Timeouts

FireCell · Post by **FireCell** » 29-07-2003 03:27

Who gets the ball after the 1/2 time? Or will it just be like the start of a match again, where its in the middle and first team to boost at it gets it.

CorDawg · Post by **CorDawg** » 29-07-2003 03:31

IMO i think deathball matches should all be shortened to 15 mins.

30 mins is a loong time for 1 match, and now with thetimer stop at goal its even longer.

you can easily get a good score in 15 mins so instead of say 15-12 could have been 7-5. much better scores.

Large Potato · Post by **Large Potato** » 29-07-2003 04:14

In our aussie league we have 2 matches of 15 mins each. Each team picks a map they want to play their game on

Hoju · Post by **Hoju** » 29-07-2003 06:24

I still think that timeouts would be better than a halftime, because you can call a timeout at a strategic point, like 10 minutes left in the game and you're down 3 and you have to give your team a pep talk or something. If it could be coded in that in order to call a timeout your team must have control of the ball in your own half (maybe keeper must have control), then there would be no abuse of it.

f1end · Post by **f1end** » 29-07-2003 12:10

Half-time $\o/$

Timeouts /o\

Onge · Post by **Onge** » 29-07-2003 14:21

A break at half-time would only serve to fragment the game and put people off their stride. I've yet to play in a clan match that hasn't been paused due to bug problems or someone leaving anyway, and in that time everyone is just aching to get on with the game. The same will happen with half-times...

MeSSiaH{FCU} · Post by **MeSSiaH{FCU}** » 29-07-2003 14:25

CorDawg wrote: IMO i think deathball matches should all be shortened to 15 mins.

30 mins is a loong time for 1 match, and now with thetimer stop at goal its even longer.

you can easily get a good score in 15 mins so instead of say 15-12 could have been 7-5. much better scores.

meh..i think most euro teams play slower, safer, more defensive games :p

Good games are always 2-3 n stuff like that. Those are the fun ones to play. U shudnt try n reduce that to 0-0 or something X_X. 30 minutes is exactly enough.

and yeh..timeouts would suck teh lot

duh

Stulovesyou · Post by **Stulovesyou** » 29-07-2003 14:47

2-3 in 30 minutes...

Yes that will attract many FPS players to the gaming style.

FPS players generally being used to fast action sytle games.

15 min - with sprint = enough.

= Aussie league.

Fast paced - good scores. Lotta action.

After first 15 min map - switch to next map. There's your break.

Now you get two games - not one.
= variety = better.

Diab · Post by **Diab** » 29-07-2003 17:13

Its personal option. and thats your view.

when i play the 2 x 20min matches i find 20mins flys by so fast. but in 30min games its a lovely timeset. most sports like this are never rushed into 15minutes, look at rugby, americian football and europe football. there like over an hour in total!.

TEZC_Robban · Post by **TEZC_Robban** » 29-07-2003 19:39

yep, all personal preferance, euros enjoy 30 min games, NA and aussies enjoy 15 mins games or 20, whatever, maybe make time an option when organising matches? o_O

TEZC_Robban · Post by **TEZC_Robban** » 29-07-2003 19:43

Stulovesyou wrote: 2-3 in 30 minutes...

Yes that will attract many FPS players to the gaming style.

FPS players generally being used to fast action sytle games.

who says db matches which end up 2-3 in 30 mins are slow in any way? i dare to say a big part of the fpsgamers are used to realistic shooters, such as CS. As i remember it cs isn't more fast paced than db