Is -time 20 for both teams relevant for Versus?

i think whether the game is "actionpacked" or not depends on the players in this case. if the players play their best, obviously time 20 will make it more actionpacked than the current versus. there will be no difference in action while team 1 is sheeping, but it will increase action while team 2 is sheeping(it will be parallel to team 1's sheep round). this is because wolfs won't do risky moves and go invis/buy golems as a ''last resort'' in 5 minute games, but will focus on isolating and not giving up, because even if they lose by the timer, they still have the chance of reducing their wolfing time by playing their best.

keep in mind that there is no logical reason to AFK with time 20(being bored/not having motivation can be applied to any mode, at any time, and is subjective. it is NOT an excuse or an argument).

and im glad you compare it to -sc chakra. by now, it should be clear to EVERYONE that the long haul argument is nonsense. everyone wants their sheep-turn before the game ends because its fair and because they are entitled to it, even tho it would even out eventually if hosts randomly ended all the time. people also want to have a portion of fun every time they play ST, and not boring days and fun days(depending on how lucky you are with -sc/what team you get on during versus).


madhatters
its not majority, many people who bleed for time 20 have not posted yet. exa and chaise are two of them, as well as many others. this is, however, irrelevant to the truth of our arguments. either i am right and time 20 is better for ST, or im wrong. you decide that based on our arguments, not based on majority.

It's silly to look only at the best-case scenario instead of what normally happens.

So with the -sc issue in mind, we know how it stands. Perhaps since ST isn't as active as it use to be (when -versus was established) people play less games and you may have "boring days and fun days."


Ultimately a new attempt at creating a 20/20 mode (ie, -captains but with 1/2/2/2/1 picking) will result in no negative impact (people just mayn't use it).

Im sure the pro plus one second side has many people that "bleed for" plus one second and havent spoken up as well, so as far as I can see they are the majority... and in this case it does matter because I am neither for or against either side. Both sides have good arguments(traxx's post on page one/Amir's fairness argument).

I'm probably going to end up making some sort of -versus X Y T where team two would get atleast T minutes time to start with or, to avoid complicated commands, make a -versus20 command for -time 20.

u dont understand. people are already playing with min 20 for both teams in EVERY versus game on bnet. the problem is not that we can't do it, the problem is that people refuse to admit/people dont understand why its important to do time 20.

as far as im concerned, time 20 is the official mode for versus now, and im not the only one who sees it this way. there are no negatives apart from zo0 randomly not wanting to play after he lost, while the positives have already been explained.



so in the end, im just trying to show you why time 20 is necessary and should be applied.

CHIEFHERO[SKS] wrote:

u dont understand. people are already playing with min 20 for both teams in EVERY versus game on bnet.

as far as im concerned, time 20 is the official mode for versus now



so in the end, im just trying to show you why time 20 is necessary and should be applied.

For euro come east we teach you the right way to play theres a -captains for time 20

CHIEFHERO[SKS] wrote:

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?

Starting with your first paragraph I would like to say that you're still not taking into consideration the shepherds side which is to minimize game-play time. People do have different goals in ST, but of special interest and the main objective which is more important, Amir? Idealistically there should never be a round where there will only be five minutes in team twos' sheep team. If anything the incentive to last longer and or to kill the sheep as fast as possible is promoted in Versus. If the sheep only last five minutes then they should be encouraged to last longer the next time they play. If the shepherds let the sheep last for twenty minutes in one game then they will be encouraged to kill the sheep faster in their next game.

To address your second paragraph I would like to say that you have an oxymoron. Your motivation to play your best is only if the game is fair in your perspective and if you believe in your team enough to last twenty minutes as sheep, but you claim that any motivational argument is invalid. Shouldn't you always stay at eighty to one hundred percent?

To address the rest of your statements I would like to say that you're directly insulting anyone who is debating against you, and this is a direct violation of my terms. Please refrain from further insults and provide clear and concise arguments for your side of the debate.

Edit: Amir, the only reason why people will willingly play -time twenty for both teams is because you, cmk, shoop etc. are the only ones who truly have influence over who is hosting and who is the host of the games. The reason is not because everyone agrees with you, but that everyone just wants to play sheep tag.

Quote :

To address your second paragraph I would like to say that you have an oxymoron. Your motivation to play your best is only if the game is fair in your perspective and if you believe in your team enough to last twenty minutes as sheep, but you claim that any motivational argument is invalid. Shouldn't you always stay at eighty to one hundred percent?

if its fair and my team gets the *possibility* to play 20 min, i get motivation to play my best. otherwise no. and yes, motivational arguments are invalid, and that's the whole point of that paragraph. your motivation doesnt matter more than mine => they cancel eachother out => you dont use this shit as an argument.

Quote :

To address the rest of your statements I would like to say that you're directly insulting anyone who is debating against you, and this is a direct violation of my terms. Please refrain from further insults and provide clear and concise arguments for your side of the debate.

what? in my eyes, the only insult here is that i have to repeat myself 10 times. but i dont know what flames of mine you're talking about in my last few posts.

Quote :

Starting with your first paragraph I would like to say that you're still not taking into consideration the shepherds side which is to minimize game-play time. People do have different goals in ST, but of special interest and the main objective which is more important, Amir? Idealistically there should never be a round where there will only be five minutes in team twos' sheep team. If anything the incentive to last longer and or to kill the sheep as fast as possible is promoted in Versus. If the sheep only last five minutes then they should be encouraged to last longer the next time they play. If the shepherds let the sheep last for twenty minutes in one game then they will be encouraged to kill the sheep faster in their next game.

there is no ''main objective'' other than to have fun. i have fun if its fair and i get the possibility to play 20 min. i dont have fun if my sheep limit is set to 5 minutes. capishe? stop using the objective argument.

and the bolded part = where your car started driving in reverse. if the shepards let the sheep last for twenty minutes = they get to play 20 minutes. i dont have fun if the limit is set at 5 minutes. capishe?





i really dont know how clearer i can make it. your opinion doesn't matter. your motives doesn't matter. your definition of ''the main objective'' doesn't matter. all of this is noise that i have taken care of many posts back.

I have some catching up to do on the forums so i havent read all of the 4 pages.

But here's how i stand on the issue in general:

The issue:
• When we use versus mode how it was designed the second team has less of an incentive to play. Why? because the best possible outcome they can get is sheeping the equal amount of time as the first team. I don't want to discard the competitive nature though of versus. So on top of that they might also care about actually winning.

• When we use versus mode and give 20min default time for both teams, as we would do in 'random' or 'fair' modes. In this mode we basically use versus mode to make teams more fair than in 'smart' or 'fair' modes. But again I dont want to discard the competitive nature of versus. If team 1 does 3 min sheep and team 2 is crushing them at min 3 they have no incentive to keep trying because well.. team 2 alrdy won.

=> If i have to choose I prefer scenario two but we will lose the competitive edge of versus then. It's more of a new mode to ensure actual fair teams and wud be on par with '-smart' and '-fair'
=> Both scenarios are flawed in my opinion so i suggest a compromise.

My proposal:
I have mentioned this compromise before in another map discussion topic but I'll just repeat myself.

We can add a 50% extra time to the second team. For example, if team 1 does 8 min of sheeping => Team 2 will get 8min + 4min of sheeping

Quote :

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.

No it doesn't even out at all because there's so many possibilities to cheat the system.

As long as being in team 1 provides any sort of advantage people like myself will use every means possible to cheat the system and get more sheeping time than the average joe.

Players that host potentially never have to play team 2.

Players that are often selected as captains barely ever have to play in team 2 (if you play your cards right).

ANY time there is some advantage to gain in being in team 1 the system can be abused to make lesser and ignorant players have to wolf more.

This is not an area of compromise. Both rounds 20 minutes end of discussion.

Players that host never have to play sheep because they can just pick themselves... making decisions on commads based on whether or not the host can abuse them is stupid.

Unimportant though because I've decided to add the following command:

-vtime X

Sets the minimum(if the sheep last longer than vtime, the second team will get plus one second time) starting time for the second versus team to X minutes. Defaults at 20 minutes. Setting this to 0 will always lead to plus one second starting time.



Hopefully this doesn't lead to conflicts in game.

Whether a host can or cannot abuse a command I would say is an excellent way of making decisions.

A host cannot abuse pick because people realize they are being cheated - that host is consequently removed.

A host can systematically abuse versus team 1 without anyone realizing it.

But the host stuff was a subsidiary to my main point - that anyone that gets to captain frequently has the power to cheat the system and the average joes consequently get to play more wolf and less sheep whereas the legends get sheep all day long.

I don't think that anyone had a problem with feeling "cheated" until Sidey realized he could get more time as sheep... "-time 20" is fair but I hope that you all realize that it WILL reduce the competitive nature of -versus games. Winning will no longer mean anything for the captain or the players, because the second wolf team will be forced to play for the long term despite the amount of time they have left to "win". The only goal will be to sheep for as long as possible, apparently that was already the goal for many of you.

how is the goal of winning and the goal of lasting as long as possible(and wolf as little as possible) different? the only difference will be that people wont run to corners and tiny abuse when they see 0:30 on the timer. you think this is bad?



btw ''I don't think that anyone had a problem with feeling "cheated" until Sidey realized he could get more time as sheep...'' is a quote directly from drews mouth. he spits some propaganda on bnet which has nothing to do with anything(brainwashing his soldiers yo0), and these guys think that its a good argument or reason to not apply time 20 lol.

How can you guys not realize that both sides have perfectly good arguments? Anyways, I've already decided that it will be up to the host of the game to determine what the minimum starting time is so continuing this thread is pretty much pointless.



On an unrelated note this whole drew brainwashing people is getting pretty annoying, I don't think drew even talks about the map anymore... and if people do listen to him its because hes a pretty smart guy, not because they are weak minded.

The way I see it sheeping for as long as possible was already a goal in versus, but there was also the overarching goal of beating the other team. By making it "fair" you remove the overarching goal of winning. I don't see how you can deny this.

And for the Sidey statement, yeah Drew said that, I also find it to be entirely true. Recently on Europe there's this phenomena that if someone is friends with and has similar views with another person that they are "brainwashed" or a "lickey". Do you say that sort of thing to people in real life? No. It is just a way for people in the sheep tag community to try and manipulate other people.

you're brainwashed because you think that quote makes a good point and is relevant. people on europe agree with others if they present good ideas/arguments => not asslicking. but forget about this shit, it doesn't matter.


madhatters, i dont think the other side has any arguments to be honest. most of what they've said is subjective talk about some goals, motivation and incentive which is not shared by everyone for good reasons. NOONE except zo0 finds joy in winning 2 minute games. they are a waste of time and the majority of the people against time 20 agree on this. and the "long haul" argument has already been dealt with:

1) it doesn't even out in the long haul if people cheat the system.
2) even if it did even out, there is no reason to let it even out over the long run instead of immediately. i want fun every time i play, and i don't want boring games if im unlucky and end up on team 2 alot that day, just like i dont want hosts to randomly end before -sc evens out for the same reasons.
3) im fully entitled to 20 minutes because i wolfed against team 1 under the same circumstances, so why shouldn't i get my 20 mins? because zo0 doesnt like to wolf after he has lost? come on lol...

That quote does make a point and is relevant. Only a small amount of the ST community truly cares if they get the opportunity to sheep for twenty minutes on the second team. Most were/are completely content with sheeping to beat the other team. You said earlier that most of the people who want -time 20 hadn't spoken up yet, but still all I see are you and Sidey.

And the "long-haul argument" you mentioned was not what I was talking about at all. I was talking about short term versus long term wolf strategies for the second shepherd team. In a -time 20 match you must pick between going all out to keep the other team from beating your sheep time or playing it safe to guarantee the game doesn't go for 20 minutes. You cannot do both, so ultimately the only viable shepherd strategy will be to play it safe despite how long your team lasted as sheep. Thus causing all true sense of winning (competition) in -versus games to disappear. A tall price to pay for "fairer" games.

I guess this thread is pretty much done, I'm sad to see competitive -versus games go though.

So in summary,

Current versus means:

1. That winning is pointless because you're penalized with a short meaningless turn of sheeping.

2. Because winning is pointless for team 2 people don't play their best and the quality of the game plummets.

3. In the short-term some players will get to sheep more than others.

4. In the long-term some players will get to sheep more than others.

Proposed 20min suggestion means:

1. A few individuals have issues that wolves have two goals - winning quickly(beating the time) & winning the game.



I think we can move on now.