Laivasse
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,813
- Reaction score
- 31
I've held a low-level dislike for Sudden Death for a while now - nothing like the kind of dissatisfaction that would compel me to make a thread about it, but in game I might occasionally feel like asserting "ah man, SD is SHIT" upon hearing the dreaded 'YOU FAILED!'
But after having 2 separate games of 2fort ruined by Sudden Death - once when my team had finally broken the enemy's flag room sentry defence after a long deadlock at 2-2, and once just microseconds after a huge personal effort to cap and pull the score to 2-1 - I can't hack it any more. F*CK sudden death. TO HELL WITH IT!
Sudden Death wipes out all your efforts prior to that point and turns the game into a tiresome game of team deathmatch. People get afraid of dying in a way that discourages team play - there's no point sacrificing your life to sap buildings if you don't get a second chance and the rest of your team are too scared to capitalise; no point trying to force the enemy back in a chaotic shootout if half of your team realised that they'd be more likely to survive by camping in their base as sniper or engineer. And let's face it, dying and having to wait 3 minutes to spawn while watching a bunch of campers have a snooze just isn't fun. There's only so many times that 'ah well, at least I can make a cuppa' can feel like a silver lining.
Map objectives get forgotten, the significance of dying is, I feel, overemphasized and the dominant or better team doesn't even necessarily have an advantage. I spoke with Kadayi in another thread about a game where we'd been on opposing sides. His team had been hammering mine on Well, but our team had proven belligerent enough to hold onto the final cap for quite a while. His team was clearly playing better as a team, having well placed teleporters, sentries to deter recapping, classes backing eachother up, etc. Our team just died, sped out of spawn and attacked in a frenzied enough way to stave off the inevitable for a bit longer - you know the pattern... I felt we could turn the fight around enough if we just had the teamwork to take out some of their key sentries, but that teamwork was nowhere to be found.
Instead it went to sudden death and our team, full of solo heroes, won. Not because we were better at working as a team, but because all the sentries got wiped out for us and we fought it like a team deathmatch, while Kadayi's team had already gotten used to the pattern of dying in order to preserve an advantage. So we won...but it wasn't very satisfying. We didn't play very well, we didn't cooperate enough, we ignored objectives, we had been dominated and forced back by good team play, but we landed the match in Sudden Death because, essentially, we had a few skilled deathmatchers knocking about.
I really don't see how it benefits the game at all... Some people say it's preferable to an infinite deadlock, but, assuming there is any such thing as an infinite deadlock, I don't agree anyway. In my experience the games which are locked quite evenly are much more enjoyable than games where one side easily steamrolls the other. I usually like those very even games to go on as long as possible.
I can understand why there might need to be a measure in place to satisfy people who get tired of the same map running for too long, but imo Sudden Death is an overcompensation considering how annoying it is all round. I'd rather just let the team with the most caps/points get the victory - and if no team has an advantage, wait for one team to get one before ending the match. That's what sudden death usually means right? For example, in quiz shows or penalties in football, Sudden Death means the game goes on as normal but the first side to slip up loses - not that the game itself significantly changes, which is sadly the case in TF2.
And if people really do find it so tedious to carry on playing a certain map, they could always...I dunno, maybe leave the server? Which is what I often do when an enjoyable game (which in many cases isn't even deadlocked) goes to the mediocrity of sudden death.
Thoughts anyone? Disagree? Does Sudden Death smell like the ballsack of a tramp, or an angel?
But after having 2 separate games of 2fort ruined by Sudden Death - once when my team had finally broken the enemy's flag room sentry defence after a long deadlock at 2-2, and once just microseconds after a huge personal effort to cap and pull the score to 2-1 - I can't hack it any more. F*CK sudden death. TO HELL WITH IT!
Sudden Death wipes out all your efforts prior to that point and turns the game into a tiresome game of team deathmatch. People get afraid of dying in a way that discourages team play - there's no point sacrificing your life to sap buildings if you don't get a second chance and the rest of your team are too scared to capitalise; no point trying to force the enemy back in a chaotic shootout if half of your team realised that they'd be more likely to survive by camping in their base as sniper or engineer. And let's face it, dying and having to wait 3 minutes to spawn while watching a bunch of campers have a snooze just isn't fun. There's only so many times that 'ah well, at least I can make a cuppa' can feel like a silver lining.
Map objectives get forgotten, the significance of dying is, I feel, overemphasized and the dominant or better team doesn't even necessarily have an advantage. I spoke with Kadayi in another thread about a game where we'd been on opposing sides. His team had been hammering mine on Well, but our team had proven belligerent enough to hold onto the final cap for quite a while. His team was clearly playing better as a team, having well placed teleporters, sentries to deter recapping, classes backing eachother up, etc. Our team just died, sped out of spawn and attacked in a frenzied enough way to stave off the inevitable for a bit longer - you know the pattern... I felt we could turn the fight around enough if we just had the teamwork to take out some of their key sentries, but that teamwork was nowhere to be found.
Instead it went to sudden death and our team, full of solo heroes, won. Not because we were better at working as a team, but because all the sentries got wiped out for us and we fought it like a team deathmatch, while Kadayi's team had already gotten used to the pattern of dying in order to preserve an advantage. So we won...but it wasn't very satisfying. We didn't play very well, we didn't cooperate enough, we ignored objectives, we had been dominated and forced back by good team play, but we landed the match in Sudden Death because, essentially, we had a few skilled deathmatchers knocking about.
I really don't see how it benefits the game at all... Some people say it's preferable to an infinite deadlock, but, assuming there is any such thing as an infinite deadlock, I don't agree anyway. In my experience the games which are locked quite evenly are much more enjoyable than games where one side easily steamrolls the other. I usually like those very even games to go on as long as possible.
I can understand why there might need to be a measure in place to satisfy people who get tired of the same map running for too long, but imo Sudden Death is an overcompensation considering how annoying it is all round. I'd rather just let the team with the most caps/points get the victory - and if no team has an advantage, wait for one team to get one before ending the match. That's what sudden death usually means right? For example, in quiz shows or penalties in football, Sudden Death means the game goes on as normal but the first side to slip up loses - not that the game itself significantly changes, which is sadly the case in TF2.
And if people really do find it so tedious to carry on playing a certain map, they could always...I dunno, maybe leave the server? Which is what I often do when an enjoyable game (which in many cases isn't even deadlocked) goes to the mediocrity of sudden death.
Thoughts anyone? Disagree? Does Sudden Death smell like the ballsack of a tramp, or an angel?