Man, you're lucky I have time to kill......
I would have preferred if you had cherry-picked and bolded one of the 12 or so times that I said that ALL MAPS IN WHICH TWO TEAMS PLAY BY DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES ARE IMBALANCED. RO is not special because you've played it a lot and like it a lot. Nice evidence though.
I didn't say RO was "special"..... I said this is what RO is, this is the Game Mode that made it what it is today. You don't go out and try to change how one plays Checkers because you don't like something about it, because then it's no longer Checkers.
You don't go into BFBC2 and change around Conquest to something completely different and then expect to be able to still call it Conquest.
And it doesn't matter how you twist your words or how you word yourself.... it all still means the same thing.
Jesus ****ing christ take a science class. Hypothetical, again.
Already took science classes in school years ago, thanks..... how about you look for a common sense class.
Hypotheticals don't really support an argument, let alone win one. Anybody and their dog can invent any hypothetical they can imagine, regardless of how ridiculous it is.
Uh, no? You have next to no information before you do this? You can't possibly know how either team has performed until you do this? Why am I repeating myself?
Repeating yourself doesn't suddenly make you anymore right than you were before. There is plenty of information available for everybody. For Each Team and Each Player, You have scores, you have cap points, you have stats, you have the final round win points out of 3 games.
How each round ends tells you even more information. If one team won due to capping all objectives, or if one team won due to defending until lockdown, or if one team defends until the round time is over, or if one team won due to completely wiping out the other team and their reinforcements...... All Tell You Plenty of Information.
And if you can't derive information out of all of the above on who won overall, then I'm certainly not the one who needs to go back to school.
Oh, ok. This is why. Finally a paragraph that isn't entirely grounded in ignorance. You like it because that's the way it's always been, regardless of the competitive inadequacy of the gametype.
Oh my.....
Speaking of Cherry Picking.
Unfortunately, maps are not "balanced until proven otherwise" because a guy on the forums likes tripwire a whole lot.
I just gave you plenty of reasons why they are balanced until proven otherwise and not simply because "I like Tripwire a Whole Lot"
Cherry Picking again..... way to be a hypocrite.
I see you still have yet to properly refute anything I or anybody else has said...... now you're just resorting to trivial trolling and snipe attacks without actually addressing anything presented to you.
Just to be clear so you don't confuse people into being as ignorant as yourself, the Russians will always do what they do (offense/defense) and the Germans will always do what they do (offense/defense).
Depending on the map and the battle in question, yes...... doesn't seem that difficult to grasp.
And obviously I'm not the ignorant one here.
No one's talking about changing any of the historical accuracy. The first round your team plays offense, the second round they play the other side as defense. That way you know who actually won, because both sides get a crack at both sets of rules. Not that hard to figure out.
No it's not that hard to figure out.... and I figured this out from your first post...... It still won't work in Territory Mode as its currently designed due to the many reasons I have already explained, which you continually ignore or refuse to address.
And if you can't figure that out, than that's your problem, not mine.
LOL. That old argument. Suddenly let's disregard balance entirely because "war isn't balanced." And by the way, IRL, when one army is "trying to take territory from the enemy," they don't have a lockdown timer, and they don't capture a point by standing on it. The 5 Russians on the 2nd floor don't get evicted because there are 7 Germans on the bottom floor and they "win." Territories isn't realistic, and never has been. It's always been about balancing the maps over making them historically accurate.
Yeah and in real life, people don't have minimaps floating around the bottom corner of their view..... your point?
It's still a game, and it needs to be balanced towards being a game, while still referencing historical battles.
Again, this isn't CoD or BF with imaginary battles fought 5-10 years in the future where you can make up anything you want.
But here's the thing- my system supports historical accuracy more than the current one. Say there's a map where the Russians win 90% of the time. The community would ***** about it constantly and it would need to be balanced- the re-enactment crowd would claim that it's historically accurate and that any changes would compromise that. If you switch sides it doesn't matter! Let the Russians win every time- as long as both teams get a chance to play Russians it's irrelevant!
Then nobody would bother to pick the losing team because they'd lose 90% of the time.... the current Territory mode allows the chance for either team to win the battle, thus there's no disadvantage in picking either team.
With your idea, it is based around changing the parameters of Territory to the point where the team that historically won that battle will pretty much win every time, thus again, nobody would want to pick the team that always lost..... and therefore, it would make sense to have the players switch teams each round.
But since that's not the case in Territory, your idea is pointless.
Two teams. Different sets of rules. etc, etc...
Those rules are equal to both teams when you switch to a different map that switches the teams in defence/offence. One round of 3 matches has one team defend while the other attacks, then when you switch maps for the next 3 rounds, the teams can switch roles and if they don't, you still have the opportunity to pick the team that defends or attacks.
Doesn't prove anything, they played the same team the entire time. Repeat ad nauseum.
Again, your point? That's how it works. It allows the players the chance to do better the next time around if they were crappy the first round and weren't playing their A-Game.
Name a sport in which the two teams follow two different sets of rules.
Irrelevant, sports is not a video game, but the process of both teams playing multiple games against each other to determine who won the majority of matches to be titled the better team still applies.
Adding your idea into the mix ruins the whole multiple round win determination because the point the other team won in the last round then goes to your team, unless one revamps the entire Territory design..... which I don't see anybody else in here suggesting they do.
Pretty sure there isn't one, but if you're American then surely you thought of Baseball- a game where one team is permanently batting and one team is permanently fielding and no one ever wins and it sucks but it's been that way forever so go back to CoD.
No, I'm Canadian living in Australia..... but even I know that in Baseball, what you stated above is totally wrong and again shows what you don't know.
Both teams in Baseball switch between roles. One team bats and runs the diamonds while the other team tries to get three of their players out. When that happens, the teams switch roles and the other team tries to get three of their players out..... usually making it 9 innings for a typical game (1 inning is a round each for each team to bat and pitch)
And one team does indeed win at the end of the game, otherwise, what's the point in playing if there isn't a final outcome?
It's pretty bad when you use an example to back your argument up when you don't even know the basics of the example you're using.
Why is it always "rolled over"?
It's not always rolled over, I was trying to simplify what I was explaining so I didn't have to end up using more words. Many matches I play are usually pretty close and either determined by a timer, by one team running out of reinforcements, or one team capping the final objective before the timer runs out..... among many other parameters that can determine the final outcome, including one team dominating the other & rolling over them due to better team work & communication vs. the other team.
Regardless, I wish it were that simple, but they follow two completely different sets of rules.
Both teams shoot at the other with bullets.... the only trivial difference is that one team holds their ground in one location while the other makes their way to that location and shoot each other with bullets. If one team kills more of the other team than they do of them, than it's easier for them to either cap the objective or defend it..... either a successful cap or defend is the teams reward for doing a good job. The differences in each teams' objectives, when you break it down to their simplest forms, are extremely small.
Also, keep in mind that there are many maps in Territory, such as Pavlov's House, where it's much like your BFBC2 Conquest mode, where each team has one or two caps of their own from the start and there are empty caps in the middle for both to capture.... and then both teams are attacking and defending at the same time...... and due to the design/layout of the maps, neither team is at a disadvantage & therefore, changing teams is not required.
The defenders are trying to hold the line and wait it out.
On most maps, but not all.
Fundamentally, all the attackers have to do is kill most of the defenders at once in order to take the next pair of points and move it forward. Beyond that they're just racing the clock.
And all the defenders have to do is kill most of the attackers at once to hold the cap..... what's the big deal?
And it doesn't matter- they follow two sets of rules, therefore the maps are imbalanced. This is not "my problem," it is not "my opinion," it is a fact relevant to all games that have ever existed. RO is not special.
The two sets of "Rules" are not the same for every single map, in that one team on all maps is always capping and the other team is always defending..... as the maps change, so too do the roles each team plays.
Territory has worked just fine since its original incarnation as a mod...... it's what made RO so popular in the first place, in that it's not the same cookie cutter gameplay as every other MP FPS out there...... so in a sense, RO is special.
Changing things around to be exactly like every other MP FPS out there just makes RO another Battlefield or Call of Duty or Medal of Honor.... which then begs the question: What's the point?
If I wanted that type of gameplay, I'd play CoD or BF.... but I don't and it's why I don't play those games today.... and if RO decided to do the exact same thing, chances are I wouldn't play RO as often as I do now, because the thing I like the most about RO (Territory) would no longer exist..... and your little idea would have not just completely ruined RO for me, but for many other people who enjoy Territory.
It is not "Conquest" it's called "Territory" in that one team has the Territory and the other tries to take it from them.
The only common feature I claimed that they had is that they have two different teams playing by two sets of rules. The thing is, in BC2 (conquest, which is the only gametype as far as I'm concerned) the teams play by exactly the same rules. Meaning the balance is just there to alleviate any concerns over map balance. In RO2 it's much more necessary, since the teams play by very different rules.
But that's the thing.... both teams in BC2 play by the exact same rules, both teams have to capture the most objectives with very little incentive to defend, since they can just re-capture the cap zone later..... which leads to a big mess of a game, where players are running around all over the place, aimlessly capping objectives over and over again until one team runs out of tickets or the round timer ends.
Even if one team has all the objectives, the game still doesn't end..... and when the round does end, switching sides makes no difference because both teams just end up doing the exact same thing.
BF Conquest plays on the basis that both military forces seem to arrive at the battlefield at the same time and have to race to control it..... which to me seems kinda stupid and very unrealistic.
So your trust in the maps being balanced is based on the "fact" that you've played it and RO1 a lot? Sounds a lot like faith to me...
Again you cherry pick over information provided to you. That is only one of many reasons why they are balanced. I played the RO games a lot and seen first hand what it's like in-game and in these forums when a map is not balanced and gives a clear advantage to one team.
Another fact is that there's nobody in here actually agreeing with what you're saying about Territory being so broken and needs to be completely changed. Some have agreed that it would be ok as an option..... but until someone can show how they can impliment this option so that it would actually work, without completely changing how Territory works overall, it isn't really an option at all and would ruin the game mode completely due to the many reasons I have already provided.
Give me solutions to fixing those concerns & problems and I can start to possibly see this option being a good idea.
But until then.....
So I lost two rounds as the Germans once on Apartments. I also lost two rounds as the Russians once on Apartments. What now? The fact that this is considered "evidence" to you and everything that I've presented isn't is pretty baffling. But I guess not surprising when you seem to think that your RO1 experience outweighs my logic.
You forget again, that it's not just RO1 experience I'm basing my reasoning on.
And since you continue to ignore the problems I present that will come from implimenting your idea into Territory, your "Logic" is flawed.
In comparison:
My logic is substantial
If only that made you right somehow.
But it does.
...No. It's a hypothetical. The hypothetical was that the maps aren't balanced. If it were based on an assumption it wouldn't be a hypothetical.
So then if the maps are not officially unbalanced and there isn't any real evidence showing there is a chance that they are..... why are you making such a huge argument to change things based on a problem that doesn't even exist?
Seriously spend a little less time with RO and more time in remedial science class. The words you use don't mean what you think they mean.
You are trying to formulate some "Hypothesis" based on so-called "Evidence" you've collected from other video games & game modes that you "Assume" have any relation to what exists in RO..... which as already explained to you, have zero relation to what exists in RO, thus making your "Hypothesis" not a Hypothesis, but flawed "Speculation" based on unrelated evidence & assumptions.
Which is no different than me making some speculation that a Bumble Bee is equally aggressive as a Hornet because they're both insects and are yellow & black. Both are similar in many ways, but completely different in many more ways..... but using that reasoning above to formulate a so-called hypothisis based on the above assumptions is utterly flawed.
Besides..... a hypothesis is something you can test, so unless you can actually put your so-called hypothesis into a testing exercise to prove it to be true or false, it's not really a hypothesis.
Maybe you should get out of your remedial science class and get into a science class that actually teaches you something right for once.
Then again, it also depends on what kind of "Hypothesis" you're trying to express, as there are different kinds of Hypothesis.
You can call whatever you're talking about a hypothesis..... I call it an ignorant assumption based on flawed examples from unrelated material you're trying to use to make yourself sound smart.
Which leads to an Epic Fail on your part.
No. It. Doesn't. That's. The. Whole. Point.
Why doesn't it?
By all means, explain why..... or are you going to run off and use examples of other unrelated games again?
Then what would have happened if the winning team and losing team had switched sides? If you can't say, then you don't know who won...
If both teams switched sides, then no, neither you or I could say who would win, because switching them to the other side completely changes the parameters of what we're all talking about here..... it would no longer be Territory but some other incarnation of a game mode, and what the outcome of that game mode is unknown because all anybody could do is assume what the outcome would be, until someone can actually test that type of game mode.
I can tell you exactly what it would do to Territory.... which is what I have been doing all along..... what it would do to the game mode you propose is unknown and all speculation, simply because there is no game mode out there that exists that meets your parameters.
BF Conquest is not the same as RO Territory, so you can not refer back to BF Conquest & what happens in that game mode to determine the outcome.
If you don't get it by now, you never will.
This again? Why do you keep asking me for "proof" of the map imbalance if it seems like you're ok with any imbalances?
Because there isn't any real imbalance in the game and whatever imbalance you can dig up is absolutely trivial and has no actual impact on the game overall.
It seems like no matter what TWI does, you're just going to assume it's "historically accurate" and therefore "balanced."
I have disagreed with some of the things Trip has done in the past, but I don't get butthurt over those things. I either live with them & adapt or I go play another game.
And while I have many other resources, experience and education at my fingertips over the years and close ties to military life, having many in my family in the military, etc. etc..... I'd put more faith in Tripwire knowing wtf they're doing than you.
You've already shown your ignorance on Red Orchestra, Territory Gameplay, Baseball, the Basics of an actual military conflict and what a Hypothesis is..... It'd be pretty foolish for me to take your word over Trips in regards to how to design a game to be fun and enjoyable...... Oh, and balanced.
Like I said- switching sides merits historical accuracy more because you can focus on accuracy instead of balance.
That makes no sense at all.... you go on about the maps and game mode not being balanced and switching sides will fix the imaginary balance issues you're concerned about due to historical accuracy of one team attacking and the other defending.... and now here you are flipping sides and trying to use your silly idea to fix historical accuracy instead of balance.
So which is it?
Is it supposed to fix Balance or Historical Accuracy?
Or does it fix everything??
I doubt it
You'll never please everybody trying to do both.
You'll never please everybody trying to do both or neither or just one of the two as everybody will always have something to gripe about..... since you won't please everybody doing what you suggest, why bother doing it and why not just leave everything well enough alone as it is?
I'd rather deal with coming into these forums to see one person griping over something they don't like, than to come in here and see piles more people griping over something that was changed to please one person.
I really don't see the point of playing the game if I'm not going to stay on the same team. If that were the solution then it sounds like more of an ego thing. I want to know which team won, not whether or not I won.
The team that won 2 matches out of 3 won.... why is that so hard to grasp for you?
An outcome is reached, there is enough information provided within the game and at the end of the game to know who won and by how much.
Again, if that information is too complicated for you that you can't understand who really won, then stick to something a little more simple, like Countdown.
Go back to _________. Argument of champions. It's like rock in rock paper scissors- it refutes everything in video game arguments.
Since everything else has refuted what you have been saying and isn't good enough for you, then yes.... Go back to ___________ and give up.
Clearly you're open to logic and reason, and this has nothing to do with you being an ignorant pathetic fanboy. Nothing to do with R01 Nostalgia.
Oh so I'm the ignorant, pathetic fanboy?
I'm not the one coming into these forums and preaching about how wonderful and great Battlefield is and how they apparently "Got it Right" with a game mode that doesn't even relate to anything that's in Red Orchestra.
You might as well try and compare Super Mario Bros. to Solitare..... they're both games and that's all the similarity you need to be right apparently.
..... Well that was a fun waste of time. I believe everything that needs to be said for both sides of the argument have been said. Good luck with your crusade against Territory. I wouldn't hold your breath on it being completely revamped to suit your unusual tastes for a "BF Conquest Run&Gun Cluster F."
The main point to be taken out of all of this, is that there is no logical need to make every video game out there to be carbon copies of one another. If you like a game style in a specific game, go and play it... and have fun.
You like BF Conquest?
Sure, fine..... play it and enjoy it.
You don't like RO Territory?
Sure, fine..... don't play it and stick to Countdown or play something else.
I like RO Territory, so I play it and enjoy it.
I don't like BF Conquest, so I don't play it and let those who enjoy it, enjoy it.
Why you have to suddenly make it more complicated than it needs to be, I have no idea, other to impress yourself.
Thanks for playing..... time for me to move onto more interesting threads.