PDA

View Full Version : A few thoughts...


Mappie
27th Dec 2003, 12:33 AM
Not sure if this should be in the online section but here goes...I love 2.9. The new gamemodes are great. But... something seems to be missing. One thing i am not happy with is that (in my opinion) people are not as careful as they were in 2.86 (sometimes myself included :( ). It seems to me that the respawns are a false sense of security to players who like to run and gun. The often thought is "well i have more lives so lets take this risk etc." For some thats good, but for others not. The respawns seem to make the game less suspensful.

I remember some really tense matches on AFA2 with Rav2 and DTAS. The threat of getting shot once and the fact that if u died once it was over caused me to be extra careful. The clan matches were great! Is there anyone with a server out there that would set one day a week or maybe more to no respawns and have a DTAS type game mode set to the server? I think it would work great with the new maps and weapons. Plus i think it would probably get a decent amount of support from the inf population. This is just a thought of mine. Does anyone else feel the same?

--Map

spm1138
27th Dec 2003, 12:55 AM
Having one life always used to make me rush more - generally straight round the flank.

I'd take risks to kill the other team safe in the knowledge that each kill was 12.5% of the opposing team's capabilities gone for the remainder of the round. You only needed to catch two or three people looking the wrong way to really bugger up the other team's chances.

Now that it's only like .025%/.042% of the opposing teams capabilities for the round goonery like that seems a lot less worthwhile. I find EAS makes me think a lot more about the objective rather than shuffling the other team off their mortal coil.

NTKB
27th Dec 2003, 05:52 AM
Having one life always used to make me rush more - generally straight round the flank.

I'd take risks to kill the other team safe in the knowledge that each kill was 12.5% of the opposing team's capabilities gone for the remainder of the round. You only needed to catch two or three people looking the wrong way to really bugger up the other team's chances.

Now that it's only like .025%/.042% of the opposing teams capabilities for the round goonery like that seems a lot less worthwhile. I find EAS makes me think a lot more about the objective rather than shuffling the other team off their mortal coil.

Agreed. I did the same. Now I take my time and I am very careful. I had an awsome match today on GD server with a newbie Evans. It was about 6 vs 6 on frozen and I wanted to test a new attack method in CQB. I got a minimi and instead of just waiting for an enemy to come and shoot him while I was attacking I walked in slowly through the corridors firing quick bursts of suppresive fire. Evans had a P90 and did the same but more into doors and areas I wasnt aiming. We musta dropped 2000 rounds that match. Although we lost in the end (due to a spectacular defense mainly by the mighty warrior Max) we had a hell of a time. Im gonna post some screens shortly I took. :)

Pics:

1: Lots of rounds were spent to get even here. There was literally a trail of rounds from the front 1st level floor of the main building to this door at the main lab.

2: Another pic.

3: Maxs incredible shotgun work ripped us good through the door. I realize now I need to make anther minimi loadout with a few nades for CQB.

4: They won when we defended but as you can see here we made them suffer as well.

geogob
27th Dec 2003, 11:28 AM
I agree that the spawn point induce a false sense of security. Yesterday, I was playing on AFA with NT, KW, erehwon and many others on a DS map I never had played before. Myself and many other whined on how the defending team was spawn camping us. But afterwards, I realised how dumb I was. It's only on my last life that I realised the defensive position of the spawn points. People simply ran towards the objectiv (and death) without even thinking to secure and defend the spawn points.

And the oposing team could have been much meaner by, for exemple, nading the spawn points (which they didn't do).

In those situation people must get organized to work it out. Not simply try to run for it. That exactly what we forgot to do and I felt very dump to yell the good ol' "SPAWN CAMPERS!".

One thing I miss though from DTAS was the random spawn point. This made life interesting. That's why I like so much Mostar. It's one of the best map IMO that has a lot of variables. I nerver get tired of this map or its sneakiness :D

NTKB
27th Dec 2003, 03:27 PM
I agree that the spawn point induce a false sense of security. Yesterday, I was playing on AFA with NT, KW, erehwon and many others on a DS map I never had played before. Myself and many other whined on how the defending team was spawn camping us. But afterwards, I realised how dumb I was. It's only on my last life that I realised the defensive position of the spawn points. People simply ran towards the objectiv (and death) without even thinking to secure and defend the spawn points.

And the oposing team could have been much meaner by, for exemple, nading the spawn points (which they didn't do).

In those situation people must get organized to work it out. Not simply try to run for it. That exactly what we forgot to do and I felt very dump to yell the good ol' "SPAWN CAMPERS!".

One thing I miss though from DTAS was the random spawn point. This made life interesting. That's why I like so much Mostar. It's one of the best map IMO that has a lot of variables. I nerver get tired of this map or its sneakiness :D

This would be totolly up to the mappers now. I hope more mappers implement dynamic spawns like you mentioned. Some maps I feel dont need it, like Atoll for example. But some do. Especially urban maps like Sabriyah (this is the map Geogob is referring too). It is possible to nade spawns in certain maps but admins can kick ppl doing this or check
this (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=123569) thread out about a good spawn protection mutator idea.

ant75
27th Dec 2003, 03:33 PM
Totally agree with mappie. It's been my opinion since 2.9 got out and i realized no server were running a "stand off" configuration. Now with multiple respawns you can easily blind nade the guy that killed you 10 seconds ago, that really detracts from realism IMHO. I miss the intensity of rav2 matches and the fear of being killed. What surprises me is that we don't need any mutator to get that feel back, all we need is a server with 0 reinforcement, or even a very high wave respawn time. But apparently people who think this way still represent a very small minority.

geogob
27th Dec 2003, 04:46 PM
Perhaps this reduced awareness and cautiousness is in part caused by the mix up of the Vanilla and Rav2 communities? In the last days of 2.86, I've played Vanilla 286 a few times and it was more run and shoot then wait and sneak.

Not that there is anything wrong with this mix up! But I feel that 2.9 is much closer to Rav2/DTAS then 2.86 vanilla was.



NTKB, that's not a bad idea, the spawn protection. But on this particular map, it would help a lot if all the spawn location for attackers would be interconnected.

It is clear that the reinforcements changed a lot of things. Maybe we should ask server admins (AFA? GD?) to setup a 0 reinforce night :)

NTKB
27th Dec 2003, 10:06 PM
...Maybe we should ask server admins (AFA? GD?) to setup a 0 reinforce night :)


That could be arranged. ;)

geogob
27th Dec 2003, 11:59 PM
w00t

MP_Duke
28th Dec 2003, 12:07 AM
i'm in for no reinforcements, i hate running back to the objective and i hate defending longer than 1 min :P

Bushwack
5th Jan 2004, 03:09 AM
hehehe, id like to see someone convert DTAS over for 2.9 and see if it actually is fun first on the new maps, aside from the gametypes, then ill support and even play it online, for nostalgic purposes of course :P

Who originally coded DTAS again? give em a holler!

DarkBls
5th Jan 2004, 03:24 AM
No reinforcement. Infiltration without compromise partisan !

Keganator
5th Jan 2004, 04:18 AM
The reinforcements "feeling of importance" isn't anything new to Inf 2.9. A small few of you remember the DropInINF + RandomCTF matches of old. As soon as people knew they would spawn again, they didn't worry so much about their actions, and even RAv2 couldn't convince people to play realistically. Longer waits for spawns and fewer spawns are the only way to go, imho, *but*, they shouldn't be eliminated alltogether. No spawning again will make EAS maps degrade into TDM again.

geogob
5th Jan 2004, 12:37 PM
I also think DTAS would be fun in INF. should be released as a new gametype (because it's... euh... another gametype).

I miss those blind caps :P

Tiffy
5th Jan 2004, 01:22 PM
The advantage of reinforcments can't be ignored though. Because the defending team gets a large number of troops to defend with over the course of a round the objectives now have considerably more importance. Previously a winning tactic (and the usual one at that) was to hunt the defending team. That no longer works so people have to consintrate far more on completing the objectives set out.

I'll agree there are problems with the system as it currently works but its better than it was and I for one don't really know a way to fix it without turning the game back into TDM.

DTAS for 2.90 would be an interesting game type as maps are now a lot bigger and some are even better ;)

Vega-don
5th Jan 2004, 02:35 PM
i hope i'll never play DTAS again

yurch
5th Jan 2004, 03:12 PM
It really has nothing to do with the amount of respawns, just how fast the team can get reinforcements to the front. Respawns merely define how long a team can do this.
60 respawns with a 3-4 minute wave timer would probably play more realistic than you realize. Dying would matter, and you'd spawn with your team in huge groups. Killing off the enemy team members would give you up to 4 minutes of time to get the CD and get the hell out of there, plenty of time. Just hope you didn't forget one.

w00p
5th Jan 2004, 03:37 PM
3 minutes respawn night on GD? :p

Beppo
5th Jan 2004, 07:34 PM
Yepp the mixture of reinforcements, overtime settings and wave times is the key here to a good game.
This in combination with the current amount of players per team too actually.

If only two small teams of ie 3-4 people play against each other then a wait of 40-60 seconds to respawn could be endless and could be enough already to get ie the attacking team so far away that noone can intercept them anymore if the attackers managed to kill all defenders within a short amount of time ie while they protected the laptop area all together.

A smaller amount of reinforcements can ruin the game for defenders too cause then a bunch of attackers can spread out, risk their own lifes to kill as many defs as possible. If they take out one defender by using one of their own lives, then it can already be enough cause the attackers normally start with more lifes than the defs. And this done quickly will end up in a whole team of defenders sitting locked in their spawn view waiting for an overtime reinforcement that will not happen before 5 to 10 additional minutes have passed... meaning the attackers will win of course if they do not TK each other. So setting up a very low amount of reinforcements ruins the match for defenders most times if the attackers are able to realize that killing all defs is way better than trying to accomplish the mission in the first place.

Giving a bunch of reinforcements right from the start balances things out a bit more. Defenders do not really get an advantage if they spread out to hunt down every attacker out there cause they will respawn in a short amount of time and you cannot get them all normally. So protecting the objectives is a much better tactic to win than to run around trying to kill as many attackers as possible. So defenders most times actually defend and only a very small group of them would try to flank the attackers or would try to intercept them. And this would be 'ok' cause the smaller amount of team losses done by defs flanking and intercepting are affordable if enough reinforcements are available.
Same for the attackers... if a bunch of reinforcements is available for the defenders then an attacker would not run and gun to take one defender with him. It would not work out normally cause the more defender reinforcements are available the more time is needed to get them all before noone is left... but then the overtime will jump in and will give defenders new reinforcements. So attackers will more concentrate on the objectives to ie. push back the defenders, advance their own spawns or to simply get the damn CD out to the extract. It would be way better to grab the CD and protect the guy on his way out then to run around trying to find and kill some defenders.

So, if the amount of reinforcements is not too high but not too low too then the gameplay will automatically shift towards the actual roles both teams should play - if the teams want to win and realize how to.
Restricting the amount of reinforcements would need to lower the time limits too and maybe even change the overtime settings to jump in sooner.

The things I do not like due to the reasons pointed out above:
- reinforcements lower than 3/4 with overtimesettings reducing the defenders total amount of lives to only 2 or even only 1 in combination with a standard timelimit of 18-20 minutes... => only results in attackers trying to kill all defenders as fast as possible, without caring for any risks taken... blindy running towards the defs with guns on auto, killing one def before the attacker dies himself would be all you need to win the round.

So, reinforcements are needed imho ... and a bunch of them. Our defaults are pretty good actually and balance it out for both sides, attackers and defenders.
A too low amount of reinforcements with a full timelimit ruins the game for defenders fully cause it will never result in the slow moving tactical gameplay that many think it would push the players into... it will result in exactly the opposite: run and gun, spray and pray... kill all defenders right away :)

Beppo

spm1138
5th Jan 2004, 09:42 PM
A smaller amount of reinforcements can ruin the game for defenders too cause then a bunch of attackers can spread out, risk their own lifes to kill as many defs as possible.


Nice to see someone agrees with me on this issue :D

So are any admins going to take the many respawns/slow waves "bait"?

Mappie
5th Jan 2004, 11:52 PM
Some one earlier mentioned random respawns. That idea has a plus side and a down side.

Plus: Spawn camping would be eliminated/greatly reduced.
Would add more variety and add new tactics to maps

Dowside: Having multiple spawns can cause defenders to possibly spawn next to attackers? and if multiple spawn points are made would they all have "invisible snipers?" Cause this would severly limit where attackers could travel.

Beppo
6th Jan 2004, 04:33 AM
Some one earlier mentioned random respawns. That idea has a plus side and a down side.

Plus: Spawn camping would be eliminated/greatly reduced.
Would add more variety and add new tactics to maps

Dowside: Having multiple spawns can cause defenders to possibly spawn next to attackers? and if multiple spawn points are made would they all have "invisible snipers?" Cause this would severly limit where attackers could travel.

Within EAS the uncontrolled random spawns would ruin the mission normally cause noone would be able to tell if the spawn areas would not end up totally mixed up so that ie the attackers spawn right next to the laptop or the defs spawn directly at the extraction or some other weird spots. Sniper actors would be needed to be turned off fully to allow both groups to travel everywhere cause else they would have not much of a chance to reach the different goals. And EAS plays two rounds and such uncontrolled random spawns would not give both sides the same chances at all.
So it would only move the spawn areas randomly with the cost of a maybe impossible mission for one of the two parties and no protection at all at the spawns.

So, let mappers setup random spawns if needed but do not let something uncontrollable set this up cause the balancing of such things needs a human hand to control it.

Beppo
6th Jan 2004, 04:56 AM
Oh and I totally forgot to talk about the zero reinforcements setting...

On controlled matches (ie clans playing in a league) this can be pretty tense but on public servers this will only ruin the game. Reasons:

- if the teams are unbalanced then there will automatically be a big big advantage for the team with the one man more cause this one life can be the key to win the whole match if you count one vs one on the death list
- if only one team member does not follow the 'team spirit' and runs around alone or doesn't know the map too good to be of a big help in critical situations then you can simply add one more to the deathlist giving this team a disadvantage again
- if the teams are unbalanced skill-wise then the team with the higher skill automatically wins... additional reinforcements can balance this out a bit. ie. if two newbie attackers are 'needed' to kill one veteran defender then this can give the newbies enough time to accomplish their objectives... even if more attackers get killed by this one veteran. Same the other way around... if three defs are needed to stop him it can be enough to win.
- without reinforcements you get no second chance at all. Sure in RL you do not get a second chance too but this is a game that should make fun. If newbies or not so good players on public servers get all killed by snipers or hidden players in good defensive positions without the chance to try this route again and to then maybe get these guys hiding somewhere killed too, then it will be over within a minute and you will only get a bunch of frustrated players within a very short amount of time.
- most games would then switch towards TDM again cause all you need to do is eliminating the enemy team... no respawns so nothing to care anymore then. Why risk my life to step into the laptop area at all, why not setup some sniping positions instead and wait for someone to look around the corner. Why should an defender defend the risky laptop area at all if another spot is much more secure and easier to defend. Why play at all... I can just wait and hope that my whole team wipes out the enemies even if they all die too... I can then accomplish the mission on my own without anyone able to stop me. Why not simply spam the whole map with 40mms and grenades... maybe I hit and kill someone. Cheap 'tactics' in all types will show up to get the enemy down before you yourself die. Again it would be a bit realistic but the extremes would only distract from playing this stuff on publics.
Again, with clans that fight in even groups in a controlled way (no nade spamming or spawn camping aso allowed) this can be pretty tense. But nothing for a public server.

Vega-don
6th Jan 2004, 05:01 AM
the reinforcements are great because it makes any solo action dangerous.
without reinforcements, i can , as a defender , go alone forward , i know i wont have much problems, i can go everywhere in the map, i wont be More in security at my base than at the ennemy base.

with reinforcements, i just can't , because i will face 10 ennemies or more, it makes the "other part of the map" a dangerous place. its better for the challenge and the gameplay to have some dangerous areas, some choquepoints, some place where you are in inferiority. then you need to work as a team , and to play for the objectives.

without reinforcements would end as a bunch of people runing everywhere in the map like (2.86) bots do

ant75
6th Jan 2004, 07:34 AM
I don't agree to some of the points stated by beppo and others.
- i don't care if a 0 reinforcement setting is not "newbie friendly". I don't play for them, not that i think they're not important (i welcome them warmly when they come). If newbies think the new aiming system is too hard to learn, why not make an option for crosshair ?
- i agree that waiting 5 min in front of your screen can be boring, and i know what i'm talking about since i'm usually not of the last remaining players. But that what makes your playing time so intense. I see Inf as a chess game : in chess you can wait hours before it's your turn to play, that's why you have to be overfocused and very careful of what you do. But perhaps i'm too oldfashioned, nowadays people just want fun to be cheap and easy.
- unbalanced teams in number is nothing compared to unbalanced teams in skills. Having played quite some matches on rav2 i can tell you that i've seen more than often a team of 3 take out twice as many players. Teams will always be unbalanced on public servers, that's the result of mixing experienced players with newbies: reinforcements or not, this won't change. Actually, from what i remember of rav2, matches then were as balanced (or unbalanced) as they are now.
And don, just observing how people play on servers shows that game settings *as they are now* do not encourage teamplay AT ALL. If anything, people are more trying to run in their own direction now than with rav2. Many former ra players can confirm that. This is probably due to respawn settings making players respawn one by one most of the time.

Setting a higher respawn time or 0 reinforcement really amounts to the same thing, that's why i don't care which method is used to make people act more careful. Saying that either one of those method will result in TDM matches is not a valid argument, because if both the enemy and you have no second chance, i don't why people would try to risk to hunt down the enemy at any cost. Rambo style players will always look for contact, while more cautious players will try to spare their playing time by engaging only when necessary. There's no reason for that to change.
That said, this is my vision of Inf, i hope some people share it, but i don't mean to impose rules people don't agree with, because that would only result in a crappy gameplay.

Vega-don
6th Jan 2004, 07:59 AM
the question is :
would you go searching the CD with 0 respawn ?

personnaly i wont. to dangerous. easier to hunt the ennemy team

yurch
6th Jan 2004, 12:19 PM
Circling the map and charging flanks is EASY with single respawns. Very easy. Even if the first two players fail at it the next could wipe out half of the enemy team. All it takes is some minor knowlage of map flow.

keihaswarrior
6th Jan 2004, 12:20 PM
the question is :
would you go searching the CD with 0 respawn ?

personnaly i wont. to dangerous. easier to hunt the ennemy team
Well in DTAS, people always went for the flag instead of hunting the enemy. So to answer you question, yes people would go for the cd. (Although, I think that the alarm "OMG teh CD is st0len!1" should be removed in this case).

In response to what makes players rush. Here are the factors IMO:
1) Small maps with very good defensive positions ex: Belfast and Cityblock roofs. (get to the roof before the enemy).
2) The Overtime reinforcements. If attackers rush in and quickly kill enough defenders, then they can win before the defenders get overtime reinforcements.
3) Claymores, the faster you attack, the less time they have to set up clays.
4) Small wave timers. If I go slow, I have to face the same enemies (who will often know my position now) multiple times in order to reach the objective. If I go fast, I can be in and out before they respawn.
5) Without any randomness to spawn location (especially for the 1st wave). I can quickly and safely run across half the map without fear of making enemy contact

yurch
6th Jan 2004, 12:22 PM
Well in DTAS, people always went for the flag instead of hunting the enemy. So to answer you question, yes people would go for the cd. (Although, I think that the alarm "OMG teh CD is st0len!1" should be removed in this case).DTAS did not involve an extraction, and provided an instant win.

keihaswarrior
6th Jan 2004, 12:28 PM
DTAS did not involve an extraction, and provided an instant win.
On most maps, the extraction is fairly easy once you safely make it out of the area around the laptop.

The main danger to CD capturers then comes from enemies who lurk near the laptop waiting for the alarm to rush in and kill you.

Vega-don
6th Jan 2004, 01:29 PM
On most maps, the extraction is fairly easy once you safely make it out of the area around the laptop.

The main danger to CD capturers then comes from enemies who lurk near the laptop waiting for the alarm to rush in and kill you.

not on the map i played today ; nomad/ the CD carrier was killed 5 times before we managed to extract.

maybe someone could set up a server with 0 reinforcements to try it. but i wont like it

Bhruic
6th Jan 2004, 01:30 PM
Going to address the points raised by Beppo.

1) "Big advantage for unbalanced teams". How is this different than the current situation? Ratio wise, there isn't one. If you have 1 life, the ratio may be 5:4. If you have 5 lives, the ratio is 25:20. Same thing, it doesn't make the advantage any greater or lesser.

2) "Disadvantage for unskilled/new player". Again, this doesn't change. The player isn't going to magically get skillful or know the map well just because they have more lives. The unskilled/new players are the ones you find out of the match first while the rest of the team is on their 1st/2nd life. They haven't contributed any more simply by having more lives.

3) "Higher skill level automatically wins". This is, in general, true of the situation as it stands with respawns. I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting with your math here, but the ratio system remains the same. If it takes 2 newbies to kill 1 vet, it doesn't matter if both have 1 life or both have 100. The ratio of kill:death remains the same, and therefore the newbies are no more or less helpful for having extra lives.

4) "No second chance". You say that like it's a bad thing. Frankly, I find the whole "Oh, I spotted where the guy is hiding so I'll go get him this life" policy to be absurd. A secondary wave of attackers isn't going to magically know where the first wave got shot down. Providing a second chance to get that guy who got you the first spawn is, imo, a bad thing.

5) "Games would switch to TDM". I don't agree. In fact, I think the examples you provide actually support the opposite position that you take. As an attacker, would I rush for the objective? Nope. Would I slowly make my way towards it? Yup. I can't win without either killing all the defenders or doing the objective. But that hasn't changed any from the way it is now, I can still either kill all the defenders or get the objective. What I'm not going to do is be careless knowing I have another life.

In the same vein, as a defender, would I ignore the CD and set up in another location? Again, I might do that now. I have to trust in my team to provide enough cover that someone isn't going to walk in and grab the CD unnoticed. My job as a defender is to stop the enemy from succeeding. The more I kill, the less chance they have to succeed. But keep in mind, with or without respawns, if I do nothing but kill people and ignore the objective, there remains an equal chance of the objective being fulfilled.

Now, suggesting things like "why play at all" seems rather silly to me. You set up this whole argument about why it's horrible to have unbalanced teams, and then you suggest that someone unbalance their own team by not playing? Each player is important, sitting out in the hopes your team kills everyone else is stupid, and hopefully will get you kicked from any game you play.

As for the "cheap" tactics, I don't see why they'd be any more prevalent than now. We already have m203 shots being used as "maybe there's someone there" killers, people willing to nade enemy spawns, etc. And hey, we even have people willing to ghost on the servers, don't we? Sounds like things already are pretty cheap.

In summation: I don't think the arguments you put forth really counter the concept of "no respawns". The fact that entirely viable (and popular) games of "no respawn" happened frequently in the form of DTAS pre-2.9 suggests that you'd need a lot more convincing arguments to be persuasive in this area.

Bh

keihaswarrior
6th Jan 2004, 01:51 PM
Bhruic is my hero. I agree with every single thing he just said.

One thing: There are very few tactics I consider cheap, and nade spamming is not one of them. It is actually somewhat expensive in that you must take a very heavy loadout to have enough nades to make this tactic effective.

Nade spamming the enemy spawn is a little cheap IMO. I usually draw the line there in regard to the way I play. But, that doesn't mean I'll get mad and complain if people do it to me.

yurch
6th Jan 2004, 02:10 PM
You people must have been playing a different 2.86 game than I was. I never saw people being as careful as you describe.

What about multiple objective maps then? Give me a map that requires a series of objectives and I'll show you a map with one of the teams dead before the second objective is completed in 99% of the cases.
The 'hunting enemies down in the second life' scenerio is only viable when the dead player can get back into the game very quickly. This is usually the fault of a too-small map or a quick spawn. You can bet you won't have this if the killer has more than 20 seconds to move.
Spawns define an area of enemy ownership, and offer chances for operational momentum to take place. I've never seen a team 'regroup' (actually fall back and gather before trying again, imagine that!) after losses in TDM/DTAS.

The number one reason to have spawns is having a second chance. If I'm killed by a random overpowered grenade across the map, a teammate, or even worse, a bug exploit, I don't want to be sitting for EIGHTEEN MINUTES stewing about it. That sucks, and it isn't fun, and I don't give a damn if it's realistic or not.

spm1138
6th Jan 2004, 02:15 PM
Not 2.86 Yurch, REALAIM 2.86 the most realistic teamplayingest game evar... :o

You created a monster :D :p

geogob
6th Jan 2004, 02:23 PM
not on the map i played today ; nomad/ the CD carrier was killed 5 times before we managed to extract.

maybe someone could set up a server with 0 reinforcements to try it. but i wont like it

Yes but if there is no reinforce, by the time you'd get the cd, they should be less defenders around to kill you.

Mappie
6th Jan 2004, 02:50 PM
The only non-reinforcements I was talking about would be on a DTAS type gamemode. Not capture the CD.

Beppo
6th Jan 2004, 03:51 PM
Going to address the points raised by Beppo.

Bhruic, I guess you have not understood what my points were ... I will try to explain by using your quotes.

1) "Big advantage for unbalanced teams". How is this different than the current situation? Ratio wise, there isn't one. If you have 1 life, the ratio may be 5:4. If you have 5 lives, the ratio is 25:20. Same thing, it doesn't make the advantage any greater or lesser.

You actually have not got my point it seems but you get to this a bit further down again. But if you want to compare ratios... 5:4 means 1 live more for team A. 25:20 means 5 lives more for team A. That definetly is NOT the same.

2) "Disadvantage for unskilled/new player". Again, this doesn't change. The player isn't going to magically get skillful or know the map well just because they have more lives. The unskilled/new players are the ones you find out of the match first while the rest of the team is on their 1st/2nd life. They haven't contributed any more simply by having more lives.

An unskilled player will have 'time' to learn the map if he can reinforce. He can try to avoid the unknown map part with his next life or can try to follow another group of skilled players. It DOES change how the game plays and the unskilled player will get more chances to learn the map and to actually contribute to the match. With zero reinforcements he will get killed one time and from that time on he cannot even try to contribute something. Reinforcements give him a chance to develop during the match.

3) "Higher skill level automatically wins". This is, in general, true of the situation as it stands with respawns. I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting with your math here, but the ratio system remains the same. If it takes 2 newbies to kill 1 vet, it doesn't matter if both have 1 life or both have 100. The ratio of kill:death remains the same, and therefore the newbies are no more or less helpful for having extra lives.

And again... ratio is not the same thing. And you missed that this is taken in combination with ie. the wave respawns of course. One man more out of the way - no matter how much lives it has cost to archive this - means one man less between my team and my goal ie the CD. The more 'tries' I get to archive this the better it is for the gameplay. Else I will only get one try and if this does not work out then my team lost the round. Again, the more tries I have the more times I can learn from how the higher skilled guy actually performes. I can find out 'how he works' and where his weak points are. From one try within each map I can learn nothing at all and so I cannot get really better over the time. This leads toanother point... reinforcements can lead to a faster learning curve of course... closing the gap between experienced and newbie players way faster than with zero reinforcements.
Sometimes it feels as if the skilled players onyl want to stay up there alone and are not willing to give lower skilled players even a chance to get up on the same level. This only leads to frustration and to a handful of 'god-likes' that are only a group of folks that know how the map flows and so are most times lucky on the first kill. Without giving the opponent another chance to kill me the game play will go down to a first see, first kill, match won state... nothing that is fun anymore.

4) "No second chance". You say that like it's a bad thing. Frankly, I find the whole "Oh, I spotted where the guy is hiding so I'll go get him this life" policy to be absurd. A secondary wave of attackers isn't going to magically know where the first wave got shot down. Providing a second chance to get that guy who got you the first spawn is, imo, a bad thing.

Not quite correct. The second wave of reinforcements probably had radio contact with the forces before and knows where the guys were running around. 'Survivers' of the first wave can also give you valuable information about where the enemy is hiding.
In addition the 'policy' of "I stay here at the same spot and kill one after the other" is very unrealistic and way off too. If you have a good position then it is more than likely that you change this position to avoid being killed by someone who was able to notice where the firing came from. This is normally not only the guy that you killed... others can have seen you too. Do you know if the guy you just killed has not send out a radio message before telling everyone your exact position? Well you only know this if you can hear their radio comms... else you will have no clue at all. So staying at the same place is as off as the 'policy' you described up there.

5) "Games would switch to TDM". I don't agree. In fact, I think the examples you provide actually support the opposite position that you take. As an attacker, would I rush for the objective? Nope. Would I slowly make my way towards it? Yup. I can't win without either killing all the defenders or doing the objective. But that hasn't changed any from the way it is now, I can still either kill all the defenders or get the objective. What I'm not going to do is be careless knowing I have another life.

I would rush to the 'best' spot within the map, cause the one that gets there first, wins. I would rush as attacker to not let the defenders get into their defensive positions at all cause why should I sneak up there if they had much time to protect the area then with clays and sitting in secure defensive positions.

In the same vein, as a defender, would I ignore the CD and set up in another location? Again, I might do that now. I have to trust in my team to provide enough cover that someone isn't going to walk in and grab the CD unnoticed. My job as a defender is to stop the enemy from succeeding. The more I kill, the less chance they have to succeed. But keep in mind, with or without respawns, if I do nothing but kill people and ignore the objective, there remains an equal chance of the objective being fulfilled.

Not quite... if you are able to secure a forward position that the attackers have to pass by (is available in many maps) then I would try to reach this first to not give the attacker any chance to even get close to the laptop.
yurch is correct that one guy can wipe out a full team this way if he knows the map flow.

Now, suggesting things like "why play at all" seems rather silly to me. You set up this whole argument about why it's horrible to have unbalanced teams, and then you suggest that someone unbalance their own team by not playing? Each player is important, sitting out in the hopes your team kills everyone else is stupid, and hopefully will get you kicked from any game you play.

Believe me ... many will do this or will try to do. Running around in places as far away from the enemy to need a bit longer to be spotted and hoping the rest will make it so that I can be the one last man that does the job.
Some think this way... trust me.

As for the "cheap" tactics, I don't see why they'd be any more prevalent than now. We already have m203 shots being used as "maybe there's someone there" killers, people willing to nade enemy spawns, etc. And hey, we even have people willing to ghost on the servers, don't we? Sounds like things already are pretty cheap.

Really? Then why do you play and why do I and others play a lot out there? Cause the cheap play is reduced and normally players voice such things and then the guys using cheap tactics normally say "ok, sry" and the match can continue. Noone then says that we lost one or two lifes this way and then would like to vote for a restart of the round. If zero reinforcements are set you will see many folks start whining and bitching about this if they were one of the cheap-tactics-victims.

In summation: I don't think the arguments you put forth really counter the concept of "no respawns". The fact that entirely viable (and popular) games of "no respawn" happened frequently in the form of DTAS pre-2.9 suggests that you'd need a lot more convincing arguments to be persuasive in this area.

Bh

Again, different standpoint I guess... and as others said... EAS is a big difference to DTAS and so the things working there do not work there automatically.

Beppo

Bhruic
6th Jan 2004, 03:56 PM
Yurch:

Perhaps I just played more. I certainly saw a lot of situations of careful attacking/defending with DTAS (and, obviously, RA2). I also saw a lot of heedless running ahead and dying with DTAS.

As for the "multiple objective" map, it's too bad that you can't (AFAIK, anyway) tie a respawn into obtaining an objective. Would certainly give that added incentive to try and accomplish it.

You say "only viable" as if it's a situation that doesn't happen often. It does. Especially as a defender, of course, but as attackers too.

I also have seen a team "regroup" in DTAS (never TDM, but then I rarely played it). However, that extreme of coordination generally requires more communication than you can easily get in a game like this. If we all had voice comm, I'm sure it'd happen a lot more often.

And finally, the "sitting for 18 minutes" suggestion is, of course, silly. No, no one wants to sit around for 18 minutes. But there is no reason to make 18 minute long rounds if there are no respawns. Rounds could last a lot less time (and likely would regardless), making it acceptable.

Bh

Beppo
6th Jan 2004, 04:04 PM
two comments:

- regrouping happens a lot... most times the 'survivers' wait for the next wave to come to their position while they secured their current location. In EAS of course and in Specialist you have to, once your Spec guy was killed.

- no or very few respawns should reduce the timelimits. It seems you agree on this. But not a single server (I played on) out there reduced the timelimits to match the lower amount of reinforcements.

Beppo

Bhruic
6th Jan 2004, 04:21 PM
Bhruic, I guess you have not understood what my points were ... I will try to explain by using your quotes.

I think I understood them fine, I just disagree with them. :)

You actually have not got my point it seems but you get to this a bit further down again. But if you want to compare ratios... 5:4 means 1 live more for team A. 25:20 means 5 lives more for team A. That definetly is NOT the same.

Yes, but you are trying to suggest that a team having 1 more life is somehow in a better position than a team having 5 more lives. That just doesn't make sense. If anything, this is an argument FOR having 0 respawns.

An unskilled player will have 'time' to learn the map if he can reinforce. He can try to avoid the unknown map part with his next life or can try to follow another group of skilled players. It DOES change how the game plays and the unskilled player will get more chances to learn the map and to actually contribute to the match. With zero reinforcements he will get killed one time and from that time on he cannot even try to contribute something. Reinforcements give him a chance to develop during the match.

Everything changes how the game plays, but that, by itself, is not a sufficient reason to do something. Furthermore, yes, when he gets killed one time he can't play any more that round. But the same is true for everyone, skilled and unskilled alike.

And again... ratio is not the same thing. And you missed that this is taken in combination with ie. the wave respawns of course. One man more out of the way - no matter how much lives it has cost to archive this - means one man less between my team and my goal ie the CD. The more 'tries' I get to archive this the better it is for the gameplay. Else I will only get one try and if this does not work out then my team lost the round. Again, the more tries I have the more times I can learn from how the higher skilled guy actually performes. I can find out 'how he works' and where his weak points are. From one try within each map I can learn nothing at all and so I cannot get really better over the time. This leads toanother point... reinforcements can lead to a faster learning curve of course... closing the gap between experienced and newbie players way faster than with zero reinforcements.

The problem here is that you aren't arguing why the system is good, you are simply describing how the system works. Yes, I understand that the more lives you get, the more chances you have of getting the CD/defending the CD. My point is that this isn't an inherently good thing.

Sometimes it feels as if the skilled players onyl want to stay up there alone and are not willing to give lower skilled players even a chance to get up on the same level. This only leads to frustration and to a handful of 'god-likes' that are only a group of folks that know how the map flows and so are most times lucky on the first kill. Without giving the opponent another chance to kill me the game play will go down to a first see, first kill, match won state... nothing that is fun anymore.

This is, quite frankly, a load of BS. I, like a lot of people, started playing the game without respawns. I also was unskilled when I started, just like everyone else. To get to the degree of skill that I have, I simply played. No respawns. To suggest that this is an unacceptable situation is to dismiss all of the people who learnt the game in this fashion.

Not quite correct. The second wave of reinforcements probably had radio contact with the forces before and knows where the guys were running around. 'Survivers' of the first wave can also give you valuable information about where the enemy is hiding.
In addition the 'policy' of "I stay here at the same spot and kill one after the other" is very unrealistic and way off too. If you have a good position then it is more than likely that you change this position to avoid being killed by someone who was able to notice where the firing came from. This is normally not only the guy that you killed... others can have seen you too. Do you know if the guy you just killed has not send out a radio message before telling everyone your exact position? Well you only know this if you can hear their radio comms... else you will have no clue at all. So staying at the same place is as off as the 'policy' you described up there.

Yes, you've come up with one possibility. But one of many. There are plenty of times where I've killed someone or been killed without having any time at all to communicate. Nor was there anyone else around to observe and report. The fact is, there's no reason I shouldn't (or they shouldn't) be able to remain in that spot undetected. But the fact that it's the same guy playing the new "reinforce" means that he knows exactly where I am.

So yes, there may be situations like you describe, but that doesn't justify the way the system works now.

I would rush to the 'best' spot within the map, cause the one that gets there first, wins. I would rush as attacker to not let the defenders get into their defensive positions at all cause why should I sneak up there if they had much time to protect the area then with clays and sitting in secure defensive positions.

And you don't now? You present that system as if it's something that could only work without reinforcements. But the fact is, those tactics work regardless of the reinforcement system. It's just called "good gameplay".

Not quite... if you are able to secure a forward position that the attackers have to pass by (is available in many maps) then I would try to reach this first to not give the attacker any chance to even get close to the laptop.
yurch is correct that one guy can wipe out a full team this way if he knows the map flow.

Again, how is this any different than the way the map works now? If one guy can sit in a location and wipe out the entire team (even just one reinforcement), then that team is going to lose.

Believe me ... many will do this or will try to do. Running around in places as far away from the enemy to need a bit longer to be spotted and hoping the rest will make it so that I can be the one last man that does the job.
Some think this way... trust me.

If they think that way, they'd be doing it now. So again, there is no difference in how a game would play out.

Really? Then why do you play and why do I and others play a lot out there? Cause the cheap play is reduced and normally players voice such things and then the guys using cheap tactics normally say "ok, sry" and the match can continue. Noone then says that we lost one or two lifes this way and then would like to vote for a restart of the round. If zero reinforcements are set you will see many folks start whining and bitching about this if they were one of the cheap-tactics-victims.

And you don't see people whining and bitching now? Not to mention that it would actually eliminate a lot of cheap tactics for the simple reason that it would remove so-called "spawn killing".

Again, different standpoint I guess... and as others said... EAS is a big difference to DTAS and so the things working there do not work there automatically.

EAS isn't really that different from DTAS. The lessons that DTAS taught shouldn't be forgotten simply because the style of game has changed slightly.

And once again, I must point out that advocating this position in no way suggests that EVERY server should be doing it. Having every server doing the exact same thing would be rather boring anyway. But having the OPTION to play this way would be nice for those of us who might prefer it.

Bh

salad
6th Jan 2004, 04:37 PM
Bhuric, all I see from you is empty rhetoric and gross simplifications based only on your "experiences" and those "experiences" you claim others have had. Most of what you type seems either hypocritical or condescending. With that said, I'm all for reinforcements for all of the reasons Beppo and yurch and a few others have named. No need to rehash them here.

Oh, and Bhuric, perhaps it's time you set up your own server if there simply aren't any out there set up how you wish to play.

yurch
6th Jan 2004, 04:57 PM
Perhaps I just played more. I certainly saw a lot of situations of careful attacking/defending with DTAS (and, obviously, RA2). I also saw a lot of heedless running ahead and dying with DTAS.
Perhaps our standards are different. :p
You say "only viable" as if it's a situation that doesn't happen often. It does. Especially as a defender, of course, but as attackers too.
I didn't say it doesn't happen or even that it doesn't happen frequently. I'm pointing out the cause. I think there's far too many maps and servers out there with a quick and easy spawn for one team or another.
Again, how is this any different than the way the map works now? If one guy can sit in a location and wipe out the entire team (even just one reinforcement), then that team is going to lose.The way inf works, this best spot is usually directly behind the enemy following the path they just took. Talk to some of the oldschoolers and they'll tell you that's all TDM really was. I found in my own experiences that DTAS wasn't much different. Respawns on the other hand have a tendancy to sandwich these 'flank' players between incoming waves. This can translate to fighting against a larger section, placing emphasis on holding a line or base of fire rather than simply assaulting the enemy from wierd angles, one man at a time.

This 'flank' fighting is what I focused a good portion of RAv2 on, weakening the player's independance and ability to fight like this. Compare kill-scores from 2.85 and 2.86 to RAv2, and you will see that is what happened. Single players often would have over 25 kills with very little deaths in 7 rounds of TDM. This rarely happens anymore (in 2.9, but I can only assume for lack of this statistic), at least not with this style of player.

ant75
6th Jan 2004, 06:20 PM
This discussion is beginning to sound like basketball fans trying to explain football fans why their sport is more fun. I think the original purpose of this thread was merely to share views from former ra players on the new reinforcement system, until some people started explaining others how they should play and why.
Anyway, i'm glad to see that we're still a few to think there can be other ways to play this game.

Bhruic
6th Jan 2004, 06:43 PM
Bhuric, all I see from you is empty rhetoric and gross simplifications based only on your "experiences" and those "experiences" you claim others have had. Most of what you type seems either hypocritical or condescending. With that said, I'm all for reinforcements for all of the reasons Beppo and yurch and a few others have named. No need to rehash them here.

Oh, and Bhuric, perhaps it's time you set up your own server if there simply aren't any out there set up how you wish to play.

I could respond in kind, but where would that get us?

I think I'll stick with: If you disagree with anything I've said, by all means, point it out. If, however, you are simply attempting to make yourself look "cool" by being insulting, I'd say you've rather failed.

Bh

Bhruic
6th Jan 2004, 06:55 PM
Perhaps our standards are different. :p

Perhaps so. Or, perhaps, we just had different experiences.

I didn't say it doesn't happen or even that it doesn't happen frequently. I'm pointing out the cause. I think there's far too many maps and servers out there with a quick and easy spawn for one team or another.

Yes, that could be the case. But barring a large influx of more suitable maps, I'm not sure that that is really an "excuse" (not meaning that in the derogatory sense) for respawns. By that I mean that if we are going to continue to use these maps, then situations like this will continue to pop up. Personally, I find that to be a "Bad Thing" (tm).

The way inf works, this best spot is usually directly behind the enemy following the path they just took. Talk to some of the oldschoolers and they'll tell you that's all TDM really was. I found in my own experiences that DTAS wasn't much different. Respawns on the other hand have a tendancy to sandwich these 'flank' players between incoming waves. This can translate to fighting against a larger section, placing emphasis on holding a line or base of fire rather than simply assaulting the enemy from wierd angles, one man at a time.

Certainly there's nothing as good as being behind the enemy. But allowing that to happen is, really, just poor attacking strategy. I mean, in "real life", would the attackers always assume that they don't have to look behind them? That they don't need a rear guard covering their asses? Just like the rationale "Well, if you are getting killed at your spawn you should have someone guarding it" is used for so-called "spawn camping", one could forward the "If you are getting killed from behind, have someone covering the rear" to counter the "flank" situation.

In other words, I don't think that the "flank" situation is something you can dismiss as inherently bad. It's a tactic, and not one that should be worked to eliminate, imo.

This 'flank' fighting is what I focused a good portion of RAv2 on, weakening the player's independance and ability to fight like this. Compare kill-scores from 2.85 and 2.86 to RAv2, and you will see that is what happened. Single players often would have over 25 kills with very little deaths in 7 rounds of TDM. This rarely happens anymore (in 2.9, but I can only assume for lack of this statistic), at least not with this style of player.

Well, lacking any statistics it's hard to argue the point (and I won't open up the statistics kettle of worms again). I would probably suggest that the setup of basic 2.85/6 compared to RAv2/2.90 is different enough to compensate for the "flanking" issue as much as it needs to be. Adding respawns to EAS does not, in my view, improve that situation any. But this is an entirely subjective issue, because, as stated, there's no evidence to back it up.

Bh

Vega-don
6th Jan 2004, 06:59 PM
The way inf works, this best spot is usually directly behind the enemy following the path they just took. Talk to some of the oldschoolers and they'll tell you that's all TDM really was. I found in my own experiences that DTAS wasn't much different. Respawns on the other hand have a tendancy to sandwich these 'flank' players between incoming waves. This can translate to fighting against a larger section, placing emphasis on holding a line or base of fire rather than simply assaulting the enemy from wierd angles, one man at a time.



very interessant point.

i think nobody can contest that :
- respawn creates a dangerous area in the map, and makes you feel always insecure because you know theire Can be always ennemies coming. in DTAS (wich was great for what it did of 2.86) , you could count the ennemy casualties and when you knew theire was 1 or 2 left , you had a team running all accross the map with no fear, to hunt the poor guy. that isnt realistic. in EAS , unless you count with the scoreboard (= cheat ), you can expect a whole squad running at you to kill you. that create tenses.


-kills arent always rewarded by victory , so you have to defend , or attack . thats great

-and it simulates a fight between more people. (8vs8 fights is kinda limited)

Beppo
6th Jan 2004, 07:07 PM
ok to continue an endless 'debate' of 'how to turn around speech while still in the speakers mouth' ....


Yes, but you are trying to suggest that a team having 1 more life is somehow in a better position than a team having 5 more lives. That just doesn't make sense. If anything, this is an argument FOR having 0 respawns.

That is not what I said, that is what you said. I only used your example of 5:4 to be the same as 25:20, telling you that it is not the same at all.
I spoke about the one live more before and meant that this one life can be the key to success. If both teams perform as good then 4:4 would eliminate each other (yes it happens very often that two guys kill each other and noone makes it out alive) and so this one man more would be the key factor then. With 5 lives more this would balance out a bit cause the 5 and 4 guys playing will show up in waves and not all 45 players at once. So the 5 lives more are not that big of an advantage as the one life more if playing without reinforcements. And if you do not get the difference between this then, well...

Everything changes how the game plays, but that, by itself, is not a sufficient reason to do something. Furthermore, yes, when he gets killed one time he can't play any more that round. But the same is true for everyone, skilled and unskilled alike.

And again... if I now use your argument. How high are the chances that the unskilled player will die early in a round and how high are chances that the skilled player will die early? The skilled one has a much higher chance to survive of course.

The problem here is that you aren't arguing why the system is good, you are simply describing how the system works. Yes, I understand that the more lives you get, the more chances you have of getting the CD/defending the CD. My point is that this isn't an inherently good thing.

Ok before things mix up. I described that several unskilled players can take out a veteran if they get several chances of doing so cause they will have time to learn how the vet performs and they will have another chance to make their system better and are maybe even able to enhance their team work. This way they can eliminate this vet in the end to ie get to the CD. This gives them the chance to actually get past this vet - if not at first, then maybe the second or third time they try. And if the wave times are ok then the noobs will have a chance to accomplish the mission goals even while playing against vets.
You then said that "If it takes 2 newbies to kill 1 vet, it doesn't matter if both have 1 life or both have 100. The ratio of kill:death remains the same" and I say that there is a difference... the result. If the one vet can be taken down finally then their will be another result cause the newbies are able to accomplish a goal then. Even if they needed a bunch of lifes to do it but in the end they did. This definetly is a difference.

This is, quite frankly, a load of BS. I, like a lot of people, started playing the game without respawns. I also was unskilled when I started, just like everyone else. To get to the degree of skill that I have, I simply played. No respawns. To suggest that this is an unacceptable situation is to dismiss all of the people who learnt the game in this fashion.

Oh boy... you mix TDM from 2.86 with EAS from 2.9 here. And these two game modes differe a lot. In 2.86 and before, all we had was TDM. And for TDM the no reinforcements setup is a good one cause it is one way to get you sensitive for your live cause in TDM all that counts is your life. If one team gets killed then the match is over. So the whole gameplay is based on the fact that you have to eliminate the other team.
In EAS you have a mission and the lifes of your enemies and the ones from your team are 'only' on second place. So the main goal is the mission, second goal is to accomplish the mission with as much of reinforcements NOT killed in the end... time doesn't really matter (only if both teams managed to get the same death:living ratio).
These two game modes differ a lot and so I do not "suggest that this is an unacceptable situation" or anything alike for TDM and so I do not "dismiss all of the people who learnt the game in this fashion" at all. For TDM this is ok but EAS is different.

Yes, you've come up with one possibility. But one of many. There are plenty of times where I've killed someone or been killed without having any time at all to communicate. Nor was there anyone else around to observe and report. The fact is, there's no reason I shouldn't (or they shouldn't) be able to remain in that spot undetected. But the fact that it's the same guy playing the new "reinforce" means that he knows exactly where I am.

Well if noone was around you and able to report then you actually were running around on your own and alone. I was talking about players that move in groups and teams... not solo.

So yes, there may be situations like you describe, but that doesn't justify the way the system works now.

Well does it justify your system then? or what are you trying to say with this?

And you don't now? You present that system as if it's something that could only work without reinforcements. But the fact is, those tactics work regardless of the reinforcement system. It's just called "good gameplay".

Your "good gameplay" then works for a couple of seconds and then the round is over cause the enemy was wiped out. Nice, quick match... nothing that makes fun.
My example of running to the 'best' spot within the map was used to show how silly this is and how far off from "good gameplay" too. If all that counts is the fastest run to point A then mappers should make only big cubes where each spawnpoint would have exactly the same distance to the 'best spot' and then someone would need to add a mutator that would let all players start at exactly the same second regardless of level loading times, connections aso (the engine 'ticks' one actor after another and not simultaneously so this will never work). If all that counts is the quickest dash to a specific place then this is not "good gameplay".
If this happens then no reinforcements would end the round very quickly and so the 'dasher' - oh sorry - the good player would not need to back himself up, would not need to carry more than one mag and would maybe even start to 'speed reduce/optimize' his loadout to get an even 'better' player. I hope you see the sarcasm here.
With reinforcements the quick dash will only give you a small advantage and not the key to win the round. Sure, it would still be an advantage to show up at point A first but the looser of this race would have a chance to run again. Well in this case the people would not care for these quick runs too often. One 'bad' example is Cuban Dawn. If the defenders managed to get out quick enough to hold the three possible exits of the attackers killing everyone that comes out then the round would be over within 20 seconds of play. Many times the attackers have to fight their way out and this most times costs some lives. Without reinforcements this maps winner would be announced within seconds. Other maps are not that extreme but I hope you got the difference between playing CubanDawn with and without reinforcements. Then we can talk about 'good gameplay' again.

Again, how is this any different than the way the map works now? If one guy can sit in a location and wipe out the entire team (even just one reinforcement), then that team is going to lose.

This one guy kills a bunch of attackers and then the next wave of attackers come into the match. They now will use another tactic to get past this position. So the one guy will have a hard time to get them all again. If one or more atatckers can then get thru, then the lonely defender will get into the wave sandwich yurch already mentioned. So this tactic will most times only work one time but not if the team that got ambushed has a second chance to do it better a wave length later. So this map then works different cause this tactic can not win the round anymore.

If they think that way, they'd be doing it now. So again, there is no difference in how a game would play out.

Well there is a difference. If this guy would do it on a server without reinforcements then chances are high that his 'keep me out of trouble' tactic can actually make him the CD carrier. On a server with reinforcements the game will continue even without him taking part. And cause this game will last a lot longer than without reinforcements, chances are very low that he will remain the last guy without his team either accomplishing the mission or vote kicking him or at least telling him to join the fight. So, again, there IS a difference.

And you don't see people whining and bitching now? Not to mention that it would actually eliminate a lot of cheap tactics for the simple reason that it would remove so-called "spawn killing".

To "remove" spawn killing by setting up zero reinforcements... oh boy... what an argument.

EAS isn't really that different from DTAS. The lessons that DTAS taught shouldn't be forgotten simply because the style of game has changed slightly.

What lessons exactly? And DTAS differs a lot from EAS. If you do not see that then I guess TDM, CTF, DOM and AS are the same for you too.

And once again, I must point out that advocating this position in no way suggests that EVERY server should be doing it. Having every server doing the exact same thing would be rather boring anyway. But having the OPTION to play this way would be nice for those of us who might prefer it.

Bh

I was not suggesting that every server should do it. I just think that most servers should NOT set their reinforcements to zero cause many players out there would then switch to another server.

If someone wants to setup a no reinforcements server, no problem. I only suggest to adjust the map timelimits then respectively.

Same for servers that reduce the default amount of reinforcements. Adjust the wave timer, the map time limits and the overtime settings too.

Beppo

Beppo
6th Jan 2004, 07:10 PM
I could respond in kind, but where would that get us?

I think I'll stick with: If you disagree with anything I've said, by all means, point it out. If, however, you are simply attempting to make yourself look "cool" by being insulting, I'd say you've rather failed.

Bh

ehhh kindergarten now? ... This can be used in exactly the same way against you, Bhruic. It is insulting the other way around now.
So, do you feel and look "cool" now.

See, looks stupid, or? :rolleyes:

salad
6th Jan 2004, 07:17 PM
Yes, but you are trying to suggest that a team having 1 more life is somehow in a better position than a team having 5 more lives. That just doesn't make sense. If anything, this is an argument FOR having 0 respawns.
How is that what the argument is saying? Please detail this specifically. You saying it is so doesn't make it correct. Or are you going to argue that 5 isn't greater than 1? Taking out 1 guy is easier than taking out 5, is it not?

Everything changes how the game plays, but that, by itself, is not a sufficient reason to do something.
I couldn't agree more. Think about your statement for a moment. Reflect.

My point is that this isn't an inherently good thing.
Why isn't it? Back that point up or you're just describing how the system works as well, or rather, how you think it should work. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Beppo described not only how it worked, but why it was good. Anyone with a 5 year old's reading comprehension level could see that. Read it again. If you need help, I can outline his points for you, but I think it will be good for you to find them yourself. It should be a rather easy exercise.

I, like a lot of people, started playing the game without respawns. I also was unskilled when I started, just like everyone else. To get to the degree of skill that I have, I simply played. No respawns. To suggest that this is an unacceptable situation is to dismiss all of the people who learnt the game in this fashion.
You, and others, also started out playing TDM. Does that make it better too? Seems to be quite a bit of BS in your "argument" as well, no?

Yes, you've come up with one possibility. But one of many. There are plenty of times where I've killed someone or been killed without having any time at all to communicate. Nor was there anyone else around to observe and report. The fact is, there's no reason I shouldn't (or they shouldn't) be able to remain in that spot undetected. But the fact that it's the same guy playing the new "reinforce" means that he knows exactly where I am.

So yes, there may be situations like you describe, but that doesn't justify the way the system works now.
You do realize, of course, you're countering his one example with one of your own, claiming yours is better, right? Just making sure. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Again, how is this any different than the way the map works now? If one guy can sit in a location and wipe out the entire team (even just one reinforcement), then that team is going to lose.
This makes no sense. A guy wiping out a reinforcement wave in a game with reinforcements is the same as a guy wiping out a whole team from that spot? How? While you're at it, show me a demorec (just one will be fine) where a team loses simply because one reinforcement (your words) is killed by a guy sitting in a location. Take your time.

If they think that way, they'd be doing it now. So again, there is no difference in how a game would play out.
How would this play out the same? Spell out more than one scenario where this would be the same in a game with respawns vs. one without it. Outline tactical advantages to each scenarios for playing that way.

EAS isn't really that different from DTAS. The lessons that DTAS taught shouldn't be forgotten simply because the style of game has changed slightly.
Yes, it is. DTAS involved a dynamic objective with an instant win possibility and no extraction. Even the creator of it says they're different, yet you somehow know better? Right.

But this is an entirely subjective issue, because, as stated, there's no evidence to back it up..
Sounds like pretty much every point you make, unless you count things you've "seen" and "experienced" that back your points up and conveniently counter points Beppo made.

"I've seen this happen many times. Here are some scenarios in which it occured."

"Oh yeah! Well, I've seen these things that umm...yeah, countered that!"

Nice.

Beppo
6th Jan 2004, 07:43 PM
oh and another 'argument' I wanted to post seperately from the other things...

- your loadout.

If you play 5 vs 5 (or 8 vs 8 or 10 vs 10) with no reinforcements... well how much stuff do you really need to carry around then? A bunch of mags, some frag nades and maybe some smoke grenades too. Maybe even a sidearm for the case you run out of ammo. Really? Really that much?
Well if you play ie 5 vs 5 then the amount of reinforcements would be a thing to take in mind at the time you setup your loadout. If no reinforcements are available then you would be able to carry one full mag, one frag grenade and maybe even more with you for each enemy you might encounter. Means at the time you see an enemy you can play fire and forget cause if you get him with 30 shots fired and two nades thrown then you reached your goal... he's dead... will never show up again... and you have the same stuff available for the next enemy you encounter.
With reinforcements you have to take in account that you 'probably' survive a firefight. So you would need mags and grenades for the next enemies you encounter too. But cause it will not be only 5 enemies total you will need to watch how many rounds you fire and how many grenades you use... cause 20 guys more can show up if you survive them all. So this actually lets you watch your ammo usage a bit more carefully most times.

Sure you can take the other side of the argument too, that the reinforcements allow you to take your 5 mags and grenades into the battlefield several times and so you can use up all your stuff for one enemy too. But this is again pretty different cause it will give you no real advantage.
Surviving with a chance to survive even longer is an advantage but surviving without a single mag or grenade left is not an advantage anymore.

Of course you can find some hooks to turn the loadout 'argument' around but please consider this here a valid point cause it is not the same again... it differs if you use your 5 mags and 5 grenades loadout against 5 players with a total of 5 lives, or 5 players with a total of 20 lives.

Demosthanese
6th Jan 2004, 08:40 PM
I think this (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=124321) may solve many problems with the respawn system making lives 'worthless.'

Bhruic
6th Jan 2004, 10:41 PM
ok to continue an endless 'debate' of 'how to turn around speech while still in the speakers mouth' ....

Ah, yes, well, as long as you're in the spirit of things. <sigh>

I spoke about the one live more before and meant that this one life can be the key to success. If both teams perform as good then 4:4 would eliminate each other (yes it happens very often that two guys kill each other and noone makes it out alive) and so this one man more would be the key factor then. With 5 lives more this would balance out a bit cause the 5 and 4 guys playing will show up in waves and not all 45 players at once. So the 5 lives more are not that big of an advantage as the one life more if playing without reinforcements. And if you do not get the difference between this then, well...

What I "get" is that the game starts off with 5 vs 4, regardless. What I also "get" is that, barring late joiners, one team will never have more than 4 people, while the other will often have 5. What I don't "get" is how you seem to think that situation is more fair than a simple 5 vs 4 match.

I mean, let's use your example. A perfect system where everyone kills everyone else, all things being equal. So in my situation, 5 vs 4, the 4 kill 4, and 1 left. In yours, first wave - 4 kill 4. Second wave, 4 kill 4. Third wave, 4 kill 4. Fourth and fifth wave, 4 kill 4. So one team has 5 people alive, one team has none.

And again... if I now use your argument. How high are the chances that the unskilled player will die early in a round and how high are chances that the skilled player will die early? The skilled one has a much higher chance to survive of course.

Of course, I'll agree to that.

You then said that "If it takes 2 newbies to kill 1 vet, it doesn't matter if both have 1 life or both have 100. The ratio of kill:death remains the same" and I say that there is a difference... the result. If the one vet can be taken down finally then their will be another result cause the newbies are able to accomplish a goal then. Even if they needed a bunch of lifes to do it but in the end they did. This definetly is a difference.

I see, so what you are going for isn't the actual effect, it's the "sense of accomplishment" or something along that line? If so, then I misunderstood the thrust of your position.

These two game modes differ a lot and so I do not "suggest that this is an unacceptable situation" or anything alike for TDM and so I do not "dismiss all of the people who learnt the game in this fashion" at all. For TDM this is ok but EAS is different.

And yet you don't mind accusing people of deliberately trying to keep the "unskilled" players down? Keep in mind that neither of us have had to "learn" EAS fresh (ie, having never played Infiltration at all), so perhaps neither of us is in a position to comment on the degree of difficulty either way. I understand your position, I just disagree with it.

Well if noone was around you and able to report then you actually were running around on your own and alone. I was talking about players that move in groups and teams... not solo.

Right. And for people the move in groups and teams, they have the ability to point out where enemies are. In fact, they do in the games I play. These people are not the ones I'm talking about. Changing my example to try and talk about them doesn't in any way address the situation that I described.

Well does it justify your system then? or what are you trying to say with this?

No, it doesn't. But you were presenting it as if it DID justify your position. It is, imo, a "neutral" fact. It supports neither of our cases.


With reinforcements the quick dash will only give you a small advantage and not the key to win the round. Sure, it would still be an advantage to show up at point A first but the looser of this race would have a chance to run again. Well in this case the people would not care for these quick runs too often. One 'bad' example is Cuban Dawn. If the defenders managed to get out quick enough to hold the three possible exits of the attackers killing everyone that comes out then the round would be over within 20 seconds of play. Many times the attackers have to fight their way out and this most times costs some lives. Without reinforcements this maps winner would be announced within seconds. Other maps are not that extreme but I hope you got the difference between playing CubanDawn with and without reinforcements. Then we can talk about 'good gameplay' again.

Cuban - good example. In Cuban, if the defenders position themselves to lock down the 3 exits, the round is pretty much over for the attackers. Any competent holding of the exits to spawns will result in a win for the team that does it.

In your example, yes, the attackers get to respawn to try it over again. While they might not have lost, they certainly are at a disadvantage. The defenders still have them pinned down, and now have more lives to respawn even if the attackers manage to break out. In my mind, I see that as drawing the round out pointlessly. The attackers are going to lose 99% of the time. I see this happen a lot in maps like ArabOutpost, when the attackers manage to get a group to the CD area. They simply hold the defenders exit routes, and the round is over, even if they don't bother with the CD.

Personally, I find this is more often an example of bad map design than anything else. If you take a map like Tuscany, it's much harder to simply rush to a "prevent advancement" place.

I will concede, however, that respawns allow for more gameplay within a map. And if that is what you are looking for, then yes, it's worthwhile. I don't think anyone, least of all me, would suggest that there is NO worth to respawns. However hopefully you'll also concede that there are drawbacks to it as well?

To "remove" spawn killing by setting up zero reinforcements... oh boy... what an argument.

I was forwarding it as an example of the "advantages" of not having respawns. Presumably a rather obvious advantage.

What lessons exactly? And DTAS differs a lot from EAS. If you do not see that then I guess TDM, CTF, DOM and AS are the same for you too.

Thanks for the false dichotomy. I can quite easily think that DTAS and EAS share a lot of similarities without thinking that all game modes are similar. At its most basic level what they share is an attackers vs defenders situation, with a specific objective that needs to be captured. I will, of course, agree that EAS has a lot more depth to it, which is demonstrated on such maps as Iraq. But a lot of the "go capture the CD" missions are quite similar to the "go capture a location" missions from DTAS, minus the "extract" part.

I was not suggesting that every server should do it. I just think that most servers should NOT set their reinforcements to zero cause many players out there would then switch to another server.

I agree, I don't think most servers should. I'd like to see it similar to a specialist server, of which few get used (none other than AFA that I've seen in the last week or so).

If someone wants to setup a no reinforcements server, no problem. I only suggest to adjust the map timelimits then respectively.

Same for servers that reduce the default amount of reinforcements. Adjust the wave timer, the map time limits and the overtime settings too.

Again, I agree, no need to drag things out as long. Especially for the defenders if they have to wait for the "reinforcements" (as opposed to normal respawns).

Bh

Bhruic
6th Jan 2004, 10:42 PM
ehhh kindergarten now? ... This can be used in exactly the same way against you, Bhruic. It is insulting the other way around now.
So, do you feel and look "cool" now.

See, looks stupid, or? :rolleyes:

Well, hopefully I caught this before anyone read the first draft, because it was needlessly insulting. After getting into the argument with sublime (I think it was) that resulted in pointless personal bickering, I'd like to avoid it in the future.

In the same way, I did tone down my original post to salad as well. Honestly, can you say that you feel his attack on me was justified? And do you think that I was simply trying to be insulting in return? I certainly was not trying to make myself look/feel "cool". I was simply pointing out that attacking the arguer instead of the argument is never a good policy. If you took a different read on that, my apologies, but that was not the intent.

Bh

Bhruic
6th Jan 2004, 11:06 PM
How is that what the argument is saying? Please detail this specifically. You saying it is so doesn't make it correct. Or are you going to argue that 5 isn't greater than 1? Taking out 1 guy is easier than taking out 5, is it not?

I would hope so, because that's what I said. It would appear that you are arguing for my side. Thanks.

Why isn't it? Back that point up or you're just describing how the system works as well, or rather, how you think it should work. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Beppo described not only how it worked, but why it was good. Anyone with a 5 year old's reading comprehension level could see that. Read it again. If you need help, I can outline his points for you, but I think it will be good for you to find them yourself. It should be a rather easy exercise.

He was arguing why the system was newbie friendly. Making bullets do no damage at all would be newbie friendly as well. They'd never die so they'd have plenty of time to run around practising their shooting. But just because something can be described as "newbie friendly" does not make it inherently a good thing.

You, and others, also started out playing TDM. Does that make it better too? Seems to be quite a bit of BS in your "argument" as well, no?

Better? No. Different? Yes. But, then, I never made a claim of "better", so I'm not sure why you chose to bring that up.

You do realize, of course, you're countering his one example with one of your own, claiming yours is better, right? Just making sure. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Then first off you need to look up the definition of "hypocritical". And no, I'm not "countering his example with one of mine own". I presented an example of something bad about respawns. Beppo countered by showing how a subset of my example could be "ok". I merely pointed out that countering a subset of my example does not account for the rest of my example not covered in his subset.

This makes no sense. A guy wiping out a reinforcement wave in a game with reinforcements is the same as a guy wiping out a whole team from that spot? How? While you're at it, show me a demorec (just one will be fine) where a team loses simply because one reinforcement (your words) is killed by a guy sitting in a location. Take your time.

As I don't make demorecs, obviously I'm not in a position to do so. And even if I did make demorecs, I don't sit there watching other people play. And even if I did, the chances of me catching a single person wiping out an entire reinforcement is exceedingly small. In other words, I'm pointing out the fact (that you were perfectly aware of) that my inability to give you an viewable example in no way suggests that it doesn't happen.

And no, I didn't say it's "the same". I said the effect of it is the same. If one player can eliminate an entire reinforcement of the other team, then the chances of the other team winning is exceedingly small. Obviously not as small as with no reinforcements, but in the majority of cases, it would be the same.

How would this play out the same? Spell out more than one scenario where this would be the same in a game with respawns vs. one without it. Outline tactical advantages to each scenarios for playing that way.

Beppo presented a situation where someone would "go hide", in effect. He stated that the person just likes to do that (or something to that effect). My point was simply that if a person enjoys doing that, they are going to do it with respawns or not, because that's the type of game they enjoy. And by going off by themselves and keeping themselves out of danger, they are robbing their team of an effective player in the same way they would be without reinforcements.

Beyond that, what you are asking for is (again, as you are well aware), completely out of the scope of the discussion.

Yes, it is. DTAS involved a dynamic objective with an instant win possibility and no extraction. Even the creator of it says they're different, yet you somehow know better? Right.

Then it's a good thing I never said they were the same. I said they had similarities. If you care to argue that point, by all means, do so. (Out of curiosity, what do you consider the difference between "instant win possibility" and "no extraction"?)

Sounds like pretty much every point you make, unless you count things you've "seen" and "experienced" that back your points up and conveniently counter points Beppo made.

The things I've "seen" and "experienced" I put forth as support for my position. Whether or not anyone else has "seen" or "experienced" the same thing, I can't say. As I stated with Yurch, it's possible we've simply had different experiences. But not using the evidence that I've personally seen would be foolish.

And yes, every point that I made is a subjective issue. The entire issue is subjective. You said it yourself in your previous post, "I'm all for reinforcements". Your opinion.

---

While I appreciate you taking the time to vaguely debate the points, why not tone down on the insults? How can you justify complaining about condescension and hypocrisy when you turn around and practise it yourself? If you want to disagree with me, fine. This is a discussion. It's not about winning or losing, it's about presenting our opinions on the subject. Beppo is a fan of reinforcements. That's fine, I have no problem with that, and respect his position, even if I don't agree with it myself. There's no reason that we can't have both.

Bh

Bhruic
6th Jan 2004, 11:09 PM
Of course you can find some hooks to turn the loadout 'argument' around but please consider this here a valid point cause it is not the same again... it differs if you use your 5 mags and 5 grenades loadout against 5 players with a total of 5 lives, or 5 players with a total of 20 lives.

Agreed, there is a difference, but honestly, do you ever find yourself in a firefight and start thinking "better not shoot too much at him, I might run out of ammo"? I can't say that I ever have. I concentrate on trying to kill the other person, and however much ammo that takes, it takes. Conserving ammo isn't going to help me if I die.

I think I'd likely take LESS ammo in my loadouts with no reinforcements, admittedly, but since everyone would, I don't think that, by itself, would change the game dynamic (except, perhaps, to make everyone have a higher stamina).

Bh

salad
6th Jan 2004, 11:52 PM
Bhuric,

I don't know if you realize this or not, but you do tend to come off as quite condescending. Every post you write comes off as if you are looking down your nose at people. I realize tone is something very difficult to convey in a text-based medium, and this is not meant as flame in the least bit, it's simply an observation and something you might wish to think about in the future. I responded to you in the manner in which I did due to that tone of being on a high-horse surrounded by an air of superiority which I gleaned from each and every one of your posts. Based on reactions and replies from others I am not alone in sensing this. I could be wrong.

Either way, I responded in the manner in which I did based on your posts. I sunk to your level, I suppose, as I saw it. I should have risen above, but failed to do so, and for that, I apologize.

I'll debate the points further tomorrow in more detail. I need to get to bed now though before this headache kills me.

yurch
7th Jan 2004, 12:02 AM
I don't know if you realize this or not, but you do tend to come off as quite condescending. Every post you write comes off as if you are looking down your nose at people. I realize tone is something very difficult to convey in a text-based medium, and this is not meant as flame in the least bit, it's simply an observation and something you might wish to think about in the future.In all honesty I'm not seeing this.

Mappie
7th Jan 2004, 12:24 AM
Lord what have i created???

Bhruic
7th Jan 2004, 01:25 AM
I could be wrong.

Either way, I responded in the manner in which I did based on your posts. I sunk to your level, I suppose, as I saw it. I should have risen above, but failed to do so, and for that, I apologize.


I hope you are wrong. :)

Perhaps it's just the fact that I don't use enough "emoticons" to convey attitude? Or that I am, by nature, quite sarcastic? I don't know, but I'm not trying for condescension.

Regardless, apology accepted, hope we can interact better in the future.

Bh

MP_Lord_Kee
7th Jan 2004, 02:40 AM
Just a comment worth 2 euro cents (if even worth that much). I'm very happy with how inf plays and feels with the reinforcements. I actually believe that it does make my gameplay much more careful, as there are seldom situations where you can be quite sure that you won't meet an enemy on any part of the map. I think it prioritises the objective(s) instead of wiping out the whole enemy force. Naturally it is important to kill as many enemies as possible and stay alive oneself but to win the objectivities should be acomplished. And I like the way that even if you have succeeded to grab the cd, you still have to fight your way to the extraction, teammates needs to cover your back etc...

I could go on but it would just be repetition of things already said. For what its worth, I absoultedly love playing inf as it is :)

//Kee

Beppo
7th Jan 2004, 06:15 AM
just some comments... (no need to quote everything again and to then repeat ourselves over and over again)...

Bhruic, you have your opinion, I have mine. But for my taste your 'style' of argumentation looks a bit off. Sure this is my personal opinion but for me it always seems that you turn around arguments and sentences the way you like them to present to then back up your own arguments better. You do this pretty good... I guess you were not bad with rhetoric in school and continue to do so. My english vocabulary is not big enough that I now start to do the same rhetoric things with your comments and arguments. So, I will not even try to.

Well, in short:

For me and others there is a huge difference between 5 (5) vs 5 (5) and 5 (20) vs 5 (20) - players (lives).
Reinforcement waves mix up the current available number of present players, leading to all available combinations between 1 vs 1 and 5 vs 5 (1-2,1-3,...,2-1,2-2,2-3...,3-4...aso) or max vs max.
Reinforcement waves force you to cover your back after you killed the enemy forces. Your way back to the extract for example needs cover cause new enemies can show up.
EAS with zero or too low reinforcements comes close to DTAS if one team was wiped out cause the actual extraction is then only a matter of time that does not need any form of backup.
Playing Specialist with zero reinforcements would result in a pure man hunt with as much available weaponry as possible.
aso.

well one quote I have to use still (Cuban Dawn):
In your example, yes, the attackers get to respawn to try it over again. While they might not have lost, they certainly are at a disadvantage. The defenders still have them pinned down, and now have more lives to respawn even if the attackers manage to break out.

That's the reason for the overtime settings that give defenders a fewer amount of lives at start. So they will not have even more reinforcements now. They maybe managed to get the attackers on the same level. If they did that long enough then they will get an advantage due to the additional reinforcements after the overtime jumped in. But this does not happen after a few seconds and so there are many many variants that show up playing this way giving you the chance to develop various differing tactics to go on.

In my mind, I see that as drawing the round out pointlessly. The attackers are going to lose 99% of the time. I see this happen a lot in maps like ArabOutpost, when the attackers manage to get a group to the CD area. They simply hold the defenders exit routes, and the round is over, even if they don't bother with the CD.

If the attackers get a second or third chance to get out then they can still win the round. Even if pinned down... one or more will make it out finally. And that is all that is needed. The round is never over at this point...
... And in the next round the roles switch and so the other team will have to fight their way out too. Who does this better, wins the whole match.
Again, without reinforcements the round would be over at the time the defenders pinned down the attackers. With reinforcements it is way more than "drawing the round out pointlessly".

Maybe go play some more matches with the right people. Cuban Dawn, ArabOutpost and other maps too can make a lot of fun this way. One team pinned down, one or more make it out somehow and the defenders notice this too late. Many cool things do happen this way. For me it is normally a kick in my butt to perform better or more cautious with the next wave giving me a chance to get past this damn defender covering the tunnel. Without the reinforcments it would not be much fun to die after some secs of playing and then wait for the rest to be killed too. This can happen even the most experienced player out there... killed by an enemy right at the first corner they passed and this has nothing to do with newbie friendlyness.

[C22]-Mort
7th Jan 2004, 06:33 AM
/my two cents/
I have no problem with the re-spawn system, I cannot honestly say I have seen and increase in "run-and-gun" with re-inforcements, quite the opposite in-fact due to the nature of 2.9, re-inforcements in 2.86 would have been hysterical :D , but in 2.9 they seem on the whole to work quite well!

The only time I have ANY problem with the re-spawns is on certain maps i.e. Pankisi-Gorge where you can not only see the entrance/exit to the spawns (which I see as valid "camping" spots, they are choke-points like any other) but you can actually target the specific locations that players "appear", leaving them with ZERO chance of surviving, but that is a map issue rather than a 2.9 issue!

A gentlemens agreement will obviously only work with 100% gentlemen players and let's face it with public servers that aint gonna happen so it becomes a semi-valid tactic to many players!

Bhruic
7th Jan 2004, 12:50 PM
Maybe go play some more matches with the right people. Cuban Dawn, ArabOutpost and other maps too can make a lot of fun this way. One team pinned down, one or more make it out somehow and the defenders notice this too late. Many cool things do happen this way. For me it is normally a kick in my butt to perform better or more cautious with the next wave giving me a chance to get past this damn defender covering the tunnel. Without the reinforcments it would not be much fun to die after some secs of playing and then wait for the rest to be killed too. This can happen even the most experienced player out there... killed by an enemy right at the first corner they passed and this has nothing to do with newbie friendlyness.

Perhaps this is why it appears that I use a lot of "rhetoric", but I try to think through to the reverse side of what you're saying. I mean, yes, it's true that in those times where you die quickly in a round, you're out the whole round and have to wait.

But you overlook the fact that the same thing can happen now, you can be the first one to die quickly 5 times and be out the whole round. And with much longer rounds with more lives, that could easily mean you are sitting out a much longer amount of time than if you lost your single life.

And the maps you describe can be quite fun with the right people, I agree, but I don't tie that into requiring respawns. Teams of roughly equal skill level aren't likely going to allow themselves to get pinned down.

Oh, and since you brought up the "Overtime setting", don't you think that that system is also overpowering? With equal numbers on both sides, it effectively turns into 25 vs 15 (assuming 5 players) for the first half of the map. You suggest that a 1 life system is bad because you can just hunt down people and win that way, but isn't that a much greater worry when you know you outnumber your opponent?

Bh

Beppo
7th Jan 2004, 03:39 PM
To the "But you overlook the fact that the same thing can happen now, you can be the first one to die quickly 5 times and be out the whole round.":
Sure, this can happen... but if this happens then normally you have done something wrong. Form up in small groups and try to stay alive longer this way. Or wait for your team mates to cover you before you move around the next corner. Do not run around blindy and hope for others to help you out. Watch your steps and do not trip the wires of your teammates claymores. Many many things actually.
Sure, same goes for playing without reinforcements but then you will have no second chance to do it better the next time... well next match maybe but some hours can pass before the same map is played again, tho.

Or a TK for example... the worst thing that can happen is to be fully out of the game cause an own team member killed ya by accident. This can happen in many ways and is not based on any reinforcement setting nor can any reinforcement setting prevent TKs at all. They happen once in a while and sometimes this 'once' is pretty often :) If you then do not have one reinforcement left, then it can be quite frustrating and the 'sorry' and 'no problem' messages would maybe turn into much more hostile wording then. Sure no real argument for or against reinforcements but it can be influenced by this too.

To the "Overtime Setting":
You have to consider that the defenders have an 'easier' job than the attackers. The attackers have to accomplish a set number of goals and the defenders have to protect them. Defenders spawn closer to the objectives normally so they can set themselves up within defensive positions that are harder to attack normally. So the defenders have a more or less 'natural' advantage.
So this alone would give defenders an advantage and would make the life of the attackers even harder if both sides would have the same amount of reinforcements right from the start.
In addition the lesser amount for the defenders lets them stay closer to the objectives they should protect cause a life is a bit more valuable for the defenders cause they simply have not as much left as the attackers. So they should stay together and not risk their lifes in a "my life for one enemy" type of way cause then they would be outnumbered pretty fast. So defenders should try to actually hold off the attackers as long as possible. And to grant that they managed to do so for a certain amount of time and to more or less give the attackers a reason to start the attack and not to wait for christmas, the defenders get that extra reinforcements after the overtime jumps in.
This all balances out pretty good actually. Giving defenders a reason to defend and attackers a reason to attack and giving both teams a fair chance to do their job.
And if one team had an advantage in someone's point of view... there is always a second round where you then have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages then.

keihaswarrior
7th Jan 2004, 04:33 PM
I really like the overtime feature. One bad side effect IMO is that it tends to rush the attackers to try and win before overtime. I would like to see maps that have overtime tied to an objective. That way there is nothing artificially rushing the attackers, but you still have the same type of situation that adds lots of excitement to the match.

I really like those situtations where you have just managed to fight your way to the CD when you get the warning about defender reinforcements. Running to the extraction when you know that a whole team of defenders is breathing down your neck is very tense.

Bhruic
7th Jan 2004, 08:28 PM
This all balances out pretty good actually. Giving defenders a reason to defend and attackers a reason to attack and giving both teams a fair chance to do their job.
And if one team had an advantage in someone's point of view... there is always a second round where you then have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages then.

I'd probably change that to "it CAN all balance out pretty good". Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of situations where it doesn't. Probably the highest incidence being with ArabOutpost, with Chita being a close second. But I suppose you are right, the reversing of the situation does mean that it should be 'fair' for both sides.

Bh