Crysis to Feature 10 Hour Multiplayer Matches

Via Joystiq, an article on the InCrysis site about the multiplayer modes of the Crysis PC game. The jawdropping title seems to mostly be offering the same-old same-old ... except when it comes to the 'Power Struggle' mode. From the Joystiq post: "To successfully destroy the other team's HQ, you'll have to harness the power of alien technology. Randomly generated throughout each map are various crash sites where players can scavenge for alien cores. These energy sources can be used to transform your team's arsenal into weapons capable of achieving victory. However, you'll first have to build up that arsenal by capturing structures that manufacture basic weapons and vehicles -- and you'll also have to provide the manufacturing materials. Apparently, it can take up to 10 hours to launch an attack capable of winning a Power Struggle match. In-game, this feels like days, as one full day/night cycle is completed in two hours. Which means, yes, Crysis' multiplayer will feature dynamic light cycles as the icing on the cake."

Comments

But...

[Prometheus Bob]

My attention span doesn't last tha....OHH! SHINY!

Re:But...

[Prometheus Bob]

On a more serious note, I don't think 10 hour FPS fragfests for one game is the best idea. Unless you're part of a clan, you're going to have people that just can't dedicate that amount of time to one game and are going to be coming on/off too much to feel like a real team.

10 Hours?

[Slaryn]

Holy wow... 10 hours to take down an enemy base? They should add "For former WOW users only" to the box.

Re:10 Hours?

[aldheorte]

Please, Eve takes the cake on this one. Let's say you want to take down an enemy starbase. Here's how you do it:

1. Identify the supporting player operated structures (think 'starbase camps') in the same system.
2. Bring a huge fleet and force them into 'reinforced mode' one by one.
3. Wait however many hours it takes for their shield reinforcement fuel to run out (12, 24, 36 hours, who knows) while preventing them from refueling it 23/7.
4. Now attack the starbase - I don't even know how long that takes.

So, time to take any enemy system putting up resistance... probably around a week or so. Maybe two. Oh, yeah, and it will take a fleet worth about $30,000 U.S. to do it and you'll probably suffer $10,000 U.S. in losses if the enemy is putting up resistance.

Re:10 Hours?

[Andy Dodd]

No, he's talking about the combined resources of a fleet of players.

To be more clear, I recall the description by a player of one of these major sieges as involving a count in local of 300-500. That's 300-500 players from both sides, so assuming an approximately half and half distribution on the low end of that count, you have 150 people on one side. Divide $30k by 150 and you get an average value of $200 per person.

Hmm, at the current exchange rates (100 million ISK for a $15 game time card) that seems a little high. It translates to an average of over a billion ISK per player in ships, which seems high since almost no alliances have yet to actially field motherships or titans. (I think worth 10-20 billion ISK each, only a handful of motherships exist and so far titans in the hands of players are only rumors with no substantiating evidence, although I believe those rumors are true and the owners of those titans are holding them in reserve.) Dreadys and the low-end carriers cost about a billion each but comprise at most 1/3 of the fleet is my guess. The rest is support ships (battleships and smaller) and I would guess the average value of these including high-end fittings to be 500 mill ($75) each or less. The uninsured component of a fleet heavily fitted with rare modules would probably be around 2/3 of the value of the fleet, so the total value of the fleet were it all to be lost might be $10k.

Keep in mind that sale of ships and other ingame items for real life money is forbidden by CCP, and due to the nature of EVE game mechanics, doesn't really happen very often. Direct sale of ISK for real-life money is also forbidden and not common, as CCP *does* allow players to sell game time cards for ISK. Why buy money direct and risk getting banned when you can just do it legitimately? :) ISK farmers, whether for direct sale or for time cards, don't have much impact on the total game economy as the areas of the game that are the most profitable are fully under player control and a known or even suspected ISK farm team wouldn't last more than 30 minutes out in 0.0. Hell, they don't even last long in lowsec empire space. It's almost unheard of to see them anywhere beyond the absolute safest systems, which also happen to be the lowest profit systems by over an order of magnitude compared to 0.0.

Things to do today

[Kesch]

-Feed cat
-Breakfast
-Take over enemy base
-Feed cat again
-Dinner

Correction

[p0tat03]

- Feed cat
- Breakfast
- Take over enemy base
- Soil your adult diapers while camping out at the sniper's nest
- Continue taking over enemy base
- Feed cat again
- Dinner

it's UP TO 10 hours

[Anonymous Coward]

It's UP TO 10 hours, which basically means they just implemented the ability to set really high time limits. I doubt most matches will take that long - I've done my share of beating UT Assault maps in under a minute :)

Still, its an interesting idea to have an endurance-type FPS rather than being all about high-speed killing.

From a Civ player...

[CowsAnonymous]

...only 10 hours?

good Lord, you've got to be kidding

[Frag-A-Muffin]

Do you people actually have 10hrs of spare time you can just sit down and play straight through? Don't you people have to work? Eat? Poo? Spend "quality time" with the wifey?

Right, this is /., what was I thinking.

And what happens if some of your teammates can't play that long. I can imagine for most people this experience is gonna suck as people constantly drop out midway through a game. Only the hardcore'est of hardcore is going enjoy this game to its fullest.

I played WoW, and I didn't quit it because I got bored, I just didn't have the time to put in it. This game sounds just as ridiculous. Maybe that's why I like CounterStrike so much. You can hop on, play for a half-hour or so, and leave. (And NOT have to worry that the kids who aren't working are collecting bigger and badder ass weapons to kill you even worse tomorrow).

Or maybe I'm just getting old. :\

Re:good Lord, you've got to be kidding

[kfg]

Don't you people have to . . .Poo?

For every engineering problem there is an engineering solution

KFG

Re:good Lord, you've got to be kidding

[PaganRitual]

Don't you people have to work?

Not on weekends.

Eat?

You've never eaten while watching TV before? People can eat while playing games as well. They are the ones that randomly run into static environmental objects or who stand still for 30 seconds at a time and don't actually say anything in team chat as they start moving again.

Poo?

Well if I'm not eating, I don't see this as being a problem either.

Spend "quality time" with the wifey?

If 'the wifey' can't live with you spending 10 hours defending the world from alien invaders, maybe you married the wrong person. I mean, it's her future you're working to ensure here. Those aliens aren't going to roll over and die all on their own. Unless they catch a cold or something.

Harness weakness for good

[SuperKendall]

Perhaps involuntary conscriptions... Before my mental eyes, i see press gangs scanning the streets and forcing hapless retirees into their virtual armies

I just had a vision of the same people that use malware to take over computers for botnets, to use those same computers to force the users to play Crysis for ten hours before they have access to their computer and files again.

OK, perhaps it's not good but it would be funny.

How are they going to balance it for 10 hours?

[MadLep]

One of the problems with these kinds of games already, is that public servers tend to get unbalanced quickly. The players on the winning team keep playing, and the players on the losing team quit. New players join, and usually get put on the losing team because they have fewer numbers.

This is bad enough with games that run for 30 minutes - who is going to want to play for 10 hours when it's obvious at hour 2 that you're going to get spanked badly?

Re:How are they going to balance it for 10 hours?

[Sigma 7]

One of the problems with these kinds of games already, is that public servers tend to get unbalanced quickly. The players on the winning team keep playing, and the players on the losing team quit. New players join, and usually get put on the losing team because they have fewer numbers.

There's a quick fix available to cut down on this sort of problem. If team loadouts appear to be lopsided by numbers, give a very slight damage boost to the weaker team or some other subtle advantage. Naturally, this should be available as an option.

For example, TF and TFC do not return the flag to the enemy base (if the runner get killed) until the idle time expires, which helps prevent the 0-0 score deadlock on overpopulated servers. If there's twice as many people on the red team as the blue team, then the timers adjust themselves so that the blue flag can get returned within 10 seconds rather than the standard 30 or so.

If you want, a high-turnover rate may be factored by having newly joined players counting as 75% of a player, and include an algorithm that eventually shifts them to full player status.

Re:Finally

[Jesterboy]

You mean like Enemy Territory?

You don't have to play all 10 hours

[Enoxice]

Everyone seems to be over-reacting. The teams aren't set and have to be kept when the game starts, people can join/leave/switch teams as they will.

Re:You don't have to play all 10 hours

[tnk1]

Yeah, but I'd like to join a game with some hope of bringing it to a conclusion while I am still there. I don't want to start a game and then *know* I will likely not see the end of it, or worse, see my good team devolve into a useless set of idiots/nubs as the people I started with cycle out. That stuff was semi-tolerable in Alterac Valley with WoW because you were earning PvP kills and reputation points even if you didn't play to the end. Here, the only point is getting to the end or racking up some kills. I agree, you can rack up kills, but if you don't play the RTS aspect of it, you could find yourself plinking at someone with a pistol as they are firing their alien-upgraded man-portable annihilator sniper beam cannons at you.

I can accept 2-3 hours for a game, but 10 hours would be just too much. I hope that they have some real way of making those game lengths viable.

Re:You don't have to play all 10 hours

[interiot]

People play 80-hour single-player games... the urge to accomplish something short-term is satiated by being able to level-up, or gaining access to a new level, etc.

Or think about it in the context of World War 2. No single person could have won WW2... that doesn't mean that there weren't individual achievements that were difficult and gave people great satisfaction...

Re:RTS, FPS hybrid, SWEET!

[SanityInAnarchy]

Yeah, it's so cool it's been done twice before, at least.

Just how is this any different than Natural Selection or Tremulous?

Oh, right. 10 hour matches.

So when my roommate's girl calls he can say....

[jeeperscats]

I'm in an instance, can you call me back tomorrow?

Serious suggestion for the developers

[Quizo69]

If a game is designed to last that long, why not build in a five minute break every hour, with associated game world countdown etc?

Alternatively, have safe houses/bunkers where players can go (neutral ground?) to park their characters while they go for a toilet break, quick meal etc?

The more like an extended real life op the game becomes, the more you will have to build in some means of fatigue management. In a first person shooter environment this would be even more important that RPG style games where you can often have your units on a form of autopilot, harvesting, building etc.