Is -time 20 for both teams relevant for Versus?

I guess Shoop is in favor of the current system (second team plays as long as first)? This makes sense considering he is an economic major (or somethin').

And what I mean about that is... let's compare it to taxes.

Why do rich people get taxed more than poor people? Why not just make EVERYONE pay $12500 a year? It is only fair if everyone contributes the same. It is unfair to make the rich pay more than the poor.

So then why do we not do this? First, it's only logical that those who are super poor can't afford a $12500 direct tax. Some may not even have enough income to cover it, many others will be forced onto the streets because they can't afford anything else. Those who can survive will do just that, survive. All the while the super rich are living in five-story mansions.

So obviously we can't do that. The next best idea would be a flat, capped tax. That is, tax everyone say 15% of their income, but cap it off at say $15,000. Why don't all countries do this? It isn't perfectly fair; yes, the poor are getting a break, but the rich would be MUCH more happy with this. The answer is much less the same thing. The poor can not afford to give up 15% of their income. Many can't even live on 0% tax (and thus require government help).

So the answer would be make it a tiered capped tax system (progressive, but capped). The most clear cut system would make it so for the first... say $35,000 of someone's income is not taxed at all. From there it is taxed at a 15% rate, limited to $17,500. However, as all realize, those between $35,000 and $50,000 are more directly hurt by a 15% rate than those making $1,000,000. So we develop more and more tiers.

But what of this cap? If someone makes $1,000,000 and we're working off the two-tier system described above, they are only paying $17,500 in taxes, a meager 1.75%. This SCREAMS unfair. So we decide to through out the cap all together.


So now we have a "fair" progressive, uncapped system. Happy now?
Rich would BEG to differ that this is "fair." The whole meaning of "fair" seemed to have completely changed midway through our evolution of taxes.


What does this mean?
Amir the pro (rich, or those arguing on behalf of this definition of fair) thinks it would be fair for everyone to have the potential to play for 20 minutes. This means his ratio of sheep time (related to that 1.75% tax on a capped system) would be dramatically higher than the ratio of average players (who have ~15%).

Beeeh the typical (middle-class, or those arguing on behalf of this definition of fair) thinks it would be fair for team two to play only up to as long as team one. This means his ratio of sheep time would be slightly lower than the ratio of pro players.

As Zoo said, the definition of "fair" is not static. Some see a fixed tax as fair while others see a progressive uncapped tax as fair.


A battle of ideologies; just remember why most countries have chosen the progressive uncapped tax.

Quote :

Just to clarify (I put this in my post but you might have missed it/decided not to respond to it), I lose interest in playing my best after I have already lost, AND after I have already won. I see no point in continuing to sheep after I have won the game, there is no goal in my mind. My mindset becomes "Hey it doesn't matter if I die now so I'll do whatever I want", Instead of "I need to play my best so that my team doesn't lose".

did you miss it when i said that i dont give a shit?


wheres drew? cba these freaks anymore.

Comparing this to taxes is pretty flawed... you don't need to be a sheep to survive, and saying the pros always get to play longer isnt true at all, the average versus game should be an even match, both sides having good and bad people on them. Perhaps we should always spirits to save themselves so the baddies who die early in the round get the same amount of sheep time.

Quote :

did you miss it when i said that i dont give a shit?

Amir not giving a shit doesn't seem like enough of a reason to incorporate poor gameplay in my book. Maybe that's just me.

Madhatters wrote:

Comparing this to taxes is pretty flawed... you don't need to be a sheep to survive, and saying the pros always get to play longer isnt true at all, the average versus game should be an even match, both sides having good and bad people on them. Perhaps we should always spirits to save themselves so the baddies who die early in the round get the same amount of sheep time.

Are you joking?
Yeye, the rich don't always make money than the middle-class on a day-to-day basis. We are talking long haul, mate.

Do we not -cancel if some freak is AFK in the beginning or just HORRIBLY messes up?

Clearly the last part was a joke, but otherwise no... I completely disagree with your belief that the pros get substantially more time as sheep than the noobs(as a result of versus mode... obviously they get more time because they tend to die less). In a game with 6 pros and 6 noobs, each team should have 3 pros and 3 noobs resulting in a fair match in which the teams should average the same time over the long haul.

There is no argument against Amirs post if you want fairness and if you try to argue against Amir based on fairness, you are an idiot. What Amir misses though, is that the majority don't give a fuck about fairness as long as they can have a competitive game. Most people don't give a fuck about how long they wolf or sheep, all they care about is winning.

The whole point of the versus mode is to create a competitive aspect, that's why people play it. When you already lost or won, all the motivation to play serious is gone since there no longer is any competition. Also what Traxx said in his post on page 1 supports my point. The game starts to suck for everybody who want to play for win after the first teams time is passed. You can't deny this, this has been proven over and over.

If you don't care about competition then you shouldn't be playing versus because you will just ruin for the people who likes it. We should decide what we want to play based on what the majority in the game wants. If the majority wants versus then we play it and if the majority wants random then we play it.

This whole "problem" goes down to that some people just wants to win and some people just want the amount of sheep you play to be as fair as possible.

"the only thing that is certain is that you have to be fair towards both teams, and let them play under the same circumstances." -Amir

Let me refute that by saying that it isn't about pitting both teams with the same circumstances, but instead the objective of playing Versus on Sheep Tag Revolution is to beat the other players time. Under these circumstances, by which I mean playing Versus on Sheep Tag Revolution, It is fair to only let the sheep survive for the alloted amount of time +1 second. It proves that the team that won is the more superior to the other, which is the objective of the game.

"noone cares if you think its boring to play after you lost => its fun to continue on for the sheep." -Amir

By that kind of logic you're also implying that other players don't care about whether the sheeps should have enjoyment either. The fair way to handle that situation is to end the game with at least +1 second on their timer that way sheeps don't get any excess enjoyment while shepherds don't mourn over their loss and decide to RQ or go AFK. Amir, this game isn't based solely on being sheep, but to also be shepherd. You argue for a fair game but you don't care about the wolf teams decisions and feelings, but you argue that it would be fun for sheeps to continue even after they have already won the game.

"its quite understandable that people consider afking/not giving a fuck as wolf on team 2, since people like drew wants to force the teams to play under different circumstances which obviously benefit team 1. there is no justifiable reason to AFK if the teams play under the same circumstances, and if you want to consider randomly going afk just cus you're bored a bad thing, you might use the same argument against any mode. you are giving people a GOOD reason to afk if their sheeping depends on how long they wolf." - Amir

Do you believe team 2 will go AFK at their turn to prolongue the game to a greater time in order sh. Im too tired to continue. Sleep has just caught up to me.

Quote :

Let me refute that by saying that it isn't about pitting both teams with the same circumstances, but instead the objective of playing Versus on Sheep Tag Revolution is to beat the other players time. Under these circumstances, by which I mean playing Versus on Sheep Tag Revolution, It is fair to only let the sheep survive for the alloted amount of time +1 second. It proves that the team that won is the more superior to the other, which is the objective of the game.

You have tunnel-vision. It doesn't prove anything if the team that plays wolf first operates without incentive. If I have no incentive to win (i.e. if winning doesn't benefit me), I have no reason to play my best - competition is removed from the game altogether.

Anyone who argues against both teams playing 20mins is against competition.

Stek/Amir, can you tell me why its fair that you get to sheep for as long as you survive? Beacause you are talented in sheep tag? Beacause you got good allies? Beacause your enemies fuck up? Why do you deserve longer sheepturns beacause of this? Factors you had nothing to do with.

IMO versus has two main functions..
1) Create a competitive environment
2) Create a fair game(each team should have about the same skill level)

The problem is that with both sides getting time 20, the competitiveness of the game is reduced, but with time plus one second the fairness of the game is reduced.

This is why I think it would be good to include two seperate versus commands, one for each time mode... if the players wanted to play to win they would use the time plus one second or, if they wanted to play with fair teams, they would use the time 20 command.

Quote :

You have tunnel-vision. It doesn't prove anything if the team that plays wolf first operates without incentive. If I have no incentive to win (i.e. if winning doesn't benefit me), I have no reason to play my best - competition is removed from the game altogether.

Anyone who argues against both teams playing 20mins is against competition.

Your incentive should be to win as quickly as possible as shepherd and last as long as youre allowed to as sheep. Your incentive shouldn't be because it would be fun to continue on as sheep. Your benefit should be winning.

Quote :

Your incentive should be to win as quickly as possible as shepherd and last as long as youre allowed to as sheep. Your incentive shouldn't be because it would be fun to continue on as sheep. Your benefit should be winning.

On what basis should it be this or that?

Incentive is what benefits me.

Killing the sheep team quickly doesn't benefit me if I only get to play 2minutes in return.

End of story.

Effloresce wrote:

Quote :

Your incentive should be to win as quickly as possible as shepherd and last as long as youre allowed to as sheep. Your incentive shouldn't be because it would be fun to continue on as sheep. Your benefit should be winning.

On what basis should it be this or that?

Incentive is what benefits me.

Killing the sheep team quickly doesn't benefit me if I only get to play 2minutes in return.

End of story.

Winning benefits you anyways. Regardless of whether you want to sheep more or shepherd less.

I understand what you're talking about, but you're only thinking about sheeping. When playing sheep you want to maximize the time you want to play, and when you're playing shepherd you want to minimize the time to play. Wouldn't the fair way to handle the sheep and shepherds' differences in a VS game be to end the game when one team wins against the other with only a small amount of extra time?

Theres a -captains mode for time 20 o.o

Quote :

Winning benefits you anyways. Regardless of whether you want to sheep more or shepherd less.

Winning doesn't benefit me by some default.

If I play table tennis with my boss it might benefit me not to win - to lose.

If I play versus without 20min it likewise benefits me to not to win because then I get to play longer as sheep.

Winning has only to do with benefits. If there are no benefits, or if there is the opposite, the game loses its purpose and value.

Winning IS the benefit. This isn't a proffessional game played by sponsored players etc. Address the rest of my post, Efflor. Take both sides into consideration because this isn't just a game for sheep.

Quote :

The problem is that with both sides getting time 20, the competitiveness of the game is reduced, but with time plus one second the fairness of the game is reduced.

No. It has no effect on fairness.

Quote :

...people will be on team one equally as much as team two, so it evens out on the long hall.

Quote :

Killing the sheep team quickly doesn't benefit me if I only get to play 2minutes in return.

While it won't benefit you on the immediate next round, it will benefit you by allowing you to a) get to play your next round as sheep quicker, b) give you a chance of being team one (and thus play up to twenty minutes), and c) you'll get to face fully motivated shepherds.

Anyone who argues for both teams playing 20mins is against competition.

Tollison stfu.

I've explained and given an example as to how winning does not have some magical incentive by default.

The rest of your post is simply a restatement of the issue and not some point.

Make a point or get lost.

Are there any admins here? Delete Efflors post and make him write another one.

Edit: Need I remind you that the issue at hand is, "Is -time 20 for both teams relevant for Versus?"

Efflor, before I go any further I would like to ask you what are these incentives that you're looking for?

1) the fairness argument stands and is a GOOD reason to make time 20. no, it doesn't matter if it evens out in the long haul.

2) the ''incentive'' argument doesn't matter. people have different goals in ST, and winning at ANY cost is not the ideal situation for most people. i dont want to win at the cost of not getting my sheep round(getting to play a MAXIMUM of 2 minutes as sheep in a 6v6 is useless and boring for everyone involved). giving both teams the possibility of a 20 min rounds promotes GOOD gameplay, and people won't do stupid golems etc early in the game because ''if the golem fails, the round is over after 5 minutes anyway. trying to isolate all the sheep in 5 minutes probably wont work".

3) any emotional/motivation argument is canceled out by default. it doesn't matter if you only play your best before you have lost/won, and people don't care. i counter by saying that i only play my best if the game is fair and i can sheep for 20 min, and i dont care if i have won/lost. i just wanna last as long as possible as sheep and wolf as little as possible. and my attitude promotes equally much competition and good gameplay as yours, if not even more. furthermore, your motivation doesn't matter more than mine, so dont use this bullshit as an argument.






basically there are good/logical reasons to make time 20, while there are only emotional and invalid arguments against it, arguments which play on what motivates you personally to play ur best, and so on. so whats the deal? does anyone apart from drews drones think time 20 is bad after this thread? shoop? chaise?

Instead of debating the benefits of each versus mode(despite knowing that no one is going to switch sides in the argument), can we actually accomplish something that will satisfy both sides?

i think its more important to focus on whos right. and im sure most of my criticism of the current versus will apply no matter what you change. the biggest emphasis is on letting both teams get the same possibilities, and if you limit team 2 even the slightest, this is not achieved. unless both teams play under the same circumstances, one team will inevitable be preferred over the other.

i think most of the people who disagree with time 20 either don't understand the arguments/rebuttals that have been put forth, and/or don't care. everyone is arguing so that it will be more fun for them to play, the difference between me and zo0/tolli/etc is that my vision is objectively justified while theirs is ONLY based on subjective ideas of what makes ST enjoyable for them.

No one is going to be proved right... its like asking someone if they liked one movie over another and then calling them wrong because they think differently than you. Some people want versus to focus 100% on competition while others want it to focus 100% of being fair... which one you prefer is your opinion, there is no way to prove one better than the other.

Edit: And amir, you should be especially willing to compromise seeing as your side is the minority in the argument.

Quote :

1) the fairness argument stands and is a GOOD reason to make time 20. no, it doesn't matter if it evens out in the long haul.

This sub-argument is simply a battle of opinion. Most people who want constant action -> accepts that while it may not be fair immediately, in the long haul (or even the course of a few rounds), it evens out to being quite fair.
Others who don't understand history at all (we originally did do time 20 both rounds, look at -captains) seem to favor the "immediate" fairness.

This exact argument can be paralleled to evening -sc. Obviously it is unfair for some to have less sheep turns when the host ends, but if the host never care, it doesn't matter in the long run. I for one could care less if I sheep less for this specific reason.

Quote :

2) the ''incentive'' argument doesn't matter. people have different goals in ST, and winning at ANY cost is not the ideal situation for most people. i dont want to win at the cost of not getting my sheep round(getting to play a MAXIMUM of 2 minutes as sheep in a 6v6 is useless and boring for everyone involved). giving both teams the possibility of a 20 min rounds promotes GOOD gameplay, and people won't do stupid golems etc early in the game because ''if the golem fails, the round is over after 5 minutes anyway. trying to isolate all the sheep in 5 minutes probably wont work".

While the shepherds will most likely still try just as hard either way, AFTER the time is left you are going to end with a boring few remaining minutes. Perhaps fun for sheep (they finally get to play risky), but generally a horrible experience for shepherds unless the game has already been going for fifteen minutes (when it is finally fun to play shepherd). But this isn't an argument over that, it's an argument over when team one lasts five minutes.



Do you argue that making it dually -time 20 will make the game more action packed?
That is, at the moment, the most important thing to bring to ST.