This game is a lot better on steam, just play there instead

One of the most mind boggling things about this game I find, specifically with the players, is how players enjoy playing the game for 12-15minutes at a time

What I mean by this is that, in my experience playing thousands of games, the vast majority of players when in a game, are looking to kill their opponent and win the game as fast as possible. And this usually occurs between 12-15minutes. If the 15 minute prophecy is not fulfilled then the game may run for 20minutes, give or a take a few minutes.

Why do players find short games fun? I don't get it.

Is it the short lived, but intense spike in dopamine and adrenaline they get when their t1 spam or quick t2 land push finally overwhelms their opponent that decided they want to try eco, therefore sacrificing some unit volume in the process which ultimately leads to their quick demise?

Rushing gun at minute 9 and pushing your unsuspecting and caught off guard enemy by surprise. It's a thrill sure, obliterating your opponent is rapid fashion. Nice one.

But you kill your guy and the game is likely over then. Sure the team can play on but in most cases, this is just a catalyst to the enemy teams quick demise.

You won the game. It only took you 15minutes. Let's go get another game. Let's go wait a bunch more time in the tmm queue, or sit in a lobby for half hour so we can do all that again lol.

My points is that, we enjoy playing this game. So why not intend to play a game that actually lasts a good length of time. You know, play the game. Because you play the game to play the game. You do not play the game to not play the game. That does not make sense. Playing the game is more fun that not playing the game. So why do you rush something you enjoy so quick, to lead to a state that is you not playing the game. Why not intend to do the thing you want to be doing - playing the game - for as long as possible, so that you find yourself in a situation where you are not playing the game. Of course there are diminishing returns in fun when playing the game, and games can and do become boring, that's a matter of subjectivity. Some guys could probably play this game for 10hours and still be having fun. But surely a sane person would agree that doing something you enjoy for longer, is objectively more fun than doing something you enjoy in a shorter space of time.

The arguments that long games are boring or stale or end game meta is all the same also doesn't make sense to me . In the long game when everyone has big bases and big eco, your options are limitless as far as what the game can offer. The same can not be said for the tech 1 state of any game since you are obviously restricted to tech 1.

No matter what map you play or what format, your enemy, no matter his rating or skill or experience, is looking to end you, and thereby end the game as quick as possible. This is my experience.

I understand we are playing a real time strategy game in an online competitive format. I get that. But not every game is a $10,000 tournament final where it is absolutely imperative that you must kill your opponent in the quickest most opportune way you know how or are able.

I know some players will agree with what I am saying, but I know most players will probably disagree. They find the first 15minutes the most exciting. Which I am not arguing with per se. This is the stage that typically decides a game in the majority of games it seems. And the first 15 minutes are for sure fun, raiding opponents, defending raids, pushing for map control etc..

But come on..

Tell me, what is more fun.. a 10k worth of mass t1 land battle, or a 250k worth of mass t1/t2/t3/t4 land battle?

Is rushing navy 10 seconds faster than your opponent and getting 4 additional frigates and 2 subs to crush your opponent, locking him out the navy and effectively beating him really more fun than getting to a stage where you both have a U.S. sized naval armada going to town on eachother. There is so much more fun in the latter, in every possible way.

Or are you blind sided with the raw stimulation you get when quickly dispatching your opponent as quickly and ruthlessly as possible? Way to go.

Of course I have been on the receiving end of such gameplay many times, and being the one myself to fulfill the 15 minute prophecy. It's quite fun winning in 15minutes. It's a thrill to kill your guy quick and win quick. But it can never be more fun than a competitive 1 hour game where the game completely opens up in scale and fun.

I just wish more players preferred the long game, the epic scale the game can offer and the epic battles than can occur.

Remember, this is my opinion. You have yours. I have mine.

The bottom line is this. There is no argument that can convince me that playing this game for 15minutes is more fun than playing this game for 1 hour.

@sladow-noob said in Personal/Custom Avatars:

@yew The deal is mentioned in this thread and the discord thread which you apparently didn't follow and the fact that you contributed nothing to the FAF community so it's a hard "no" for your custom avatar anyway imho.

There is a discord thread on avatar policing? My apologies I didn't realise.

The custom ava's for all point went completely over your head didn't it. Tell me, how would custom avatars for everyone be a bad thing? The community is tiny. This would be cool if everyone had an ava of their design and choosing and something akin to a personal profile picture for their Supreme Commander Forged Alliance Forever account.

I understand this would be rather a lot of effort however, and I recognise this will never happen, not that it shouldn't, but it won't cause reason like, Some nonsense about the fact it will take away the meaning of custom ava's people already have; will devalue all those ava's in existence that people have, if everyone has one then you can't distinguish between earned ava's and merely having ava's, and so on and so forth.

"..so it's a hard "no" for your custom avatar anyway imho."

Gosh so many things to unpack there.

Please tell me how you arrived at that conclusion, that I personally want a custom avatar, cause you know we all want those right, they are so cool man, gosh I really love custom avatars for they are really cool and amazing and I really wish I had one for my Supreme Commander Forged Alliance Forever account.

Yeah I could not care less about a custom avatar.

I like how you say hard no, as though there is a difference between no and a hard no, and the fact you put no in quotation marks, what is the point of that exactly? Doesn't make sense in the slightest. "Your custom avatar". What custom avatar would that be then? What makes you say that? Cause I lightly suggested everyone should have a custom avatar, cause you know, cool man. Again, who cares about custom avatar's, tourney avatars, or avatar the movie (actually avatar the movie was good, but not the second one).

I mean obviously you care a lot.

Why?

Because a man's country's leader decided to start a war, now that man can't get paid for a gaming tournament and so as a kind gesture of goodwill and compensation he was given a custom avatar. What is wrong with you?

Let the man have his custom avatar. Why does that bother you so much so you have to create a big post on the forums.

As far as my contribution to Supreme Commander Forged Alliance Forever account goes, well I wouldn't say it's nothing, the fact I play daily is good for the community. As small of a part I play in the survival of this game is, I am still part of the few that keep it alive by playing almost daily. That is a contribution in an of itself.

You telling me I contribute nothing is an egomaniacal statement and you as a mod shouldn't talk down to players like that.

Fine I don't have 50,000 messages in discord "training" people and arguing with people etc...what is your giant contribution to this game exactly?

Anyway I appreciate you gave me your honest opinion on the matter.

"imho" lol.

Here's how:

1. Delete all 5x5 maps from the pool (maybe 1 is acceptable)

Reason: 95%> of 5x5 map games end within 15minutes, which I bet for most players is not fun. Therefore anything larger, like the customary 10x or 20x maps incentivise longer gameplay. You can rationalise this logic by using an endless amount of analogies. Here's a few.

Analogy 1 - I like to watch TV shows, and find great pleasure in binge watching them. One of my favourite TV shows is Dexter. I recently binge watched the first 5 series (for the second time). When I begin my binge watching, I don't just watch 10 minutes of one episode, or 18 minutes of an episode, what is the point of that, unless you suddenly have to stop watching it for whatever reason. At minimum I watch a full episode, which ranges from 45 - 60 minutes. Often I would watch back to back episodes. By doing this, I see the full arc and plot of the episode, and become engrossed in the story and characters being portrayed.

Analogy 2 - I am partial to a bit of online, and over the board chess. It's a timeless game that millions enjoy. Now imagine a chess game where you're playing bullet chess. Games last <3minutes. Imagine further that every piece on the board is removed for both players, except their king, and 1 or 2 pawns. Each player has 2/3 pieces. Imagine further, instead of the standard 8x8 board of 64 squares, you now have a 3x3 board of 9 squares. Now picture how this hypothetical game looks and feels as a player. It would be very fast, and frankly boring, in which both players gain little to no satisfaction in playing. At least by playing with all your pieces on a full size board you can explore the 10^120 possible moves the game has to offer.

Analogy 3 - As a lover of crisps (potato chip), I can easily devour any size portion of crisps, such as the 30g bag, a 50g bag, 100g or 200g sharing bag, no problem. Let's take the standard serving size bag which is typically around 30g. I open the bag, and I begin eating the contents. I eat the whole bag and finish the contents. The same applies to most bags up to 200g, where I will often save at least half a 200g bag, or a 1/3 if I'm feeling fat that day. I would never open a bag of crisps (30g) eat 1 or 2 crisps and leave the bag to eat later. I will eat the whole bag. There is little point or pleasure in eating a few crisps from the bag, when the bag has so much more to offer, i.e. it's entirety, of which provides a full and satiating serving.

Now,

Similarly, I do not enjoy playing this game for such a short period of time. I want to maximise my fun by playing for not too short a time, but equally not too long a time. Personally, I enjoy games that last a minimum of 40 - 60 minutes irl time. The game has a large scope, with many units, many things to do and actions to execute. This can not be explored to any real degree in such a limited and constrained scenario, of which, a 5x5 1v1 ladder match essentially is.

I understand that many players gain the most satisfaction from playing this game by simply defeating their opponent. Being the victor, the superior player is very satisfying, maybe the most satisfying aspect of any competitive game that requires you to end the virtual existence of your opponent. Defeating them fast can only serve to boost this feeling too right.

But take a step back. In the context of this game. Are you really serving the higher good by beating opponents as fast as humanly possible. Is that encouraging players to want to play more? How sure are you to get another game after you just spend 97 minutes in a queue only to have killed your guy, or being killed by the guy in a mere 9 minutes and 34 seconds? Is playing the game and winning in 9 minutes and 34 seconds more satisfying, pleasurable and entertaining than playing for 43 minutes and 12 seconds, win or lose?

The game was made to have fun, to remove you temporarily from the absurdity that is real life. Yes part of that fun involves beating an opponent in it's online competitive variant, but it's not the only aspect of it.

Nobody wants endless discord channels to join. What's wrong with the main faf server? It already has the looking for a game channel and other channels for finding people to try get a game.

1v1 being dead on all rating levels has nothing to do with communication. Most players don't enjoy 1v1's in this game, period. That's why it's dead.

Blue red and green are clearly S tier since they're primary colours.

Are there any plans or thoughts about 5v5, or even 6v6 tmm being introduced?

Would be nice to get more 4v4 games but 3v3 tmm has had a big impact on it. I wonder if a 5v5 tmm would then have an impact on 3v3 so we get more games with more players.

Just a thought.

Why can't we all get custom avatars of our choosing? What's the big deal. This would be nothing but a plus for FAF

Gyle has a family and most likely a life. He doesn't really care about this game. He probably only makes a cast some random Sunday afternoon when he's bored and has nothing else to do.

@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.

@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.

@Kampfkeks500 said in 15minutes of gaming?:

I remember you insulting my teammate during and after the game with that exact accusation.
Every map has axes of symmetry and should be fairly balanced. If someone chooses T2 Mexes and is later in Navy, that's their own fault and/or lack of scouting. A game where both teams build roughly similar numbers of units rarely ends in a quick rollover.

The idea that you don't want to play the game because you're working towards victory (the end of the game) is funny and echoes The Journey vs. the Destination conflict. Obviously most all players are closer to the Destination side, but on that point I understand the frustration when someone's entire gameplan is to make a Corsair Snipe. Then I also ask myself, “why is this fun for you?” But yes, everyone has their own way of playing the game and as long as it's part of the game, there's no need to ask them unkindly why they're not playing my preferred playstyle.

If you want to change your own experience, there are many maps that have few key points and less reclaim and contestable mexes, I think on these maps you will find your desired playstyle more often as opposed to small mapgens.

I see no convincing argument here in favour of a 15 minute game being more fun than a 60 minute game.

@IndexLibrorum said in 15minutes of gaming?:

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

. In the long game when everyone has big bases and big eco, your options are limitless as far as what the game can offer. The same can not be said for the tech 1 state of any game since you are obviously restricted to tech 1.

I'd argue that the late game has just as many if not more limitations as the early game, just in different ways.

Once you're in late stage game, air is mostly locked out of most of the map due to SAMs, most experimentals have to move in clusters to get anything done, none of the T1 or T2 units will see any play, and most of the game just devolves into shield micro and arty wars, plus the occasional satalite and game ender.

That kind of base-to-base war feels very stale to me. I find it much more enjoyable to play with armies pressuring armies, trying to win by manoeuvre and being able to use stuff like drops and snipes.

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

Rushing gun at minute 9 and pushing your unsuspecting and caught off guard enemy by surprise. It's a thrill sure, obliterating your opponent is rapid fashion. Nice one.

You write this as if the attacking player is in the wrong here. The goal of the game is to kill the enemy commander. If my opponent is dumb enough to overexpose a commander, then he'll get blown up for it. If you're not taking the kills when they are offering to you, you're essentially playing worse just to extend the game. I don't find that any fun nor competitive.

The bottom line is this. There is no argument that can convince me that playing this game for 15minutes is more fun than playing this game for 1 hour.

Right then, shall I lock the thread for you?

I posted in general discussion for a reason. To garner discussion and voice my opinion. There is no need to be all high horse about it talking about locking the thread.

No argument can convince me that playing a game for 15 minutes is more fun than playing a game for 60 minutes.

@brutus5000 said in Time to go:

It's Endranii, once again pointing out how silly the renaming thing is.

Right click user check name history. Checkmate server admin guy.

TMM games, like all global games should be unrated within that first 8 minutes.

Regardless of who is "expected" to win.

Surely that is easy to change. Apply this rule after 8 minutes.

It's plain stupid that rating changes occur during any kind of draw. It defies the definition of the word draw.

Why is it that during a game, if someone disconnects, the client and the game take up 100% of my CPU??

It forces me to leave the game due to 1 fps

No other application or game I've ever had on any PC I've owned has this ever occurred, except with this dumb client.

Many games of late I have had to leave prematurely, usually resulting a loss, causing distress to me and my team.

This has to stop.

sign up

@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.

@brutus5000 said in Time to go:

@yew said in Time to go:

@brutus5000 said in Time to go:

It's Endranii, once again pointing out how silly the renaming thing is.

Right click user check name history. Checkmate server admin guy.

In the forum? On mobile? Tell me more, Mr. Passive Aggressive

In the Forged Alliance Forever Client, Mr. Woke Snowflake