How long a match will take?

So considering that we have other planets to kill or take possession, for many different reasons or options.
Will I see players giving up halfway through the game, due to time they dont have!
A match will be able to have more than 30 minutes, 1 hour or more?

How long is a piece of string?


It really depends on how many players. We're expecting more players mean longer games.

Just keep in mind that it's not a linear thing, a game with 4 players won't necessarily take twice as long as a 1v1.

The Common "ideal" I think is about 20-40 minutes for a good solid game, but there are a LOT of factors that can affect game time, many of which we can't use yet in the Alpha, so we're not at the point yet where we can really start hammering on game length.

Mike

If I need to play an hour to get an asteroid and smash a planet, then an hour is good.

I would hope that it doesn't take an hour to just get to another planet, sure maybe to get the asteroid fully operational. I enjoy the massive scale and large battles, but that doesn't mean I want to spend 2 hours playing one match, though I expect large 40 player battles to last longer

An ideal time would be 20-40 minutes though, but again that depends on gametype (Teams or FFA) along with planet and system sizes, etc, etc. This game has a lot of variables so game-times will vary accordingly.

Since the game will have the best RTS replay system to date, one would assume they will try anything to make the game enjoyable to watch as well as play.
1 hour battles should be longest possible for the e-sportish competitive scene. For other types, it is regardless since Civ 5 takes a billion hours to get finished and yet it is the most played strategy game on Steam. So it really depends on the game types and the quality of the game, it must be interesting regardless of how many times you play. Not a simple thing to achieve.

I want to derail things a little bit and say something while its still fresh in my brain.

I would like to see, as far as the competitive scene is concerned, is using orbital combat to deceive the enemy. It really depends on the game time so if this needs an hour to be reached in a normal game it is too complicated to implement but if it can be achieved in 30 minutes, then it would make a great intense ending of the game.

Say, you can crash your own planet into the sun.
If you suicide your commander's planet into the sun, you lose double the points(compared to a regular loss based on time played + resource difference and battle statistics) but your enemy doesn't get any. While the planet is aimed at the sun, you gain double the resources from the planet that is crashing, when it crashes, its all gone.

This is where deceiving comes into play. You are losing but you have enough to get thrusters and crash a planet into the sun. If you crash a random planet, you lose resources but not the game(since the commander is still alive) but if you crash your commander, what I mentioned earlier happens.
You build thrusters on a random planet and aim the thrusters into the sun. Your enemy sees that and thinks you will suicide yourself to prevent him from getting points.
This is a gamble cause you may not know if he knows where is your commander.
If he knows, he might just knock the planet out of orbit so you lose the double resources and thrusters get screwed(loss of resources on both sides)
If he doesn't know, he will either try to scout the other planets or attempt to knock the planet out of the desired orbit (or blow it up completely). Your enemy loses time and resources if he has no vision of your commander and you gain an advantage before the planet crashes into the sun.
In that gap you can gain a resourceful advantage, especially if its a metal planet and you may turn around the game before you lose that planet.

Should I make a thread about this? :lol:

I fully expect to be able to build a gigantic catapult capable of flinging stuff onto astral bodies in the same time it takes me to build a Tier 2 Artillery Piece. The game's key selling point is multiple planets, combat on multiple planets, and more importantly, multiple high-momentum objects smashing into multiple planets simultaneously. Therefore you should be able to just as easily overrun your enemy by blowing the unholy hell out of them with an orbital bombardment as you should be able to overrun them with tanks.

This is not sarcasm. This isn't SupCom, we aren't going to be waging artillery wars and exchanging nukes for armies when we could just BLOW **** THE **** UP and be done with it.

I've generally found match's right now to last from 10 minutes to three hours depending on a variety of things. One thing to consider is a bug crashing the game which can happen in alpha.

Of course a game can start without trouble and those are usually the longest with the pro's building walls around their base. Another that I have seen happen in team armies is someone taking control of my commander and making him Team kill the other friendly commanders, those match's are usually short.

There is no way a game should last 3 hours :s, 30 mins seems to be an average for me,

I think the better duration should be approx. between 30 min and 1 hour.

But I remember when i was playing TA that some games easily go through 2 or 3 hours ^^

If the whole game is targeted at whoever throws the first asteroids at his enemy, i can promise you that this will be the most boring RTS youve ever played in your entire life, including Civ 5 - Throwing huge asteroids in planets may be cool for a while, but i am pretty sure long term fun is found in intensive battles over planets.

i fully expect games to last between 20 and 90 minutes.
I have already an average playtime of 45 minutes in a 1v1v1v1

We are already aware that such a scenario won't be the case, so why exactly you're bandying that vitriol around like it's fact, and insulting another game that isn't even in the same genre, is beyond me.

pro-tip: Civilisation 5 isn't real-time.

Thats the reason i posted it.

Yeah, its fine to insult games as long as its Civilization. The genre doesnt matter, is all about how boring it was.

Perhaps you'd like to challenge Cola_colin to a game. Would that make it more interesting?

Perhaps you'd like to post something constructive, that would make it more interesting for sure.

You mean like put downs against a game in a completely different Genre?

Mike

In order to be constructive ohhhshiny, one first needs something worth replying constructively to.

---

Here's something constructive then; if you're trying to attack the central conceit of the game Planetary Annihilation, a game about annihilation on a planetary scale, and you are damning that central conceit as something you don't want to play, then why have you bought and payed for a game you so obviously are unwilling to play?

If you would actually read my posts: i wrote "it would be as boring as" (other words though), and not "IT WOULD BE AS", i couldve written "AS BORING AS SITTING IN A WHITE ROOM STARING AT THE WALL", Guess whats, thats something completely different as well, but it wouldnt matter what it is, because it was only about the boring-aspect.

----------------

Nothing wrong with it, i just have a problem with reducing it down to it.

Just because you think the Civ 5 is boring, doesn't make it so. You're do not wield the power to define an experience for everyone.

I'll have you know that watching paint dry can actually be an interesting process for someone who uses paints in their hobby every day.

That's a better analogy. It doesn't make you look half as foolish. You should have used that one.

Cool, then at least you are fine with a game which will be so exciting as watching paint dry, well, guess what, im not.

Dont misunderstand me - i still think this game is going to be awesome.
I just want units etc. to still be an important part in the very lategame.