Long game does not = turtle game.Well you failed to see a basic point that I didn't claim "Long game does not = turtle game", I even directly stated "long dynamic game" is a thing. My point was that dynamic games tend to end faster, so most of them is relatively short as a result.
You could just read other people's messages carefully before claiming they fail to see something
If you paid attention to the entire threat you would see I have carefully and diligently responded to every single response.
Please read my original post though first before you make 2 sentence replies. They are hardly worth the effort to respond to, let alone read.
-
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Call it what you will. Eco is half the game. You don't see "eco players" calling out aggression as "aggression simulator". Or "rush sim" when someone is fulfilling the 15 minute prophecy.
I am calling what I will. But you're the one asking "why don't people let me eco sim?", you can't then flip it into aggressive players having some kind of superiority complex when you are the one questioning the way others prefer to play.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Which is the t1 phase, which is "dynamic" as you say. A long game will include way more elements of what the game has to offer than any almost any 15 minute game. Which is to say is more dynamic.
No, a more dynamic game is by definition less stable. A less stable game is less likely to turn into a long game. You can have dynamic, aggressive, games that last a long time because no side is able to gain a decisive advantage. That is different from both sides deliberately deciding to extend the game. That is what leads to less dynamic gameplay.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
I value my time, just as much as the next person. And I would value watching a 4 hour high quality, bloated service catering to my fandom of that movie, as opposed to many good unrelated and potentially obscure short movies.
And many players, specifically the ones you're asking about, have no interest in a bloated game. They are interested in an action packed (even if shorter) game. You might disagree, but your opponents are under no obligation to play the game you want them to.
-
let people play how they want to, early agression equals a very dynamic game that generally do not last long due to the high price of errors. If you play extremely passive and you significantly stall / take bad trades, whereas your opponent doesn't and plays agressive - that's already an almost certainly lost game in a matter of 10 minutes because of the snowball effect. Gamers play from their opponent's mistake and win games fast, almost nobody wants to drag out an already won game
-
There's always the option to host 20 minute no-rush games. That'll go some way in giving you your high-eco long-duration games. Not sure how much luck you'll have filling such a lobby, but you can try I guess.
-
@Deribus said in 15minutes of gaming?:
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Call it what you will. Eco is half the game. You don't see "eco players" calling out aggression as "aggression simulator". Or "rush sim" when someone is fulfilling the 15 minute prophecy.
I am calling what I will. But you're the one asking "why don't people let me eco sim?", you can't then flip it into aggressive players having some kind of superiority complex when you are the one questioning the way others prefer to play.
I am not asking why people don't let me "eco sim". I am asking why the majority of players for most of the time think playing a game for 15 minutes is more fun than play a game for 60 minutes. Which is not the same as, please let me "eco sim". Regardless of whether one chooses to "eco sim", in my mind, objectively speaking, playing a game for 60 minutes is in most cases inherently more fun than playing a game for 15 minutes.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Which is the t1 phase, which is "dynamic" as you say. A long game will include way more elements of what the game has to offer than any almost any 15 minute game. Which is to say is more dynamic.
No, a more dynamic game is by definition less stable. A less stable game is less likely to turn into a long game. You can have dynamic, aggressive, games that last a long time because no side is able to gain a decisive advantage. That is different from both sides deliberately deciding to extend the game. That is what leads to less dynamic gameplay.
You just nullified your own point. There is no clear correlation between time playing in game and "dynamic" play. And the same is probably true for "less stable" game and time spent in game.
Not to mention too how you're defining a dynamic game. What exactly is this? By your admission, the degree to which a game is stable or not? And how is game stability measured? A chaotic opening can and does go into a long game. Although many players give up after the slightest of disadvantages.
I don't know why you conflate my desire for long games with, both sides "deliberately" extending the game. These 2 are separate. It's quite rare for 2 teams to conspire to deliberately extend the game. There is always someone trying to win as fast as possible.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
I value my time, just as much as the next person. And I would value watching a 4 hour high quality, bloated service catering to my fandom of that movie, as opposed to many good unrelated and potentially obscure short movies.
And many players, specifically the ones you're asking about, have no interest in a bloated game. They are interested in an action packed (even if shorter) game. You might disagree, but your opponents are under no obligation to play the game you want them to.
-
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
I am asking why the majority of players for most of the time think playing a game for 15 minutes is more fun than play a game for 60 minutes.
Already answered.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
in my mind, objectively speaking, playing a game for 60 minutes is in most cases inherently more fun than playing a game for 15 minutes.
in my mind, objectively speaking
objectively
