tain.totalcodex.net

ozone wrote:You talk about hiding a unit to win isnt right? Well what about letting the other team kill you? I mean youre using backwards logic.

I'm not using any backward logic, in fact, you do.

What I mean is that when MY team scores 2 pigs, and the other team still has 2 pigs left (but not scored), (I'm using the played NML game as my example) they'd try to kill me instead of scoring. Why? Because they don't win if they score both pigs, but they do win in case they kill my last remaining unit! That sounds strange, doesn't it? You don't try to win with the objective, but by using body count tactics and hunting, while the gametype is stampede!!!

Thus, I'd hide my last remaining unit, so they can't use any body count/hunting tactics and they cannot win. The only thing this adds to the game is that the enemy will try to find me for the remaining duration of the game, which basically means they're going to waste 5 minutes or so.

ozone wrote:Basically your saying " you mean I had to stay alive to win?" . You have the game in hand... all you have to do is kill one more pig from the other team

I'll use the game that I played again. Now, in this specific game, we had like 3 puss duds on their pigs. That offcourse, is a change that can't be eliminated, and the fact that there are duds adds to the gameplay in my opinion.
Now on to the next point, all I had to do was to kill one more pig from the other team, right? So, didn't I tell you I was trying to kill one more pig from the other team with my last ghôl??? That basically means I'm doing just what you said I had to do, but I didn't succeed, and that lost me the game!
While if I would've run with that ghôl (which would be lame, I think it's more challenging to TRY to kill one of their remaining pigs), they wouldn't have used their pigs to score. Instead, they would've tried to kill my last ghôl, because that's the only way they'd be able to win. In my opinion, that doesn't add any gameplay.

They already lost by getting their pigs in last, so I don't think they still should be able to win by killing my team.

Killerking

Myrd wrote:This would be a big change to how Stampede FFA works. In stampede, you could often get the scenario when a player gets all his pigs in. In FFA, this would allow other players to compete for 2nd, 3rd etc place, since the game doesn't end.

I realize this, but in all the games I mentioned above - the ones that have multiple targets - the game ends as soon as ONE team has achieved all the target-goals. It WOULD be different, but if an argument is going to be made that Stampede should be changed to be MORE like other game types I think it makes way more sense to change it to end when one team has achieved all the target-goals than it does to change it to require a team to survive till the time runs out to win. Having to survive until the end would change the game MUCH more radically imo, AND be less consistent with the other similar Myth2 gametypes.

Myrd wrote:Also, as a counter example, KOTH. When I reach enough time such that no one else can beat me even if they held the flag from now on until the game end, the game does not end.

Yes, but KotH is a single target gametype, there are significant differences between single and multiple target gametypes which is why I tried to pick the gametypes that were more similar - I was actually surprised to realize that ALL the multitarget games EXCEPT Stampede end when one team/player has achieved all the target-goals.

Instead of KotH, look at the more similar Flag Rally. The game ends as SOON as one team/player achieves the max# targets AND 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc places are determined by how many targets were achieved at the point the game ends.


Personally, I think that Stampede should stay the way it is and the first team to get max-tie# of targets to safety should win, but if the discussion is seriously going to be about changing the way the game works then I think it makes sense to do an accurate comparison with other similar gametypes and make the change that is the most consistent with the other gametypes - which imo would be to change Stampede to end when one team gets all their flags in.

killerking wrote:Now on to the next point, all I had to do was to kill one more pig from the other team, right? So, didn't I tell you I was trying to kill one more pig from the other team with my last ghôl??? That basically means I'm doing just what you said I had to do, but I didn't succeed, and that lost me the game!
While if I would've run with that ghôl (which would be lame, I think it's more challenging to TRY to kill one of their remaining pigs), they wouldn't have used their pigs to score. Instead, they would've tried to kill my last ghôl, because that's the only way they'd be able to win. In my opinion, that doesn't add any gameplay.
g

Listen to what your saying man. You already won... there was no reason to kill the pig and yet you call it more challenging to have to go for a pig that you say doesnt matter. They only had two pigs they couldnt win and yet you went after the pig. They cant tag the pigs because thats a loss too. So I guess just tagging their pigs in and giving up adds to the gameplay.

Im saying how you played it is how it should work... you should have to go after those pigs. How you want it...you wouldn't have to because you won already . This my friend is why YOU have backwards logic.

ozone wrote:

killerking wrote: Im saying how you played it is how it should work... you should have to go after those pigs.

So, I did go after those pigs! I tried to puss them.
I see your point about the 'backward' logic, but I still don't think you should be punished for getting killed after you already scored.

VR: A potential issue with your proposal comes into play on maps where you can actually trade your number of stampeding units. Gyre comes to mind. A player starts with the least amount of targets, gets them in, game ends, even though other players are still alive with potentially more targets to get in than that original player. That doesn't seem fair.

Graydon wrote:VR: A potential issue with your proposal comes into play on maps where you can actually trade your number of stampeding units. Gyre comes to mind. A player starts with the least amount of targets, gets them in, game ends, even though other players are still alive with potentially more targets to get in than that original player. That doesn't seem fair.

I don't even know if it's possible programmatically, and I would prefer Stampede not be modified at all other than to fix it so the winner in a tie is first person to get units safe not last man standing wins, but in my comments I was assuming game would only end if max# of pigs possible got home safe. ideally max# of pigs safe would be the number equal to or greater than the number any opponent could get home safe.

again, i'd prefer stampede just stay the way bungie intended it to be - the 'first person to get most units home wins'.

Nowhere does it say "first". Not even in the myth II manual.

STAMPEDE!
Each team starts with a herd of animals (usually pigs) and a number of flags.
The object of the game is to shepherd your herd to the enemy flags.When
they are within contesting range of an enemy flag they will be teleported to
safety and your team will gain a point for each teleported animal.The winner
is the team with the most points at the end of the game. If neither team succeeds
in teleporting their herd to safety the winner is the team with the greatest
number of surviving herd beasts.
As a variation of this game, some maps have only a center flag that will transport
pigs from any team to safety- assuming you can get them there.

ozone wrote:Nowhere does it say "first". Not even in the myth II manual.

Yes, I am basing my belief that Bungie intended First to win in Stampede on the way EVERY OTHER MULTIPLE TARGET GAMETYPE WORKS.

That seems a reasonable starting point/foundation to base my opinion on, but I am open to hearing LOGICAL flaws in why that is not a good base - e.g. whether or not you LIKE stampede ties being won by first team achieving max goals is a seperate issue and not one that's going to be solved by arguing - but if you have a LOGICAL reason why first shouldn't win stampede raise the issue.

and no (not you personally, Ozone), bringing up the example of a completely different game type with a single target or no target isn't really relevant. if you are going to do that you might as well just argue that since the goal of Body Count is to kill the other team, that Stampede should work the same way.

ozone wrote:If neither team succeeds
in teleporting their herd to safety the winner is the team with the greatest
number of surviving herd beasts.

I wasn't aware of that.

ozone wrote: As a variation of this game, some maps have only a center flag that will transport
pigs from any team to safety- assuming you can get them there.

Dude, the only maps with a center flag are ffa stampede maps, so that's pretty obvious anyway. I've never seen a 2t map with a stampede flag in the mid.

vinylrake wrote:Having to survive until the end would change the game MUCH more radically imo, AND be less consistent with the other similar Myth2 gametypes.

I agree with VR here, also ozone, where did you get that information?

what information? You quote VR then ask me where I got MY information?

If your talking about the STAMPEDE! thing I posted... thats C/P from the Myth II Manual

So since you guys know so much about WHAT BUNGIE INTENDED let me ask..

In Assassin... you both have 5 targets. Team A kills one of Team Bs targets. Then by accident Team A kills one of there own. Score is now 0 - 0 ...Time runs out. Who should win?

In Terries... there are 10 flags. Team A holds 6 flags, Team B holds 4. Team B takes 2 flags from Team A. So now Team A has 4 and Team B has 6. Then right before time ends... Team A gets another flag from Team B... the score is now 5-5. Who wins?

FLag Rally... Team A gets 8 flags out of 9. Team B has none. Team B kills Team A... 1 second before time ends. Who wins?

ozone wrote:So since you guys know so much about WHAT BUNGIE INTENDED let me ask..

Ozone, I have been trying to say what is my *opinion* and explain what my opinions/beliefs are based on. I am NOT speaking for Bungie, I am trying to deduce FROM OTHER SIMILAR GAMETYPES what seems the most logical.consistent.

ozone wrote:In Assassin... you both have 5 targets. Team A kills one of Team Bs targets. Then by accident Team A kills one of there own. Score is now 0 - 0 ...Time runs out. Who should win?

Team A - the team that got the most points first should win (even if the points were later negated). The reason I say that is because it's not completely dissimilar to territories in that you acquire a point (tag a flag/kill an enemy assassin target), lose the point (lose possession of the flag/kill your own assassin target) and at the end of the game you can be tied for # of flags held (#of kills) but still get a victory based on the point/flag that you lost - the team who got the most points/flags FIRST is the team that wins. [When playing with OoH we would count a 0-0 end score in an assassin game as a tie]

ozone wrote:In Terries... there are 10 flags. Team A holds 6 flags, Team B holds 4. Team B takes 2 flags from Team A. So now Team A has 4 and Team B has 6. Then right before time ends... Team A gets another flag from Team B... the score is now 5-5. Who wins?

No brainer, Team A - the first team to get the most points/flags wins.

ozone wrote:FLag Rally... Team A gets 8 flags out of 9. Team B has none. Team B kills Team A... 1 second before time ends. Who wins?

I am not sure who *actually* wins because I can't recall how that works, but I think Team A should get the win. Why? because the goal is to tag all the flags as soon as possible. If no one tags them all, then the team with the most flags tagged at the end of the game wins. If Team B didn't get any flags there is no way they should be able to win a game of Flag Rally. Why should you be able to win a game of flag rally without ever tagging a flag? (not saying they DO win, and I have a feeling this is a trick question, I am just saying that I think the team who tagged the most flags SHOULD win)

Well if you didnt guess I already knew the answers to my questions. And Im sorry to say but your wrong on everyone.

vinylrake wrote:Team A - the team that got the most points first should win (even if the points were later negated). The reason I say that is because it's not completely dissimilar to territories in that you acquire a point (tag a flag/kill an enemy assassin target), lose the point (lose possession of the flag/kill your own assassin target) and at the end of the game you can be tied for # of flags held (#of kills) but still get a victory based on the point/flag that you lost - the team who got the most points/flags FIRST is the team that wins. [When playing with OoH we would count a 0-0 end score in an assassin game as a tie]

You would think that right? Well the team that did nothing wins. I have the film if you want to see it.

vinylrake wrote: No brainer, Team A - the first team to get the most points/flags wins.

Wrong again... its the last team to have the most flags wins. Not the first.

vinylrake wrote:I am not sure who *actually* wins because I can't recall how that works, but I think Team A should get the win. Why? because the goal is to tag all the flags as soon as possible. If no one tags them all, then the team with the most flags tagged at the end of the game wins. If Team B didn't get any flags there is no way they should be able to win a game of Flag Rally. Why should you be able to win a game of flag rally without ever tagging a flag? (not saying they DO win, and I have a feeling this is a trick question, I am just saying that I think the team who tagged the most flags SHOULD win)

Well sorry to say but wrong again. You dont have to tag any flags in flag rally to win... All you have to do is kill the other team/teams before they tag them all.

--------------------------------------------------

Now... by asking these things im just trying to show...things arent always what you think they should be and if that is the case then none of us really know WTF bungie was doing... im not even sure they did looking at some of this stuff.

ozone wrote:Well if you didnt guess I already knew the answers to my questions. And Im sorry to say but your wrong on everyone.

Dude I said what I thought *should* happen, how exactly was I 'wrong'? Did I say who DID win? No. I said who I thought SHOULD win.

As for assassin, I think the team that did nothing shouldn't win. I can only assume there is a bug that somehow counts more of a penalty for killing your own target unit thenbenefit for killing an enemy target. That doesn't make any sense logically, but if your film is accurate and not from a bugged version of Myth II that's the only way I could understand that happening. +1 plus -1 = 0. If two teams both had 0 points at the end AND both teams had the same# of targets left there is NO way team2 should have won. (question: In your film, do both teams have the same# of targets left at the end or is it a map that allows trading of assassin targets? didn't someone say that in assassin tie games the winner was the person with the most targets left? could that have been why the team that won by doing nothing won?

As for terries, I think you can see from my comment that I thought you asked about Flag Rally. Thus all my comments about FIRST team to get the most points. Unfortunately I often confuse Terries and Flag Rally fairly frequently while playing too.

As for Flag Rally, I think killing the other team and winning without tagging any flags is pretty retarded. I don't care if it's how Bungie intended it to be, if it's a bug that Bungie just never cared enough to fix (how many FR games really end with the winning team owning NO flags?) or what, but logically it makes no sense to have a game of 'tag all the flags first' be winnable by playing BC elimination.

--------------------------------------------------

ozone wrote:Now... by asking these things im just trying to show...things arent always what you think they should be and if that is the case then none of us really know WTF bungie was doing... im not even sure they did looking at some of this stuff.

Valid point. I still think though that IF one were going to change Stampede that the best approach would be to use LOGIC and REASON and analysis of the existing gametypes (even if they don't work the way we think they do) to determine what the end-game conditions and tie-breaker rules should be.

I just want to note that we have already decided that this was a bug and implemented a fix for 1.7.2: In the case of a tie score, the win will be given to team which reached that score first. This fix will also apply to Hunting games.