*DAMN R6 Forum

 ::applause::

Personally, I think that a match should be a draw as long as both teams have guys left alive. The reason for this is simple: Either way we set it, somebody's gonna camp. I'd rather have the team with fewer guys do the camping.

Here's a short example to illustrate my point. Red Team and Blue Team each have four guys. In the initual exchange of gunfire between the teams, one guy from Red Team is killed. The teams break apart briefly to regroup.

The way the rules are written now, Blue Team has to find and kill the rest of Red Team to get the win. This encourages Red Team to camp.

If we were to change the rules, Red Team would have to find and kill Blue Team to tie or win. This encourages Blue Team to camp.

So, either way, one of the teams will camp. I just think it's more fair to force the team with more guys left alive to attack if they want the win. Everthing the game says is a draw, is a draw.



Onto the disscussion about smoke. Smoke does lag the game for some people. It could also be argued that it helps campers camp. However, it also adds a lot to the game - tactics wise. It can be just as effective at stoping camping and can provide a useful distraction at a critical moment.

Personally, I think it adds more to the game than it takes away and I'd like to see it stay.


I can't think of anything else right now, but if I do, you'll be the first to know!  ;D

I agree 100% with Alaric on smoke and tie games.

I'd like to see more clarification on the rules concerning guest picks what etc.  Bucc mentioned a solution awhile back that was interesting.  Something like: on first match, guest picks map, host picks color.  The following matches maps are picked by loser, and winner picks color.

I'd like to add an ammendment to that as well:  The clan with the most Liberal players always pick map and color.  The # of Liberal players is determined by those wearing patches that say "Bush sucks," "Green Peace," or "We love Dick Clarke."  

please post flame replies in the general gossip section.  ;)

What an idea! One of the best I've ever heard! ;)

Smoke grenades: The only legitimate use I've seen for smoke's is for Thermal Snipers at Peaks. Other than that, their primary use seems to be to lower framerates. I have the same attitude about this as I do about maps in AA. I believe that if the recommended computer can't get playable framerates ( 15 FPS or better ) with smoke nades, then I believe they should be banned. I'd like to hear from someone who's running the recommended system ( 733/64/512 - I do believe that Loth has this configuration ).

Ties/replays: I'm strongly in favor of all ties being replayed. I think counting ties for the team with the most players would simply encourage camping. I think we should force games to be won by killing your oponent, not by hiding from them.

It's funny how this can work both ways.

Consider this scenario: Team A is down to 1 player. Team B has... oh... 5 players.

The last guy on team A camps until time runs out. Oh shucks... looks like they'll just have to replay the game.



It's problematic either way. Need to think about it.

Very rarely will one guy be able to hide from 5 guys.

On a big enough map, you never know.

Actually, on most maps there are places that some guys would never even think to look. Most people don't bother looking in those places because it's such an illogical place for either team to find any action... but that's the whole idea with camping out the clock.


Hmm.

Ok after discussing the matter with typhy, I have come to my own conclusion.

Matches should not have a time limit.

Bottom line. That's the only way to solve it.

I disagree.

In a 1v4 situation, that would give the 4 the option of camping. IMO, the current rule forces the 4 to attack.

I still disagree.

If a camper is "good" enough, he will be able to find a nice little corner, possibly in a shadowed, elevated, or enclosed area, and point his gun at the only entrance, and maybe even have a jammer with him, it's very difficult for anyone to get him.

You'd be surprised how easy it is for 4 guys to take out a camper when you've got Netfone up.

Ok, I will admit, once you find him, it's no problem to take him out.

But you have to find him first, and a skilled camper will know all of the unknown locations.

2 guys can do the exact same thing - they're just harder to kill.

I assume snipe means rounds here, not matches.

Now that's an interesting idea. On the surface it seems to be a good way to increase the time it takes to cb, but when you think about it, having a lot of ties probably increases the time even more.

However, I'm not conviced this is the best course of action. I imagine a scenario where there is one guy left on each team. Not only could this round drag on for ages, but the one that camps will have a huge advantage. It's an interesting idea, but I'd like to see more discussion on it before making up my mind.

I disagree. This would only increase camping. I think the current rule is the best way to prevent against campers.

Here's an example from the BTs vs MP5 CB ( we had like 25 ties ). Sar and someone else were left alive at Prision against me. Whenever I tried to move up into the cell block - from any direction it seemed - I'd take fire. They had the area perfectly camped out. I moved back down into the basement, and patroled it, since they had more players, I forced them to attack me ( don't remember how the game ended ).

The current rule forces the team with the most players to attack, isn't that the way it should be?

I agree with Alraic and Ssick.  Campers, Shmampers, they are sooo easy to find, especially in a cb situation, couple that with nf and an HBS and you've got all the tools you need to find anyone.  Unknown parts of the map?  are there really any anymore?  Jeez these maps are so small, its actually getting harder and harder for people to camp if you think about it.  Plus I have no sympathy for anyone that goes running blindly into a hotzone where someone could be camping (or just waiting a moment) and then gets himself shot and complains of camping...thats just too funny.

I think also a draw is a draw.  Don't forget about that fact that if a guy is outnumbered 3 to 1, 4 to 1 or even 2 to 1, and he's gimped, it's hard to say wether he trully is camping or trying to find his enemies.  Because as much as you might speculate, you can't obviously see what he's up to.  And what if that happens late in a round?  Lets say with only a minute left in a hail of gunfire all but one guy is left on a team and he's gimped.  Are you gonna give the other team the victory just because he ran out of time to try and kill the enemies he has left?  No that would be rediculous.  Your clan just wasnt able to find him in the time officially allotted.  It should be replayed and a round should be decided by who is left standing when the game says, "xxx team wins the round".

as far as smoke grenades and what not, how can you start picking what tools to take out and what to leave in?  The best thing about this new game is all the more options you have to use and deploy.  Each kind of grenade presents a different challenge.  That's what adds spice to this game, that's what makes this game more interesting.  It's all good stuff to me.  It's all tactics, new tactics that we didnt have in GhR, that make this game what it is, I wouldnt take that away just because someone's comp cant get the fps that the next guy can get.

Bucc's suggestion about host and color is good.  One question though, isnt the whole point of allowing guest to pick color and map because supposedly the host can have an inherent advantage?  Doesnt that kinda defeat the purpose of even allowing the losing or guest team to choose anything after a defeat?  Just throwing that out there.

one last thing...lets not forget that the designers of this game are the most objective, unbiased party here.  The game was designed so everything in it can be used, why would we take that away from the game?

Talk amongst yourselves

     There are maps which have unfair spawns. This is a known fact. If the choosing team can choose both map and color, they can take advantage of those spawns. If the choosing team can only choose map, they cannot take advantage of those spawns (assuming an equally knowledgable foe). Split map/color choice is an excellent idea.

     My reaction to smoke grenades causing lag? To sum it up, damned if I know. RvS plays like a slideshow for me under almost all conditions, so I've never noticed whether smoke has an effect or not. I will argue in favor of keeping all kit items in the game, including smoke grenades. Smoke has other legitimate uses than thermal sniping, but it seems that no one has noticed and codified the potential uses (apart from me... mwa ha ha). I have no doubt that once some clans start using new smoke techniques, many other clans will emulate them, adding another layer of tactical considerations to CBs. That end is a good one.

Leave all kits in the game. Every single object has its purpose and shouldn't be taken away. The smoke nades give good cover when you need to cross a danger zone, like the airport alley and some other maps. If your comp can't handle it, well that's not the game's fault. It was just the same in Ghr and prolly every other game. I had a 300 Mhz G3 for a loooong time, I played under the specs of ghr. But still I cb'ed because its just for fun. My highest framerates on all the big maps like Train Depot and Refinery were around 5-8 fps. Unplayable, but it makes you better and you have to come up with all sorts of new tactics to be able to play. Lookin at the floor while running... That should be the same way with RvS, if you see smoke and your framerates drop from 20 to 1, there should be some sort of way to get out of the low rates. Just find it and play the game.

Map/colour pick should be on the losing side. The better clans then have to come up with tactics (or allrdy have them) to win in the disadvantaged positions aswell.

A tie is a tie, a win is a win. When you play co-op and have to kill all the e's, you also lose when you don't kill 'em all. So it should be the same way in a cb.
If you kill 3 out of 4 of the other team, you should see it as a loss for yours, because your teamtactics weren't good enough to kill the last guy.

Of the RvS games that i played last season, i cannot think of a single round where there was the issue of camping... i guess that is credit to the guys we played and the style of both clans.

Id probably want to keep clear of the "no time limit" option... it could result in a camper being able to pick people of one by one in a well defended area.

And i still feel very much the same about the kit restrictions etc... Game designers go to a huge amount of time to create well banlenced enjoyable games... I think to stick our fingers in and start banning bits and pieces won't get us anywhere... Keep em in and if both teams don't like somthing, agree to not using it, but the default should be kept with the full kit range.

Loth, if we were going to use such a setup, we'd have to make it so that the winning team picks the map. There is an 'advantage' spawn at almost every map, so color pick is far more valuable than map choice.


I agree. The goal of having the losing team pick the map is to give them an advantage - thus making it hard for a team to win 2 matches in a row.

I think that the rule should be left as it is, solely based on the opinion of mine that if a team is good enough to take out 2 or 3 of a team leaving them with 1 or 2 left, then they should be good enough to take out the rest, the best teams win in the hardest situations. It is possible to kill campers, and in stating this doesn't mean I like campers or support it an anyway, but this skill should be acquired to take out the campers.

     I think that the losing team has to pick the map in order to keep control of the direction of the CB out of the hands of the winning team. If my opponent picks a map that I hate, or that I get even-worse-than-usual framerates on, or just one that I've been playing on badly, and I lose, I want to be able to choose the next map so that I can get into comfortable terrain. The map choice must always come before the color choice for obvious reasons, so saying that the winner chooses the map means that the winner controls the CB.

     Were it not for those facts, I would side with you in saying that the loser should choose color as it is a more powerful choice. However, as it stands, I think that would be a mistake.

3 reads later, I still can't understand your post, Loth.

Personally, what map I choose is completly based on what color I get. I think not allowing the team who picks map to pick color would take away the losing team's advantage, also, it would greatly limit the map selection ( to those which are even ).

     The map which a match is played in determines the characteristics of that match. Also, an individual or team will prefer some maps over others. Map choice is therefore a powerful thing, because it determines the "shape" of the CB.

     I would rather that map choice stays in the hands of the loser because in that case, the losing team can move to terrain that they feel comfortable on, or terrain that they know their opponents do not like. The direction that the CB takes should be controlled by the losing team, so the losing team should be the one to choose the map.

Ok, I understand that, but why shouldn't the losing team have both map and color choices?

     Because then they're free to pick Garage with the camp spawn and go hide in the showroom until time runs out.

Loth, I found in our CB with BTs that both sides of garage where very camp-able.

I someone wants to camp they will camp. I can't think of a single map where someone who wanted to camp couldn't camp. The show room example is bad because anyone with a brain could be a camp in there.

I agree, rules should stay the same.  If a team wants to camp, they're gonna camp, doesnt matter the color.  If desperate enough you can camp anywhere in this game.

I'm for the rules being unchanged.

Kingo  

Im for new game types being optional for RvS.

I agree with King of Pop because no matter what we change the people that want to camp will.

Spetnaz: even if it's not the "official" game type if both clans agree you can use that game type.

I'm for having clans eliminated from the finals STAY ELIMINATED.

No 2nd chance.

No 3rd chance.

Nice soapbox Psyops... real nice.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thnx Ara!

I still don't know who won season 7 (I sat out last rounds) so this opinion stands whether we (c| ) won or lost.  Btw, thnx for the great hosts bro!

I move to enact the proposal outlined in "Proposal for a *DAMN Battle League Finals Tournament" into the offical damn battle league rules.

I think the map picking and team color picking thing needs to be re-thought.  When a team has lost, they deserve at that point to pick a map based on an advantage they might feel they have on it.  And as most know some teams and/or players feel stronger from a certain spawn point.  A team should pick map, and colors that were chosen on at start should stay the same.  guest picks color, then first map.  then maps picks alternate based on who loses.  very simple.  or loser can pick map and color each time, which is best i think.  having the team that doesnt pick the map get to pick the color is kinda strange.  

how are you gonna regulate that...the winning team says, "ok you guys get to pick map now".  so losers tell winners, and they base their pick on a certain spawn, which most teams do.  then the winners say, "ok you want xxx map...then we pick...green" for example.  well then what if they pick the color you want?  who picks what first?  any advantage you counted on goes out the window.  if your team just won, then you should be ok with letting other team have map and color pick.  losers pick both, its simple, its straightforward, and allows for a team to use their strengths.  thats what cbing is all about.  i think the effort to make everything so perfectly balanced is going to end up taking things away from the game.  the main thing is that if you just lost, you should get to pick the map and side or color you do best with that map.  otherwise if not, the other team could right away take any advantage you just hoped for.  and when you are the guest you should have a right to offset the advantage the host presumably has.

i agree 1000% with mjackson...

Season length discussion split into new thread found here: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=6156

Defianatly agree which c| King here... the way the map selection works in relation to the team color could do with a change!

In GhR the loosing team from the last round picks the game type and map for the next round - this is done to keep things balenced - so i guess in effect u make sure the better team has to keep working hard!

currently having one team pick map and the other team pick colour just removes the advantage of picking the map! I don't have enough experience in playing RvS cbs i believe to really know the full extent of how this works, but from the ones i have played i would suggest like King posted that we work in RvS the same way as in GhR - Loosing team picks the map for the next round and the color (equivelent to gametype in GhR).
 

Isn't what King said the current RvS rules?

Tell me if I'm wrong. I think the current rules are fine.

Correct, the current rule states that the loser picks both map and color.

Heh my bad. Interesting i would swear that a couple of cbs we played werre the other way round. heh.. well the talk of changing it i feel should not be put into rule odifications though ;)