Game length theories (overly serious)
SUMMARY
Peace time is awesome.
PRESUMPTIONS
Let's say the purpose of a multiplayer match is to
*find out which of the 2 players (teams) is stronger
*have fun while doing so.
And lets also presume that one player's skills are more or less equal in all areas of the game: town building, unit choice, army maneuvering etc. The differences in areas are not that big afterall.
POINT 1: In this case, longer games end with the same result as short games. Furthermore, the small difference in skill will get bigger as the game procceeds, since the better player has more workers, more production etc. And these more workers and more production results in even more workers and stuff. Thus the better player will only grow its advantage as the game gets longer. Thus for a less skilled player, shorter game is more likely to end with a victory.
POINT 2: Ironicly most beginners want "1 hour no rush" and other methods of making games longer. And thus longer game, even though it ends most likely even worse, is more enjoyable for unskilled players. Otherwise they would not ask for these rules. In a longer game a beginner spends smaller percentage of time being destroyed. Instead of actually finding a way to not lose that 30 minute game people tend to say you can't attack me for 30 minutes, I was not ready. Not considering that the difference in power just grows in time. Rules that make games longer are frustrating for people who tend to win a lot of games very easily, since winning easily is as boring as being utterly destroyed.
Therefore, the longer the game the more needed is a system for finding reasonable opponents
. Unless game is inherently broken in case of a rush, rules that prevent early agression just make games longer. IF the game is not broken in sense of rushing (KaM might be) such rules are enforced by players who refuse to learn fast strategies. A player may claim that playing the fastest possible strategy does not fit his personality and constant rushing is boring. Games being oriented only on rushing are indeed a bit lame.
POINT 3: However, the rushing problem is not solved by introducing a no-rush period. The principle is same: who-ever has most power at the end of truce period wins the game. So players just rush at the moment truce ends, instead of rushing from the first second of gameplay. In fact they do rush from 1st second of game play, they just rush for different things and focus on military slightly later. Either case, faster player wins.
**********
As showed above, with given presumptions
1. the same player wins whether the game is long or short. So longer games don't serve deciding who wins.
2. If the game is not inherently broken in sense of rushing, the no-rush periods make game less enjoyable for more skilled players.That is the case unless there is good system of finding equally skilled opponents.
3. The no-rush periods also do not favor players who don't like playing as fast as possible.
=> the no-rush rules are required only if there is no way to find good opponents or if the game is inherently broken in sense of rushing. An example would be if there is only one effective way to rush anyone ever and it cannot be countered. Like militia with no peace time.
Since we have both cases in KaM, peace time is awesome
However a need for such measures speaks of a problem.
Peace time is awesome.
PRESUMPTIONS
Let's say the purpose of a multiplayer match is to
*find out which of the 2 players (teams) is stronger
*have fun while doing so.
And lets also presume that one player's skills are more or less equal in all areas of the game: town building, unit choice, army maneuvering etc. The differences in areas are not that big afterall.
POINT 1: In this case, longer games end with the same result as short games. Furthermore, the small difference in skill will get bigger as the game procceeds, since the better player has more workers, more production etc. And these more workers and more production results in even more workers and stuff. Thus the better player will only grow its advantage as the game gets longer. Thus for a less skilled player, shorter game is more likely to end with a victory.
POINT 2: Ironicly most beginners want "1 hour no rush" and other methods of making games longer. And thus longer game, even though it ends most likely even worse, is more enjoyable for unskilled players. Otherwise they would not ask for these rules. In a longer game a beginner spends smaller percentage of time being destroyed. Instead of actually finding a way to not lose that 30 minute game people tend to say you can't attack me for 30 minutes, I was not ready. Not considering that the difference in power just grows in time. Rules that make games longer are frustrating for people who tend to win a lot of games very easily, since winning easily is as boring as being utterly destroyed.
Therefore, the longer the game the more needed is a system for finding reasonable opponents
. Unless game is inherently broken in case of a rush, rules that prevent early agression just make games longer. IF the game is not broken in sense of rushing (KaM might be) such rules are enforced by players who refuse to learn fast strategies. A player may claim that playing the fastest possible strategy does not fit his personality and constant rushing is boring. Games being oriented only on rushing are indeed a bit lame.POINT 3: However, the rushing problem is not solved by introducing a no-rush period. The principle is same: who-ever has most power at the end of truce period wins the game. So players just rush at the moment truce ends, instead of rushing from the first second of gameplay. In fact they do rush from 1st second of game play, they just rush for different things and focus on military slightly later. Either case, faster player wins.
**********
As showed above, with given presumptions
1. the same player wins whether the game is long or short. So longer games don't serve deciding who wins.
2. If the game is not inherently broken in sense of rushing, the no-rush periods make game less enjoyable for more skilled players.That is the case unless there is good system of finding equally skilled opponents.
3. The no-rush periods also do not favor players who don't like playing as fast as possible.
=> the no-rush rules are required only if there is no way to find good opponents or if the game is inherently broken in sense of rushing. An example would be if there is only one effective way to rush anyone ever and it cannot be countered. Like militia with no peace time.
Since we have both cases in KaM, peace time is awesome
However a need for such measures speaks of a problem.
