Games are Lasting Too Long; Many Problems Come With

[heavenly55]

I do understand what you mean by it, I just was exaggerating the idea by making it clear and simple. I don't think that any killswitch, whether it requires skill in order to unlock it faster, or if it requires team coordination among 6 players, should be in the game. No amount of skill for me is enough to justify a killswitch that overrides any defense (especially if the defending team has 6 players!).

Essentially, if there are killswitches for offense, then the game cannot be balanced offensively and defensively in late game (or whenever the kill switch becomes available). I allow your argument for them to exist, but I don't think they can exist and that we can say that offense and defense are balanced.

Because offense and defense balancing is imo vital to advancing strategies, promotes analysis / game improvement, etc., I'm not willing to accept killswitches.

I agree. I don't think any type of "killswitch" should exist, whether it be defensive or offensive. If an offensive "killswitch" does exist, then a defensive should too in order to maintain balance.

At the moment, I don't believe any type of "killswitches" exist (unless you want to consider player imbalance), and I think any kind of "killswitch" will deteriorate this game. Balancing should be considered further, and so should skillful strategies, but a "killswitch" does not seem to fall under these categories.

 

[Shotgun]

May I conclude from both your answers that you'd rather have a draw than one team winning?

 

[dartz42]

I prefer to have close games and near touch experiences that usually lead to enough advantage to defending to the win. I don't see this as a 'draw,' but more of a strategic time play. You need to be skilled enough to know when to attack under these circumstances, and to push your skill further, max / impenetrable defense de-incentivizes awareness of this time pressure, and thus reduces skill.