Discosuperstar wrote:Just throwing out an idea with the time limit here.
Instead of the team w/ highest points winning in case time runs out, make the win condition something more volatile. For example, after time runs out, next team to lose a player (whether suicide or kill) automatically loses the round. That way neither team has a real advantage to stalling due to the risk of losing the round due to one death.
actually that sounds like a huge incentive for both teams to play overly safe, since there is an extreme amount of gravity added to just 1 kill. Sure the round will be over when that death happens, but how long will each round last before one kill? Plus, at that point, you're not even playing fortress. You're just playing 6v6 (or 5v5 if there are two "safety" defenders") with everybody moderately trying to kill enemies, but not willing to risk anything.
In response to the different "just touch the zone" or "1 person dies" ideas:
Concord wrote:If people want shorter Ladles, there are several options. Become much better or much worse at the game or adopt something ridiculous like 11 point core dumps or lower your standards on what determines a deserving win. The last would be a real shame, surely.
Just throwing another option out there: Limit the amount of rounds per match to, say, 7. This won't affect lopsided matches, an expert team won't need more than 7 rounds to destroy their weak opponent. But balanced games don't have to go to that 100 point score limit. They still can, of course: There are up to 32 points to be made per round (well, 34 if you want to push it), making the maximum total score after 7 rounds 224.
yet i believe both teams should be able to make the score_limit within the given rounds, else, when a team gets too far behind, the match is decided before 'physically' (dont know if its a correct term in this context) ended. This happens a lot in sumo tournaments. Admittedly the decisive moment is the end, yet ending it in such way causes somewhat of an unsatisfactionary feeling. Don't get me wrong, I support it when given more thought.
LIMIT_SCORE 80 isn't as bad as it sounds. But I've thought about that for many months, so it's not a new shocking idea to me. I understand if most would think of limit_score as something you just do not touch.
I'm willing to try some wars or random matches with limit_score 80 if you doubt the idea.
My insight on this is that should NOT be a time limit. It should be team versus team. There should not be a time limit to mess stuff up. However, more points for grabbing a zone or winning a round or even a lower score limit would work. But a time limit should NOT be implemented. I think the ladle should stay as it is.
Another thought. Me, Jip, and another had a short conversation about making hole negative points. Maybe -2 points for a hole. This will definitely make me and liz think again before holing in a situation.
What do you guys think about losing points for holing?
Can Arma determine which coredump is a hole from just a normal kill? Id doubt that. Then every death is -2 points.
Edit: I see what u mean now hehe, -2 for entering. Thats kinda lame That would take away any #s advantage a team has for killing the other team and holling for the win. I dont see a problem with holing, teams just need to learn to adjust just like they have throughout arma history.
These are the two ideas I like most.
either Score_limit some place around 80-86
or
change the amount of points awarded for zone/winning the game
Currently it is 4 for zone and 6 for round.
I think 8 for zone and 6 for round would be much better.
Adding 4 points in total to these would get back the missing 4 points per round lost by only having 6 vs 6 instead of 8 vs 8.
That would take away any #s advantage a team has for killing the other team and holling for the win. I dont see a problem with holing, teams just need to learn to adjust just like they have throughout arma history.
