1v1 considering 8 - 20 min games, should pre 10 min t2 be viable?

Title

possible? yes, viable?

ehh as their power right now, no.

Planets need to be bigger first. Too expensive to get T2 when you can just spam cheaper T1 units.

Why should it be impossible? What's wrong with super early T2 if they can pull if off without getting steamrolled?

It is possible. I can build in 2,5 min

I'd say on mid sized planets and larger it should be viable to have t2 by minute 10.
On smaller maps it would be cool if a t2 rushers vs a t1 rusher would kinda balance each other out and both have equal chances to win. Though before PA tries to reach that kind of balance we first need to fix the issue "t1 economy screwed, t2 is a massive rarity"

always possible ... viable is another question ... generaly i would say in an avarage match on an avarage map at the latest it should be possible to get t2 around 25 minutes with not too much disadvantage ... i know easy said ...
at the earliest 12 to 15 min? though with quite a risk

How should this ever work? ... unless you set t1 = t2.

Basically the t2 rusher would have a dangerous phase where he can be attacked. So the t1 player needs to realize his opponent is teching and push really hard.
But yeah getting that balance right isn't easy and PA first should try to solve more basic issues.

What gives, the title used to say "should it be viable?" and as soon as I voted, now it says impossible. Wtf? -_-

Anyway, it SHOULD be viable, imo, which is what I voted for, irrelevant that the title now says differently.

I've changed the thread title to be consistent with the poll question to prevent confusion now.

Thanks, I think the whole thing might need a revote probably, if it asks something differently now.. not that many voted on it anyway. What's it at, 11 to 9 for viability? Or was it 11 to 6? Don't remember last time I looked. I can't change my vote so it's kind of.. oops xD

Edit : Yeah, if I remember correctly, I believe it was 11 vs 6 in favor of viability pre-10min, including my vote which I borked somehow.

Well I did not touch the question of the poll, only the thread topic asked the opposite of the poll. The question of polls cannot be edited by normal users after it was created as well I think.

Should an 8 minute game be viable in the first place?

Yes on the small maps we currently play for 1 v 1, which was the same in TA and in Spring.

Tiny map = short game (usually).

As for t2 being viable, this really should be tied to the amount of metal. The strange thing with PA though is 99% of games I play are energy limited rather than metal.

I personally agree with @cola_colin that the economy could do with some rebalancing. Out of interest they ran into this issue with 'balanced annihilation' in Spring. The solution was to make one of the t1 energy structures (spring has several) cost 0 energy to build (albeit at a higher metal cost) so you could correct serious energy stall situations provided you had metal income.

Something like that could greatly increase the effectiveness of fabbers and help make t2 more viable imo.

If you reduce the map size enough you'll get 2 minute games

Com-boxing, anyone?

I probably got confused or something with the title vs the poll. Or something. I don't even remember anymore.

In my opinion, I think 8 min games, 2 min games, comboxing, whatever, should all be viable in some form. Will everyone like them? Probably not. Does that mean we shouldn't include it? Hell no.

Personally, I don't like short games whatsoever, I especially hate rush-based games, and I love playing massive scale with thousands of units blowing each other new ones. Even I know that many people like short games with whatever stratagems they decide to use, and in that respect it should be viable. Gameplay should never be hard-limited based on balance. That's a bad thing. (At least in a game like this, anyway)