Deathmatch or Timed?

[Schooly D]

All the high-level videos I see appear to be on the Timed setting. It looks like it fosters cheap play, but maybe they do it so they can get the most amount of matches in.

Thoughts?

[DarK-SuN]

Usually, if I want to have a more serious type of match, I use the DEATHMATCH setting; no timer getting in the way, just two VRs, their weapons, the arena and may the best pilot win.
Besides, if these "Limited Wars" actually happened, they'd also have no time limit, it'd be both pilots struggling to survive till the very last armor plating on their VRs dropped.
So, yes, personally I prefer playing without a time limit.

I can see, however, how playing with a timer going could work for high-level play as a pure mindgame strategy, for either side, the apparently winning and the apparently losing side, since sometimes that last second manouver that caught the other VR off-guard may either take or give the match.

[Sixfortyfive]

I think timed matches are generally preferred in versus games because it discourages turtling/runaway tactics, but 90 seconds seems a bit on the short side for VO sometimes.

[Schooly D]

I think timed matches are generally preferred in versus games because it discourages turtling/runaway tactics

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this at all. In every high-level match I've seen, the two players keep their distance (almost always avoiding CC with rare exceptions) and fire projectiles at each other until someone gets hit and taken down to 95% or something. Then the guy who's in the lead goes into hyper-turtle mode and runs away all over the map until the timer runs out.

Again, the only reason I can see it being preferred is because it keeps matches short so you can have a lot of matches in a small amount of time. You wouldn't have 4-minute grinds like you might in Deathmatch.

[Henshin1]

I've noticed that too. I think it would be frustrating to play a game where your opponent just runs away for the last 20 secs of a 90 second match just because he's 'in the lead'. If it becomes a trend then it can probably become a pretty annoying game to play.

[Dudley]

I've always felt that if you won by time, you didn't really win.

[Testament/Seven7]

I think timed matches are generally preferred in versus games because it discourages turtling/runaway tactics, but 90 seconds seems a bit on the short side for VO sometimes.

They do it because it's an arcade game, and other people want to play too...the turnaround time between players can make or break profit. You don't want the same 2 people playing forever, because thats a potential loss in revenue.

Simple.

[Schooly D]

I think timed matches are generally preferred in versus games because it discourages turtling/runaway tactics, but 90 seconds seems a bit on the short side for VO sometimes.

They do it because it's an arcade game, and other people want to play too...the turnaround time between players can make or break profit. You don't want the same 2 people playing forever, because thats a potential loss in revenue.

Simple.

That doesn't explain why all the high-level games not being played in an arcade (or in an arcade but during a tournament) are timed and not DM.

[MentholMoose]

I apologize in advance for this huge post. For this comparison, you have to understand one crucial issue: any given VOOT player's mindset can be placed on a spectrum somewhere between "playing to win" and "not playing to win". Playing to win is the best way in which I can succinctly describe a situation in which a player exercises all means provided by the game to defeat the opponent. I will get back to this momentarily, so first let me focus on "not playing to win".

"Not playing to win" sounds ridiculous at first, because it is counterintuitive... everyone wants and/or tries to win in the game, right? This is generally true, but the key distinction is that while everybody "wants" or "tries" to win, not everybody truly "plays" to win. Typically, strategies that can be categorized as "not playing to win" involve two things, either practicing to some degree, or knowingly taking excessive risk to some degree. Note that excessive risk is anything with a high risk to reward ratio, as opposed to something with a neutral or low risk to reward ratio.

Practice is obvious; you try to improve some aspect of your game while playing live rounds. Maybe you are trying to see how a particular move/strategy/whatever works in certain situations, want to know how a human opponent reacts in response to certain moves/etc., or something like that. Knowingly taking excessive risk requires 1) the implementation of rules above and beyond those built into the game, and/or 2) satisfying some desire that would not be satisfied by relying solely on the game engine rules. In either case, a player can "want" to win in that it is their desire. That's obvious. As for "trying" to win, although they are making an effort toward winning, they will be doing so in essentially the "wrong" way (they "know" they are taking an excessive risk, but do it anyway). The classic example of 1) is "CC play", in which the players want to challenge each other's CC skills, so they have a (typically) unspoken agreement to focus on CC despite the hazards. 2) is similar except that there is no agreement to use CC and probably only one player desires to use CC.

Don't get too excited now if you love CC, I'm not saying anything about the usage of CC other than it has high (or excessive) risk in most situations. For example, should a Cypher player ever stay in close range to an Apharmd B player, considering even the slightest miscalculation guarantees a death blow? Occasionally, yes, it may be warranted in the right situation... a quick slice here, maybe a dashing CC when unexpected, etc. In a "CC play" situation, though, such lopsided matchups are more common than should be expected. However, even if it is an evensided matchup, CC can typically still be characterized as excessive risk since other strategies have lower risk to reward ratios.

As for playing to win, as I said you use all means necessary to win. Cheap or dignified? It's neither, or both, depending on your views. Sure, there are the horror stories about this, such as players exploiting various map bugs. Although as far as I know, most or all of the map bugs were finally quashed in VER.5.66 (some do actually still exist in VER.5.45), and if there were still some in VER.5.66, they should be fixed in the Xbox 360 version. But mostly, playing to win means using your skill and judgment to determine the best course of action in all situations. You have to analyze all available information in an incredibly diverse environment, make a decision, and implement an action.

So, now that I have hopefully covered that enough, I can explain how the timer fits in. Assuming equally skilled players, DM basically only works well in VOOT if both players' mindset is between "not playing to win" and somewhere in the middle. Basically, if you are practicing, you don't care about the timer (unless you're practicing something related to the timer). As for taking excessive risk, it may or may not be affected by the timer.

If the mindset of one or both players are near "playing to win", though, the DM timer completely falls apart. Each player will use only tactics with neutral risk to reward ratios... basically, anything low risk and low reward. In other words, defensive tactics (or "running") will be completely prevalent, because there is just no incentive to mount any offense. Skill level plays a factor here. Although DM has problems as long as a player is able to play to win, it will vary based on the skill levels of involved players. For example, at lower skill levels, a player's VR control is poor, they cannot maneuver well, have poor evasive technique, have little understanding of projectile/etc. interaction, how to use the map and obstacles, and so on and forth. So, even if they try to play to win, their implementation is lacking, and so they will lose faster.

High skill levels amplify the problem. Since high level players don't really suffer from any of these shortcomings, how can they actually win? Equally skilled high level players playing to win in DM will take nearly forever to complete each round. The net result is two players slowly chipping away at each others' health over the course of an afternoon. Normally this is just too boring, so one player will give up the play to win mindset and "go for broke", using some maneuvers/techniques that are excessive risk. If this doesn't happen, though, such as would be expected during a tournament, the game is just not worth playing. It is incredibly frustrating to be hit only due to minute mistakes and randomness, and watch your health be slowly drain due to this. It is little consolation that your opponent is suffering equally.

An example I have of this is from my experience playing at SHGL. There was a Fei-Yen KN player who didn't much care for or acknowledge the mostly CC friendly play style at SHGL, and he really played to win to the best of his abilities. With the DM setting, he was very powerful. He mostly kept his cool and stayed with his defensive strategy. The CC players struggled the most; try as they might, they frequently just couldn't get close enough to use any CC techniques, and would die trying. One night, the frustration in the air was palpable, and after being beaten by the Fei player again, one of the top CC players told me, "burn him" when I was up. Easier said than done, of course, because I couldn't really stick to a play to win strategy due to boredom, but my Grys-Vok could still manage to eventually avenge my compatriots.

So, in DM, if you are running and get hit, and have a lower amount of health, you can still keep running, indefinitely, since there is no downside other than falling asleep. With a timer, you cannot keep running if you are suddenly down on health, although your opponent may start running. This ebb and flow makes for a much different game.

To me, playing to win with a timer is the most interesting way to play. It requires an vast diversity of skill. On average it is a solid mix of offense and defense. Some rounds may end up one sided, while others end up extremely tight, down to the wire, or down to a crucial hit at the perfect time. Or randomness, who knows. In any case, the dynamicism is just intense compared to DM.

As for why tournaments are always on a timer, since everyone is almost certainly playing to win, the vast downsides of DM in "play to win" scenarios preclude its use.

[DarK-SuN]

(insert really long but pretty interesting to read post here)

Hmmmm, very interesting points of view, I can totally see what you mean.
While playing as Apharmd-B (my main VR) I usually try to mix my style up so not to be boring (and to be non-predictable), I'm usually not a turtler either, but I can see how using the DM setting against some people could make it be boring, like with the example you gave.
Ok, I can see how having a timed setting for tournaments makes sense, going by that point of view.

[Henshin1]

I know im definately not a play to win kinda guy

I play alot of smash bros and i know sometimes in the heat of a hard battle i would do something way outta line involving a "very high risk to low reward ratio" simply because it would be 'funny to see'
Although i don't think you can do anything 'funny' in voot, my playstyle might change a bit... or can you? Giving up half your HP for a temporary speed boost could be considered funny

[MentholMoose]

I know im definately not a play to win kinda guy

Well, it's not really an either/or concept, there is a range. And don't get me wrong, I don't think it's bad to be on one side versus the other. The SHGL players frequently played for "fun", so basically a lot of CC, and not really playing to win that much. I tried to be accommodative, so I mixed it up somewhat. I did always feel somewhat discouraged that there wasn't more play to win action, though. So I wouldn't say I'm 100% play to win, just that I prefer to be on that end of the spectrum. As I alluded to in my example against the Fei player, I wanted retribution for my fallen comrades, and "went for broke."

I play alot of smash bros and i know sometimes in the heat of a hard battle i would do something way outta line involving a "very high risk to low reward ratio" simply because it would be 'funny to see'
Although i don't think you can do anything 'funny' in voot, my playstyle might change a bit... or can you? Giving up half your HP for a temporary speed boost could be considered funny

Yes, definitely there are things to do. If Scott were here, he'd probably mention that I tried pulling some dashing CC with Grys-Vok at the Sakuracon tournament. The thing is, I was actually pretty good with dashing CC, so it's not as dangerous as it seems, but still it might be a bit out of whack (with Grys-Vok's limited CC range, you have to be dead on accurate). Furthermore, you just gotta have some style no matter how you play!

[Schooly D]

I apologize in advance for this huge post. For this comparison, you have to understand one crucial issue: any given VOOT player's mindset can be placed on a spectrum somewhere between "playing to win" and "not playing to win". Playing to win is the best way in which I can succinctly describe a situation in which a player exercises all means provided by the game to defeat the opponent. I will get back to this momentarily, so first let me focus on "not playing to win".

"Not playing to win" sounds ridiculous at first, because it is counterintuitive... everyone wants and/or tries to win in the game, right? This is generally true, but the key distinction is that while everybody "wants" or "tries" to win, not everybody truly "plays" to win. Typically, strategies that can be categorized as "not playing to win" involve two things, either practicing to some degree, or knowingly taking excessive risk to some degree. Note that excessive risk is anything with a high risk to reward ratio, as opposed to something with a neutral or low risk to reward ratio.

Practice is obvious; you try to improve some aspect of your game while playing live rounds. Maybe you are trying to see how a particular move/strategy/whatever works in certain situations, want to know how a human opponent reacts in response to certain moves/etc., or something like that. Knowingly taking excessive risk requires 1) the implementation of rules above and beyond those built into the game, and/or 2) satisfying some desire that would not be satisfied by relying solely on the game engine rules. In either case, a player can "want" to win in that it is their desire. That's obvious. As for "trying" to win, although they are making an effort toward winning, they will be doing so in essentially the "wrong" way (they "know" they are taking an excessive risk, but do it anyway). The classic example of 1) is "CC play", in which the players want to challenge each other's CC skills, so they have a (typically) unspoken agreement to focus on CC despite the hazards. 2) is similar except that there is no agreement to use CC and probably only one player desires to use CC.

Don't get too excited now if you love CC, I'm not saying anything about the usage of CC other than it has high (or excessive) risk in most situations. For example, should a Cypher player ever stay in close range to an Apharmd B player, considering even the slightest miscalculation guarantees a death blow? Occasionally, yes, it may be warranted in the right situation... a quick slice here, maybe a dashing CC when unexpected, etc. In a "CC play" situation, though, such lopsided matchups are more common than should be expected. However, even if it is an evensided matchup, CC can typically still be characterized as excessive risk since other strategies have lower risk to reward ratios.

As for playing to win, as I said you use all means necessary to win. Cheap or dignified? It's neither, or both, depending on your views. Sure, there are the horror stories about this, such as players exploiting various map bugs. Although as far as I know, most or all of the map bugs were finally quashed in VER.5.66 (some do actually still exist in VER.5.45), and if there were still some in VER.5.66, they should be fixed in the Xbox 360 version. But mostly, playing to win means using your skill and judgment to determine the best course of action in all situations. You have to analyze all available information in an incredibly diverse environment, make a decision, and implement an action.

So, now that I have hopefully covered that enough, I can explain how the timer fits in. Assuming equally skilled players, DM basically only works well in VOOT if both players' mindset is between "not playing to win" and somewhere in the middle. Basically, if you are practicing, you don't care about the timer (unless you're practicing something related to the timer). As for taking excessive risk, it may or may not be affected by the timer.

If the mindset of one or both players are near "playing to win", though, the DM timer completely falls apart. Each player will use only tactics with neutral risk to reward ratios... basically, anything low risk and low reward. In other words, defensive tactics (or "running") will be completely prevalent, because there is just no incentive to mount any offense. Skill level plays a factor here. Although DM has problems as long as a player is able to play to win, it will vary based on the skill levels of involved players. For example, at lower skill levels, a player's VR control is poor, they cannot maneuver well, have poor evasive technique, have little understanding of projectile/etc. interaction, how to use the map and obstacles, and so on and forth. So, even if they try to play to win, their implementation is lacking, and so they will lose faster.

High skill levels amplify the problem. Since high level players don't really suffer from any of these shortcomings, how can they actually win? Equally skilled high level players playing to win in DM will take nearly forever to complete each round. The net result is two players slowly chipping away at each others' health over the course of an afternoon. Normally this is just too boring, so one player will give up the play to win mindset and "go for broke", using some maneuvers/techniques that are excessive risk. If this doesn't happen, though, such as would be expected during a tournament, the game is just not worth playing. It is incredibly frustrating to be hit only due to minute mistakes and randomness, and watch your health be slowly drain due to this. It is little consolation that your opponent is suffering equally.

An example I have of this is from my experience playing at SHGL. There was a Fei-Yen KN player who didn't much care for or acknowledge the mostly CC friendly play style at SHGL, and he really played to win to the best of his abilities. With the DM setting, he was very powerful. He mostly kept his cool and stayed with his defensive strategy. The CC players struggled the most; try as they might, they frequently just couldn't get close enough to use any CC techniques, and would die trying. One night, the frustration in the air was palpable, and after being beaten by the Fei player again, one of the top CC players told me, "burn him" when I was up. Easier said than done, of course, because I couldn't really stick to a play to win strategy due to boredom, but my Grys-Vok could still manage to eventually avenge my compatriots.

So, in DM, if you are running and get hit, and have a lower amount of health, you can still keep running, indefinitely, since there is no downside other than falling asleep. With a timer, you cannot keep running if you are suddenly down on health, although your opponent may start running. This ebb and flow makes for a much different game.

To me, playing to win with a timer is the most interesting way to play. It requires an vast diversity of skill. On average it is a solid mix of offense and defense. Some rounds may end up one sided, while others end up extremely tight, down to the wire, or down to a crucial hit at the perfect time. Or randomness, who knows. In any case, the dynamicism is just intense compared to DM.

As for why tournaments are always on a timer, since everyone is almost certainly playing to win, the vast downsides of DM in "play to win" scenarios preclude its use.

tl;dr

[MentholMoose]

tl;dr

OK, to summarize, DM is wack!

[Aya Kyunik]

lol, as much as I tried to read it all, i just got back home from a class in Uni so...
I skimmed through it while reading some paragraphs in it's entirety.

Very interesting points Menthol, I haven't really thought too much about the game flow during a timed matched too much, as the playing partners I have play with DM for the sheer knowledge of the only way to win is to go all out. We hardly ever play in such a manner where we only chip at each other's HP here and there. Come to think of it, I think we play the "wrong" way where there is a huge risk, "but who cares!". It's for fun and entertainment really. I haven't had a read this good about VO since that article on Gamasutra.

I'd love to delve deeper into this but I can only really skim the forums with my workload, I'd love to post more of my VO mechandise as well but oh well.

[MentholMoose]

I'd love to delve deeper into this but I can only really skim the forums with my workload, I'd love to post more of my VO mechandise as well but oh well.

I can understand, I'm very busy, too. I really spent way too much time on that post!

[Frostycyke]

Fighting game Vets, particular Street fighter players, know the matra of playing to win all to well. There is no cries of cheap timed wins in high level street fighter. The keyword is high level, since the lower level players will always whine about anything they can't defeat. Some characters rely on the timer to gain wins, while others can't afford to be behind since they lack options to even the score before time runs out. This type of thinking adds another layer to the game, a layer that would be absent if there is no timer.

Timed rounds also allows weaker but faster characters the chance to work the clock better while chipping their opponent down. Imagine a Fei-yen vs a Raiden player. Fei-yen needs to work harder for her damage, and capitilize on several mistake mades by the Raiden player, while the Raiden player only really needs to punish just one mistake to do the same damage. The longer the fight goes on, the more mistakes both players will theoritcally make . The timer allows the Fei-yen's damage to mean something. The Raiden player can't just play it safe anymore and wait for that single mistake that will put him ahead, like he could in a death match. He has to take risks and push for the damage before times runs out. Making the game more interesting and exciting for both players.

[MentholMoose]

Fighting game Vets, particular Street fighter players, know the matra of playing to win all to well. There is no cries of cheap timed wins in high level street fighter. The keyword is high level, since the lower level players will always whine about anything they can't defeat. Some characters rely on the timer to gain wins, while others can't afford to be behind since they lack options to even the score before time runs out. This type of thinking adds another layer to the game, a layer that would be absent if there is no timer.

Timed rounds also allows weaker but faster characters the chance to work the clock better while chipping their opponent down. Imagine a Fei-yen vs a Raiden player. Fei-yen needs to work harder for her damage, and capitilize on several mistake mades by the Raiden player, while the Raiden player only really needs to punish just one mistake to do the same damage. The longer the fight goes on, the more mistakes both players will theoritcally make . The timer allows the Fei-yen's damage to mean something. The Raiden player can't just play it safe anymore and wait for that single mistake that will put him ahead, like he could in a death match. He has to take risks and push for the damage before times runs out. Making the game more interesting and exciting for both players.

Thanks for bringing this up, as it is something I didn't really expand on in my post. The difference in strategy forced by a timer definitely makes the game more interesting. As evenpar123 mentioned, a player can get 5% ahead and then run like crazy, but that is not a good strategy in most cases. Running away requires a significant enough lead to be practical under a timer.

Fast characters suitable for running away, such as Fei or Cypher, have to work hard to get such a lead. Since they have comparatively lower health than slower characters, it is difficult to obtain a significant lead. But they need a significant lead to actually be able to run away, because they can lose a lot of health very fast due to any mistake. That the game actually works is a testament to it's game balance, refined over years and numerous revisions. Health metrics were even tweaked between VER.5.45 and VER.5.66 (released only a few months apart), and I wouldn't be too surprised if additional tweaks sneaked into VER.5.66 on Xbox 360.

[RVR - 42]

OoOoOo! Very nice topic! I always have been a fan of unlimited time. In any fighter. I mean both have their pros and cons...and can easily be exploited. I'd probably say timed is more..."professional" just because if your opponent does choose to runaway for the last 20 seconds or so...he's commiting social suicide and won't merit very much respect. Then again...with Deathmatch...if both players are cowards...this match could go on, for quite some time. Hahah! Personally though...i've always been a fan of unlimited time. It's a game of patience and can help you develop some type of strategy over your opponent if they have a certain way of playing.

*heads over to Capcom Unity to start this topic over there*

[MentholMoose]

I'd probably say timed is more..."professional" just because if your opponent does choose to runaway for the last 20 seconds or so...he's commiting social suicide and won't merit very much respect.

I guess it depends on the scene. In Japan the standard is to play to win, so if a player does have enough health advantage to run away for 20 seconds, it is a socially acceptable strategy. In other areas, for whatever reason, maybe this is not the case. As for VOOT online, unless you are playing with some friends for practice or fun, I wouldn't expect people to play "honorably".