I'd have been happier with a ticket system, so if people are getting mauled that bad it will be over faster but not for a lack of fighting.
So if timers are here to stay, here's what I think: On Deadlock maps (Tug of War), the game needs to go into overtime if the Attackers are contesting a point and capturing it would give them more time. On Supremacy maps, there's an issue with tick rates for filling the influence bar. Under anything but extreme circumstances, the Attackers need the full length of a game to win with 2 out of 3 CP held. I think we should do away with Defenders being able to stop a point from generating influence solely by having a capture key in it. Or, give the attackers time for every point they capture up to the number of CPs on the map, instead of +5 for A, +5 for B, and so on. On Fortress maps, more time needs to be given to A point. Right now the split is 18 minutes, +12 on capture. It should be closer to 20/10 or 22/8. Most of the game is spent trying to crack the walls and drain tickets, even moreso now that there is one less entrance for the attackers. Before the timer changes, if the attackers could take A in less than 18 minutes, it was usually a sign the defenders were getting stomped. A typical game only saw fighting in B during the last 10 to 8 minutes. All starting times need to be on a per map basis instead of a per gamemode. It's harder to get your first cap on Blackbolt 2.0 than on Pegasus. Maggon A is harder to assault than Olipsis A. You get the idea.
The timers are broken. As long as you hold one point in Supremacy mode and on-and-off (In the Relay Lava map) attack other points defenders win, because you HAVE to cap all three points to maximize the timer or else there isn't enough time on the clock to fill the bar.
I think they should move away from capture points to objective stuff. Like maybe the defenders have to do something to call for reinforcements so they have to do stuff too to make the timer go down.
As a casual player with no guild I love it. 15 man team on the other side? That's OK, try and take a point a couple times then sit at spawn for 2 minutes till the game ends and they tell you gg clothes! Or they steamroll you, get nothing and be sore winners about it in the post match 30 seconds bitch fest. Either way I get a better game next match. And when they steamroll 6 games in an hour the teams get bored and log off. It's all win.
I think there are more variables to look at than just time. I'm thinking back to the old Olipsis days when as an attackers you could not even get to A. The defenders were pushing to the wall. Or on Pegasus where you just could not get a cap. They were some unhappy times which were really not fun--especially when you were out numbered. On Harkus it use to be a grind until maybe the last five minutes when A gets capped and then the push to B. There A would normally get capped late in the match, but players knew that--it was how the map played. If you are on a domination map and based upon your current score, the history of your capping, and the projection based upon your current caps, they should be able to determine if it is possible to win the match with a X% error. If that cannot be achieved then it should be called. Other types of games would need different rules to determine the probability of winning at any time. Harkus should end if you just don't have time to cap both A & B. I never liked the extra time on Harkus. I would rather it be called early.
The thing that bothers me most about them are that queue times normally last longer than the game itself..
I personally would prefer a ticket or point system over a timer system. Players and vehicles costing points or separate tickets to spawn.
I would think more people would be bothered by how far this pushes things from an MMO. Or even a tactical shooter. This is twitch gaming, it was supposed to be War. War takes a while.
