BombermanBoard

fireball87 · #18 Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:15 pm

Ven wrote:

Strange you'd say that considering I was talking about the playing fields in FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS and not Bomberman....

The point is you're saying that the comparison is flawed because there are no overpowering positions in FPS's that make sniping a cheap unbeatable tactic. This is also true with Bomberman, in many ways to a much greater extent.

Ven wrote:

True suiciding in a FPS, eg; walking into a room with a rocket launcher and blowing everything up including yourself, has no point since you're not gaining any points. Not to mention it extends your respawn time by a great deal (if in a respawn mode). Martyrdom in COD4 is different than cooking a grenade (or using a rocket launcher) and blowing everything up. Martyrdom doesn't reduce from your score. Secondly, at the highest level in the game (Hardcore Mode), no one uses Martyrdom because it's detrimental to your team.

Fine, even then if you can guarantee a kill on both you and an opponent in an FPS (non re-spawn mode). That will win you the match or increase your odds (by taking out more then one enemy. That is a fair and legal move (though very pointless, I could just toss the nade in the room without running to it, nothing to gain in position by suicide). I still play for more then just points... why you'll see me playing alot of the classes that often take big risks for little point rewards like engineers. Points are not what wins games.

Ven wrote:

This also goes back to to what I was saying earlier about the skilled people not suiciding. Is it because they've enforced this "unspoken rule" upon themselves? Or is it because of the other 2 reasons I listed earlier? That is debatable. I think it's because of the latter.

Yeah, if you say its not acceptable or useful then its certainly because of the former. If its because of the latter (aka it is useless) then why care either way... there are obviously times when suicide is a valid and useful solution. They aren't commonplace though.

Ven wrote:

I've seen that article posted plenty of times. It's old. The article has some points and fails at others. As evident if you click the forum link for that article the 15+ pages of arguing going on..

Of course its argued, this is a debate point. Its opinion, not binary true and false. Do you really think we are arguing about white and black? And what if it is old, it still follows a line of thought that is close to mine. If anyone can PROVE any of his points are fully wrong then I'll be interested. Opinion on what is more or less ethics and strategy isn't white and black.

Ven wrote:

Interstingly enough (on a somewhat unrelated note), that article was posted in a similar discussion on another website (about bomberman). A clan (Excessive Force - EF) who says they play bomberman blast competitively, went out on other websites looking for challenges in team battles. So after going to their website and reading up on some of their previous clan matches, I read that some of them were implementing and praising each other for "game winning suicides" for a previous clan battle they won. So after putting in my 2 cents, one of their clan members tried to give me that website again. Needless to say I challenged them to 3 vs 1 "clan match" and they got owned.

Just because you can beat that clan really proves nothing anyway, I already am aware of your level of skill. Using "I'm better at the game then you" as a point to your argument will do nothing but piss me/people off. We aren't playing bomberman right now, we are talking/debating. Don't try to belittle those who disagree with you and stick to making points. Mudslinging accomplishes little.

You are better at me/them then bomberman. That in no way makes you right.

Ven wrote:

Depending if it's the suicide that killed you or the suicide that detonated your bomb, that's the difference between having a net score of 0 or a score of -20 (and that's even if your successful killing the person). If the latter, it's "punishment". Again, said scoring reduction was entered for a reason.

You'll have to elaborate on this. Layout the possible scores that you can get using only these 3 scoring elements (+20 kill, -20 killed and -20 suicide). I'm having a hard time understanding what would cause the -40 +20 score. Can you get "Killed by another bomber" and "Suicide" in the same death then?

(On a side note, this is a side part of the conversation, losing points for something doesn't make something not a valid tactic in the realm of wins and losses, it just makes it so its not something you'll do often if your primary goal is to gain points)

Ven wrote:

Edit: This discussion is also taking place on the bmoworld forums (8 for yes 5 for now so far). I found it interesting that some of the people who said Yes it's acceptable latter used very harsh descriptive words for those using said tactic. When asked on it, they said the topic asked whether or not it was acceptable, not if they like it.

Yes, the topic is kind of ambiguous in the fact that is it saying "Is it acceptable/unacceptable to be allowed/banned from tournaments" or "Is it acceptable or not and do I like it?" I guess I was going for the latter.

Then the question comes up is not liking something an excuse for trying to enforce it on others? If its valid play in tourneys why should it not be valid play in friendly games?

Ven wrote:

It'd be kind of hard to force such thing in a tournament. Or it'd be hard to program in a game because you'd have to make the computer differentiate between who's suiciding/what chains are being activated by the action.

While the game would have a hard time telling if something was on purpose or not it'd not be hard to enforce such a rule in a tourney. Just handle it like you handle most tournament judgment, with a judge/referee. People enforce plenty of hard to call things in tournaments. I'm willing to bet that the reason its not a rule in tournaments is because the hosts of the tournaments don't consider it against game rules and they don't want to take the time to enforce their own.