Beppo said: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
Last edited: