Which games do you prefer; short or epic and long

What is a 'perfect war' and what does it aim to achieve? To me the perfect war is one that doesn't occur. If we have to have war I prefer the finite version. Did you mean 'perfect strategy game'?

Realistically if both sides are escalating then small, early advantages on one side will snowball out of control. Keeping two powers dedicated to war even for a long period of time sounds difficult.

What is "culling out the mistakes of players"? Ingame mistakes or mistakes somewhere else? Where is the other place that mistakes are made by players?

A unit with no weakness could not be defeated. Once both sides had one such unit the game would never end.

I think most ZK games are not fast rock paper scissors victories. They involve lots of territory control and economy. Few games are decided by blinding rushing units at each other.

Games lasting over an hour will have trouble retaining players. But if you want long games play some FFA. They can be pretty long.

Does a game have to be long to be epic? What does epic mean? Many amazing things can happen in a short game and long games are able to drag on in a stalemate.

quote: Why not both?

Because it is not a representation of "perfect war".
Best games are obviously 10 hours long but it just so happens that Spring engine doesn't support game saves :( so they are not really an option since I doubt that anybody would be willing to sit 10h non stop microing and macroing and stuff like that.

quote:

I think I saw that in a GSL final once.

quote: I have a concept of perfect war being an infinite escalating comflict where sides constantly evolve in unison that no side can ultimately prevail.

There's a concept like this. It's not called "perfect war" it's called a stalemate. And you know there's two words in it that describe the situation perfectly. Stale, mate.

quote: I would like 0K development as game and community to take that direction by culling out the mistakes of players and designing units with no weaknesses to avoid fast rock paper scissors victories.

This.

quote: designing units with no weaknesses to avoid fast rock paper scissors victories

So then games become a matter of who can spam the most units?

quote: I am used to many days games like AI War and would like to see a good big game lasting for a few hours.

I've played these "big games lasting several hours" before. They got boring after the 45-60 minute mark and they're exhausting -- both physically and mentally. If you like these games play FFA on maps like sandcastles2big. Games like AI War are designed to be less demanding than ZK and its ilk.

Food for thought:
What's the point of playing a game if you know it will end in a draw? If it's just simple unit spam that will last for several hours that will probably lead to a stalemate, it's not going to be very fun and it will be quickly abandoned. If Zero-K isn't your speed, you shouldn't try to get people to change it for you. VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE.

I suggest a poll.

Which games do you prefer?
*Short and boring
*Long and epic

I guess this is mostly because of my affinity for 1v1, but I prefer short games (15 - 20 minutes feels like the sweet spot for teams, in 1v1 I like 10-15).

I like the highly kinetic feel of early/mid game, where forces are positioning and maneuvering constantly to defend or raid or claim ground. Tactical positioning of composite forces is one of the most enjoyable parts of zk for me.

The late game, especially in teams, feels sluggish once everything has consolidated. Once static defenses and heavy units come into play, everything becomes (neceessarily) slow and focused on fewer units. I'll grant that these games usually end with cinematic "the cavalry has arrived" type moments, but I feel like it doesn't offset the boredom that invariably precedes it.

I guess that's why I'm so prone to all-in/resign in a stalemate. I want to get back to the fun part :)

Short and epic, stalemates are boring

paShadoWn have you tried NOTA? It's another Spring-based game like ZK. NOTA maps are generally huge and factories produce units 4x faster than in ZK. The games are about large armies clashing and players responding to each others' unit compositions in a larger scale war where stuff explodes all the time and new units join the lines as old ones explode. When you add some counters to the enemies' units, you can move the front a bit to their side until they respond. Then you can bring air, more eco, sneak attacks etc.

NOTA games usually take longer than ZK games.

^ That is just a design of gameflow choice. OTA's units are also generally slower than ZK units.

quote: NOTA maps are generally huge

Yes because NOTA uses completely different set of maps from ZK. Clearly that is a case (it is not).
NOTA units don't have sidearms either so I don't think it would be 100% satisfactory for paShadoWn.

quote: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/epic It is synonimous to extended which means long.

Are you looking at the noun part? An epic is, as the dictionary elaborates, a literary term for a certain type of literature ("narrative poem"). I assume you literally (no pun intended) stopped reading after the second word.

The adjective "epic" (which is clearly the one that was used here) bears no connection to "extended". Here, let me quote to you the actual (applicable) definition:
"Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size"

I'm curious to how you imagine every game to surpass the "usual or ordinary". Because it can't, by definition.