2008-10-23, 13:42:47
I can't see the problem of "end game variety" at all. Most games (intern with bt-clan members) have a duration around 1:20-1:45 (pubs mostly about 35-55 min.), in which there is a quite huge variety till ~1:15-1:20 with sky tanks, hunters, demons, frosts, infernals, with weapons from 1k-555 range (I hardly ever see any 20k+ gold weapons). Then it drifts to Infernals/Titans with max. 1-2 demons/frost and the game ends quite soon (still no 20k+gold weapons). There is nearly never the situation in which "[...]it's better to get Titan and Frost Lasers.", becouse the game ends earlier. There is nearly no bt games with teams so well balanced that the game lasts so long. I never played a single game lasting as long as 3 hours and I did play quite a lot bt: There are just no teams which are so balanced, at least i never saw such ones. I can only imagine such long games when there are a lot of passive players in it, who "[...]don't know how to efficiently attack and destroy the enemy base.".
Concourning attacking the enemy base there is this line from exodus: "[...]but would also ensure that the stronger team wins, when it pushed that far.". This is quite a problematic statement. It is problematic to me, becouse it uses to term "would" for something which actually is. The important thing is, as he said quite well is, that the "[...]stronger team wins[...]". It is not clear, that the team pushing that far is the "stronger team", but just if it is, it should be winning. If they don't win after pushing that far, they probably "[...]don't know how to efficiently attack and destroy the enemy base.", so they actually are not the "stronger team", as stronger = "the ones playing better". If you are the better team you will win by destroying the enemy base. There are no games in which you are better, but "[the] push stopped right in front of the HQ and the enemy was pushed back again, because of player factories and such.". In my opinion this only happens if the attacking team makes mistakes and actually doesn't play well.
Concourning attacking the enemy base there is this line from exodus: "[...]but would also ensure that the stronger team wins, when it pushed that far.". This is quite a problematic statement. It is problematic to me, becouse it uses to term "would" for something which actually is. The important thing is, as he said quite well is, that the "[...]stronger team wins[...]". It is not clear, that the team pushing that far is the "stronger team", but just if it is, it should be winning. If they don't win after pushing that far, they probably "[...]don't know how to efficiently attack and destroy the enemy base.", so they actually are not the "stronger team", as stronger = "the ones playing better". If you are the better team you will win by destroying the enemy base. There are no games in which you are better, but "[the] push stopped right in front of the HQ and the enemy was pushed back again, because of player factories and such.". In my opinion this only happens if the attacking team makes mistakes and actually doesn't play well.
