A similar point I was going to make.DDMJ wrote:Your analogies support my claim. I never said they were guaranteed a win. It's like, (using a football analogy again), if a running back is running through the defense and in front of him are 3 defenders. They should be able to take him down if they don't do anything stupid. Similarly, in fort, in a 3v1 situation, the team of 3 should be able to win the round, but they could mess up or the defense could cover the hole in time. I've seen it happen a decent amount of times.Concord wrote:INW/Durka wrote: A team who kills 5 enemy players and manages to only lose 3 obviously outplayed the enemy and deserves to win the round.
Of course a 3v1 ends the round quick with an easy hole and keep everything moving.
They deserve to, but they shouldn't be guaranteed it. This is like saying that a team that is up by two touchdowns entering the fourth quarter deserves to win, so we'll just call the game and not play the quarter. We all have better things to do anyway. Or a team that is up 3 runs entering the ninth inning deserves to win, so let's just skip the ninth. Just because you deserve to, doesn't mean you will. To win you must kill 6 or conquer the zone.
@Insa: 5v5 is too small. It's hard to get a big player advantage when the number of players per team decreases.
Ya, the team ahead by 2 touchdowns should win, but they might **** up and lose.
A team 3v1 should win, but they might **** up (hole fail) and lose.
What did ya know?