Ideal mission time

[(TLL)BlueOrb]

I like the 60min plus games. The brawls near the end are usually spectacular.

[Jonttu]

60 min here as well

[DFDelta]

Voted for 90 mins, because those rare rounds that don't end in a giant wack-a-mole festival (and actually feel like some real Battletech) cannot drag on long enough.
Those... other... rounds on the other hand are even to long if its only 60 mins...

[Redvan]

wtb 30 min vote for perfect bell curve.

[Nitro_R]

75-90minutes would be best I'd say.

I like fighting against heavier mechs with less mobility than my Shadowcat.

[~SJ~ Xarg Talasko]

60 minutes, I found after the rank slowing/narc-tag bug fix patch, a lot of rounds were going by without a single SaKhan, and managed to talk wob into making one of the 3FL servers 60 minutes. Now, theres usually a SaKhan, and often a Khan on each team. The additional time allows latecomers/worse players time to rank up to Star Colonel, and get most options on their own, or all with a bit of generosity from team mates.

I haven't had the fortune/misfortune of playing on any server longer than 60m, so I can't comment on 75m+ matches, and don't enjoy that the other 3FL server with Extremity and Frostbite in rotation, is a 45m match still, and can't seem to find wob online anymore, so I might have to drop him a PM to get the other server up to 60m.

[Janne]

Voted 60 minutes, but I like 90 minutes games also.

[Profane Arbiter]

I voted 45 minutes

[JoeyDude]

Don't the results look like the "bird"? 

btw, I would enjoy 90+ minute missions, if the maps were several times bigger.
They are too small to be honest.   

[KingLeerUK]

With the current 0.2.0 map release set I generally don't like missions to go beyond the 50 minute mark.  Given the size of the maps, you can usually tell who is going to win a match by that point.  Anything more and you start to have attrition affect the outcome more than player contributions.
 
With larger maps I'm happy to plug away for 90+ minutes so long as the battle continues to evolve.

[~SJ~ Blhurr]

Don't the results look like the "bird"? 

btw, I would enjoy 90+ minute missions, if the maps were several times bigger.
They are too small to be honest.

I generally disagree here.  Map size should scale with the level of organization and teamwork required or offered.  If I'm playing on a public server I don't want to run around a map playing hide and seek.  Both map size and length of time should be tied into gameplay types that contain objectives where a team is driven to specific locations.  If it's just team death match, teams will just post up in the best defensive positions and never leave until the time is about to run out.

Large maps and long durations are the enemies of deathmatch style games.  If the point is to kill the other team a lot then I want the action to be brisk and the placement to be tight.

[JoeyDude]

...Large maps and long durations are the enemies of deathmatch style games...

TBH, I think the current "deathmatch" style of play is only there to balance the game.
We as a community need to show that there is an intrest for much more complex gameplay. 

I think "if" we had bigger maps to play on, and the ability to have "in the field" rearm via logistic vechicles, we would get very amazing matches, with those who like to play that type of game.

Not everyone likes the fact that you don't have to go too far with long range systems to shoot the enemy base.

It should be far easier to call in support for rearm than to take a short stroll back to base to get fixed up.

The maps are far too small to really show what a complex game based upon combined arms can really do.

But, frequently, the hardest thing to do is get players to "think outside of the box."
Some just like the same ol' grind every time the play, looking for those minor advantages of efficieny.