Jump to content


Photo

Old Clan Rule


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 OlafxD

OlafxD

    Mr. Rank 1

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8529 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 05:35 AM

does anyone remember the old clan rule? when you played 2v2, and a mate of yours lost the game, the game would end in a wash (tie), imo it was better for 2v2 clannies since it was fully teamwork and it made the gaming more exciting since you always had to make sure your mate stays alive, whats your thoughts about this?

#2 Seisse

Seisse

    Underrated owner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2245 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 07:27 AM

I don't remember

#3 Pompski

Pompski

    Emilio's Owner

  • Strike Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19855 posts
  • Location:Royal Air Force
  • XWIS Name: Pomp

Posted 22 July 2009 - 08:17 AM

Not quite sure what you mean :(

#4 Ben

Ben

    Volatile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9345 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • XWIS Name: Ben

Posted 22 July 2009 - 08:34 AM

I don't think that was quite it, but I do remember something like that.

#5 OlafxD

OlafxD

    Mr. Rank 1

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8529 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 11:28 AM

Not quite sure what you mean :(



example:

http://xwis.net/ladders/games/103843/

this game wouldve been a washgame (tiegame) since acejia27 got defeated in this game.

#6 Seisse

Seisse

    Underrated owner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2245 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 11:51 AM

That wouldn't be good idea, for example: my mate creates a situation (by sacrificing himself and destroying most important structures & miners from one/both opponents before losing) where I could win alone, so that's quite teamwork aswell, and pts should be given to winning team.

#7 Ben

Ben

    Volatile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9345 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • XWIS Name: Ben

Posted 22 July 2009 - 12:39 PM

I think Tomi has it a bit wrong, although my memories terrible, but in my memory that game would result in the winning team getting points and the losing team not losing any, or something like that. I dunno. I don't think that rule was always there though!

I remember playing on WOL (late days - when xwis was around) with sovsordie a lot just in stupid clans practicing against WOL clanners, and I do remember always trying to kill 1 opposition, or always trying to make sure both me and him stayed alive.

Edited by Ben, 22 July 2009 - 12:41 PM.


#8 MiDW3sT

MiDW3sT

    Always Sunny

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3279 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 05:58 PM

I kinda remember something like that. That's when the old clan website was used and you could actually make clans on the game itself.

#9 g_style

g_style

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1559 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 10:00 PM

very bad idea.. alot of reasaon

#10 Crisis

Crisis

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9461 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 10:15 PM

it doesn't really make sense though, i mean no matter what one player is going to be killed first right?:S

#11 Gyroscopic

Gyroscopic

    F(r)iend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3464 posts

Posted 22 July 2009 - 11:08 PM

i think what he means is if a team wins but 1 of the players on the winning team was defeated, the game is recorded as a wash. bad idea anyway imo

#12 AwaZ

AwaZ

    Demon Hunter

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12484 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • XWIS Name: AwaZ

Posted 23 July 2009 - 12:29 AM

Yea used to be like that on WOL, both players one the winner team had to stay alive, or the game would show up as a wash. It's a really bad idea though, what often happened was that when one team had fewer tanks they'd double one of the other team, which is very easy to do when playing corners on heck or non-tvb on cs.

Sacrificing units (and usually ending up dead) to help your team-mate win is also good teamwork.

Edited by AwaZ, 23 July 2009 - 01:14 AM.


#13 Crisis

Crisis

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9461 posts

Posted 23 July 2009 - 12:54 AM

i think what he means is if a team wins but 1 of the players on the winning team was defeated, the game is recorded as a wash. bad idea anyway imo

oh, yeah bad idea for sure then

#14 Ben

Ben

    Volatile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9345 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • XWIS Name: Ben

Posted 23 July 2009 - 02:39 AM

Pretty sure it wasn't originally like this, I think something like this happened when the WOL ladder became dead and chat was turned off (the period when xwis-wol coexisted)

#15 DonCarlo

DonCarlo

    Omertan

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18264 posts

Posted 29 July 2009 - 01:55 AM

i think its the other way round ben i remember it in the very beginning - like 2001
but i dont remember it in later times

If u were gonna die u used to have to run ur mcv to ur mates base and hide to avoid the wash game :laugh:
was a different spin on the game
good or bad

Yea used to be like that on WOL, both players one the winner team had to stay alive, or the game would show up as a wash. It's a really bad idea though, what often happened was that when one team had fewer tanks they'd double one of the other team, which is very easy to do when playing corners on heck or non-tvb on cs.

it was a tactic mastered by weaker teams

#16 Mikoz

Mikoz

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7094 posts
  • Location:AMSTERDAM
  • XWIS Name: Palacio

Posted 29 July 2009 - 12:34 PM

That wouldn't be good idea, for example: my mate creates a situation (by sacrificing himself and destroying most important structures & miners from one/both opponents before losing) where I could win alone, so that's quite teamwork aswell, and pts should be given to winning team.


Exactly

And lol @ ur sig, if ur a man u play all 47 qm maps.

Edited by Mikoz, 29 July 2009 - 12:36 PM.


#17 Pompski

Pompski

    Emilio's Owner

  • Strike Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19855 posts
  • Location:Royal Air Force
  • XWIS Name: Pomp

Posted 29 July 2009 - 04:24 PM

I can see where tomi is coming from, but also think its a poor idea.

#18 JoKuJaK

JoKuJaK

    b00yaka

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10846 posts
  • Location:Earth
  • XWIS Name: JoKuJaK

Posted 29 July 2009 - 05:08 PM

lol show us the pic of his mom then

#19 iCeMaNz

iCeMaNz

    -_- QQ

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3142 posts
  • Location:Lexington Ky
  • XWIS Name: PyyMP

Posted 29 July 2009 - 08:06 PM

It wasn't always a wash. I do remember games where it did wash though, but I also remember games where it didn't. I'm pretty sure the only times it washed was when this happened. When you and your teammate killed one player and then the surviving player killed one of you.

It is a horrible idea as well.

A lot of the times my build order was all or nothing. It would either leave me or diz losing and 1 of us taking out the rest of their bases. Taking away the possibility of all or nothing takes away from strategy. It would make it less interesting.

There was also games where I would build up economy for mass tanks and rockies leaving diz hurting for help and sometimes losing, but I would win in the end with rockies on 1 base and tanks on the others. Basically, if the guy that is behind wins this takes away what he was able to accomplish. Winning 2v1 on heck is no joke and is probably the hardest thing to do in ra2.

#20 g_style

g_style

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1559 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 02:46 AM

It wasn't always a wash. I do remember games where it did wash though, but I also remember games where it didn't. I'm pretty sure the only times it washed was when this happened. When you and your teammate killed one player and then the surviving player killed one of you.

It is a horrible idea as well.

A lot of the times my build order was all or nothing. It would either leave me or diz losing and 1 of us taking out the rest of their bases. Taking away the possibility of all or nothing takes away from strategy. It would make it less interesting.

There was also games where I would build up economy for mass tanks and rockies leaving diz hurting for help and sometimes losing, but I would win in the end with rockies on 1 base and tanks on the others. Basically, if the guy that is behind wins this takes away what he was able to accomplish. Winning 2v1 on heck is no joke and is probably the hardest thing to do in ra2.


that must be one of the reasons ur allies was pooor

#21 iCeMaNz

iCeMaNz

    -_- QQ

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3142 posts
  • Location:Lexington Ky
  • XWIS Name: PyyMP

Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:20 AM

that must be one of the reasons ur allies was pooor

That's why it took you 8 years to get good at this game.

#22 g_style

g_style

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1559 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 10:45 PM

That's why it took you 8 years to get good at this game.



after 2 yrs, was alrdy enough for you and diz.. always crying for 'ss's or flame.. those was the good days :laugh:

#23 AwaZ

AwaZ

    Demon Hunter

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12484 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • XWIS Name: AwaZ

Posted 31 July 2009 - 12:30 AM

It wasn't always a wash. I do remember games where it did wash though, but I also remember games where it didn't. I'm pretty sure the only times it washed was when this happened. When you and your teammate killed one player and then the surviving player killed one of you.

And when didn't it wash?

#24 iCeMaNz

iCeMaNz

    -_- QQ

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3142 posts
  • Location:Lexington Ky
  • XWIS Name: PyyMP

Posted 31 July 2009 - 06:02 AM

And when didn't it wash?

I've played games where I thought it was going to wash, but didn't. I don't know why.

#25 Ben

Ben

    Volatile

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9345 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • XWIS Name: Ben

Posted 31 July 2009 - 06:16 AM

Yeah, I said this earlier, from what I remember it was somewhat inconsistent.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users