schwinn04
The Quiet Type
I can has lean
Posts: 27
|
Post by schwinn04 on Jul 9, 2010 20:01:12 GMT -5
How can you do an odd number of rounds with incorporating the side switch? It would make it unfair, if they are going to go back to the odd numbered rounds there cant be a side switch. And sure, some of the maps would be very one sided, but that made it that much more fun. Who did love playing Desert Glory as SEAL's? Or Sujo as SEAL's? those were so much fun, I loved the challenge. Not sure sure I see the Logic in your "fairness" so it would be more unfair to give one side the chance to possibly get 5rds on one side and only 4 to other then. As opposed to one team having to play an Entire match on the more difficult side. How is that fun, how does that mix up the game play. I think it makes socom players choose a better dynamic on how to play out the maps and people don't care as much about switching sides since you play on both. If you want the game to be on a more level playing field the switch is perfect. I know people love to sit on the more one sided maps, wether it be the seals or terrorists side just so they could get easier wins and kills match after match after match and talk $#!+. I loved it when we would be down 3-1 and switch sides and end up winning 5-3 that to me gave me feelings of the s2 days, not the switch of course but coming back up and winning after being down and almost out.
|
|
|
Post by daviddoel on Jul 10, 2010 11:05:44 GMT -5
No side-switching. Even if a map is uneven, everyone eventually has to play on both sides and it works itself out.
And maybe if a map is deemed uneven, say if Enwapi was in SOCOM 4, people playing on the Seals side are award more points for their stats/XP if they end up winning the round or game. So Terrorists still have a better chance at getting points, but if you defy the odds as a SEAL then you get even more points than you would have as a Terrorist. So its a risk/reward factor.
|
|
schwinn04
The Quiet Type
I can has lean
Posts: 27
|
Post by schwinn04 on Jul 10, 2010 20:35:25 GMT -5
So you should be rewarded with more points lol how about you have to show your skill off by proving you can win the game playing on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by [PAs] IDEVILMANI on Jul 11, 2010 3:35:54 GMT -5
So you should be rewarded with more points lol how about you have to show your skill off by proving you can win the game playing on both sides. Yeah, BUT, I would rather show my skill by winning 2 games playing both side one game at a time, rather than drawing out 1 game because people just want to camp on the easy side. I would rather play one full game on one side, then switch when it comes back around, and play another full game on the other side. With side-switching, no matter what, you will never have a tiebreaker round. Because one team will get the chance to play on the easy side for an extra round, so someone is going to be complaining about how unfair it is. I would rather have the unfairness be there from the start. You be on that easy side and camp behind the hostages for 7 rounds in a row for a loss. Socom has been about overcoming challenges. You don't get that with side switching. If anything, Side-switching has proven to cause more camping non-side-switching.
|
|
schwinn04
The Quiet Type
I can has lean
Posts: 27
|
Post by schwinn04 on Jul 11, 2010 9:38:56 GMT -5
The game has changed you can't really compare the camping, as you have a new generation gamers & games that reward camping.
Like I said, I'll give the one round for the tie breaker. If your team if is good enough the game won't even be taken that far. I'm not sure how much SOCOM you've actually played but people didn't often switch sides when playing the more one-sided/challenging maps.
|
|
|
Post by [PAs] IDEVILMANI on Jul 11, 2010 20:35:32 GMT -5
The game has changed you can't really compare the camping, as you have a new generation gamers & games that reward camping. Like I said, I'll give the one round for the tie breaker. If your team if is good enough the game won't even be taken that far. I'm not sure how much SOCOM you've actually played but people didn't often switch sides when playing the more one-sided/challenging maps. No, the side switching caused the camping. You can't have a tiebreaker round with side switching. It is unfair that one team gets to play the "easy" side for an extra round. It has been debated over and over again. And no matter what, side-switching will result in "Unfair play"
|
|
schwinn04
The Quiet Type
I can has lean
Posts: 27
|
Post by schwinn04 on Jul 12, 2010 21:04:20 GMT -5
so like I said, 1rd is some how WAY worse then an entire match being unfair, I really don't see the Logic.
|
|
xWARGOx
Active Poster
Dick Kicker
"Some Like Me, Some Hate Me, But Everyone F-cking Knows Me"
Posts: 214
|
Post by xWARGOx on Jul 12, 2010 21:14:11 GMT -5
All depends on how their maps, game modes, and how it plays itself out. Either way can be fine.
|
|
|
Post by [PAs] IDEVILMANI on Jul 13, 2010 1:04:05 GMT -5
so like I said, 1rd is some how WAY worse then an entire match being unfair, I really don't see the Logic. The only logic is. The only reason to have side switching is to give both teams a fair chance on both sides of the map. Because of this, you can never have a tiebreaker round without being unfair. If an entire game is played out on the hard side, then of course someone is going to get the so called 'easy side'. In previous Socom's the balance was kept because the Seals usually got all the better weapons, while the terrorist got the so called 'easy side'
|
|