Where did you get that I was trying to "prove" some glaring imbalance in the maps??
"In a territories game, it's impossible to say who is the better team based on the result. Doing so assumes the maps are balanced, and they aren't."
Your entire argument thus far seems to be revolving around the maps being unbalanced and that one team or the other generally has an advantage over the other in almost every situation and in every round.
I don't see any of the maps being unbalanced and I don't hear many others complaining about map imbalance. The Devs have been very particular with their map designs and making sure they're balanced for both teams as much as reasonably possible.
So unless you can prove that the maps are imbalanced, using this as some means to justify your argument makes no sense and ruins your entire argument.
Ok, let me phrase this in a way that you can't possibly blatantly miss the point.
A server has settings where they play infinite maps. The Germans on offense win infinte minus one games, the Russians manage to squeeze out a single victory. It's the same as the last example- there's not enough info to determine a victory. The same as if you saw the Germans win 3,141,592 rounds while the Russians only win a measly 2,718,281 rounds. There isn't enough information. And there never is.
The above is extremely hypothetical & this example and your last one seem to continue to be biased towards the Russians as if they're disadvantaged in someway, which they're not, other than players seemingly choosing the Germans over the Russians most times, which doesn't have anything to do with maps or the TE Game Mode.
And even if one looks into your above examples, suddenly switching the players to the other team won't give you anymore information in a TE map.
It is your opinion that the maps are balanced.
It's a fact unless you can prove it otherwise. It's a fact due to past experience in previous RO's. It's a fact due to the history Tripwire has with working extensively in making the maps as balanced as possible for gameplay reasons. It's a fact due to nobody else in these forums seem to have an issue with TE Maps other than yourself.
It is a fact that the maps are not balanced because both sides abide by different rules.
That has nothing to do with the maps, that's the game mode itself..... that's how it works. Change the game mode and it no longer works.... it is no longer TE.
In this game mode, one team defends, the other attacks. This is based on what happened in the actual battle the match is based on in real life. Either the Germans or the Russians held a position and the other tried to take it from them.
And if you don't think that's balanced, then I don't know what to tell you, because that's how it was.... that's how it is in war when someone is trying to take territory from the enemy.
And if you don't like that type of gameplay, go back to FF or CD, or play another game that focuses on Team Deathmatch.... leave TE alone.
The burden of proof is on you sir, not me.
No, the burden of proof is on you.... you made the claim the maps are unbalanced, you made the claim that TE is unbalanced..... you need to prove it.
Don't try and hand ball problems you invent onto me.
I've made it clear that it's impossible for the maps to be balanced in this fashion, which is why I've proposed measures to make it irrelevant.
Which as already explained, will not solve anything, would only create more problems and ruin TE completely.
Since you go on to talk about a game I've never played and don't care about, I'll do the same.
I started talking about the first Red Orchestra (the mod) which directly relates to what we're talking about here.... and if you never played it and you don't care, then you already lost the argument because you just want to continue to ignore factual and logical points you don't like so you can continue to think you're right.
I hate to be one of "Those Guys", but I've been playing RO since 2004, I've played three different incarnations of RO, which all had Territory/Objective style game modes.... before RO2, it was the only game mode there was and clearly everybody else enjoys it and likes it.
Then suddenly you come along out of nowhere to tell us all that it's all wrong and the Devs should bastardize Territory because you don't like it.
Good luck with that.
Left 4 Dead is an awesome game, but it would be utterly ****ing ridiculous if they forced one side to play humans and one to play zombies, and at the end when the humans escape the zombies just sit around and say "well hey, guess they won."
Again, I was relating previous Red Orchestras to RO2.... which actually makes sense. Left 4 Dead is not the same as RO2, or any RO for that matter and the gameplay in L4D is nowhere near what's in RO, so your above example makes no sense and doesn't help your argument.
Bad Company 2's a decent game, and very balanced- much more so than R02. It would still be ridiculous if their default server setting was to keep people on the same team the whole time.
Again, this is RO, not Battlefield..... I related to previous RO's that all used Territory as it currently is and always was.
I also own BC2 just as I also own L4D, and personally speaking, I don't think BC2 is a decent game and I stopped playing it about three weeks after I bought it...... and I hate that stupid team switching after each round in BC2.
If I wanted that in a game, I'd continue to play BC2..... if you want that kind of game, go play BC2. You may like it, but I don't.... you may think it works for BC2 (and maybe it does), but it doesn't belong in RO.
It would not create a single decisive victor- much like Territories.
It does create a single decisive victor..... Either the Russian Team win the best 2 out of 3 matches or the Germans do.
If this didn't work, many sports wouldn't bother with a best 2 out of 3 or best 5 out of 7 games to decide who's the decisive winner..... and players would be jumping benches to play on the other team after each game.... which is stupid.
I'm pretty sure I first understood this concept at age 8 when my brother and I switched off as Oddjob in Goldeneye 007 on the N64.
And I was 17 when that game came out & I skooled everybody in college playing that game a year later..... your point?
You're still basing your entire argument on some mythical concept that one team or the other is at an unfair advantage, which they are not unless one team has more players. Just because one team Defends and the other Attacks does not mean one or the other is disadvantaged. Either the Defenders will win or get rolled over.... either the attackers will win or get rolled over.
In a game like BC2, in their similar game mode, both teams cap, attack and defend various objectives at the same time.... you don't have one team defending and the other attacking the whole time unless you count those MCom matches, which suck since the enemy just has to drive a helicopter into the building and they destroy it.... or some recon plant a pile of C4 on them..... in the MCom game modes, the attackers are always at an advantage due to exploits in the game.
The other "Conquest" game mode BC2 has, both teams try to capture the same amount of objectives and basically just switch from one end of the map to the other and just end up doing the exact same thing. One team does not just attack and the other defends, both attack and defend at the same time.... thus switching teams and starting on the opposite end of the map doesn't make much difference.
In RO.... the above will not work because the game mode is not the same, not even in the slightest.
And then there's TE, where the teams abide by completely different sets of rules and we're still expected to take it on faith that the maps are balanced.
It's not faith, it's fact.
A simple test you can try yourself is to play 2/3 rounds of one map as a Russian and then play the exact same map as the Germans for 2/3 rounds and tell me what the end results are. Just to make sure your wins/loses are not attributed to the specific players on your team, make the second match as the Germans be on a different server with different players.
Did you lose two rounds against the Germans without one single win and did you win two rounds against the Russians without losing one single round?
If that's the case, then you finally begin to gather some evidence to back up your claims about it being imbalanced. Since I never experienced the above situation happening, nor do I hear of anybody else complaining about them constantly losing playing a specific team on a specific map.... there simply is no balance issues, map-wise.
Back in the Mod and even back in RO1 when they started out, people had complaints about a map being inbalanced towards one team or the other, and the mods revised those maps..... it has happened in the past and chances are it might happen with a map later on that comes out...... but this isn't the case in any of the current maps.
And that's what you're really good at doing- assuming that the maps are balanced even when there's no reason they would be. And then telling me to prove they aren't.
I'm not the one doing the assuming.... my views on this subject are based on experience and actually following RO almost since the begining..... I've been listening and interacting with the community for years. I've heard many complaints and many issues people have had about various issues with RO.... some legit and others just moaning because they don't "Get" something.
You're the only person I recall ever complaining about the Territory game mode.
You admit you never played RO1.... you admit you never played the Mod, and yet here you come along and start telling the rest of us that Territory is all fk'd up.
Sorry to say, but you're the odd one out and all alone in your thinking.
It wasn't an assumption, it was a hypothetical. Hence the "IF"
A hypothetical created on assumptions that the maps are not balanced.
You think two different competitive teams would be content playing "the crappy team" because, what, they lost a coin toss?
A team being crappy is determined by the players on that team.... switching all the exact same crappy players to the other team just means those crappy players will lose as the other team.
Again, nothing is decided when the teams play by different rules.
Yes it is decided that one team did a better job at defending or the other team did a better job in attacking.
RO is based on having battles designed to be as close to what really happened.... soldiers in WWII didn't just run & gun all deathmatch style around the battlefield..... one team attacked, the other defended and vice versa later on in a completely different battle. History shows how the battle in question actually ended, where one force won and the other lost, but in the game, it is designed in such a way that it's possible to re-write that history and win or lose.
That's how it works.
The map could go 50.00000000000000001% in the Germans favor and still be technically imbalanced, so we still have a problem. And no, I'm not positing that Apartments is 50.00000000000000001% balanced.
Whether it is or isn't 50.0000001% balanced one way or another, you first have to prove it is.... otherwise you're trying to make a problem out of something that doesn't exist & based on assumptions that it is.
And nobody in their right mind would decide to change the entire game structure based on one person's assumptions and baseless accusations over something they just don't like and never bothered to play in the past.
It's not me who needs to prove his case.... mine's already proven by years of examples of RO simply existing and it's player base enjoying TE more than the other game modes overall.
And yet, the defender team never got a chance to attack, so once again there is no winner. It's your opinion that the 2 out of 3 team was the winner.
It's not opinion, that's how it is.... they won. And on many of the maps, the defenders have the opportunity to recapture/attack certain caps back that they lost.
I'll be honest- I don't like territory.
Then there's the problem..... I don't really care much for Countdown, but you don't see me coming all up in here and saying that it needs to be changed to something I want.
I find it appalling that you keep coming up with "examples" defending it when my whole point is that there isn't a single example that makes a difference-
You can find it anyway you please.... it doesn't make a difference because no matter what anybody tells you about Territory, no matter what anybody tells you about it's history, or the history of RO itself, let alone what the far greater majority of the community likes, you're obviously set in your ways and just want something to complain about.
a gametype where two sides abide by different sets of rules is fundamentally flawed in that it doesn't generate a winner- unless the two teams switch sides.
Based on your odd logic, that's correct..... but since this game mode is designed to simulate a real combat situation and using real combat tactics.... which is generally not always "Fair" & "Equal"..... what you think is flawed is irrelevant.
If you play one round of Territory as the Russians and win or lose.... guess what?
You can switch to the other team yourself whenever you please (ie: the next round)
Problem solved.
And if it isn't solved, then again, go back to countdown.
I wouldn't have any problem with it being replaced by something that makes competitive sense.
Just because Territory doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to everybody else.
But since a lot of people who continue to play this game do so out of RO1 nostalgia, I'd be more than content with a simple server setting- a "switch sides" option for number of rounds or something. No need for a new gametype altogether.
It has nothing to do with RO1 Nostalgia.... Territory
IS a part of Red Orchestra. It always has been, it always will be... and if people are allowed to screw around with the settings and switch people around in Territory, there will be hell to pay and these forums will be flooded while piles of rage..... because it's dumb.
It simply will not work due to many reasons I already explained, such as switching players to the other team will only mean the other teams round-win will count to the new team taking their place.
Territory will require a complete overhaul on how it works in order to do what you want and no mere server setting will simply fix things. You will either need to design a whole new game mode based on some of the parameters of Territory..... or don't do anything at all and leave things as they are, as they should be.
Real men play games non-competitively? Just to be clear, TE doesn't work competitively. It never did, and never will- not with default server settings.
Seriously, how the fk do you know?
You hardly played Territory enough to actually know what it's all about, you haven't bothered to play RO1, let alone either of the Mods..... yet you come in here and act like you're some expert on how things work in the game, which you clearly know nothing about.
I love how when there's a thread like this everyone's like "GO BACK TO COD." This isn't a CoD feature, for one. It is a feature of the Battlefield series, and lots of other series that don't want to have their main gametype be completely unsuitable for competitive play.
Then go back to Battlefield then..... oh and BF uses "Conquest" which isn't the same as "Territory" due to differences I noted above.
Sorry that you're too stupid to get a basic concept about team-based games with different sets of rules. You'd better shrug it off and blame CoD noobs.
Ah and there's the insults replacing reason..... you can't actually refute logical and factual information given to you in a debate, have no resources to back up your claims or to justify why Territory should be changed, other than trying to use other games as examples (which have zero relation to RO and how it plays)...... then try and claim I'm doing the exact same thing by using previous RO's as real examples, which they are.
Wake_Up probably didn't put things as nicely as I have been putting things, but his and my points still stand.
This is Not Call of Duty, it is Not Left 4 Dead and it certainly isn't Battlefield.... this is
Red Orchestra. This is how it is.... this is how it always has been and this is exactly how it should remain.
There's all sorts of things I don't like about BFBC2, CoD and L4D, but you don't see me going on their forums and dictating how the game's structure should be completely changed to how I think it should as opposed to what 98% of the rest of their communities like..... You don't see me going into the BF forums and telling them to make it more like RO.
If I don't find them fun, I just don't play those games anymore.... I move on.
Now either you can learn more about Territory and grow to like it like everybody else, you can stick to Countdown, or you can go play some other game.
Those are your choices..... pick one.
