+-

Elder Scrolls


Author Topic: -time 20 VS. debate  (Read 155 times)

Tollison

  • Guest
-time 20 VS. debate
« on: November 16, 2013, 08:59:01 pm »
Today I was host and i pitted koala and I in a versus game for some friendly competition.  My team made it to about 5:10 minute mark.  I set time to -time 5:15 to allow not much more time for them to proceed to mass in case the game kills the spirits of the wolves on my team to quit trying.

Beside the point,  I don't think my team played as well as they should have or we would have won.  We had a couple of early kills, but then it seemed my team gave up.

The objective in versus is to win and have fun doing so.  If your objectives are different please list why down below.  This is what is considered fun to me: Massing really fast, doing tactical moves such as bridging and escaping isolation, etc.  On the shepherd side I like keeping a sheep in isolation, isolating sheep, etc.

The reason why I want to debate about this is because I was opposed by a FULL GAME OF PLAYERS for doing this.  Their only reason for wanting -time 20 is because I have a, "disgusting attitude" and that I'm a, "freak." 

This is your chance, sheep taggers, to explain why you believe -time 20 is better than setting a time not too far away from the first teams' limit.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Spoofy

  • Guest
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2013, 09:57:58 pm »
Are you mentally handicapped or OCD? i really cant decide.

Why are you re-sparking this debate? its pointless.

There are two opinions and both are viable.

1. Time limit 20

2. Set time limit 1 second more than the other team survived.

There is no point in debating between apples and oranges.

Only way to solve this is take a vote on the forum. Majority rules.

Link a "ruiner" or complainer to the vote results, if they continue with their DISGUSTING attitude, remove them from game . Problem solved.

Tollison

  • Guest
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2013, 10:39:19 pm »
Thank you for speaking out and not being shy about this, Spoofy, but you have no good points about anything.

If you want to prove you're more than just a name caller and a man of reason then please debate about it, but if you don't do so and continue posting like your last post then too bad kid; IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT THEN STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN :D

Spoofy

  • Guest
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2013, 10:51:42 pm »
Quote
Thank you for speaking out and not being shy about this, Spoofy, but you have no good points about anything.

If you want to prove you're more than just a name caller and a man of reason then please debate about it, but if you don't do so and continue posting like your last post then too bad kid; IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT THEN STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN :D
- tollison

no one is shy to reply to you, they cant be bothered to take the time. you are too brain dead to understand reasoning.

you are trying to say white is better than black, or black is better than white. its not logical to argue about it. its an opinion.

Quote
There are two opinions and both are viable.

1. Time limit 20

2. Set time limit 1 second more than the other team survived.

There is no point in debating between apples and oranges.

Only way to solve this is take a vote on the forum. Majority rules.

Link a "ruiner" or complainer to the vote results, if they continue with their DISGUSTING attitude, remove them from game . Problem solved.
- spoofy

Spoofy

  • Guest
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2013, 10:58:30 pm »
Quote
The reason why I want to debate about this is because I was opposed by a FULL GAME OF PLAYERS for doing this.  Their only reason for wanting -time 20 is because I have a, "disgusting attitude" and that I'm a, "freak." 
- tollison

you really are an idiot. its not a flame, its just truth.

1. a full game of players is disagreeing with you, that is 11 other individual opinions. maybe reconsider your thought process?

2. you have a disgusting attitude was not the reason for wanting time 20. It was a versus game, you were red and had game control, your team did 5:40 as sheep. On your wolf turn (reversed), sheep (martin and others) asked for time 20, it was a fair and normal versus. However, you decided to hitler and set time 5:40. Even though time 20 was majority vote and viable. Its the sheeps choice. You said "no", "i dont give a F.U.C.K", "be quiet [insert player name]" etc. I saved the replay for evidence. Do not attempt to lie.



Quote
This is your chance, sheep taggers, to explain why you believe -time 20 is better than setting a time not too far away from the first teams' limit.
- tollison


Its not their chance. Its not debatable. Anyone with a brain can see its an opinion. Take a vote on the forums.

Also, you are never getting red EVER again, I hope you know.

Quote
IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT THEN STAY OUT OF THE KITCHEN :D
- tollison

If you do not understand how to be the game controller, stay out of our games.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2013, 11:04:16 pm by Spoofy »

FaceOfMelinda

  • Runtag Supremo
  • *****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2013, 11:20:31 pm »
The reason is that without time 20 for both teams it's better to be in team 1 because you will get more time playing as sheep.

Without this condition it becomes rational to attempt to 'cheat' the picking order by playing worse/better depending on where you usually are so that you end up getting picked on team 1. You have to play to the level of the pick order you're aiming for e.g., 1 or 4 if you're usually 2/3. I used to do that, I played so I would consistently get picked forth ^^




 


Tollison

  • Guest
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2013, 11:30:29 pm »
If anyone finds it rational to cheat then they can be reported.

It isn't better to be in team 1 because both teams are expected to play at their best at all times.

Spoofy, you're still attacking ME rather than the situation.

IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE LACK OF HEAT THEN STAY OUT OF THE FREEZER :D.  Be like Sidey, productive :D

FaceOfMelinda

  • Runtag Supremo
  • *****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2013, 12:01:16 am »
What is it you don't understand lol?

If you're on team 1 you will by default get more sheeping time since your team sets the maximum value. If you last 30 seconds, team 2 gets 30 seconds (at best).

In other words, the performance of team 1 determines how long team 2 gets to play.

Sheep-time is the currency of this game. Team 1 has more of that currency unless both teams get 20 minutes. Hence, it's better to be in Team 1.

In fact, if you're in Team 2 it isn't rational to kill the other team quickly. You should AFK, eat some pizza etc so you're ensured a full round. Killing the other team quickly would just be ruining for yourself.


Tollison

  • Guest
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2013, 12:47:43 am »
Sheep-time isn't the only currency.  So is Shepherd-time.  Just because Sheep-time seems to be the US Dollar to you doesn't mean that mexican peso of shepherd-time to you doesn't exist.

There are two teams.  Two teams must be able to win their game.  The sheep team, although different, is also treated the same as shepherd team.  You, and probably Spoofy, would rather be sheep 100% of the time because you find Sheep the most fun to play.  I find Sheep and Shepherd fun to play, and someone else may find Shepherd more fun to play than sheep.

In this debate you will treat Sheep and Shepherd teams equally although they are different ways of playing the same game, Sidey.  You will not be biased.

Team 1 doesn't get more sheeping time; they get equal time of team 2 to play.

FaceOfMelinda

  • Runtag Supremo
  • *****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2013, 12:52:24 am »
Sheep-time is the currency because no one likes to play wolf. Your personal opinion is irrelevant, there is very little mastery involved with wolfing in comparison to sheeping. That is to say, the difference between a good and a bad player is much higher on the sheep team = it's more fun.

Team 1 GETS more sheep time since they set the limit. If they get 30 seconds, team 2 can get a maximum of 30 seconds. If they last 20minutes, team 2 gets a maximum of 20minutes. Team 2 if they play amazingly, will have their sheep time cut by a shitty team 1 lasting 30 seconds. Team 1 if they play amazing will get the full 20minutes. Team 1 gets more sheep time and everyone should want to be on team 1 and do everything they can to not get picked @ team 2.

You're saying crazy stuff lol

Spoofy

  • Guest
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2013, 01:05:29 am »
ill number my points so you can follow along, clearly you are not.

Quote
'1' If anyone finds it rational to cheat then they can be reported.

'2' It isn't better to be in team 1 because both teams are expected to play at their best at all times.

'3' Spoofy, you're still attacking ME rather than the situation.

'4' IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE LACK OF HEAT THEN STAY OUT OF THE FREEZER :D.  Be like Sidey, productive :D
- tollison

Response:

my MAIN point: This is a pointless debate. Both time 20 and 1 second more than other team are viable. It all depends on your opinion. Pros and cons to each.

Tollison, I am not saying you are wrong for wanting 1 second more than sheep victory. However, I am saying you are wrong for being biased towards it, thinking you are right.

How are you not understanding my points? I am completely neutral in opinion. I am saying take a vote, majority rules. Only way to end this POINTLESS debate.

1. reported for what? picking order? how do you prove if someone is "cheating the system" by getting picked team 1 / team 2?

2. Just to prove you "wrong". Here is an example of a con for 1 second more than survived team.

EX. team 1 = Tollison, Dark_exodus, Respect, MylesCore, and Darkboy.      team 2 = CandyManKiller, Jean-mii, Baiten, Polar and Spoofy.

Results: team 1 = survives 2 minutes                           team 2 = survives 2 minutes 1 second

Team 2 wins. But was denied 17m 99s of playing time. (I am assuming we can 20 minute your team.)

How do you consider this fair?

1. team 1 either ****ed up

2. team 1 was lazy

3. team 1 sucked

All 3 options make it unfair and almost not even worth playing for team 2. 

If you swap team 2 and team 1 in this scenario, team 2 does 20 minutes, team 1 does 1 minute. However, both got an equal chance to reach time 20.




3. I am attacking you because you do not listen to reason or even care to read my posts. Its EXTREMELY annoying.

4. "IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE LACK OF HEAT THEN STAY OUT OF THE FREEZER :D.  Be like Sidey, productive :D"

Fill in the blanks.

Tempted to flame you for being a "_____________________________". But i will stop myself. Read my post you "_________________".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you choose to ignore my post, come up with a "_______" retort, and continue acting like a "________________".

I will never reply to any of your "_____________________" posts again.




Quote
You will not be biased.
- tollison

Irony or whats theory here?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 01:09:45 am by Spoofy »

Tollison

  • Guest
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2013, 01:32:52 am »
I'm glad we found one object we can debate about which is how playing sheep and shepherd are valued.

Shepherd skill is subjective to Sheep skill and vice versa.  There are many sheep tricks and shepherds must defend against them using prior knowledge and vice versa.  Although shepherd doesn't require as much effort as being a sheep it still requires a good amount of APM if you want to be a decent player.

BTW your statement about no one likes to play wolf is false and also an opinion of yours.  Also, the map is designed to be enjoyable for both sides by being actively engaged all the time.  Therefore, sheep and shepherd times being favorited should be left out of the picture.

Sheep team and team 1 hold no more value than shepherd team and team 2. 

Spoofy, I'm not debating you anymore about this.  You're not tackling the problem at hand.  I only read the first few sentences and when I saw, "pointless debate" then I felt no need to address you again after this.


Chakra

  • Runtag Supremo
  • *****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
    • Chatcraft
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2013, 04:09:57 am »
The map was not designed around both teams being enjoyable. Sheep, to the great majority of players, is not only more enjoyable to play, but a lot more enjoyable to play than shepherd.

However, I agree with Spoofy. It ultimately doesn't matter which is used. However, if it was reverted to original (first team + 1 second), the first team to play sheep should be random. This would cure much of Sidey's complaints if played over multiple rounds, etc.

Also, both can be used. You just create another -command that does time+1 instead.

Tollison

  • Guest
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2013, 03:41:31 pm »
The map was designed so both teams can win no matter what happens.  They just have to play the game right.

This isn't about favoritism towards sheep or shepherd.  This is about what is fair.  Just because 90 - 99% of the community favors sheep over shepherd doesn't mean it's right to allow more time for team 2 to mass more than what is required in the 2nd round.

You're all arguing that it is a rational decision, if team 1 sets the time limit for team 2, to AFK until the first team is done playing.  This is ridiculous.

HaWkys

  • Masser Deluxe
  • *******
  • Posts: 740
  • NMCDO = biggest clown
    • View Profile
Re: -time 20 VS. debate
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2013, 05:00:30 pm »
speaking of boredom, wolfing is THE MOST BORING THING EVER I think we should attack making wolfing more fun, but god knows that won't happen considering we debate worse than politics.

 

Recent Posts

Re: Alive? by GothaWOLF
September 27, 2019, 08:23:15 am

Re: Alive? by Nmcdo
September 26, 2019, 06:20:18 pm

Alive? by GothaWOLF
September 26, 2019, 07:40:50 am

SUP GUYYYYSSSSSSSSS by Sheepdice
September 20, 2018, 02:56:42 am

Re: New Meat on SC2 by Wyvernrider
July 17, 2018, 07:07:48 pm

Re: CD Keys RoC or Frozen Throne? by Wyvernrider
July 17, 2018, 07:06:16 pm

Re: New Meat on SC2 by Nmcdo
July 05, 2018, 04:27:04 pm

Re: New Meat on SC2 by Riziy
July 02, 2018, 08:10:24 pm


Shoutbox

View Shout History