Pubbing is fun, but I think we've all experienced games where some rounds drag out entirely too long. I think that the server would be more fun over all if the round time limit on the pop maps server was decreased. It would encourage more aggressive play (which tends to make the game more exciting) and minimize the amount of time spent waiting for passive players to finish a slow war of attrition.

It has already been shortened to 2:30. I still prefer 3:00. Decreasing it further will not give a disadvantaged team on a 1-sided map time to do anything. It would just allow the defender to hunker down because the round will end quickly.

Sorry if run and die rushers get impatient. If they didn't run and die they wouldn't have to wait soo long.

I agree with Tea, the current round limit is good as it enables the attacking team to play either fast or slow. As long as they attempt to complete the objective before the end of the time limit the gameplay should remain fine. Decreasing the time limit when players are already used to this time limit will result in more players not attempting to complete the objective in time.

Decreasing it further will not give a disadvantaged team on a 1-sided map time to do anything. It would just allow the defender to hunker down because the round will end quickly.

The number of times that a genuinely aggressive rush break through even a good defense far out weighs the number of times that a rush will be stopped. Most of the times that a rush fails is because the first couple of people go in and instantly get killed, causing the people immediately behind to stop and camp. Even though the attackers know there is a time limit, they usually have two whole minutes to sit back and slowly wait for the defenders to get bored. There is no immediacy in that.

Lastly, I thought the whole point of switching sides at half was to remove the map advantage.

Sorry if run and die rushers get impatient. If they didn't run and die they wouldn't have to wait soo long.

As someone who tends be less aggressive than a lot of pub stars in wL, it isn't about rushers getting impatient. The problem is that forty plus seconds of watching four people sit in corners is dreadfully boring. I'm not going to lie and say that it isn't an opinion, but I think a very strong argument for it could be made.

I agree with Tea, the current round limit is good as it enables the attacking team to play either fast or slow. As long as they attempt to complete the objective before the end of the time limit the gameplay should remain fine. Decreasing the time limit when players are already used to this time limit will result in more players not attempting to complete the objective in time.

You know, I suppose empirical evidence could actually shed some light here. I'm not going to demand that such action be taken on my account, because I don't know how hard it is to gather statistics like these, but it might be helpful to get time-killed density statistics for both rounds that run out of time and rounds that end with one team eliminated.

I'd conjecture that there is probably a massive drop in the number of people killed during the first half of the last minute and then a rise in the number of killed during the last half of the last minute (relative to the time limit, not the time played). Now, this might mean that people are simply taking their time, but if this is true, the bomb should end up being either picked up or planted during the drop in kills (this is the only statistic that I can think of that would reasonably correlate to people trying to do the objective, but maybe there is a better one).

If I'm wrong, then the time limit is fine. If I'm correct, it means that there is a whole thirty seconds where there is consistently nothing happening.

I know that over quantifying things can often ruin what is supposed to be a visceral experience, but it gives us something objective to discus rather than just throwing opinions at each other.

Lastly, I thought the whole point of switching sides at half was to remove the map advantage

No, it was done to prevent map-stacking. People were just joining the "easy" side.

No, it was done to prevent map-stacking. People were just joining the "easy" side.

Fair enough, but it has the same effect in the end. Aside from that, teams that get uniformly destroyed on one side of a map tend to do badly on both sides. Again, maybe the statistics will prove me wrong, at which point I'll concede, but I can't say that I find the prospect likely.