One thing to keep in mind though, anyone who kills a hostage gets penned in the next round. I dont know how many teams are willing to lose a guy for a round, when it may in fact cost you a match...
lol, not exaclty RED....genesis, let's say you alrdy saved an hostage, you can kill the hostage left and still win the round ??? aint sure of that, but if yes, it's sometimes worth the player life....
Human...You are right that if you've already saved one, killing the other will win you the round. But the price of losing a man, especially if it's a 5v5 or 4v4 game, could be very costly.
If you lost 20% of your team because someone wants a quick win in an early round, doesn't really accomplish much, if the other team comes back the next round to tie it up, say 1-1. If it's dire straights, then yeah, at 2-2, with the map on the line, I would certainly kill a hostage for the win. Or let a hostage die even.
Yup genesis, we'll have to see how many players in a team for hostage games we'll be allowe to have and then decide if it's worth the player or not....
I think it would be REALLY lame if you allowed a team to win who rescued one hostage and killed the other. The mission is to rescue the HOSTAGES (plural), not save one and then just go half assed after the other and if you kill him, oh well.
I don't know about you all but it sacrificing a man for ONE ROUND so you can win that map really doesn't seem like an equal trade to me.
What if it's the 3rd map, round 5, and one team saves a hostage and kills the other to win the match? That would definately piss me off if I was the losing team.
Had a long-ish talk with Wiz last night, and we were talking about ladder rules for a composite ladder. One of the things brought up was this discussion.
What we came up with was absolutely nothing in regards to this situation. According to the game, you win. According to common sense, it doesn't really work that way.
I think if a ladder starts up for the other mods (other than TS) hostage may be left off the list to start out with. If it is on the ladder, then it may be a trial, so that we can see how many people actually exploit this little strategy...
then people would just frag the hostage room and kill any enemies that may be there... without having to worry about killing the hostage... don't know if that works... but good thought... can't say - kill a hostage save a hostage... but we do have the abiliity to ss... and if someone kills a hostage and it is ss'd... it shouldn't be an issue as far as who did it... now the question is what are the ramifications for killing a hostage... how bout if it is red... the map is replayed a man down.... if it is green... the map is lost for killing a hostage?? don't know if these remedies are equal... but either is defending attacking... so put the burden on the attackers... just an idea... although i admit far from perfect...
Well, in a best of 3 scenario, if both teams are tied 2-2 then the defenders would simply be rushing about to kill the hostages. Kind of makes it unbalanced in that all the defending team really needs to do is to win 2 and then goes balls out to kill hostages.
If they kill the hostages and win the deciding round, who would care if they would get penned next round...because there wouldn't BE a next round.
The very existence of flame throwers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said, "You know, I wanna set those people over there on fire. But I'm just not close enough to get the job done".