The Sad Truth About Versus Games That Everyone Knows But Noone Says

Whenever we play versus games the fallout that usually ensues is something like: "Legend1 and legend2 beat legends 3 4 and 5 !!"

The less interesting truth about these games is that st outcomes are disproportionately determined by bad performances, not great ones. In a game of Chaise Drew Cmk Amir and Dark_Exodus vs Traxx Grim Azzuro Exa and Swimstar this is basically a competition between who is going to fuck up the most, Dark_Exodus or Swimstar.

And the last person = isn't even picked. Which team he's on is an object of how many people are in the game, and whether you're team 1 or team 2.

When you're in this game, you know that no matter how solid your sheep team is playing, there's a great chance that your ally dark_exodus could die at any moment. And the shep team knows that no matter how well they do to isolate amir, when he runs by swimstar, there is like an 80% chance he is going to get by.

This is why for a good game it is important to have the same caliber of players involved, and in this case I think a 4v4 would be more entertaining than a 5v5 with dark exodus and swimstar.

Agreed.

In order to win you have to protect your noobs. Most of them are fairly stable as long as they ain't under too much pressure. I always try to take the wolves focus away from them by harassing wolves, putting myself in isolations to take away focus from my teammates and so on.

It's not right to say that winners is determinated by how bad your noobs plays, what makes a team win is how well you protect your worst teammates.

But ye i agree, this is boring and ruin games. That's why it's important that we let people play with people on their own level, for everyones good. We could easily make 2 5v5 games very often, one with the best and one with the worst.

Its also important I think that we let the worse players versus eachother so they get a sense of what to do in order to win.

Or, we can just fix the map so legends can be legends, so the great ones can make a difference and not being this extremely dependent on their team. But noo this is and will be some communism/shoop/drew map where everyone should be equal good

Your team is as strong as your weakest link. That why i love how kids like Exa and Nightmare play. Focusing on helping allies and taking pressure of them allowing them to mass safely. Its not the noobs fault for dying its the teams fault for not helping him out more and taking pressure of him. But i can agree with you on wolfing though.

mostly agree, but don't care. i'd rather play 6v6 with swimstar and enstek than 4v4 with only legends. its DREW and SHOOP(as already mentioned) that have created a game where you are deeply dependent on every single last one of your allies.

luckily for everyone's sake, their insane ideas about removing invis has been overrun since east(drew-fanboys) has lost their power and europe(free minds) are running the show. good players can now get kills regardless of exodus letting isolated sheep escape 80% of the time, and suddently a legend like me has a reason to not go afk every time im wolf


BOOYAH!!

Suppose you forget it is Drew and his slaves that made invis an effective item.

suppose you forgot(after deleting all the posts ofc) that europeans as a whole have campaigned for that since 2007, as well as many other changes which goes against the very problem drew is talking about in his first post, namely that 4 legends + 1 turd can crumble like a toast since they are highly dependant on the 1 turd, especially as wolf.

but gj, i guess its better late than never?

You can't really prevent noobs from random deaths, even if you do try to purposely isolate yourself, which is a drastic tactic indeed. (I do usually find this necessary especially in 3v5s though). Saying you'll protect a sheep ally is easier said then done, the more you protected he is the more useless he becomes, assuming he'd even listen to you.
And none of this solves the weak-link wolf problem.

I mostly had three points.

1. Versus games do not mean nearly as much as we like to pretend. But ye I know everyone knows this and its just shit talk is a driving force of fun for most of you fraaks

2. For better games it's better to play with people your own skill level. OFC this leads to Nazism, which is bad. And there's no way to objectively judge skill.

3. This is my most important point. 6v6 games are crap. I really don't understand why it's a common belief that 6v6 is a better mode than 5v5. It's not. It's not even close. The ONLY advantage to 6v6 is that we don't have to tell two people "yeye you can't play". All too common in large 6v6 games are situations where I basically don't matter until a few allies have died. And then I have to hope the whole team doesn't die super fast, so we could have a few minutes of fun 4v6 play.

My solution? 4v4s.
That's right. I said it. I dare come out and say 8 people in a game should play 4v4 and not 3v5. How can I say such a blasphemous thing and hope to hold onto my legend badge?

Iron Golems

We didn't have them 4 years ago when we dismissed this mode. We have them now. When we think of a 4v4 game we'd assume the sheps would have to fall asleep until they all got one hit. I'm saying iron golems are made for this shit. Each shep gets 2 hits, then gets an iron golem. 4v4 would be a funshit mode. Not saying I would play it with swimstar. I'm saying I'd play it to avoid playing with swimstar.
In 4v4 you matter much more than in 6v6 and 5v5, you can't sit back and let the team carry you. It'd be much more engaging. I think you'd see a lot more isolation battles, instead of the current 6v6 games of "sit around wait for 2 sheep to die, then have the people with one hit go after some one".
We could even do that noobshit thing I flame you for doing in 3v4s where you give the wolves some starting gold to speed the game along. (although I still feel this unnecessary).


I know mass people will oppose this on principle, and always will. But I probably wouldn't want to 4v4 with them anyways

4v4 is mass fun when you have everyone on equal skill level. And as drew said with iron golems you can basically make it a 4v5 once you have 200 gold. Assuming your allies can actually control more then 1 unit.

drewisfat wrote:

Whenever we play versus games the fallout that usually ensues is something like: "Legend1 and legend2 beat legends 3 4 and 5 !!"

The less interesting truth about these games is that st outcomes are disproportionately determined by bad performances, not great ones. In a game of Chaise Drew Cmk Amir and Dark_Exodus vs Traxx Grim Azzuro Exa and Swimstar this is basically a competition between who is going to fuck up the most, Dark_Exodus or Swimstar.

And the last person = isn't even picked. Which team he's on is an object of how many people are in the game, and whether you're team 1 or team 2.

When you're in this game, you know that no matter how solid your sheep team is playing, there's a great chance that your ally dark_exodus could die at any moment. And the shep team knows that no matter how well they do to isolate amir, when he runs by swimstar, there is like an 80% chance he is going to get by.

This is why for a good game it is important to have the same caliber of players involved, and in this case I think a 4v4 would be more entertaining than a 5v5 with dark exodus and swimstar.

I cannot entirely agree. For example , there has been many times that 'a legend' dies in 30 secs , or fails a simple isolation as a wolf. IT is not common yet it happends. Most of european games involve 3-4 players which are not reliable and untrustable , thats why u gotta pick whats best of those and hope to win. Thats why , as mentioned above , u have to protect them if u want a decent performance.

And then night it is still not determined by who does well but by who does BAD
Even with legends bad performances are highlighted much moreso than good ones.

The point is people who have a greater percentage of bad performances = the ones who do most of the deciding in the game.

Well you're not always going to have pro games. In they end it's better off them playing in the games. If you always outcast them like the majority of the people do in ST. They're never going to get better. We were all noobs once. Can't complain over it. Just let it happen.

I think it is the opposite, by activly rewarding skill by letting the best play with the best we give people strong incentives to get better.

Atm mass people have the attitude "I dont care if I play good, I just want to have fun", which creates boring games for everyone who plays with them AND slows down their development.

I also agree we should start playing 4v4. Ive actually thought of this for a while myself but for other reasons than drew. Except what he said about bad people ruining it will further increase the aspect of the argument I made above but more importantly I think it will get more obvious to people what you actually have to do as wolf. You cant just run around randomly, cut when you feel like it, invis when you feel like it, take huge risks with invisjumps to get cheap kills etc. This might seem fun for the moment. But it is not fun for anyone when the outcome as wolf is more about luck (sheep misstakes) than your own skill. In 4v4 you get punished INSTANTLY when you fuck up, people will get more aware about this and who is fucking up which in the end will make everyone a lot better wolves.

I know I can stand to improve my wolfing, this sounds pretty fun.

Shoop wrote:

This might seem fun for the moment. But it is not fun for anyone when the outcome as wolf is more about luck (sheep misstakes) than your own skill. In 4v4 you get punished INSTANTLY when you fuck up, people will get more aware about this and who is fucking up which in the end will make everyone a lot better wolves.

4on4 seems harder, so wolves will put more effort in getting lucky hits, a good wolf is punished instantly when 1 teammate fucks up and will also go for lucky kills, probably just better golded.