Immortality: A toy which people cry for, And on their knees apply for, Dispute, contend and lie for, And if allowed Would be right proud Eternally to die for.
Posted by: KaRiK
Posted by: ICanHasRofl
Posted by: TerroristMan151
Sorry, but I really have to disagree. What if I get up against a bunch of vehicle whorers? Instead of dying 100 times in 5 minutes, I'll die 300 times in 15 minutes.
Both those figures are physically impossible, and most games against 'vehicle whorers' already DO go for 15 minutes due to the fact that they deliberately vote for Objective so they do not have to contend with limitations such as AL and a kill-cap.
Also, you're blatantly implying you're a bad player if you admit that you are pretty much dying the entire game against 'vehicle whorer' parties. The majority of them are just garbage players looking to stat on unorganized randoms.
OT: Nah, half the time randoms stay in games is because they know there is a definitive end to their pain. (i.e. "Assuming we get owned, we're only going to die 12-13 times each.") One-sided games barely go for more than 5 minutes in a 4v4.
What you're going to be seeing are randoms quitting en-masse, not prepared to take the extra 20 or so deaths when it's pretty clear the other team have already asserted their superiority.
People don't quit just because they think they'll lose. They quit because they aren't having fun. Changing how long the game lasts doesn't change anything fundamental about the game.
The probability a player quits is proportional to the length of the game. Of course with really long games, quitting would be a problem but I don't want to increase game length time.
I would argue that players are less likely to quit with no score limit because they always have a decent chance to come back. If there score is 99 - 89 in a fast game, there's no way for the team with 89 to come back if it's 100 kills to win. With no score limit, either team could win, making it more competitive and more interesting.No just no.