i couldn't think of a better term for the "clock" that once run down resets the 6v6 map, and a new mid is started..
i believe it is 10minutes for every control point on 5cp amd different on A/D
i feel atm it is nearly irrelevant - i.e: 10min is basically infinite time, but it is a good idea which just needs some adjustment.
should the timer be reduced to say 3minutes, it would put pressure on the attacking team to continue attacking, since they have more control points, and want to protect that advantage. at the moment, it is pretty tough for teams to deal with well executed suicide plays considering the "attacking" team has so much time to make these plays.
example: team A holds 4 control points on granary, and is attacking into team B's last point, each team has 6 players up and ubercharge.
team A can easily sticky defensively and sacrifice 1 player, or use 1 player to snipe aggressively, as losing 1 player while defensively positioned with equal ubers will be quite hard for team B to capatalise on.
if the 'stalemate timer' was smaller (3mins again, for example), perhaps 1 or 2 plays like this could be made, but it wouldn't be overly unfair for the defending team.
using 1 global time would probably be a bad idea however, and each maps' points should be considered when setting the stalemate timers. for instance a small timer on snakewater last may allow the defending team to get easy resets (especially with heavy engie etc..).
thoughts?
i couldn't think of a better term for the "clock" that once run down resets the 6v6 map, and a new mid is started..
i believe it is 10minutes for every control point on 5cp amd different on A/D
i feel atm it is nearly irrelevant - i.e: 10min is basically infinite time, but it is a good idea which just needs some adjustment.
should the timer be reduced to say 3minutes, it would put pressure on the attacking team to continue attacking, since they have more control points, and want to protect that advantage. at the moment, it is pretty tough for teams to deal with well executed suicide plays considering the "attacking" team has so much time to make these plays.
example: team A holds 4 control points on granary, and is attacking into team B's last point, each team has 6 players up and ubercharge.
team A can easily sticky defensively and sacrifice 1 player, or use 1 player to snipe aggressively, as losing 1 player while defensively positioned with equal ubers will be quite hard for team B to capatalise on.
if the 'stalemate timer' was smaller (3mins again, for example), perhaps 1 or 2 plays like this could be made, but it wouldn't be overly unfair for the defending team.
using 1 global time would probably be a bad idea however, and each maps' points should be considered when setting the stalemate timers. for instance a small timer on snakewater last may allow the defending team to get easy resets (especially with heavy engie etc..).
thoughts?
This was in one of the eXtravision videos, and has been talked about since forever. Everyone thinks it should be decreased, but it probably won't happen unless valve implements it.
This was in one of the eXtravision videos, and has been talked about since forever. Everyone thinks it should be decreased, but it probably won't happen unless valve implements it.
surely if the community feels that way it shouldn't be hard to implement, or "make" new maps for comp, like cp_pro_badlands or w/e, so pubbers can still use the original maps "as they were intended"
surely if the community feels that way it shouldn't be hard to implement, or "make" new maps for comp, like cp_pro_badlands or w/e, so pubbers can still use the original maps "as they were intended"
I honestly like the longer push timer. If the game gets too back and forth at every single point, it's going to be all about playing for wipes. Maybe it's more relevant to the euro ruleset, but attackers should always have an advantage over the defending team in push maps so that they can actually win/cap last.
EDIT: Also, we generally say no to pro_maps of stock maps. Except granary, since that map has been fucked with for so long like when they added gates then removed it and the lack of symmetry/spawn locations and what not.
I honestly like the longer push timer. If the game gets too back and forth at every single point, it's going to be all about playing for wipes. Maybe it's more relevant to the euro ruleset, but attackers should always have an advantage over the defending team in push maps so that they can actually win/cap last.
EDIT: Also, we generally say no to pro_maps of stock maps. Except granary, since that map has been fucked with for so long like when they added gates then removed it and the lack of symmetry/spawn locations and what not.
brownymasterEDIT: Also, we generally say no to pro_maps of stock maps. Except granary, since that map has been fucked with for so long like when they added gates then removed it and the lack of symmetry/spawn locations and what not.
And except koth_pro_viaduct, and then all the rest are custom maps designed for the comp community except gravelpit and badlands. I don't think there's anything wrong with making pro_ versions and they're often better, it just has to be done well. And on topic I don't think this is really an issue, lowering the time wouldn't add anything to the game imo.
[quote=brownymaster]EDIT: Also, we generally say no to pro_maps of stock maps. Except granary, since that map has been fucked with for so long like when they added gates then removed it and the lack of symmetry/spawn locations and what not.[/quote]
And except koth_pro_viaduct, and then all the rest are custom maps designed for the comp community except gravelpit and badlands. I don't think there's anything wrong with making pro_ versions and they're often better, it just has to be done well. And on topic I don't think this is really an issue, lowering the time wouldn't add anything to the game imo.
SideshowbrownymasterEDIT: Also, we generally say no to pro_maps of stock maps. Except granary, since that map has been fucked with for so long like when they added gates then removed it and the lack of symmetry/spawn locations and what not.
And except koth_pro_viaduct, and then all the rest are custom maps designed for the comp community except gravelpit and badlands. I don't think there's anything wrong with making pro_ versions and they're often better, it just has to be done well. And on topic I don't think this is really an issue, lowering the time wouldn't add anything to the game imo.
You're right, I forgot about viaduct. And yeah, most of the maps we play are already fine tuned community maps to competitive (gully snakewater etc), which is why there's really no point to adding new maps (that are basically the same minus the timer) just to change the timer.
[quote=Sideshow][quote=brownymaster]EDIT: Also, we generally say no to pro_maps of stock maps. Except granary, since that map has been fucked with for so long like when they added gates then removed it and the lack of symmetry/spawn locations and what not.[/quote]
And except koth_pro_viaduct, and then all the rest are custom maps designed for the comp community except gravelpit and badlands. I don't think there's anything wrong with making pro_ versions and they're often better, it just has to be done well. And on topic I don't think this is really an issue, lowering the time wouldn't add anything to the game imo.[/quote]
You're right, I forgot about viaduct. And yeah, most of the maps we play are already fine tuned community maps to competitive (gully snakewater etc), which is why there's really no point to adding new maps (that are basically the same minus the timer) just to change the timer.
Kakiexample: team A holds 4 control points on granary, and is attacking into team B's last point, each team has 6 players up and ubercharge.
team A can easily sticky defensively and sacrifice 1 player, or use 1 player to snipe aggressively, as losing 1 player while defensively positioned with equal ubers will be quite hard for team B to capatalise on.
if the 'stalemate timer' was smaller (3mins again, for example), perhaps 1 or 2 plays like this could be made, but it wouldn't be overly unfair for the defending team.
using 1 global time would probably be a bad idea however, and each maps' points should be considered when setting the stalemate timers. for instance a small timer on snakewater last may allow the defending team to get easy resets (especially with heavy engie etc..).
thoughts?
Easy resets are really the biggest problem here. Take your granary example: A few suicide plays fail, then one works, the push however fails.
10 minute timer: The defending team will push out onto their 2nd so you can't repeat that.
3 minute time: There is less than a minute left, the defending team could either push their 2nd and then try push granary middle against a full team (lol) because of the cool forward spawn or they could just turtle and get a new midfight without taking the risk of getting backcapped twice.
[quote=Kaki]example: team A holds 4 control points on granary, and is attacking into team B's last point, each team has 6 players up and ubercharge.
team A can easily sticky defensively and sacrifice 1 player, or use 1 player to snipe aggressively, as losing 1 player while defensively positioned with equal ubers will be quite hard for team B to capatalise on.
if the 'stalemate timer' was smaller (3mins again, for example), perhaps 1 or 2 plays like this could be made, but it wouldn't be overly unfair for the defending team.
using 1 global time would probably be a bad idea however, and each maps' points should be considered when setting the stalemate timers. for instance a small timer on snakewater last may allow the defending team to [b]get easy resets[/b] (especially with heavy engie etc..).
thoughts?[/quote]
Easy resets are really the biggest problem here. Take your granary example: A few suicide plays fail, then one works, the push however fails.
10 minute timer: The defending team will push out onto their 2nd so you can't repeat that.
3 minute time: There is less than a minute left, the defending team could either push their 2nd and then try [b]push granary middle against a full team[/b] (lol) because of the cool forward spawn or they could just turtle and get a new midfight without taking the risk of getting backcapped twice.
u are taking the 3minute suggestion too far, like i said, each point on each map should have a timer best suited to it.
defenders should be rewarded tho imo.
u are taking the 3minute suggestion too far, like i said, each point on each map should have a timer best suited to it.
defenders should be rewarded tho imo.
Kakidefenders should be rewarded imo.
What? Losing ground should be rewarded?
What I really don't understand is how exactly lower the timer improves gameplay. All you're doing is encouraging more stalemates to happen, causing things to equalize once again and now you'll be stuck at second again once the team loses mid again. Or the other team will be stuck at the other teams second and then stalemate out because they failed 2 pushes.
[quote=Kaki]defenders should be rewarded imo.[/quote]
What? Losing ground should be rewarded?
What I really don't understand is how exactly lower the timer improves gameplay. All you're doing is encouraging more stalemates to happen, causing things to equalize once again and now you'll be stuck at second again once the team loses mid again. Or the other team will be stuck at the other teams second and then stalemate out because they failed 2 pushes.
the actual idea is that the "losing" team should be able to punish the winning team's mistakes more easily than vice versa
the actual idea is that the "losing" team should be able to punish the winning team's mistakes more easily than vice versa
Kakiu are taking the 3minute suggestion too far, like i said, each point on each map should have a timer best suited to it.
defenders should be rewarded tho imo.
Instead of reseting and starting a new round after every failpush onto last i'd rather try to fix the map and make both pushing into and out of last possible.
The reward for defending last should be the possibility to take 2nd back and not getting a free new round after you got pushed to your last and defended a point for the first time that round.
[quote=Kaki]u are taking the 3minute suggestion too far, like i said, each point on each map should have a timer best suited to it.
defenders should be rewarded tho imo.[/quote]
Instead of reseting and starting a new round after every failpush onto last i'd rather try to fix the map and make [b]both[/b] pushing into and out of last possible.
The reward for defending last should be the possibility to take 2nd back and not getting a free new round after you got pushed to your last and defended a point for the first time that round.
lol that's not what i'm suggesting. only that the attacking team should have an actual time constraint, as opposed to none.
would be interested in what the ppl who play euro rules had to say
lol that's not what i'm suggesting. only that the attacking team should have an actual time constraint, as opposed to none.
would be interested in what the ppl who play euro rules had to say
In general the stalemate timer almost never becomes a factor in the US format because our games can last upwards of an hour (due to the 2 30 minute halves).
I think the last time you commonly heard about people timing out rounds was when we had cp_ashville in the rotation - and I think all of us can agree that was the problem more so than the timer.
Sometimes if a team goes *really* tanky on a last (heavy, pyro, engee) and you fail push hard a few times the timer will get down into the 3 minute range, but then desperation will usually set in lol.
With the presumption of a 3 minute time, and the running of uber, you'll only get 3 shots at pushing last at best, and there's also absolutely NO incentive to push out, because pushing out to second is much harder than defending last 1 more time, not to mention if you harass the attacking team with a sniper (thus delaying the push for every pick you get). You could easily delay each push over one minute and limit them to 2 pushes in 3 minutes. Since you've gone all in defense it wouldn't be hard to keep them out and just reset the round to a new mid fight - which I think would be bad for the game in general :/
The issue with pushing out of last on most maps is:
1. The distance most teams put between themselves and the doorways into last, if you aren't holding close to the doors you simply can't push back to 2/4 as well, because by the time you mop up everybody and get to pushing they're respawning or respawned by the time you get to second because of the amount of distance you've forced yourself to have to cover.
2. Heavy/engineer off classes, that guy you had off classing, in general, not only has to participate in mopping up players, but then has to run back into spawn and then cover the length of the distance from spawn to 2/4, which again, makes you slow (often too slow) to 2/4
In general the stalemate timer almost never becomes a factor in the US format because our games can last upwards of an hour (due to the 2 30 minute halves).
I think the last time you commonly heard about people timing out rounds was when we had cp_ashville in the rotation - and I think all of us can agree that was the problem more so than the timer.
Sometimes if a team goes *really* tanky on a last (heavy, pyro, engee) and you fail push hard a few times the timer will get down into the 3 minute range, but then desperation will usually set in lol.
With the presumption of a 3 minute time, and the running of uber, you'll only get 3 shots at pushing last at best, and there's also absolutely [b]NO[/b] incentive to push out, because pushing out to second is much harder than defending last 1 more time, not to mention if you harass the attacking team with a sniper (thus delaying the push for every pick you get). You could easily delay each push over one minute and limit them to 2 pushes in 3 minutes. Since you've gone all in defense it wouldn't be hard to keep them out and just reset the round to a new mid fight - which I think would be bad for the game in general :/
The issue with pushing out of last on most maps is:
1. The distance most teams put between themselves and the doorways into last, if you aren't holding close to the doors you simply can't push back to 2/4 as well, because by the time you mop up everybody and get to pushing they're respawning or respawned by the time you get to second because of the amount of distance you've forced yourself to have to cover.
2. Heavy/engineer off classes, that guy you had off classing, in general, not only has to participate in mopping up players, but then has to run back into spawn and then cover the length of the distance from spawn to 2/4, which again, makes you slow (often too slow) to 2/4
terrible idea
teams would turtle up on last far more than they already do and be rewarded for it by a free 2nd retake they didn't have to actually win
terrible idea
teams would turtle up on last far more than they already do and be rewarded for it by a free 2nd retake they didn't have to actually win
Kakilol that's not what i'm suggesting. only that the attacking team should have an actual time constraint, as opposed to none.
would be interested in what the ppl who play euro rules had to say
There are two reason for a defending team in europe not to push out of last:
-not enough picks/über advantage (map dependent)
-they are ahead in rounds and are running the clock down (srs bsns official match tactic)
The defending team should have to earn second and mid by defending last really well and proper pushes and not by getting rewarded for defending last barely a couple of times. There is a reason why they were defending last.
For me this would make maps with hard-to-push last points really frustrating. Imagine a game, score is 2-1 against you, 12 minutes remaining, after a 10 minute back and forth round and 3 times barely not capping last the stalemate timing gives you a big fuck you lose the map.
[quote=Kaki]lol that's not what i'm suggesting. only that the attacking team should have an actual time constraint, as opposed to none.
would be interested in what the ppl who play euro rules had to say[/quote]
There are two reason for a defending team in europe not to push out of last:
-not enough picks/über advantage (map dependent)
-they are ahead in rounds and are running the clock down (srs bsns official match tactic)
The defending team should have to earn second and mid by defending last really well and proper pushes and not by getting rewarded for defending last barely a couple of times. There is a reason why they were defending last.
For me this would make maps with hard-to-push last points really frustrating. Imagine a game, score is 2-1 against you, 12 minutes remaining, after a 10 minute back and forth round and 3 times barely not capping last the stalemate timing gives you a big fuck you lose the map.
most of you seem to be caught up on the fact i suggested 3mins, but my intent is that you realise the 10minute timer is clearly not perfect, and each map could have a 'better' timer.
the timer being lower should increase incentive for the attacking team to move on small advantages, which is what i think the game should be more about.
most of you seem to be caught up on the fact i [i]suggested[/i] 3mins, but my intent is that you realise the 10minute timer is clearly not perfect, and each map could have a 'better' timer.
the timer being lower should increase incentive for the attacking team to move on small advantages, which is what i think the game should be more about.
Kakimost of you seem to be caught up on the fact i suggested 3mins, but my intent is that you realise the 10minute timer is clearly not perfect, and each map could have a 'better' timer.
the timer being lower should increase incentive for the attacking team to move on small advantages, which is what i think the game should be more about.
That's not an incentive, it's a deterrent for being more cautious with pushes and greater punishment for failing a push.
It provides an incentive for defenders to just lame it out for another mid fight. After all, they don't have to reset the stalemate timer and can magically get 2nd point and make the offensive team lose mid after the opposing team fails a push onto last. You make pushing out of last have no purpose the lower it gets. There's zero point to fine tuning it when you can just leave it at 10 minutes. If a defending team has trouble pushing out of last, it's either their fault or the maps fault or the opposing team's better.
[quote=Kaki]most of you seem to be caught up on the fact i [i]suggested[/i] 3mins, but my intent is that you realise the 10minute timer is clearly not perfect, and each map could have a 'better' timer.
the timer being lower should increase incentive for the attacking team to move on small advantages, which is what i think the game should be more about.[/quote]
That's not an incentive, it's a deterrent for being more cautious with pushes and greater punishment for failing a push.
It provides an incentive for defenders to just lame it out for another mid fight. After all, they don't have to reset the stalemate timer and can magically get 2nd point and make the offensive team lose mid after the opposing team fails a push onto last. You make pushing out of last have no purpose the lower it gets. There's zero point to fine tuning it when you can just leave it at 10 minutes. If a defending team has trouble pushing out of last, it's either their fault or the maps fault or the opposing team's better.
clearly there is a time that would be a perfect balance. please realise that
clearly there is a time that would be a perfect balance. please realise that
I've heard this suggested many times in the past and it really is a terrible idea.
For one thing it is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. I haven't really seen many teams "parking the bus" in NA. I think the 5 round limit is plenty of incentive to keep attacking, because its much better to try and finish the game while you have the momentum, rather than giving the enemy team the breathing room to recover and potentially come back.
Apart from having no upside, I feel this change would be ruinous to the pace of the game. Simply put it encourages teams to turtle and run down the clock. Few teams would risk losing a round by failing to push out of last when they could just turtle with heavy and engineer and then be rewarded with a fresh midfight. I don't even think it would give the attacking team extra incentive to attack as the op suggests. I can't imagine a smart team attacking all out on the enemy second point when time is low, because if they wipe then they'll probably end up defending their own second point with a fresh timer and huge uber disadvantage.
I really don't think it is worth it to make a pro version of every single push map in rotation so we can have teams on the defense turtle ten times harder than ever before while the team on the offense attacks is just as conservative as before. So what if the round timer is mostly irrelevant on push maps? Not everything has to have a vital function and as a player and a spectator I'd rather have the round time remain meaningless than be bored out of my mind while teams play games with the clock. How can any change that limits aggression and rewards turtling be considered a positive one for this game?
If anyone makes a shot clock analogy I will vomit in rage.
I've heard this suggested many times in the past and it really is a terrible idea.
For one thing it is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. I haven't really seen many teams "parking the bus" in NA. I think the 5 round limit is plenty of incentive to keep attacking, because its much better to try and finish the game while you have the momentum, rather than giving the enemy team the breathing room to recover and potentially come back.
Apart from having no upside, I feel this change would be ruinous to the pace of the game. Simply put it encourages teams to turtle and run down the clock. Few teams would risk losing a round by failing to push out of last when they could just turtle with heavy and engineer and then be rewarded with a fresh midfight. I don't even think it would give the attacking team extra incentive to attack as the op suggests. I can't imagine a smart team attacking all out on the enemy second point when time is low, because if they wipe then they'll probably end up defending their own second point with a fresh timer and huge uber disadvantage.
I really don't think it is worth it to make a pro version of every single push map in rotation so we can have teams on the defense turtle ten times harder than ever before while the team on the offense attacks is just as conservative as before. So what if the round timer is mostly irrelevant on push maps? Not everything has to have a vital function and as a player and a spectator I'd rather have the round time remain meaningless than be bored out of my mind while teams play games with the clock. How can any change that limits aggression and rewards turtling be considered a positive one for this game?
If anyone makes a shot clock analogy I will vomit in rage.
Ten minutes is kind of long but shortening the timer might promote using a heavy and/or sentry to stall out the timer for a reset. If you take a minute or two off the clock, it won't really change anything at all. If you take five or six minutes off the clock, some teams may never push out.
Ten minutes is kind of long but shortening the timer might promote using a heavy and/or sentry to stall out the timer for a reset. If you take a minute or two off the clock, it won't really change anything at all. If you take five or six minutes off the clock, some teams may never push out.
Maybe on Granary where last is relatively easy to push. Making the timer shorter on maps like gullywash and snakewater would just make it unfair for the attacking team and promote even more pyro/engy/heavy stalemating.
Maybe on Granary where last is relatively easy to push. Making the timer shorter on maps like gullywash and snakewater would just make it unfair for the attacking team and promote even more pyro/engy/heavy stalemating.
anyone who thinks its bad to alter the timer: do you therefore feel 10minutes is optimal?
(that is my point)
anyone who thinks its bad to alter the timer: do you therefore feel 10minutes is optimal?
(that is my point)
Kakianyone who thinks its bad to alter the timer: do you therefore feel 10minutes is optimal?
(that is my point)
I don't think 30 minutes is an optimal time for a half. I think it should be 32:52 minutes. I also think instead of mp_respawn_times from 10.0 to 9.8.
There's literally no fucking point to optimize shit like this. It's fine at 10 minutes. If you "fine tune" it, you either a) do fucking nothing or b) ruin the map by making the timer run out too fast. Therefor, it's best to just leave it as is because it's the standard since the start of the game and has never needed adjustment. 10 minutes is a nice, flat time, much like 30 minutes, much like 10 seconds, etc. You're nitpicking a timer to justify creating pro maps of every single current map.
[quote=Kaki]anyone who thinks its bad to alter the timer: do you therefore feel 10minutes is optimal?
(that is my point)[/quote]
I don't think 30 minutes is an optimal time for a half. I think it should be 32:52 minutes. I also think instead of mp_respawn_times from 10.0 to 9.8.
There's literally no fucking point to optimize shit like this. It's fine at 10 minutes. If you "fine tune" it, you either a) do fucking nothing or b) ruin the map by making the timer run out too fast. Therefor, it's best to just leave it as is because it's the standard since the start of the game and has never needed adjustment. 10 minutes is a nice, flat time, much like 30 minutes, much like 10 seconds, etc. You're nitpicking a timer to justify creating pro maps of every single current map.
ok then; how many games have u played where there was a stalemate out of your total?
it's honestly like some of u guys just can't read
ok then; how many games have u played where there was a stalemate out of your total?
it's honestly like some of u guys just can't read
Kakiok then; how many games have u played where there was a recent out of your total?
it's honestly like some of u guys just can't read
It's like you can't even speak English.
If you're talking about resets, none, and I like it that way. However, I've had plenty of games where I'm this close to winning/losing and a longer half/game timer would have helped. Why don't we adjust that for every map? Fine tune that? I mean every map is different, has different distances between points, different respawn timers, etc that might have a better optimal match time. 100x more relevant, and doesn't even need to remake the entire map to implement.
[quote=Kaki]ok then; how many games have u played where there was a [b]recent[/b] out of your total?
it's honestly like some of u guys just can't read[/quote]
It's like you can't even speak English.
If you're talking about resets, none, and I like it that way. However, I've had plenty of games where I'm this close to winning/losing and a longer half/game timer would have helped. Why don't we adjust that for every map? Fine tune that? I mean every map is different, has different distances between points, different respawn timers, etc that might have a better optimal match time. 100x more relevant, and doesn't even need to remake the entire map to implement.
Kakiok then; how many games have u played where there was a recent out of your total?
it's honestly like some of u guys just can't read
Speaking in proper English will make it more clear to us illiterate folks
[quote=Kaki]ok then; how many games have u played where there was a recent out of your total?
it's honestly like some of u guys just can't read[/quote]
Speaking in proper English will make it more clear to us illiterate folks
resets are boring. Noone wants to see a game where a team just turtles it out to get a free redo.
This idea is like the kid playing soccer at school who misses an easy goal and then goes and cries "do-over someone messed me up it's not fair etc"
If a team wins mid, they should be rewarded for winning mid. The other team shouldn't be rewarded for losing mid and then just sitting down and making no attempt to push out.
Of course, that's what'd happen if the timer was maybe 6-7 minutes long (or less).
Timer at 8+ minutes long honestly makes 0 difference. If it goes that long without either team budging, there's a high probability of it resetting at 10 minutes anyway. But you might as well give them that chance, doing the reset 1-2 minutes earlier isn't going to improve gameplay tenfold, despite how amazing you think this idea is.
There is no reason at all to change the timer honestly, resets are shit, and 10 minute timer helps prevent resets.
resets are boring. Noone wants to see a game where a team just turtles it out to get a free redo.
This idea is like the kid playing soccer at school who misses an easy goal and then goes and cries "do-over someone messed me up it's not fair etc"
If a team wins mid, they should be rewarded for winning mid. The other team shouldn't be rewarded for losing mid and then just sitting down and making no attempt to push out.
Of course, that's what'd happen if the timer was maybe 6-7 minutes long (or less).
Timer at 8+ minutes long honestly makes 0 difference. If it goes that long without either team budging, there's a high probability of it resetting at 10 minutes anyway. But you might as well give them that chance, doing the reset 1-2 minutes earlier isn't going to improve gameplay tenfold, despite how amazing you think this idea is.
There is no reason at all to change the timer honestly, resets are shit, and 10 minute timer helps prevent resets.
considering how wasted i was when i was posting this, that english fail wasn't too bad.
u guys keep thinking this is all about turtling and trying to get resets.. i think it would prevent teams from parking the bus, and make the game faster paced in general
considering how wasted i was when i was posting this, that english fail wasn't too bad.
u guys keep thinking this is all about turtling and trying to get resets.. i think it would prevent teams from parking the bus, and make the game faster paced in general
Kakiconsidering how wasted i was when i was posting this, that english fail wasn't too bad.
u guys keep thinking this is all about turtling and trying to get resets.. i think it would prevent teams from parking the bus, and make the game faster paced in general
American's rarely park the bus. And parking the bus has more to do with the map timer, not the stalemate timer. You have zero proof that lower the timer would even increase the pace of the game, just that you think teams will conform to your mindset when in fact they won't and instead will do the opposite of parking the bus, which is blockading the bus.
[quote=Kaki]considering how wasted i was when i was posting this, that english fail wasn't too bad.
u guys keep thinking this is all about turtling and trying to get resets.. i think it would prevent teams from parking the bus, and make the game faster paced in general[/quote]
American's rarely park the bus. And parking the bus has more to do with the map timer, not the stalemate timer. You have zero proof that lower the timer would even increase the pace of the game, just that you think teams will conform to your mindset when in fact they won't and instead will do the opposite of parking the bus, which is blockading the bus.