Originally posted by Kuukunen
View Post
The thing is, it's a lot easier to defend cram than to break it. And the squad's ability cram is emphasized to the level of ridiculousness. Having a 15 minute cram against a squad that's close to your team's skill level is very possible. Beating them in every single fr battle during 15 minutes of constant fr battles isn't.
If the new strategy would be as biased as cram currently is, we'd have to change the map again, but most likely it wouldn't. Did you even play when lining was the thing? Lining wasn't this unfair. Some squads were better at it than others, and it made a difference, but it was broken a lot easier, so the whole game wasn't focused on it. It was just a part of the game, not the main thing, like cram is. I have no idea how you think you can claim that there has to be a defence strategy that will be as one-sided as cram currently is.
People saying: "Hey! Just learn to break it! It's part of the game and both teams have equal chances so best should win anyways." aren't really thinking it through. How about this... We make a map with only one long tube leading to fr, 2 blocks wide. Then ban the sharks. So the game would be decided after the first terr kill, since it would be impossible to get in with seven spids timing their shots and protecting each others from the one stray bullet that might end up flying to the end. Hey, it would be equal for both teams right?
This isn't about the spectators. Cram is boring for everyone. And it's not even mostly about how boring it is, but how much it's overemphasized and how much it makes luck a factor. Get one lucky terr kill and that's automatically loads of flag time.
This isn't about the spectators. Cram is boring for everyone. And it's not even mostly about how boring it is, but how much it's overemphasized and how much it makes luck a factor. Get one lucky terr kill and that's automatically loads of flag time.
For the sake of an example, let's make a simplified model of this. Let's assume the cram always takes the same amount of time to break. So in fr battles, the attacking team has a chance to kill the terr and get the flagroom. The longer the cram, the less there are chances. This was my point in the "long tube"-example. With it, there's only one chance. So if a squad sucks, and wins fr battles 30% of the time, but can hold the cram, they still win 30% of the games even though they were clearly much worse. If the winning team has to win two fr battles (because the cram takes so long to break) that same squad will only win 21.6% of the games. With three fr battles, the number is 16.3% and with more fr battles the number just goes down. If you really want and can't do math, I can explain how I got those numbers.
Again, I'll have to say you've got a nice theory there, but I don't really see a good example of a squad that sucks that much at FR battles, is that good at cram, and has way more wins than it should. And I think I know why you haven't provided any examples: you don't want to piss said squad off if you were to name a current one, and you'd end up in a never-ending argument of "You only won because the strategy is so biased" vs. "You severly underestimate us, jackass!" And you know why it'd be never-ending? Because the damn thing is so subjective. You can't quantify skill of an individual player and you can't quantify how well a group of players works as a team in cold hard numbers. The only fairly objective way of measuring a squad's skill level is to have them compete with other squads, and even then you only get a decent idea of how good they are at working that particular map used.
The point is, if a squad sucks that much, they shouldn't win almost any of the games. I'm not saying we should try to remove luck factor altogether, that would be boring too. Not that it's even possible, and squads are always going to have different line up, people having a bad day etc etc... but that's besides the point.
Comment