What is the desired pacing of the game?

[norfenstein]

This is a very broad question that basically amounts to "how should matches play out?" It generalizes the questions of how long should matches last? and how, if at all, should matches forcibly end? It also strongly relates to the question of offense versus defense.

The pacing of the game describes the cadence of actions that teams engage in from the beginning of a match to its end. The game is free to influence this cadence by changing things throughout the game (e.g. a system like Tremulous's stages, in which early stages provide mostly defensive benefits and later stages provide mostly offensive benefits). I described a broad categorization of actions in this post, namely: active offense, passive offense, active defense, and passive defense. So this question can be reduced to: when should each of these actions be appropriate and encouraged by the structure of the game? I realize this will be hard to answer without making assumptions about what specific mechanics the game will include, but those specifics can't really be decided on without knowing the purpose they serve regarding game flow. So I recommend people answer this by imagining what "phases" matches should go through.

A simple example:

1. Beginning: Teams establish footholds across the map either conservatively (mostly passive defense) or aggressively (mostly passive offense)

2. Mid-game: Teams have established the minimum amount of defensive structures they're comfortable with and start attacking and positioning themselves (active and passive offense), and don't defend their positions too strenuously because there are still resources up for grabs.

3. End game: The map's resources are now almost entirely under the control of one or the other team, and the two teams must start attacking in earnest in order to advance (active offense) and must also actively defend their gains in order to not fall behind.

A more complex example might include estimated durations for each phase of gameplay, and include mechanics for more explicit transitions between (stages, for example).

[kharnov]

How should the game be paced (e.g. constant action, deliberate and poignant, variable at different times or under different circumstances, etc.)?

[Viech]

Let's have it so that players who seek to win the game by leaving their base and fighting hard for resource sites/positioning will be rewarded with nearly constant action while those who hold positions to intercept possible intruders will see a boring/slow paced match. I think Battlefield is a good example of a game series that accomplishes this: You would rarely want to stay in your main base even though it is attacked from time to time, the fun is to be found at the front line. This approach would require 1) getting rid of the feeding effect so players can constantly be involved in combat action without harming their team and 2) noticeing players on base attacks so they don't need to watch/camp their bases.

variable at different times or under different circumstances

The tremulous endgame cycle (camp,camp,camp,rush,push+feed,push+feed,retreat,repeat) establishes a boring metagame following this scheme.

deliberate and poignant

I doubt that this could be applied to public, non-coordinated matches. It would probably require some form of elected team leader and other teamwork supporting features such as minimaps, waypoints and squads. As soon as we have a technical backend for this we might want to experiment (and establish a RTS-heavy game mode).

[janev]

You should be able to play it as fast and hard as you choose and the map allows. The more players you have on a server in relation to map size that hairy the action should be. You should be able to achieve your objectives through both brute force and strategic might. Battlefield achieved the strategic point by making you capture flags faster the more people you had in range of the strategic objective.

[janev]

Give the players a choice, as to how they play, but early choices should affect how the game develops. Here is an idea for game progression based on a 30 minute game.

Beginning: 5-10 minutes. Focus on securing and holding resources for the mid-game and late game, OR focus on crippling the enemy’s efforts to do the same. An efficient team should have to do both, in a fluid manner mirroring in game developments, in order to succeed. It’s anybody’s game at this stage.

This is where you decide who controls the resources.

Mid-game: 10 (it could be earlier with efficient teams) -20 minutes. Not taking the initiative at this stage should be punished. There should be heavy fighting going on at this stage of the game. A balance must be struck between offense and defense, however playing a mostly defensive game should be costly. Along the lines of the smart player choosing to fight their battles on the other guy’s home turf to avoid damage at home. Turn arounds should still be possible. If you can outfight the enemy in this stage, regardless of how you came into it should give you a strong foundation for the late game.

This is the stage where you gain/harvest the most resources.

Late game: 20 minutes and up. Things are really hairy at this stage. Combat should reach a crescendo and not let up until one team is the victor. If one team has an economic advantage they should be able to finish it. Turn arounds should be more difficult.

In this stage you are no longer harvesting resources but using them up fast.

[kharnov]

For the most part, I agree with janev here. I suppose you can divide the game into 10-minute blocks, which is more or less what he did. Obviously, some variation will occur depending on the skill level of the players involved, but whatever. The first block should be spent on building and securing a base, the second block on fighting the other team, and the third block on wrapping anything up and resolving stalemates. Our stage system at the moment fits neatly into the three blocks, which is why I assume it was designed that way. During stage 1 you have no incentive to leave the base without a large group around you, but during stage 2 it's much easier to assault the other team. Stage 3 has the stalemate-breaking lucifer cannon/battlesuit combo and the tyrant. Regardless of what we do to the stage system, we need to keep the time blocks in mind. Things should be made available at appropriate times to encourage the pacing of the gameplay.