Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposed TUT Tenet: Winning by Obj

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proposed TUT Tenet: Winning by Obj

    I would like to make this idea known to the TUT community and hopefully make it the basis of obj vs. ko debates. Do not debate obj vs. ko here. Debate the actual idea. The idea follows:

    "If you "win by objectives" with only one guard alive, you are kidding yourself if you call it winning by objectives. Calling it winning by objectives even IF you are the last Thief alive is a stretch, but it is debatable."

    There is a poll up above. Vote YAY if you agree, NAY if you disagree.
    0
    YAY
    0%
    0
    NAY
    0%
    0

  • #2
    Agreed and voted.
    Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

    Comment


    • #3
      When it gets to that stage i think its mroe fair to KO that last guy than to strecth it out and come blurting at the end "we win look at my loot, stealth etc etc" BLURGH

      I agree btw.... that far in and you should just end it clean... and if he is a good guard you at least give him the chance to win for his side
      How TuF are you?
      League of Legends
      Bloodbowl by Extensions

      Comment


      • #4
        Strictly speaking, not necessarily....

        This statement is false. Just because one guard is left standing doesn't mean that I (as thief) was entirely responsible for it. If I had to KO all the guards (whether bot or no) to complete my objectives, then so be it; this isn't necessarily going to mean I intentionally meant to teamkill for the sake of teamkilling and only teamkilling( which is the only point I would agree with you - intentional teamkilling sux for everyone involved). Guards have 'divine right' to team kill, infact, one could argue that that is a part of there final objective....why shouldn't thieves be able to protect themselves against that by whatever means is necessary? I try to ghost when I play and avoid confrontation, but if a guard stands between me and my objective, and I see no other way but to confront - then I'm going to confront. ....and therefore win by objective.....
        ...and all is silent, save the voice of the clock...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SiLeNt_NiGhT
          Strictly speaking, not necessarily....

          This statement is false. Just because one guard is left standing doesn't mean that I (as thief) was entirely responsible for it. If I had to KO all the guards (whether bot or no) to complete my objectives, then so be it; this isn't necessarily going to mean I intentionally meant to teamkill for the sake of teamkilling and only teamkilling( which is the only point I would agree with you - intentional teamkilling sux for everyone involved). Guards have 'divine right' to team kill, infact, one could argue that that is a part of there final objective....why shouldn't thieves be able to protect themselves against that by whatever means is necessary? I try to ghost when I play and avoid confrontation, but if a guard stands between me and my objective, and I see no other way but to confront - then I'm going to confront. ....and therefore win by objective.....
          Totally true, even though i must be possibly one of the thieves with less KO's online (i always run away like a sissy girl). And if they won't move, a couple of arrows will make them go. When i'm a guard camping close to an objective, i feel it's totally fair if thieves try any and all means to get their objective. Even taking me out. Life is tough.

          Comment


          • #6
            What a waste of a poll. Winning by KO or by objective is still winning the round. And what, if there are only two guards left, I'm supposed to NOT KO one if he's in the way of an objective or in self defense? Even if he's the FIRST guard I've KO'd that round, now suddenly I'm a "DM thief"?

            Ridiculous.

            I won't even bring up the times that ONE guard has won against TWO or even THREE remaining thieves.

            Maybe we should do a poll: "Guards winning by the clock running out is not winning by objective", too?

            Comment


            • #7
              Why wasnt our match win by ko not allowed versus ToB then LR?
              yes it was agreed upon before that one comes back, but WHY was it agreed in a clan match that a WIN would not be OUR win
              How TuF are you?
              League of Legends
              Bloodbowl by Extensions

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by LaughingRat
                What a waste of a poll. Winning by KO or by objective is still winning the round. And what, if there are only two guards left, I'm supposed to NOT KO one if he's in the way of an objective or in self defense? Even if he's the FIRST guard I've KO'd that round, now suddenly I'm a "DM thief"?

                Ridiculous.

                I won't even bring up the times that ONE guard has won against TWO or even THREE remaining thieves.

                Maybe we should do a poll: "Guards winning by the clock running out is not winning by objective", too?
                That's not how I took it, LR. I didn't see it as whining about DMing, but whining about thieves who DM all but one guard, then get the objectives, and then become self-righteous saying they didn't DM because won by objectives. I'd say than a good rephrasing of Ohdear's statement would be: "Leaving one guard alive does not mean the round was not DMed." He also wasn't talking about individuals, he was talking about teams -- you may not be a DM thief, but that doesn't prevent the team from winning by DMing.
                Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Aggamemnon
                  Why wasnt our match win by ko not allowed versus ToB then LR?
                  yes it was agreed upon before that one comes back, but WHY was it agreed in a clan match that a WIN would not be OUR win
                  We agreed to that because ToB wanted it, and were willing to nullify several other of their "rules of war". It was a compromise, essentially, that we didn't think would affect the outcome.

                  But just think, we got to call the match a tie, and there are no hard feelings either way! And they STILL know we outplayed them!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Who cares. Play how you want.
                    (AKA Dresden)
                    Despite all my rage, I am still just a dwarf in a cage.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by NeoPendragon
                      Who cares. Play how you want.
                      I agree 100%. All this whining and bitching is stupid -- if you don't like the game, please play something else.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I guess I have a couple definitions of a DM win vs. an Objective win.

                        1) If there are 10 guards on a map and 7 get KO'd before the thieves start collecting loot, it was a DM win. There is a thief that tries to get loot and KO's while in the process of doing that, then there is the thief that KO's everything that moves and then starts collecting loot.

                        2) Anytime the number of remaining thief lives exceed that of the total guard lives, it's a DM round.

                        Anyways, that is how I see it.
                        Nothing wrong with DM'ing... it just isn't a preference of mine, especially in light of the way things are currently balanced.
                        "A gerbil is a rodent, wretched creature and quite possibly represents yourself there unclean vile obsolete weak and live happily in there and others filth, they have caused plague and death to humans and nearly wiped us out" - industrialism

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Rat, bite me. I'm sick of idiots claiming "Oh, all those games were won by obj" WITH ONE GUARD ALIVE!

                          It seems to have gone beyond whining about DMing and well into whining about whining about DMing. I did not mean this as an attack on DMing. This is the kind of crap that happens when you confuse the idea with the person.

                          Maybe you all don't seem to get the idea, which isn't uncommon around here. Look, if there is one guard left alive and the Thieves when by objectives, it is an accomplishment in KOing rather than thieving. They cannot hold that round as an accomplishment in thieving, even if the one guy went and grabbed all the loot while his buddies were KOing up a storm. The team's performance was KO, NOT OBJ! HOW DID THIS POST ATTACK THE THIEVES THEMSELVES YOU BLITHERING IDIOTS?! WHERE DID I SAY THAT DM THIEVES WERE BAD IN THIS POST?! IDIOTS!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Why ain't there a vote for * I don't care ?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MrEricSir
                              Originally posted by NeoPendragon
                              Who cares. Play how you want.
                              I agree 100%. All this whining and bitching is stupid -- if you don't like the game, please play something else.
                              That reminds me of the question I posed the other day:

                              Does any other game have this much bitching and whining?

                              Honestly, being a dialup user this is one of the few games I find playable online so I don't know the answer.
                              BobTheDog says, "Now you've gone too far!"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X