A few thoughts...

[Bhruic]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Perhaps our standards are different.

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[salad]

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]

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]

I think this may solve many problems with the respawn system making lives 'worthless.'

 

[Bhruic]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Lord what have i created???

 

[Bhruic]

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