DAMN BL Warzone really needs to be amended

[Fridge!]

      I'm just surprised that in the years that I've been gone, warzone, and it's place in the DAMN BL, have gone untouched.  I understand that the premise for warzone is to remove the effectiveness of either camping from the onset of a match, or making a single kill then camping.  While warzone is effective in that regard, it is also blatantly obvious that its affect on GHR is far broader than its basic premise, and that many of such affects are counterproductive to the fairness of the game.

There are two major problems with warzone:

1.     The first major problem with warzone, is that it significantly favours certain spawn locations over others.  I don't think anybody disagrees with the fact that warzone turns the beginning of any game within a match into a race for a predetermined location on the map, and whoever wins that race gains a large advantage over the other team.  However, GHR is played in an asymmetrical environment and, therefore, such a race will never be fair.  Off the top of my head, take a look at Stronghold, Vilnius, Riverbed, even Embassy and Downtown.  They all either have one spawn location that is considerably closer to the wz than all the others, or one spawn location from which it is considerably more difficult to reach the wz than all the others.  These are obiously just a few of many such maps, and it is a no brainer to realize that with 2 teams and 4 spawn locations, so long as one of those maps are being played there is a 50% chance that one team will either be given a gift, or get fucked at the start of the game.  Does it not seem a little ridiculous to anybody else that on many of the most prominent maps within GHR and the DAMN BL, that 50% of the time, one team will start with a large advantage over the other?  If you want to determine who is the best, you must strive to make the element of fortune play as little a role as possible within the match.  The current version of Warzone does not facilitate such circumstances.

2.  The second major problem with warzone is the time limit.  Quite simply, if you have a good, well co-ordinated team defending a wz, three minutes is not enough time to find the crack in their defenses and work out a way to break them down tactically.  This is especially a problem when compounded with the reality that the team who gains first control of the WZ is often determined by spawn locations, by luck of the draw.  Just to send a guy around a flank to get him to where you want him to be often takes minutes alone in Ghost recon.  Even if you know the location of an enemy, it often takes minutes just to get into a proper position to take him out.  Yet, with warzone, it will almost always be taken in the first 30 seconds of the game due to the race, and as a result, you don't have time for what you should do.  Not only do you now have to attack a fortified position because you got the shaft with the spawns, but you have only 3 minutes to do so against a well practiced and well co-ordinated team.  Ghost Recon isn't meant to be a rushed game, it's supposed to be tactical.  There are the two extreme ends of the spectrum, camping, and rushing, neither makes the game what it's supposed to be.  Pure LMS is camping, three minute WZ is rushing. 

     Again, the issue that warzone set out to resolve was the ability for a team to simply lay a sensor net near their spawn, and camp behind it.  Warzone was designed as a way to ensure that teams had to move forward, we don't need to ensure that teams rush forward at full tilt.  Warzone would still solve the issue even if it was four minutes, teams would still be forced to move forwards, teams would still be forced to fight over a location that took them away from their spawn points.  All that is necessary for warzone to serve its purpose is to compel teams to move forward, the rate at which they move forward isn't particularly relevant, because as long as they are moving forward, they can't camp behind their sensors at their base and force you to walk through them.  Warzone is better than pure LMS yes, but there is no question that it is a system that can be improved, so why not improve it?  The whole purpose of the DAMN BL is to determine which teams are the best; therefore, the scenario where the least is left to luck, and the most is dependent upon well rounded skill is the most desirable.  While pure LMS created the scenario where the most effective tactics, were the least dependent on skill, warzone in turn adds a significant element of luck to the game.  It forces you to rush in, and if you lose the rush, to make a hasty attempt against the odds to try and regain it.

Possible Solutions:

1.  I was talking to [a]LYNX about this, and he agreed and came up with the idea that the warzone only appear three minutes into the game.  However, we were unsure of whether or not this would be possible.

2.  Increase the warzone timer:

FIRSTLY:  considering how spawn locations affect the ability of the DAMN BL's current system to determine who are the best clans.

1.  As long as a map is asymmetrical, there will always be a discrepancy between spawn locations, there will always be one that is better than another to some degree.  CORRECT.

2.  The majority of Ghost Recon maps are asymmetrical.  CORRECT.

3.  The greater that spawn location discrepancies advantage one team over another, the greater the element of luck within the game.  CORRECT.

4.  The greater the role that luck plays in determining the outcome of a game, the lesser the role that skill plays in a game and, therefore, the lesser the role that skill plays in the cb.  CORRECT.

5.  Therefore, the greater the spawn location discrepancies, the lesser the role that skill plays in the cb, and the lesser that determination of skill and ability accomplished through the cb.  CORRECT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECONDLY: considering how to reduce the affect of spawn location discrepancies without making the game worse.

6.  The greater the ammount of time one team has to make their assault on the warzone, the greater their tactical possibilities in making that assault.  CORRECT.

7.  The greater the role that tactics are able to play in a cb, the greater the determination of skill in that cb.  CORRECT.

8.  However, most people seem to agree that they do not want a cb that has a maximum duration of over 10 minutes.  So that is the timeframe we have to work within.  CORRECT.

9.  Therefore, the warzone timer duration that is the longest possible, yet does not unacceptably compromise the ability of a game to be determined within the 10 minute time frame is the best solution.  CORRECT.

10.  Therefore, if the warzone timer duration can be increased without unacceptably compromising the ability of a game to be determined within the 10 minute time frame, logically, it should ammended.  CORRECT.

11.  Therefore it should be considered whether warzone will still function within a 10 minute time frame if the warzone timer is even increased by only 30 - 90 seconds, for if it can be and still remain functional, it will improve the game, it will put more skill into the game.  CORRECT.

Now do you honestly believe that 3 minutes is THE GOLDEN NUMBER, that if you go even 30 seconds over 3 minutes on the timer, warzone no longer works and it turns it into campy LMS?  If not, then unless you can point out a flaw in the prior reasoning, then you are consciously choosing to not improve the DAMN BL by refusing the proposition because, you just don't feel like getting around to making changes.

Has any other duration ever been tested?  NO.  At least not that I am aware of, and I was around when warzone was first introduced.  Nobody has ever tried a different time, and yet everybody assumes that three minutes is the maximum that the timer can be before warzone stops working and the game starts becoming campy.  You don't need to think in terms of minute intervals, the warzone timer could be made 3:26 seconds for all it matters, and if warzone still works at 3:26 seconds, then it is better for the BL, unless again, you can punch a logical hole through my prior reasoning.  So lets try it, and lets change it; lets find the threshold for the wz timer duration before it makes the game unacceptably campy - lets make it better.  The only reason for not doing so is pure laziness.  If you find that even adding 30 - 60 seconds makes it too campy, then we won't stick to it.  Why not just test it out in the off-season?

[rageasaurus rex]

I agree that it should be changed, however it does have its advantages the way it is. If you're dealt a bad spawn at the beginning of the round, it means nothing. Where you spawn makes no difference at all if you and your team have the skill to win. 99% of warzone games do not end with the warzone being controlled. Rather, they end with one team being killed. This suggests that the three minute warzone timer is too long for competitive matches. If one team controls the warzone, but dies before the three minutes expire, what's the point in having a three minute timer? Increasing the time limit will only make the warzone itself more obsolescent. Maybe if the rules are changed to where one team must control the warzone for the time period to win, the games would be more meaningful.

Also, I don't think it's the team that starts farther away that has the disadvantage. From my experience, the team that tries to keep control of the warzone does the worst. The other team knows they're not going to grab the warzone without dying, so they go after the other players, whereas the team defending the warzone has to concentrate on covering eachother AND the warzone. The split attention is what kills it for them.

[PUNiSHER™]

The reason the Warzone spawn locations are the way they are is because most of them are set to where the siege base locations would be.  Some maps have spawn locations that are equal distance to the base but they place you in such a horrible locations on the map your team has less a chance at winning.  The spawns could be changed so each spawn on every map was close to being equal but too many people would get upset because they don't want to see a change.  Warzone hasn't really been changed over the years that I've played on here and I don't think there are too many people complaining about it or actually want it to be changed.  I think changing the 3 min timer is ridiculous, 2 mins is too short and 4 mins is too long honestly I think its perfect the way it is, you should be preventing the other team from getting the smoke in the 1st place.
Changing the spawn locations on every map would offer a fresh start and change the way clan battles are played because every clan would have to re-think its strategy on how to play out the spawns on each map.

Introducing a new Warzone type called something like "Team Solo Warzone" may be an interesting idea, every member of each team would spawn in a different location on the map kinda like any solo mode but the premise would still be to get the Warzone.

In my opinion WZ is fine the way it is, you can't please everyone.

[Fridge!]

I agree that it should be changed, however it does have its advantages the way it is. If you're dealt a bad spawn at the beginning of the round, it means nothing. Where you spawn makes no difference at all if you and your team have the skill to win.

    Being dealt a bad spawn at the beginning of the round means nothing?  Where, you spawn makes no difference at all?  Those are ridiculous statements.  If the objective of the game is to control a central warzone point, and one team, as on stronghold, spawns right beside it and can gain control of it and the area within 15 seconds, and the other team has to run all the way across the map to get to it, that makes a huge difference.  Having a 3 minute timer saying, you have to take this objective from the other team who is already set up and defending it because they got lucky, and if you don't do it within 3 minutes,  you lose, that makes a huge difference. 

99% of warzone games do not end with the warzone being controlled. Rather, they end with one team being killed. This suggests that the three minute warzone timer is too long for competitive matches. If one team controls the warzone, but dies before the three minutes expire, what's the point in having a three minute timer? Increasing the time limit will only make the warzone itself more obsolescent. Maybe if the rules are changed to where one team must control the warzone for the time period to win, the games would be more meaningful.

     Well no kidding 99% of warzone games do not end with the warzone being controlled.  What do you think a team is going to do if there's 30 seconds left to get the wz, and they don't have it, they are going to throw themselves at it in a last desperate attempt to regain it.  If they don't go for the warzone, they automatically lose, if they rush for the wz, they have a chance, not a very good one, but a chance.  The fact that most games do not end with the warzone being controlled indicates none of what you are suggesting.

Also, I don't think it's the team that starts farther away that has the disadvantage. From my experience, the team that tries to keep control of the warzone does the worst. The other team knows they're not going to grab the warzone without dying, so they go after the other players, whereas the team defending the warzone has to concentrate on covering eachother AND the warzone. The split attention is what kills it for them.

   That's a pretty ridiculous claim dude.  Here is what you are saying: that a team who assaults a fortified position with equal numbers to the defenders has the advantage.  Furthermore, the team that is assaulting, is forced to run through their sensor net, meaning they often don't know where the defenders are, while the fortified defenders know the locations of many of the attackers.  Please tell me you can now comprehend who has the actual advantage.

I think changing the 3 min timer is ridiculous, 2 mins is too short and 4 mins is too long honestly I think its perfect the way it is, you should be preventing the other team from getting the smoke in the 1st place.

     That's the problem, you can't prevent the other team from getting the smoke if you get the bad spawn, or if they get the good spawn and they immediately move for the wz, which they will.  I tell you what, come into a server with me, I'll turn off random inserts and we'll go map to map and i'll give you the bad spawn, or give myself the good spawn, and see if you can ever stop me from getting the smoke. 

     Also, please don't respond to logically constructed points by empty statements, develop them.  Don't just say 2 minutes is too short... explain why 2 minutes is too short; don't just say 4 minutes is too long, explain why 4 minutes is too long.  Anybody can respond to an argument by saying, "I disagree", that means nothing, that accomplishes nothing.  Again, if you're going to forward a point, develop it, or else it's worthless.

Introducing a new Warzone type called something like "Team Solo Warzone" may be an interesting idea, every member of each team would spawn in a different location on the map kinda like any solo mode but the premise would still be to get the Warzone.

     Dude, the premise for introducing warzone was very very simple.  To force teams to move forward off the start of the game, rather than being able to lay sensors near their base and then run back behind them and camp for the whole match.  Having a short warzone timer or a long warzone timer does not hinder its ability to suit that purpose.  So long as there is a centered warzone that all teams must advance towards, or else the other team will gain control of it and run down the clock, then teams will be forced to move forwards.  All that having a shorter timer does, is it speeds up the pace that the team must move forwards at if they don't get the warzone first.  So long as there is a clock ticking, and it doens't matter if they make a kill or two, they still lose if they don't regain wz control, then teams can not camp behind sensor nets near their base; therefore, increasing the timer will not affect the ability of warzone to suit its purpose but, rather, will simply add more room for tactics to play a role in each team's assault on the other.  It puts more skill back into the game, and the more that the end result of the game is determined by skill, then the greater the DAMN BL serves its purpose of determining who is the best team.

[PUNiSHER™]

   

     Dude, the premise for introducing warzone was very very simple.  To force teams to move forward off the start of the game, rather than being able to lay sensors near their base and then run back behind them and camp for the whole match.  Having a short warzone timer or a long warzone timer does not hinder its ability to suit that purpose.  So long as there is a centered warzone that all teams must advance towards, or else the other team will gain control of it and run down the clock, then teams will be forced to move forwards.  All that having a shorter timer does, is it speeds up the pace that the team must move forwards at if they don't get the warzone first.  So long as there is a clock ticking, and it doens't matter if they make a kill or two, they still lose if they don't regain wz control, then teams can not camp behind sensor nets near their base; therefore, increasing the timer will not affect the ability of warzone to suit its purpose but, rather, will simply add more room for tactics to play a role in each team's assault on the other.  It puts more skill back into the game, and the more that the end result of the game is determined by skill, then the greater the DAMN BL serves its purpose of determining who is the best team.

I don't think you understand Warzone isn't always about winning by the smoke.  The premise for Warzone is to work as a team to either wipe out the opposing force or maintain control of the Warzone for 3 mins.

Can you imagine playing with a 2 min Warzone timer on larger maps like Vilinus, Farmday, Roadblock?  Teams will be forced to take the shortest routes possible just so they can get to the Warzone before it expires.  You would have no time to flank around the map.  Warzone would turn into a game as to who can run the fastest to the middle without getting shot. 

And a 4 min Warzone isn't going to help either, it would turn games into the ultimate camp fest.  After 6 mins into a game if noone has gotten the Warzone there would be no point in doing so, causing teams to sit back and play Team LMS for the last 4 mins.  Extending to 15 min games would lenghten CB's and I thought the league was trying to shorten the length of clan battles this season.

The only problem is a few maps have some spawn point disadvantages but any good player knows how to make this situation to their advantage.  There's no point in changing the system that has been working fine for the past years.

[WeedWacker]

I've always thought there were two basic problems with GhR:
1.  The OICW/GL
2.  Sensors

The solution to Fridge's original problem would be to:
1.  Slow the rate of fire of the OICW/GL
2.  Eliminate sensors altogether (or, if they must stay, limit their distance and allow only 1 per kit)

I have done both on the games I host (I don't host CBs) and the games are still fun and seem more fair.

Now, the issue of spawn versus smoke location.  I think some maps have preferred spawns (e.g. GT, SH) but most don't.  The "rush to the smoke" tactic doesn't work often enough to be an excuse for losing.  Actually, I like to rush to near the smoke and wait for the other team to try to take the smoke.  Tactics aren't set in stone, adjust yours to match the gametype and spawn location.

[Fridge!]

I don't think you understand Warzone isn't always about winning by the smoke.  The premise for Warzone is to work as a team to either wipe out the opposing force or maintain control of the Warzone for 3 mins.

     No, that is just the details of warzone, all you've done is explained how it works, which is you win by either controlling the warzone for a certain duration, or by wiping out the other team.  Warzone was introduced, however, because in LMS teams could simply plant a sensor net near their base and camp behind it for the entirety of the match.  Warzone made it so that teams could no longer do that; it forced teams to engage, to move forward or else they would lose.  That is what it was implemented for, that is the issue it set out to resolve, that was the premise for its inclusion into the battle league.

Can you imagine playing with a 2 min Warzone timer on larger maps like Vilinus, Farmday, Roadblock?  Teams will be forced to take the shortest routes possible just so they can get to the Warzone before it expires.  You would have no time to flank around the map.  Warzone would turn into a game as to who can run the fastest to the middle without getting shot. 

Yes, and that is what warzone is currently at three minutes.  It is an initial race to the warzone, and the team who loses the race then has a narrow time margin to work within in order to regain it.  You usually can't choose the route that makes the most sense from a survival standpoint in order to attack the wz once you commit yourself to going for it but, rather, you're generally forced to choose between one of the quickest routes, which are always well defended.  So basically, a considerable portion of who wins and who loses is determined by how well your spawn point facilitates you ability to take the wz before the other team does.

And a 4 min Warzone isn't going to help either, it would turn games into the ultimate camp fest.  After 6 mins into a game if noone has gotten the Warzone there would be no point in doing so, causing teams to sit back and play Team LMS for the last 4 mins.  Extending to 15 min games would lenghten CB's and I thought the league was trying to shorten the length of clan battles this season.

     Yes, and currently if the warzone hasn't been taken after 7 minutes then the teams can sit back and play team lms but, seriously, When has the warzone ever not been taken by the 6 minute point in a game.  It's usually taken in the first 30 seconds.

     Also, as you reveal through this statement, you're only true objection to lenghthening the wz timer is your concern for the length of cb's.  The only reason that you believe a longer warzone timer would make it campy is because, if nobody had taken the warzone after six minutes then you could just sit back and play lms.  Again though, that is an extremely rare case, the warzone is almost always taken very early in the game, and it almost never takes 6 minutes to gain control of it.  Teams don't leave the warzone unguarded either, if one team is going to retake the warzone from the other, people will die, firefights will ensue.

So look at it like this, with a 4 minute timer in a 10 minute game:

One team usually controls the warzone within the first minute, almost always.  The other team then has 4 minutes to retake the warzone.  Therefore, the absolute latest that they can retake the warzone is at the 5 minute mark.  Firefights will ensue, people will die in the exchange of the warzone.  Then the other team, has 4 minutes to make another attempt to retake the warzone or they still lose.  More firefights will ensue, more people will die in the exchange of the warzone.  So you see, even within only a 10 minute time frame, there will still be three major warzone exchanges, assuming that both teams survive the first two.  Lets be realistic, it will very rarely ammount to a campy lms standoff and, therefore, there is no valid reason for having a three minute warzone inistead of a four minute warzone.

The only problem is a few maps have some spawn point disadvantages but any good player knows how to make this situation to their advantage.  There's no point in changing the system that has been working fine for the past years.

LOL, WHAT!  Any good player knows how to turn getting fucked by the spawn points to their advantage.  So now you are suggesting that there is an advantage to having to attack a fortified position without superior numbers, and within a narrow time frame.  You can try and turn the situation around, but you can't use it to your advantage that the other team has an advantage over you.  

As for there's no point in changing the system because it has worked, if it is logically laid out before you that amending the system would infact result in the system's increased facilitation of the goal it sets out to achieve, and you can not defeat the logic with solid logical reasoning of your own, then you should accept the proposal, for it is more reasonable than the current one.  That is how everything works, that is how it is improvements are made.  The question you are asking is, "why improve anything?"  Why improve automobile technology if cars already work?  Systems don't reach a state of functionality, and thereafter refuse to consider all proposals to improve it, because it already works.

[Fridge!]

I've always thought there were two basic problems with GhR:
1.  The OICW/GL
2.  Sensors

The solution to Fridge's original problem would be to:
1.  Slow the rate of fire of the OICW/GL
2.  Eliminate sensors altogether (or, if they must stay, limit their distance and allow only 1 per kit)

I have done both on the games I host (I don't host CBs) and the games are still fun and seem more fair.

Now, the issue of spawn versus smoke location.  I think some maps have preferred spawns (e.g. GT, SH) but most don't.  The "rush to the smoke" tactic doesn't work often enough to be an excuse for losing.  Actually, I like to rush to near the smoke and wait for the other team to try to take the smoke.  Tactics aren't set in stone, adjust yours to match the gametype and spawn location.

Heh, I was actually thinking about that yesterday, if so many people hate GL spamming, then why don't they simply slow the rate of fire on the GL down.  It wouldn't kill long range nading, it would simply make it so that in order to long range nade effectively you needed to be more accurate, to have more skill.  Puts the art into long range nading, I fully agree with you on that.

As for the preferred spawns thing, here look at it like this:

FIRSTLY:  considering how spawn locations affect the ability of the DAMN BL's current system to determine who are the best clans.

1.  As long as a map is asymmetrical, there will always be a discrepancy between spawn locations, there will always be one that is better than another to some degree.  CORRECT.

2.  The majority of Ghost Recon maps are asymmetrical.  CORRECT.

3.  The greater that spawn location discrepancies advantage one team over another, the greater the element of luck within the game.  CORRECT.

4.  The greater the role that luck plays in determining the outcome of a game, the lesser the role that skill plays in a game and, therefore, the lesser the role that skill plays in the cb.  CORRECT.

5.  Therefore, the greater the spawn location discrepancies, the lesser the role that skill plays in the cb, and the lesser that determination of skill and ability accomplished through the cb.  CORRECT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECONDLY: considering how to reduce the affect of spawn location discrepancies without making the game worse.

6.  The greater the ammount of time one team has to make their assault on the warzone, the greater their tactical possibilities in making that assault.  CORRECT.

7.  The greater the role that tactics are able to play in a cb, the greater the determination of skill in that cb.  CORRECT.

8.  However, most people seem to agree that they do not want a cb that has a maximum duration of over 10 minutes.  So that is the timeframe we have to work within.  CORRECT.

9.  Therefore, the warzone timer duration that is the longest possible, yet does not unacceptably compromise the ability of a game to be determined within the 10 minute time frame is the best solution.  CORRECT.

10.  Therefore, if the warzone timer duration can be increased without unacceptably compromising the ability of a game to be determined within the 10 minute time frame, logically, it should ammended.  CORRECT.

11.  Therefore it should be considered whether warzone will still function within a 10 minute time frame if the warzone timer is even increased by only 30 - 90 seconds, for if it can be and still remain functional, it will improve the game, it will put more skill into the game.  CORRECT.

Now do you honestly believe that 3 minutes is THE GOLDEN NUMBER, that if you go even 30 seconds over 3 minutes on the timer, warzone no longer works and it turns it into campy LMS?  If not, then unless you can point out a flaw in the prior reasoning, then you are consciously choosing to not improve the DAMN BL by refusing the proposition because, you just don't feel like getting around to making changes.

Has any other duration ever been tested?  NO.  At least not that I am aware of, and I was around when warzone was first introduced.  Nobody has ever tried a different time, and yet everybody assumes that three minutes is the maximum that the timer can be before warzone stops working and the game starts becoming campy.  You don't need to think in terms of minute intervals, the warzone timer could be made 3:26 seconds for all it matters, and if warzone still works at 3:26 seconds, then it is better for the BL, unless again, you can punch a logical hole through my prior reasoning.  So lets try it, and lets change it; lets make it better.

[WeedWacker]

How about playing a team version of HH?

[PUNiSHER™]

Take a poll, I'm betting over 90% of the people that play clan battles say leave Warzone the way it is.

[WeedWacker]

Two more polls to add then:

1.  Slow down the OICW/GL?
2.  Eliminate sensors (or at least reduce their range and number of sensors per kit)? 

Edit:  Poll posted...

[Croosch]

At first I opposed the thought of adding warzone... now that's the only gametype I play.  You're right fridge, it is the luck of the draw off the spawn... but with good teamwork any clan can go for the win.  Do you think the most winning clans since warzone has been added always get lucky?  It adds a really cool aspect to the game.  I was just like you on this issue when it was first brought to the *DBL but over time I think everybody who's been here realized it's actually a damn good addition.

[BFG]

... and a lot of people forget that people can still choose to play LMS if they want. All *DAMN did was add new options for players to choose.

[Fridge!]

At first I opposed the thought of adding warzone... now that's the only gametype I play.  You're right fridge, it is the luck of the draw off the spawn... but with good teamwork any clan can go for the win.  Do you think the most winning clans since warzone has been added always get lucky?  It adds a really cool aspect to the game.  I was just like you on this issue when it was first brought to the *DBL but over time I think everybody who's been here realized it's actually a damn good addition.

I'm not opposed to warzone, I just feel it can be improved and can display why in a logical fashion. 

No, i never said anything to even imply that the winning clans have always been the lucky clans, I merely stated that the current system adds a greater degree of luck to the game than it would if it were improved in the fashion I have suggested.  Luck counteracts determinations of skill, if you want the DBL to most accurately determine who are the best clans, then the scenario where the most is dependent upon skill is ideal. 

[Fridge!]

... and a lot of people forget that people can still choose to play LMS if they want. All *DAMN did was add new options for players to choose.

I dont' think LMS is a better system, I stated multiple times that I believed warzone to be a better system than LMS, i merely argued that the current warzone version can and should be improved, and as of yet, nobody has been able to punch any hole through the logic I used to approach this conclusion.  If you can't find a logical flaw in the structure to the argument, then you can't logically disagree with it.

[WeedWacker]

... and a lot of people forget that people can still choose to play LMS if they want. All *DAMN did was add new options for players to choose.

LMS would mean even more camp-fests than WZ.

[onwig]

oh.. would'nt the world be great if say, two football teams had the same stats, the same players, the same colour kits. would make an interesting game.

[Fridge!]

This topic has been discussed over and over and over and over....  We have played with an abundance of maps, game styles, weapons, and mods....  The problem is the game is just getting old.  I have been playing this for about 3 and a half years now (almost daily  <-- and thats an understatement).  I have played with all kinds of different warzones and all types of weapon mods (2 reccomendations in this thread)....  They are all crap.  Changing the original weapons of the game has never passed a vote and always gets turned down... As far as random warzones....?  WZ pops up after 3 minutes = 3 minutes of camping and 7 minutes of game time...  Which is no different than what it generally is now.  And random placement of warzones?  So it actually MAKES camping a tactic until you know what the fuck your objective is  (where the warzone is).   And then...  WZ gets placed in the middle of your camp and you are all set... woohoo...  yeah... great fun.

 

Oh yeah... I forgot to comment on increasing WZ time.  Say you increase the timer by a minute (say 4 minutes total)  that means the game turns into LMS at six minutes into game instead of seven.  SO NO.  Increasing warzone timer just takes pressure off teams to get it... because it becomes non-important.  4 MINUTES is a LOT of fucking time to get the WZ.  Every second the WZ timer is increased turns the game into LMS that much quicker.

Or.... Look at it this way: Increasing timer by a minute will make clans in even more of a hurry to get warzone because now you have to control it before 6 minutes instead of seven.... Oh but I forgot that the WZ appears after 3 minutes...  So now you HAVE to get WZ between 3rd minute and 6th minute... RUSH RUSH RUSH.

And as far as the DBL determining which clans are the best in GhR Adv... we already know... there are 9 clans that play.  Those clans and their members are the best...  cause they ACTUALLY PLAY in the DBL.

Every point you posted has already been posted by somebody else in this thread and been responded to.  Except for one...

WZ pops up after 3 minutes = 3 minutes of camping and 7 minutes of game time...  Which is no different than what it generally is now.

What do you mean that by setting it so that the warzone pops up after 1 - 3 minutes in the game, that will lead to camping for those initial minutes that the warzone doesn't appear.  You have no basis for that point whatsoever, which is probably why you provided none in your post.  The warzone is still an advantage, just as it always has been, it is still tactically advantageous for your team to control the area where the warzone will appear, as when it does, you will gain a significant advantage over the other team.  As a result, you will still have two teams who push forward and fight for that advantage.  All that delaying the warzone does is it gives a team who has been disadvantaged by spawns more time at the beginning of the game to work against that disadvantage.

[Fridge!]

oh.. would'nt the world be great if say, two football teams had the same stats, the same players, the same colour kits. would make an interesting game.

Waste of a post, develops no point.

[onwig]

oh, there was a point.. i just didnt need 5 lines to explain it