Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:02 AM
However the one life rule created several problems, the first being it encouraged camping. The second is that people would be less likely to call there hits, especially early in a game. People want to get there moneys worth. This was also the problem with the three lives rule, people who play hard and do the objective get punished for actually playing and end up sitting out early on.
It seemed to me that the majority ended up hating the idea. So I figure, why not try the opposite, infinite lives. People are going to care less about dying, hit calling would be less of a problem, and it would also encourage less camping. Infinite lives is why some of the speedball only games at the end of the night are so fun, there's no worries.
So here's a poll.
EDIT: Alright, it's my fault for not making it clear. People are getting caught up on not being able to tell who wins/games are going to take too long. I was talking about infinite lives for objective based games(already have a time limit). The force on force game type can remain the same, with the three lives or whatever.
Posted 29 February 2012 - 12:55 PM
The main problem with people not wanting to call their hits is because if they get out, they have to wait a LONG time to get back in for the next game, and the length of the games is caused less by the number of respawns, and more because the layout of the citadel results in some pretty slow gameplay.
Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:50 PM
Posted 29 February 2012 - 04:50 PM
Posted 29 February 2012 - 08:04 PM
Posted 29 February 2012 - 08:51 PM
Posted 29 February 2012 - 08:57 PM
Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:31 AM
A&K / G&P Massada
King Arms AK-47
G&P Colt 9mm SMG
G&P M14 EBR
WE M14 EBR
Socom Gear 1911 MEU
TM / Airsoft Surgeon Glock 17
Posted 02 March 2012 - 09:47 PM
Posted 03 March 2012 - 10:14 PM
Now onto lives, Honesty is the foundation of the game. people wont call their hits because they suck and it is what it is. Take notice that the ones that dont, are not in the 'close circle' of players. we all know who they are. unlim lives will make a game way too long, 1 life is far to short. 3 is perfect, or as close as perfect can be in this sport.
Medic rules inside dont work right.
The idea of having more then 1 ref in play, say 3 or 4 that sit at the spawn areas and hold the dead players for 5 minutes or so then cut them loose at the end of a timer thusly giving the game a 'renforcement' feel. Alow 3 respawn cycles at a 5 minute interval. Refs with watches or coms to quordinate the spawn times. just an idea.
Posted 04 March 2012 - 12:15 AM
As for infinite lives making a game last too long, I don't think it would, at least in objective scenarios like domination. Time limits could be put in place to counteract any issues with long games. I agree with you in that three lives are perfect for team deathmatch style games.
I also really like what you said about the reinforcement style spawning... position a ref at each spawn and dead players have to wait there until the number of dead players is greater than or equal to 10-20% of that team's total player count, then they can all go back in at once. Its technically unlimited respawns, but the players have to wait a bit to get back in the fray.
Posted 04 March 2012 - 02:49 AM
Objective based games that are already timed, like VIP and the bomb game will have the infinite lives. Spawns can change locations, i.e., Tape team is trying to get into the office to get the VIP but No-Tape is spawning there, so the spawn can change to stairs once the office is overrun(this is already the rule).
If the objective is not completed in the allotted amount of time then it should be clear who is the winner is.
As for the camping subject, yes, it's going to happen, and yes, it's a legitimate strategy sometimes. The camping that I was referring to, occurs in situations like when the attacking team is hanging around the spawn or refusing to attack. Infinite respawns will help give the push some people need to perform the objective. Maybe just incorporate infinite respawns to the attacking team?
Posted 04 March 2012 - 04:16 PM
Posted 04 March 2012 - 05:37 PM
Unlimited respawns just doesn't seem like a good option to me, especially in objective based games. Lets say you have two teams: attacking & defending force. The attacking force is picking folks off by exterminating ALL (3) lives of troops on the defending force. This sends troop on the defending force downstairs to hydrate, reload and twiddle their thumbs... Now the attacking team has an advantage (DESERVINGLY FOR KICKING ASS!) because they end up having less resistance. As a result, the attacking force completes their objective. This scenario can go the other way if the defending team does the ass kicking, but it might not be realized if you incorporate unlimited respawns.
this is fine if the teams are evenly balanced, i have been on both sides of this having been of teams that were mostly younger kids who had no idea of tactics and went through thier lives pretty quick, and playing on teams that so overwhemled the other team that we had completed objectives in under 10mins. what you say makes sense but would unlimited respawns really make it hard to complete objectives, you still need control of the bomb, both flags or the VIP regardless of how many players on your team, i just think that giving people more lives will push players to not just camp but push forward and not worry about how many respawns they have left, hopefully making the game more fun for everyone.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users