|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 29, 2015 18:04:28 GMT
Ok. So where is the unfairness again? The game is a team sport and as long as someone peeks the green crate then the dominant strategy is being played and therefore there is no unfair advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by mone on Mar 29, 2015 18:39:02 GMT
"Since each team has equal access to these spots, the playing field is level."
"Warhead example:
(First half) For 7 rounds John peeks pizza box A, while Jackson shoulders green crate in field.
(Second half) For 7 rounds Jackson doesn't peek pizza box A, while John shoulders green crate in field."
The point isn't that shoulder peeking the green crate is the dominant strategy, the point is that the playing field is not level.
"but if sp is the dominant strategy (WHICH IT IS BECAUSE IT CREATES UNFAIR SITUATIONS AS WE TALKED BEFORE)"
You already admitted that it's unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 29, 2015 19:10:28 GMT
But both teams have the same amount of rounds on each side. Therefore Jackson will get 7 rounds peeking green box and john will get 7 rounds peeking green box. In the end it isn't unfair because both teams get to use the spot an equal amount of times. It is unfair in the short run but in the long run it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by skor on Mar 29, 2015 19:22:19 GMT
Shoulder peaking is used to an advantage and is not fair, Enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by mone on Mar 29, 2015 19:46:31 GMT
There will be similar situations everywhere. This is just an example.
On offense, both players get to shoulder peek the green crate.
On defense, player 1 plays pizza box getting picked off every round.
On defense, player 2 doesn't play pizza box.
Everyone can shoulder peek the same walls but that doesn't mean the playing field is level.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingsteelo on Mar 29, 2015 19:53:45 GMT
You're saying shoulder peeking is fair because both teams have an equal opportunity to do it... In that case why not allow all glitches because both teams can do them. I can just glitch into warhead one way on b site and lock down b site alone and get a 4 man stack on a site for a potential 7-0 half
|
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 29, 2015 20:03:00 GMT
Great responses. Kingsteelo I've stated this before but I'll restate it for you. In a previous post I touched on why glitched spots can be banned (such as warhead window) but sp can't be banned. Refer to my previous post about this.
Mone. You've made a broad statement: "Everyone can shoulder peek the same walls but that doesn't mean the playing field is level." Without giving any arguments for it.
Skor just because your view point differs from mine doesn't mean you're right. Read my argument and tell me why sp is unfair. As of now, I've responded to all of the counter arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by mone on Mar 29, 2015 20:36:10 GMT
I've already stated my argument plenty of times, I even rephrased it. I'll say it again.
On offense, both players get to shoulder peek the green crate.
On defense, player 1 plays pizza box getting killed by the shoulder peeker every round.
On defense, player 2 doesn't play pizza box NOT getting killed by the shoulder peeker every round.
There is no fair play in this and similar situations occur everywhere. Now it would be different if everyone played exactly the same spots as each other on Alpha & Bravo every time.
On offense, both players shoulder peek the green crate.
On defense, both players play pizza box A.
Then the playing field will be level but like I've said before, no one plays the same. Therefore, the playing field is not level. This argument only applies to shoulder peeking.
Edit: Before you ask why it only applies to shoulder peeking. You can't hit someone in a shoulder peek.
|
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 30, 2015 0:54:39 GMT
Yes people play differently but, if people on defense know people shoulder green crate, why are they playing pizza? Playing pizza on defense is a weaker strategy which is dominated by the green crate strategy. There is no reason to play pizza unless you want to put your self in a disadvantageous position. The argument that people play differently doesn't mean we can ban sp just so that we allow people to play weaker strategies. A smart player would realize that playing pizza is bad because of people peeking green crate. Just because this pizza player "plays differently" doesn't mean that we can ban sp to accommodate his inferior play style. Once again, competitive players play to win and therefore a smart, competitive player on defense wouldn't choose to play pizza. There are many other ways to defend the A site in warhead that do not die to the sp at green crate.
So once again. You're right. Different play styles causes unfairness but that is only because some people are choosing to play in positions that put them in disadvantageous positions. Those players will soon learn that they're play style is disadvantageous and then change their play style to prevent getting picked at pizza.
|
|
|
|
Post by mone on Mar 30, 2015 1:38:55 GMT
Once again, you ADMIT that it's unfair yet you still continue to back up shoulder peek with useless counter arguments. You're missing the point, this isn't about stronger/smarter strategies at play. My point is that shoulder peeking is unfair and saying that a certain player shouldn't play a certain spot is not a very strong counter argument. That's checkmate  |
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 30, 2015 1:49:09 GMT
What? Read my post again. I said. You are correct only because you assume that players should play weak strategies. Sp isn't unfair when players play the strongest strategy available to them, which happens to be NOT playing pizza on bravo. When players play the dominant strategy, sp is not unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by mone on Mar 30, 2015 2:03:09 GMT
I've never neglected the fact that sp is the stronger strategy. Just because sp is the dominant strategy, doesn't mean it's fair. It's not fair and you've admitted it a few times now.
|
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 30, 2015 2:25:50 GMT
Once again I've already explained why it is fair. Both teams use it. Both teams have access to the same sp locations because both teams play the same amount of rounds on each side of the map. You can't use portions of my forum posts to support your argument. I've agreed with you only because I need to point out the assumptions you made. After pointing out the assumptions of your arguments I followed to explain why sp is still fair.
The fact that you think you can use my explanations as your argument makes your argument extremely weak. You're essentially make me argue against myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by mone on Mar 30, 2015 3:18:05 GMT
I've made no assumptions. What I've said above proves that it isn't fair. The only counter argument you've said is that a certain player shouldn't play a certain spot which is an extremely weak argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by zond on Mar 30, 2015 4:41:13 GMT
beef.
|
|
