The idea that time is a consideration in a loss is hilarious. Ending a fight more quickly is only a viable tie breaker when both competitors win, it's possibly the stupidest tie breaker when both players lose. The fact that wasn't taken into consideration beforehand is pretty funny.
I just wonder how many people in the room/email chain didn't have an aha moment and say, well this could be bad... where are the people thinking about things? A modicum of foresight would've helped. When aw changed scoring years ago, alliances put 5 defenders on the board, and were basically assured a win. Have we learned nothing?
The most controversial post I have ever read. I admire your bravery to post your opinion. However, probs said a thousand times over, time wasn't the issue, it was the fact that you could die faster and win. If time was implemented when both defenders were KO'd and it wasn't as weighed as it was, I and many others wouldn't have shaked two soggy granola bars about it. But the fact remains, they weighed it poorly and were properly criticized over it. I stand by my belief as someone who has followed many tournaments my time that it was one of the worst I saw due to said points system. And had Werewyrm not came out to tell his side of the story... it would've been A THOUSAND times worse in terms of bitterness in the community. God bless Werewyrm.
No, cos there'll be people who'll take the whole 5 minutes to win a fight to piss the other guy off and make him quit out and that guy wins the whole match by default.
You don't want that.
You want to encourage quick gameplay so as to not burden the other players' valuable time.
Most people have a life outside this game you know?
I'm not against the time limit. I am talking about using time as a scoring factor and that's what most of us here are talking about. It makes no sense to reward you for dying faster than your opponent.
Additionally, if a player is that impatient and can't sit through a 3 minute fight, they really shouldn't be playing this mode. This isn't mindless arena that you can do while preparing breakfast or having a 5 minute break from school/work.
It's not just about dying faster.
Let's say you both KO'd the defender but 1 guy takes 5 minutes and you took 2 minutes.
Who should win the match? The person who took 2 minutes, right?
Kabam wants to encourage quicker fights (which I totally support) because we all have lives outside of this game and it makes it a bore to sit and wait for someone to take 5 minutes when the fight should have taken 2.
The the same reason why your pizza is free if it takes more than 30 minutes to be delivered.
Time being factored into the final score wouldn't be an issue in that scenario: if both players got their fight down to 0%, and ended with 100% health themselves, then yea the person who took 2 minutes to finish their fight should win over the person who took more time than that on their fight.
The issue is, when person A brings their fight down to 90%, dies in 20 seconds, and takes victory over person B who brought their fight down to 75% and took 40 seconds to do so. Why should person A win just because they died faster, when person B lived longer, and did more damage? That makes zero sense
The reason is when this format of gameplay is implemented for real in the game in the near future - Time can be a real issue.
I agree with you Justin2524, at least in that time (and how it affects the mode experience) is a major consideration.
I've worked as a game designer. I'm practical in my approach to deriving outcomes through design.
I know a lot of people want rules that "feel" right to them. Especially when the current consequences for those rules are just vague (or idealistically fantasized) outcomes in their head. But making feel-good rules ignores the mundane reality of practical consequences those rules can have. Of actually having to try to make a system work at a practical level that doesn't suck.
How much time do you want to spend playing each session of this mode? What's gonna motivate you from not conceding the match if you have a bad first fight (or even a bad draft? or bad att/def assignments?), if it means you have to put in a lot of time with a very slim chance of success or rewards? If you finish your fights fast, how long do you want to be waiting for your opponent to finish?
Let's look at some data...
The "new format" mode has the following phases: Bans (1) Drafting (1) Assign Def/Add (2-3) Fights (2-3)
In the "Summoner Showdown 2021 Finals", 3 player (Fintech, HappyMcMuffins, Yandaoz) competed to post the following average stats for each 1 instance of each of the following phases: Bans...........................39 seconds Drafting......................2 minutes, 29 seconds Assign Def/Add.........1 minute, 2 seconds
Which leads to average total time for the "Assign Def/Add" phase of: 2 Fight Match: Assign Def/Add.........2 minute, 4 seconds 3 Fight Match: Assign Def/Add.........3 minute, 6 seconds
In addition, this is the (approximate) minimum and maximum for a match: Fight (minimum).....0 seconds Fight (maximum)....3 minutes, 10 seconds NOTE: the maximum is over 3 minutes because a player can do an SP3 as the timer approaches 0:00 to make the match last longer than the timer. Fintech did this in the SS Finals.
If we tally that all up, we get some total numbers for how long a session in the New Format Mode is gonna take.
If players are allowed to play their matches at the same time, we get the following:
2-Fights ======= w/ Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds w/ Max Fight Duration...................11 minutes, 32 seconds
3-Fights ======= w/ Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds w/ Max Fight Duration...................14 minutes, 42 seconds
If players play by taking turns, we get the following:
2-Fights ======= Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds Max Fight Duration...................17 minutes, 52 seconds
3-Fights ======= Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds Max Fight Duration...................24 minutes, 12 seconds
Which leads us to a lot of different things to consider.
Which of those total time duration ballparks are going to be most appealing to you? What kind of experience would you like out of this new mode? Do you wanna stick it out in spending 10-15 more minutes when you are already pretty sure after 2 minutes of drafting that you can't win, and if you lose you get 0 rewards? Do you want to play a mode where a high % of the matches are people conceeding after the drafting phase?
Many duel games don't end with the players finishing the fights, but with a player conceding to avoid wasting their time. The focus there is on players spending their time playing for a potential win, not stuck waiting for an inevitable loss to play out.
If the players are allowed to play at the same time, the game could auto-detect when someone had won the fight, and then begin the next phase. Even if the players take turns, the game could auto-detect if/when the 2nd player had won the fight, and then begin the next phase.
And a ton more other things to consider.
As Kabam John said "Things are still at a work in progress stage, and subject to change." But what does everyone really want those changes to be?
The reason is when this format of gameplay is implemented for real in the game in the near future - Time can be a real issue.
I agree with you Justin2524, at least in that time (and how it affects the mode experience) is a major consideration.
I've worked as a game designer. I'm practical in my approach to deriving outcomes through design.
I know a lot of people want rules that "feel" right to them. Especially when the current consequences for those rules are just vague (or idealistically fantasized) outcomes in their head. But making feel-good rules ignores the mundane reality of practical consequences those rules can have. Of actually having to try to make a system work at a practical level that doesn't suck.
How much time do you want to spend playing each session of this mode? What's gonna motivate you from not conceding the match if you have a bad first fight (or even a bad draft? or bad att/def assignments?), if it means you have to put in a lot of time with a very slim chance of success or rewards? If you finish your fights fast, how long do you want to be waiting for your opponent to finish?
Let's look at some data...
The "new format" mode has the following phases: Bans (1) Drafting (1) Assign Def/Add (2-3) Fights (2-3)
In the "Summoner Showdown 2021 Finals", 3 player (Fintech, HappyMcMuffins, Yandaoz) competed to post the following average stats for each 1 instance of each of the following phases: Bans...........................39 seconds Drafting......................2 minutes, 29 seconds Assign Def/Add.........1 minute, 2 seconds
Which leads to average total time for the "Assign Def/Add" phase of: 2 Fight Match: Assign Def/Add.........2 minute, 4 seconds 3 Fight Match: Assign Def/Add.........3 minute, 6 seconds
In addition, this is the (approximate) minimum and maximum for a match: Fight (minimum).....0 seconds Fight (maximum)....3 minutes, 10 seconds NOTE: the maximum is over 3 minutes because a player can do an SP3 as the timer approaches 0:00 to make the match last longer than the timer. Fintech did this in the SS Finals.
If we tally that all up, we get some total numbers for how long a session in the New Format Mode is gonna take.
If players are allowed to play their matches at the same time, we get the following:
2-Fights ======= w/ Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds w/ Max Fight Duration...................11 minutes, 32 seconds
3-Fights ======= w/ Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds w/ Max Fight Duration...................14 minutes, 42 seconds
If players play by taking turns, we get the following:
2-Fights ======= Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds Max Fight Duration...................17 minutes, 52 seconds
3-Fights ======= Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds Max Fight Duration...................24 minutes, 12 seconds
Which leads us to a lot of different things to consider.
Which of those total time duration ballparks are going to be most appealing to you? What kind of experience would you like out of this new mode? Do you wanna stick it out in spending 10-15 more minutes when you are already pretty sure after 2 minutes of drafting that you can't win, and if you lose you get 0 rewards? Do you want to play a mode where a high % of the matches are people conceeding after the drafting phase?
Many duel games don't end with the players finishing the fights, but with a player conceding to avoid wasting their time. The focus there is on players spending their time playing for a potential win, not stuck waiting for an inevitable loss to play out.
If the players are allowed to play at the same time, the game could auto-detect when someone had won the fight, and then begin the next phase. Even if the players take turns, the game could auto-detect if/when the 2nd player had won the fight, and then begin the next phase.
And a ton more other things to consider.
As Kabam John said "Things are still at a work in progress stage, and subject to change." But what does everyone really want those changes to be?
I hope you don't work for Kabam. Because if you think who die faster is right, then it's the end of the game with me.
The reason is when this format of gameplay is implemented for real in the game in the near future - Time can be a real issue.
I agree with you Justin2524, at least in that time (and how it affects the mode experience) is a major consideration.
I've worked as a game designer. I'm practical in my approach to deriving outcomes through design.
I know a lot of people want rules that "feel" right to them. Especially when the current consequences for those rules are just vague (or idealistically fantasized) outcomes in their head. But making feel-good rules ignores the mundane reality of practical consequences those rules can have. Of actually having to try to make a system work at a practical level that doesn't suck.
How much time do you want to spend playing each session of this mode? What's gonna motivate you from not conceding the match if you have a bad first fight (or even a bad draft? or bad att/def assignments?), if it means you have to put in a lot of time with a very slim chance of success or rewards? If you finish your fights fast, how long do you want to be waiting for your opponent to finish?
Let's look at some data...
The "new format" mode has the following phases: Bans (1) Drafting (1) Assign Def/Add (2-3) Fights (2-3)
In the "Summoner Showdown 2021 Finals", 3 player (Fintech, HappyMcMuffins, Yandaoz) competed to post the following average stats for each 1 instance of each of the following phases: Bans...........................39 seconds Drafting......................2 minutes, 29 seconds Assign Def/Add.........1 minute, 2 seconds
Which leads to average total time for the "Assign Def/Add" phase of: 2 Fight Match: Assign Def/Add.........2 minute, 4 seconds 3 Fight Match: Assign Def/Add.........3 minute, 6 seconds
In addition, this is the (approximate) minimum and maximum for a match: Fight (minimum).....0 seconds Fight (maximum)....3 minutes, 10 seconds NOTE: the maximum is over 3 minutes because a player can do an SP3 as the timer approaches 0:00 to make the match last longer than the timer. Fintech did this in the SS Finals.
If we tally that all up, we get some total numbers for how long a session in the New Format Mode is gonna take.
If players are allowed to play their matches at the same time, we get the following:
2-Fights ======= w/ Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds w/ Max Fight Duration...................11 minutes, 32 seconds
3-Fights ======= w/ Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds w/ Max Fight Duration...................14 minutes, 42 seconds
If players play by taking turns, we get the following:
2-Fights ======= Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds Max Fight Duration...................17 minutes, 52 seconds
3-Fights ======= Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds Max Fight Duration...................24 minutes, 12 seconds
Which leads us to a lot of different things to consider.
Which of those total time duration ballparks are going to be most appealing to you? What kind of experience would you like out of this new mode? Do you wanna stick it out in spending 10-15 more minutes when you are already pretty sure after 2 minutes of drafting that you can't win, and if you lose you get 0 rewards? Do you want to play a mode where a high % of the matches are people conceeding after the drafting phase?
Many duel games don't end with the players finishing the fights, but with a player conceding to avoid wasting their time. The focus there is on players spending their time playing for a potential win, not stuck waiting for an inevitable loss to play out.
If the players are allowed to play at the same time, the game could auto-detect when someone had won the fight, and then begin the next phase. Even if the players take turns, the game could auto-detect if/when the 2nd player had won the fight, and then begin the next phase.
And a ton more other things to consider.
As Kabam John said "Things are still at a work in progress stage, and subject to change." But what does everyone really want those changes to be?
In other words, your ideal game tournament is one where the players quit out as fast as possible to win. Game time would be counted in milliseconds, huge win!. Seriously, does that actually sound like a good design to you? Have you ever seen a game with that kind of design? I haven't and if the thousands of game designers that exist haven't implemented in their decades of video game development, maybe, just maybe, they know it's not a good design. Or maybe you know better than all of them but I don't know, I'm just a game player not designer.
The reason is when this format of gameplay is implemented for real in the game in the near future - Time can be a real issue.
I agree with you Justin2524, at least in that time (and how it affects the mode experience) is a major consideration.
I've worked as a game designer. I'm practical in my approach to deriving outcomes through design.
I know a lot of people want rules that "feel" right to them. Especially when the current consequences for those rules are just vague (or idealistically fantasized) outcomes in their head. But making feel-good rules ignores the mundane reality of practical consequences those rules can have. Of actually having to try to make a system work at a practical level that doesn't suck.
How much time do you want to spend playing each session of this mode? What's gonna motivate you from not conceding the match if you have a bad first fight (or even a bad draft? or bad att/def assignments?), if it means you have to put in a lot of time with a very slim chance of success or rewards? If you finish your fights fast, how long do you want to be waiting for your opponent to finish?
Let's look at some data...
The "new format" mode has the following phases: Bans (1) Drafting (1) Assign Def/Add (2-3) Fights (2-3)
In the "Summoner Showdown 2021 Finals", 3 player (Fintech, HappyMcMuffins, Yandaoz) competed to post the following average stats for each 1 instance of each of the following phases: Bans...........................39 seconds Drafting......................2 minutes, 29 seconds Assign Def/Add.........1 minute, 2 seconds
Which leads to average total time for the "Assign Def/Add" phase of: 2 Fight Match: Assign Def/Add.........2 minute, 4 seconds 3 Fight Match: Assign Def/Add.........3 minute, 6 seconds
In addition, this is the (approximate) minimum and maximum for a match: Fight (minimum).....0 seconds Fight (maximum)....3 minutes, 10 seconds NOTE: the maximum is over 3 minutes because a player can do an SP3 as the timer approaches 0:00 to make the match last longer than the timer. Fintech did this in the SS Finals.
If we tally that all up, we get some total numbers for how long a session in the New Format Mode is gonna take.
If players are allowed to play their matches at the same time, we get the following:
2-Fights ======= w/ Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds w/ Max Fight Duration...................11 minutes, 32 seconds
3-Fights ======= w/ Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds w/ Max Fight Duration...................14 minutes, 42 seconds
If players play by taking turns, we get the following:
2-Fights ======= Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds Max Fight Duration...................17 minutes, 52 seconds
3-Fights ======= Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds Max Fight Duration...................24 minutes, 12 seconds
Which leads us to a lot of different things to consider.
Which of those total time duration ballparks are going to be most appealing to you? What kind of experience would you like out of this new mode? Do you wanna stick it out in spending 10-15 more minutes when you are already pretty sure after 2 minutes of drafting that you can't win, and if you lose you get 0 rewards? Do you want to play a mode where a high % of the matches are people conceeding after the drafting phase?
Many duel games don't end with the players finishing the fights, but with a player conceding to avoid wasting their time. The focus there is on players spending their time playing for a potential win, not stuck waiting for an inevitable loss to play out.
If the players are allowed to play at the same time, the game could auto-detect when someone had won the fight, and then begin the next phase. Even if the players take turns, the game could auto-detect if/when the 2nd player had won the fight, and then begin the next phase.
And a ton more other things to consider.
As Kabam John said "Things are still at a work in progress stage, and subject to change." But what does everyone really want those changes to be?
In other words, your ideal game tournament is one where the players quit out as fast as possible to win. Game time would be counted in milliseconds, huge win!. Seriously, does that actually sound like a good design to you? Have you ever seen a game with that kind of design? I haven't and if the thousands of game designers that exist haven't implemented in their decades of video game development, maybe, just maybe, they know it's not a good design. Or maybe you know better than all of them but I don't know, I'm just a game player not designer.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t read @zaspacer’s analysis to be saying that the scoring should continue as we saw it from the Summoner Showdown. I think they are just pointing out that time *is* something that needs to be considered from a gameplay perspective. I think that’s a totally valid (if a bit obvious) point to make.
How long a thing takes plays a big part in how popular it will be. Personally, I tend to avoid Arena and Incursions because they require long play sessions to really get anything meaningful out of and my schedule doesn’t frequently allow for that.
So yes, how long the game mode takes is absolutely relevant to its popularity and is something that should be considered in development. This is true. That does not make the fact that the scoring system, as we saw it in the Showdown, is terrible and needs to be changed so that the player who does more damage in their fight wins, regardless of time.
The issue is, when person A brings their fight down to 90%, dies in 20 seconds, and takes victory over person B who brought their fight down to 75% and took 40 seconds to do so. Why should person A win just because they died faster, when person B lived longer, and did more damage? That makes zero sense
This would not have happened in the actual tournament. Person B would have won 2250 more points in the Defender HP Remaining category while Person A would have 540 more points for Fight Duration, giving B the win by about 1700 points. (Basing this on the write-up by @BitterSteel a few pages ago and one of the videos.)
The example to use is the first round between Happy and Werewrym (you can see the scoring at 52:45 of the Americas video). Werewrym barely did more net damage (less than half a percent more), fought for nearly twice the time to do it (67 sec vs. 34 sec), and lost by 840 points.
The reason is when this format of gameplay is implemented for real in the game in the near future - Time can be a real issue.
I agree with you Justin2524, at least in that time (and how it affects the mode experience) is a major consideration.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that the time duration of the competitive mode is a consideration, but that's completely orthogonal to the idea that the way time was factored into scoring a) is reasonable or even b) does what the OP claims it does.
Going from "time should be a consideration" to "let's factor time remaining into the match score" is not good game design. I would consider it a common game design error: if something matters, let's add it to the math to make it matter. Designs should have deliverable targets, and every element of the implementation should attempt to deliver on the target. Factoring in time remaining into the scoring to make time matter is what is known in some circles as a "ready fire aim" error.
In other words, your ideal game tournament is one where the players quit out as fast as possible to win. Game time would be counted in milliseconds, huge win!. Seriously, does that actually sound like a good design to you? Have you ever seen a game with that kind of design? I haven't and if the thousands of game designers that exist haven't implemented in their decades of video game development, maybe, just maybe, they know it's not a good design. Or maybe you know better than all of them but I don't know, I'm just a game player not designer.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t read @zaspacer’s analysis to be saying that the scoring should continue as we saw it from the Summoner Showdown. I think they are just pointing out that time *is* something that needs to be considered from a gameplay perspective. I think that’s a totally valid (if a bit obvious) point to make.
How long a thing takes plays a big part in how popular it will be. Personally, I tend to avoid Arena and Incursions because they require long play sessions to really get anything meaningful out of and my schedule doesn’t frequently allow for that.
So yes, how long the game mode takes is absolutely relevant to its popularity and is something that should be considered in development. This is true. That does not make the fact that the scoring system, as we saw it in the Showdown, is terrible and needs to be changed so that the player who does more damage in their fight wins, regardless of time.
To be clear, as Wicket329 said, I am not saying the scoring should continue as we saw it from the Summoner Showdown.
It all depends on what players (current and future), audiences, and Kabam want. And also what works to have a better outcome for those groups.
However, I think: 1) we should check-in with Kabam and find out their goals in having that rule in place. In case it shines light on any good reasons for it being there. Clarify from Kabam why it was there or why they think it should stay there. 2) the mode should continually be reviewed for possible changes with the idea of what is wanted from this mode, what is not wanted, how it fits in with the rest of the game's content (current and future), how it fits players schedules, who is this mode for, what is the mode's overall goals, etc.
One of the bigger problems in the game, is re-playable modes and other content that a huge chunk of players don't really want to play or otherwise use. Or that is used, but is considered to have major problems. With no review, discussion, and performed changes to that content to make it fit better and/or for more players, Kabam, the game, etc.
Another major major consideration is if this mode should play the same when it's an esport or an in-game mode. Should players be taking turns to play one at a time, or should they play at the same time? How would this visually work out in a presentation format like Summoner Showdown? Stacking screens? What type of ways does taking turns warp or change the game vs. playing together? Is the in-game scoring system confusing or intuitive? What are the practicalities for a player trying to play through a mode and juggling life? Don't make the mistake of forcing an in-game mode to be bad just so it can support a esport mode, unless that in-game version is just a throwaway that will not impact the in-game experience in a meaningful way.
And I think better solutions come when you allow consideration of outside the box changes. Think about odd rules configurations, try em out in testing, see how they each deliver. Figure out your goals, change them or add new ones as you figure more out. Work to see how your content can better align to your goals.
And it's also very important for Kabam or beta players to not just test with niche considerations. Only testers who have unlimited time, or who have easy access to friends to challenge, or who have full rosters, or who can swap around Masteries for free, or are doing it with someone live vs. some stranger they'll never meet, or who don't have rewards hooked up to factor in the motivation. If Kabam designs modes that they enjoy playing as a live community at work, those mode will fall flat to players who aren't playing in the same scenario.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that the time duration of the competitive mode is a consideration, but that's completely orthogonal to the idea that the way time was factored into scoring a) is reasonable or even b) does what the OP claims it does.
Going from "time should be a consideration" to "let's factor time remaining into the match score" is not good game design. I would consider it a common game design error: if something matters, let's add it to the math to make it matter. Designs should have deliverable targets, and every element of the implementation should attempt to deliver on the target. Factoring in time remaining into the scoring to make time matter is what is known in some circles as a "ready fire aim" error.
I'm definitely advocating that the parameters (like time) need to be fully reviewed for this mode.
I'm also advocating that the process of keeping or throwing out rules should be tied to a process of assessing the costs and benefits of those rules, trying variations out, drawing conclusions, and then making changes in accordance. Alone, as a system, etc.
The "quit to win" already has major negatives identified in the gag reflex it triggers across lots of players. That change is now on the public spotlight. It should be reviewed now, shown to be net bad, then axed before it goes live. This process is good. We need to see it being done for more components of this new mode to make sure we don't get another dud.
Comments
This doesn’t have any
I admire your bravery to post your opinion.
However, probs said a thousand times over, time wasn't the issue, it was the fact that you could die faster and win.
If time was implemented when both defenders were KO'd and it wasn't as weighed as it was, I and many others wouldn't have shaked two soggy granola bars about it.
But the fact remains, they weighed it poorly and were properly criticized over it.
I stand by my belief as someone who has followed many tournaments my time that it was one of the worst I saw due to said points system.
And had Werewyrm not came out to tell his side of the story... it would've been A THOUSAND times worse in terms of bitterness in the community.
God bless Werewyrm.
The issue is, when person A brings their fight down to 90%, dies in 20 seconds, and takes victory over person B who brought their fight down to 75% and took 40 seconds to do so. Why should person A win just because they died faster, when person B lived longer, and did more damage? That makes zero sense
I've worked as a game designer. I'm practical in my approach to deriving outcomes through design.
I know a lot of people want rules that "feel" right to them. Especially when the current consequences for those rules are just vague (or idealistically fantasized) outcomes in their head. But making feel-good rules ignores the mundane reality of practical consequences those rules can have. Of actually having to try to make a system work at a practical level that doesn't suck.
How much time do you want to spend playing each session of this mode?
What's gonna motivate you from not conceding the match if you have a bad first fight (or even a bad draft? or bad att/def assignments?), if it means you have to put in a lot of time with a very slim chance of success or rewards?
If you finish your fights fast, how long do you want to be waiting for your opponent to finish?
Let's look at some data...
The "new format" mode has the following phases:
Bans (1)
Drafting (1)
Assign Def/Add (2-3)
Fights (2-3)
In the "Summoner Showdown 2021 Finals", 3 player (Fintech, HappyMcMuffins, Yandaoz) competed to post the following average stats for each 1 instance of each of the following phases:
Bans...........................39 seconds
Drafting......................2 minutes, 29 seconds
Assign Def/Add.........1 minute, 2 seconds
Which leads to average total time for the "Assign Def/Add" phase of:
2 Fight Match:
Assign Def/Add.........2 minute, 4 seconds
3 Fight Match:
Assign Def/Add.........3 minute, 6 seconds
In addition, this is the (approximate) minimum and maximum for a match:
Fight (minimum).....0 seconds
Fight (maximum)....3 minutes, 10 seconds
NOTE: the maximum is over 3 minutes because a player can do an SP3 as the timer approaches 0:00 to make the match last longer than the timer. Fintech did this in the SS Finals.
If we tally that all up, we get some total numbers for how long a session in the New Format Mode is gonna take.
If players are allowed to play their matches at the same time, we get the following:
2-Fights
=======
w/ Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds
w/ Max Fight Duration...................11 minutes, 32 seconds
3-Fights
=======
w/ Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds
w/ Max Fight Duration...................14 minutes, 42 seconds
If players play by taking turns, we get the following:
2-Fights
=======
Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds
Max Fight Duration...................17 minutes, 52 seconds
3-Fights
=======
Min Fight Duration....................5 minutes, 12 seconds
Max Fight Duration...................24 minutes, 12 seconds
Which leads us to a lot of different things to consider.
Which of those total time duration ballparks are going to be most appealing to you?
What kind of experience would you like out of this new mode?
Do you wanna stick it out in spending 10-15 more minutes when you are already pretty sure after 2 minutes of drafting that you can't win, and if you lose you get 0 rewards?
Do you want to play a mode where a high % of the matches are people conceeding after the drafting phase?
Many duel games don't end with the players finishing the fights, but with a player conceding to avoid wasting their time. The focus there is on players spending their time playing for a potential win, not stuck waiting for an inevitable loss to play out.
If the players are allowed to play at the same time, the game could auto-detect when someone had won the fight, and then begin the next phase. Even if the players take turns, the game could auto-detect if/when the 2nd player had won the fight, and then begin the next phase.
And a ton more other things to consider.
As Kabam John said "Things are still at a work in progress stage, and subject to change." But what does everyone really want those changes to be?
With regards to me and my preferences as a designer. If something would drive players away from the game, then I prefer not to put it into the game.
Seriously, does that actually sound like a good design to you? Have you ever seen a game with that kind of design? I haven't and if the thousands of game designers that exist haven't implemented in their decades of video game development, maybe, just maybe, they know it's not a good design.
Or maybe you know better than all of them but I don't know, I'm just a game player not designer.
How long a thing takes plays a big part in how popular it will be. Personally, I tend to avoid Arena and Incursions because they require long play sessions to really get anything meaningful out of and my schedule doesn’t frequently allow for that.
So yes, how long the game mode takes is absolutely relevant to its popularity and is something that should be considered in development. This is true. That does not make the fact that the scoring system, as we saw it in the Showdown, is terrible and needs to be changed so that the player who does more damage in their fight wins, regardless of time.
The example to use is the first round between Happy and Werewrym (you can see the scoring at 52:45 of the Americas video). Werewrym barely did more net damage (less than half a percent more), fought for nearly twice the time to do it (67 sec vs. 34 sec), and lost by 840 points.
Going from "time should be a consideration" to "let's factor time remaining into the match score" is not good game design. I would consider it a common game design error: if something matters, let's add it to the math to make it matter. Designs should have deliverable targets, and every element of the implementation should attempt to deliver on the target. Factoring in time remaining into the scoring to make time matter is what is known in some circles as a "ready fire aim" error.
It all depends on what players (current and future), audiences, and Kabam want. And also what works to have a better outcome for those groups.
However, I think:
1) we should check-in with Kabam and find out their goals in having that rule in place. In case it shines light on any good reasons for it being there. Clarify from Kabam why it was there or why they think it should stay there.
2) the mode should continually be reviewed for possible changes with the idea of what is wanted from this mode, what is not wanted, how it fits in with the rest of the game's content (current and future), how it fits players schedules, who is this mode for, what is the mode's overall goals, etc.
One of the bigger problems in the game, is re-playable modes and other content that a huge chunk of players don't really want to play or otherwise use. Or that is used, but is considered to have major problems. With no review, discussion, and performed changes to that content to make it fit better and/or for more players, Kabam, the game, etc.
Another major major consideration is if this mode should play the same when it's an esport or an in-game mode. Should players be taking turns to play one at a time, or should they play at the same time? How would this visually work out in a presentation format like Summoner Showdown? Stacking screens? What type of ways does taking turns warp or change the game vs. playing together? Is the in-game scoring system confusing or intuitive? What are the practicalities for a player trying to play through a mode and juggling life? Don't make the mistake of forcing an in-game mode to be bad just so it can support a esport mode, unless that in-game version is just a throwaway that will not impact the in-game experience in a meaningful way.
And I think better solutions come when you allow consideration of outside the box changes. Think about odd rules configurations, try em out in testing, see how they each deliver. Figure out your goals, change them or add new ones as you figure more out. Work to see how your content can better align to your goals.
And it's also very important for Kabam or beta players to not just test with niche considerations. Only testers who have unlimited time, or who have easy access to friends to challenge, or who have full rosters, or who can swap around Masteries for free, or are doing it with someone live vs. some stranger they'll never meet, or who don't have rewards hooked up to factor in the motivation. If Kabam designs modes that they enjoy playing as a live community at work, those mode will fall flat to players who aren't playing in the same scenario. I'm definitely advocating that the parameters (like time) need to be fully reviewed for this mode.
I'm also advocating that the process of keeping or throwing out rules should be tied to a process of assessing the costs and benefits of those rules, trying variations out, drawing conclusions, and then making changes in accordance. Alone, as a system, etc.
The "quit to win" already has major negatives identified in the gag reflex it triggers across lots of players. That change is now on the public spotlight. It should be reviewed now, shown to be net bad, then axed before it goes live. This process is good. We need to see it being done for more components of this new mode to make sure we don't get another dud.
It makes you be on your toes and fight smart and the pressure also makes it fun.
Again, Kudos to Kabam.