Timelimit or Fraglimit in pugs/scrims

[dckx]

Hi everyone. I hope it is OK if I ask here what server configuration people in general would prefer for scrims: timelimit or fraglimit. This is just to get a sense of what people like, and in no way reflects what MisFits admins will do or not do with the server. I will present what I consider to be the main characteristics of both server configs.

What Timelimit and Fraglimit mean:
a) Timelimit: A map finishes when a specific amount of time has passed (for example, 15 minutes), regardless of how many rounds have actually been played (there may be 15 rounds during the map duration, or 5 rounds, depending on how quick each round is played).
b) Fraglimit: A map finishes when one team wins a specific number of rounds (for example, 7 rounds). A map may consist in 7 rounds only (7-0) or 13 rounds (7-6), and depending on how each round is played, may last a very long time, or a relatively short time.

Game duration (in a 2-map scrim):
a) Timelimit: If timelimit is 15 minutes, the scrim lasts 60 minutes, plus the time between sides and maps.
b) Fraglimit: Depends on Fraglimit (how many rounds per map), and roundlimit (how long each round actually lasts). In MisFits server, with Fraglimit 7 and Roundlimit 5, the longest a 2-map scrim can last is 260 minutes (~4hr). If each round lasts in average 2 minutes 30 seconds, a 2-map scrim would last as long as 130 minutes (~2hr).
In conclusion, in most scenarios, playing with Fraglimit 7 and Roundlimit 5 (which is MisFits server config) makes scrims last longer that playing with Timeimit 15.

Game strategy:
a) Timelimit: With timelimit, depending on the map and side your team is playing, winning a round quickly is very different from winning a round slowly. The strategy your team uses on each round changes depending on remaining map time, and the score of the previous map or previous side. This is difficult to explain to me without a concrete example. I will use The Hunt, since it is a map where both sides (axis and allies) are very different.

When playing with Timelimit, In Hunt axis it makes a lot of sense to rush like crazy. If your team get good respawns and rush, you can easily get a score of 10-0 over the allies. So let's say a round in Hunt axis all your team but one player are killed when 1 minute has passed. Does it make more sense to loose that round immediately, so your team gets more rounds in the axis side, and therefore has more chances of winning by a large difference (assuming hunt is easier for axis)? Or should that player wait and try to win the round? What should axis do if it is 1vs5? And if it is 1vs2? Basically, depending on the map, it is always a negotiation between winning or losing a round, and the actual time it would take to win or lose that round. It is a question of "Should we let go this round, so we get more rounds which we could theoretically win?".

Acknowledging that there always is an easier side on each map (usually, it is easier to defend the bomb than to set the bomb), the strategy for each map varies greatly depending on what side are you on. And I don't just mean attacking in this part of the map, or attacking in this other part, but rather, how quickly or slowly you play each round (which again, will also depend on what is the overall score of the match so far, how good the other team is at defending or attacking, etc.). To put it in another way: If your team is playing the "easy side", at the beginning of each round, the team has to decide between rushing to win that round quick, and thus have more time to win more rounds, and winning by a larger score... or, play in a less aggressive way, which ultimately will make you win by a smaller difference, but will increase the chances of actually winning each round (under the assumption that rushing increases the chances of making mistakes and loosing the round). The decision will largely depend on where the players respawn, what happens in the first minute of the map (did your team lost your best player? Or did your team have two quick-kills on the other team? etc.) and also, on how things were on the previous side of the map (or during the previous map, if you decide to play a 2-map scrim where you add up the score of both maps). For instance, in the hunt example, if your team started playing allies and lost 15-0, it is clear that in axis you will have to rush like crazy if you want any chance of winning. On the other hand, if you got a tie as allies, then as axis you can pretty much take it easy, and evaluate your strategy as the map unfolds.

b) Fraglimit: It is my opinion that in roundlimit, there is not much time-based or score-based strategy. You basically play the first round just like you would play the last —you may be more careful or not depending on how the balance between both teams is, but not much more than that. I have found Fraglimit to foster camping a lot (if time doesn't matter —that is, if winning a round in 1 minute or 4 minutes doesn't make a difference— then camping makes a lot of sense). On the plus side, iin Frglimit every round is "exciting" until the very end, because as long as you haven't mathematically lost, you continue to play to try to win. Contrarily, in Timelimit, at some point of the game, you realize your chances of winning (or the other team's chances of winning) are very small, so sometimes the game gets a little messy (both teams play less seriously, because they realize they already won/lost). This also happens with Fraglimit, to some extent. However, it also happens with Timelimit that sometimes the winner is defined during the very, very last minutes of the map. The, it becomes a race against time where one team wins a round and momentarily takes the advantage, so then the other team rushes to tie, and when they do tie, the first team has to rush again to recover their advantage, or rather, camp so they secure the point, forcing the other team to play very strategically... all of this running against the clock.

Conclussion: You might realize that I am clearly biased towards Timelimit. My reasons are two: 1) It is more fun, because you and your team have to think more to come with a good strategy, which also requires much more coordinated playing. Also, with a Timelimit around 15, scrims are shorter compared to what they last now.

Please, if you vote in the poll, then share your vote as follows:

1) Have you ever scrimmed with timelimit instead of fraglimit?
(YES or NO)
2) Would you like to try?
(YES or NO)

[dckx]

It would be good if people who think timelimit is not worth trying could share their reasons, if they don't mind. In that way, we can all know why they think fraglimit is better.

[MsDimeanor]

IMHO, we have a lot of people around here that are of the old school mind set, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I tend to lean that way myself, but I'm willing to hear all sides. What you are most likely going to find is no matter how good your argument is, you still won't convince the majority to change what they are accustomed to. This is absolutely nothing against you or the suggestion. I do agree that it would definitely change the dynamics of the scims/pugs and offer a slightly different challenge.

[dckx]

Thanks for the reply, Ms.D, I appreciate you pointing that out.

I'm personally one of those guys as well, which is precisely why I ask if people would be willing to try. For instance, I imagine a scenario where most players could agree on something simple like "Ok, during May, all the pugs on Fridays will be played using timelimit instead of fraglimit". In such hypothetical situation:

Worst-case scenario: After the first night, no one likes it, and we never try again.
Best-case scenario: Everyone loves it, and we play like that forever.
Most -likely scenario: Some will like it, some won't, and we can continue the discussion with some real evidence on what's best. And in the process, no one gets hurt.

I do understand what you say, which is why I'm just asking and won't take it personal if no one cares. If people listen and are willing to try, great. If they don't, great too. But I would appreciate to at least have some opinions, so I know if people are using the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, or if they have had prior experience with both server configs and they prefer one or the other for a particular reason, or if they just don't care, etc.

[XanaX]

I think DC may be onto something here...

While I'll admit to being in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category, I do so think that DC's comments are right on1
Who but a coward...would be afraid of new idea?

[RAPT(+)R]

I'm with MsD on this one. Changing the way we do scrims and such would be a huge transition and doesn't seem to make much sense this late in the game. But I'm also not afraid to try it. It's just gonna be confusing for people who don't read the forums

[High on Death]

If people want to try it I'd be glad to figure it out.

The only potential problem I see is after your team wins the first round, is there incentive for people to hide/camp to run out the clock in order to limit the other team's ability to score wins?

[SillySleeper]

nein! I feel it would bring out the camping bastards in all of us

[High on Death]

What if you made it so you only score points when you're on offense. Say on V2, the score that matters is the allied score. Whichever team scores more on allies wins. That way the incentive is to set the objective as many times as possible in the given time. On axis, the incentive is to defend. Makes sense.

[Tro]

Not sure that would work any different, although the ball is in the attacking teams court more often than not

I like the idea, posted on this previously - I have played it both ways in the past.. you certainly learn to attack in a team effort and not just 1 or 2
if you rush you could lose a few very quickly however, you will never want to give up a round

I do agree with silly in respects to camping, I've seen it and we used a "in the spirit of the game" approach so the admin would send warnings if delay tactics were unethical
i.e. allies need 4 - 1 to win but camp after 4 wins to ensure a draw while allies run around like crazy searching for the allies!

My personal opinion is time-limit would work better if: 4 min rounds on small maps, 5 min on others, 20 min rounds or stop when a team hits 6 (for example)
Thus you have a balance

Tro