<!--quoteo(post=1960903:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:13 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->yeah, I could necro a thread from march for a new guy who thinks he knows everything and won't search the forums
or I could make fun of you
######, where was I?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then prepare to fail. You're the one that wants the game changed. You have to convince people of the benefits of this change. You can grumble that you've already fought this war, and that everybody should go and find your post so they can agree or disagree with you, but nobody will do so. As somebody who wants change you have to push for change. If people held one protest for change, outlining their ideas and wants, and then casually went back to the way things were, grumbling to people they meet about how things should be different, and then saying "go research it" if they get questioned about any aspects of it, they're not going to convince anybody. People assume this is a dead topic that was solved in the past, if it's still not being rallied for today.
EDIT: It's only really an "old" thread if the topic is out of date or beyond discussion. Many forums prefer you to necro old threads if you're discussing the same topic, instead of continuously making new threads. Maybe the rules are different here. Why don't you copy paste the opening post from it then? Since it's months old, I'm sure nobody will mind you re-posting the topic.
For really big topics that get tedious to explain to new people every time, sometimes it can help to put a name to a problem that is often brought up. A sort of FAQ of the topic. Such as "But why is bunnyhopping better than walljumping" with some name like the "Bunnyhopping Problem," which is an easily accessible topic linked somewhere that outlines the stance. This is often done in religious debates over the nature of morality depending on God with the "Euthyphro dilemma." Or in feminism with having a name for "mansplaining."
<!--quoteo(post=1960903:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:13 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it's too bad my only proof is 17 years of quake-like FPS games succeeding, including the first NS game
If only I had a full mathematical model with a bunch of theorem proofs and case studies. Dang, I guess I'm just not cut out for this game design stuff. Can you teach me?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And sadly, that's not proof. That's just conditioned preference due to experience. It's like when people claim proof of angels because, after praying, a nice man drove up out of nowhere and helped them fix their tire on a back-country road. If anything that lends more evidence to the idea that this is a very personal and subjective problem, and that the newer market won't have these 17 years of quake-like FPS gaming to compare NS2 to, allowing NS2 to be its own thing.
You don't need a mathematical model, or theorem proofs. You could probably do case studies, though they probably aren't required on this topic. If you're not cut out for debating (or game design) then you could always go learn it. Why would a game designer take advice from somebody who isn't making good decisions for the game on the whole as a product to be shared by many, but for instead for just themself? If you could convince enough people in the newer market that an old way was better, maybe you'd be able to get more attention and shift game design priorities.
Maybe just try to focus on more tangible things. Outline why bunnyhopping is beneficial. If it's more skillful than a current system, outline why that extra skill barrier is desirable, why those without the skill wont be too underpowered because of it, or why those with it wont be overpowered. Why the current system isn't good with reasons other than personal preference. What gameplay mechanic does a faster skulks serve that isn't already served?
As it stands, with current balance issues, faster organised skulks would just break the game because its easy enough to base rush the marines and kill their IPs and base right off. Hopefully that'll be fixed by release though.
<!--quoteo(post=1960911:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then prepare to fail. You're the one that wants the game changed. You have to convince people of the benefits of this change. You can grumble that you've already fought this war, and that everybody should go and find your post so they can agree or disagree with you, but nobody will do so. As somebody who wants change you have to push for change. If people held one protest for change, outlining their ideas and wants, and then casually went back to the way things were, grumbling to people they meet about how things should be different, and then saying "go research it" if they get questioned about any aspects of it, they're not going to convince anybody. People assume this is a dead topic that was solved in the past, if it's still not being rallied for today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to have the game changed, because as I said it's much too late. I just want to see if more than 3 people on these forums know anything about anything. So far it's not the case.
Thank you for educating me about how to affect change, though. This seems to be your speciality.
<!--quoteo(post=1960911:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And sadly, that's not proof. That's just conditioned preference due to experience. It's like when people claim proof of angels because, after praying, a nice man drove up out of nowhere and helped them fix their tire on a back-country road. If anything that lends more evidence to the idea that this is a very personal and subjective problem, and that the newer market won't have these 17 years of quake-like FPS gaming to compare NS2 to, allowing NS2 to be its own thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
have you learned about inductive proof in high school yet?
<!--quoteo(post=1960911:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You don't need a mathematical model, or theorem proofs. You could probably do case studies, though they probably aren't required on this topic. If you're not cut out for debating (or game design) then you could always go learn it. Why would a game designer take advice from somebody who isn't making good decisions for the game on the whole as a product to be shared by many, but for instead for just themself? If you could convince enough people in the newer market that an old way was better, maybe you'd be able to get more attention and shift game design priorities.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not making <b>any </b>decisions on the product. Why should they listen to me? Because I'm a beta tester, and I've written and thought more about this game than the kids who show up on day one to say WOW I LOVE THIS GAME I'M GONNA RECOMMEND IT TO ALL MY FRIENDS ON XANGA
<!--quoteo(post=1960911:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe just try to focus on more tangible things. Outline why bunnyhopping is beneficial. If it's more skillful than a current system, outline why that extra skill barrier is desirable, why those without the skill wont be too underpowered because of it, or why those with it wont be overpowered. Why the current system isn't good with reasons other than personal preference. What gameplay mechanic does a faster skulks serve that isn't already served?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's almost like that's what my linked thread is for. You should try reading it.
<!--quoteo(post=1960911:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As it stands, with current balance issues, faster organised skulks would just break the game because its easy enough to base rush the marines and kill their IPs and base right off. Hopefully that'll be fixed by release though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if by balance issues you mean "completely unacceptable level of hit registration and graphics performance", then sure. It's not that the rules of the game mean you can't have fast skulks. If you think anything we're talking about will even be <i>touched </i>by release, you're deluded...which makes sense since you're new.
@myself I would like to believe it is possible to solve the problems ns2 has without looking at ns1 as the only possible solution for everything... (it wont be magically done in a week tho)
<!--quoteo(post=1960914:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:37 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Aug 10 2012, 11:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960914"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@myself I would like to believe it is possible to solve the problems ns2 has without looking at ns1 as the only possible solution for everything... (it wont be magically done in a week tho)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a lot of people would like to believe that, and so far the evidence is against them (since this game isn't shaping up too well)
of course it's possible, but the approach so far has amounted to "not copying ns1" with little real thought or analysis beyond that...lots of experimentation, lots of (nigh on useless) feedback, but no real game design
<!--quoteo(post=1960915:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:38 PM:name=CobraCommander)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CobraCommander @ Aug 10 2012, 11:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960915"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll sum up all the posts in this thread with 2 words : MOVEMENT CHAMBERS!!
Please bring them back :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
we have them, they're called shifts...they do the same things MCs did but it doesn't work out the same way because the movement mechanics are crippled
"not copying ns1" shouldnt be the priority ofc, but we should try to stay open and not act like "look at ns1 - thats the only option there is, if you dont do it like that you are incompetent and i hate you and this game" (thats how the beginning of this thread looks - it just doesnt bring anyone further... )
<!--quoteo(post=1960919:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:46 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Aug 10 2012, 11:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960919"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well maybe we should stop trying to win arguments against eachother then, and instead try to make proper solutions that are not "look at ns1 - thats the only option there is, if you dont do it i hate you and this game"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do I need to dig up all the posts where someone did this and got crushed under a wall of these phrases? <ul><li>it's a beta</li><li>it can't be like ns1!</li><li>you're an elitist</li><li>I like it fine the way it is</li><li>we're doing that after release, not before</li><li>we tried that in the first month of the beta and it didn't work so we're never approaching it again</li></ul>
I mean, hell, the OP shows up and gives his honest feedback about the game. What happens? A bunch of kids who aren't any different from him show up and tell him he's wrong and that he doesn't know what he's talking about. "Making proper solutions" is for people with jobs, who are getting paid. Like the developers of NS2.
Even beyond that, there's another issue: before you can make a solution you have to acknowledge that there is a problem. If people aren't willing to admit that this game isn't destined for success outside their niche community of fanboys, you certainly won't convince them about why walljumping sucks and bhop is superior.
<!--quoteo(post=1960920:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:48 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 10 2012, 11:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960920"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[*]we tried that in the first month of the beta and it didn't work so we're never approaching it again<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't want to have the game changed, because as I said it's much too late. I just want to see if more than 3 people on these forums know anything about anything. So far it's not the case.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> More rhetoric. It'd be more convincing if you said "if more than 3 people on these forums agreed with me." As it stands, it just makes you look more ego-centric by equating your opinion with knowledge, and the value of your credibility is weakened because of it. I'm glad you have an exclusive club of people who don't enjoy the game though. Feel free to not-enjoy it together and wear that status with honour.
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thank you for educating me about how to affect change, though. This seems to be your speciality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're welcome. Though I didn't so much tell you how to affect change in any way that wasn't obvious already. ("Convince people.") More I just told you what doesn't convince people, such as claiming anybody who doesn't agree with you doesn't know anything, because they're fresh, likely casual, and as such have no good opinions. I suppose you could convince people with threats of violence, if you have an army. It's not an entirely outdated model of 'debate', though less likely to succeed on these forums.
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->have you learned about inductive proof in high school yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you? Inductive Reasoning is contrasted with Deductive Reasoning. If your point is there's no way to deal with facts on the 'feel' of a game mechanic, then you're right. Using your personal experience as "proof" of this isn't going to make a strong argument, though you're free to try. You might have a stronger argument if you can get similar opinions from people with high reputations in competitive gaming, or a few devs, or well known NS1 players. Even then though, the value of those opinions will only be so much as they're relevant to the game, NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not making <b>any </b>decisions on the product. Why should they listen to me? Because I'm a beta tester, and I've written and thought more about this game than the kids who show up on day one to say WOW I LOVE THIS GAME I'M GONNA RECOMMEND IT TO ALL MY FRIENDS ON XANGA<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're a beta tester because you pre-ordered the game (unless I'm mistaken, sorry for assuming this if that's the case). If you were hand-picked for your expertise, or valued opinion, then maybe your status would be a little higher. At the moment though, your opinion one way is directly counteracted by all those kids because they're also 'beta testers.' Though definitely not as useful, which is why you establish your reputation as a critical thinking person capable of analysis of the game through action, not through a position you paid to have.
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's almost like that's what my linked thread is for. You should try reading it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I did. It was more formulated than this one, though still didn't convince me quite through, but that's just me personally and it might be more persuasive to who knows how many others. My point was that you should have linked that when it was brought up (prefferebly, the thread author should have linked it, since it's brought up in the opening post). Keep that link handy.
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if by balance issues you mean "completely unacceptable level of hit registration and graphics performance", then sure. It's not that the rules of the game mean you can't have fast skulks. If you think anything we're talking about will even be <i>touched </i>by release, you're deluded...which makes sense since you're new.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hit registration could fall under balance issues, as it affects how the teams can combat each other. Exos are yet to release, which will affect end-game balance more so than early-game.
If you've given up on having the game changed to your liking, then have fun pointlessly whining and ranting, because you obviously know there's no point to what you're doing. At least you aren't insane then, by expecting different results each time. Unless you're expecting more people to agree with you, even while the forums are being filled with even more new people...
As for the "you're new so you don't understand" comment, nice ad hominem. With that, you're trying to attack/discredit me, and by extension my argument, while not actually attacking my argument. I can forgive that though, since, as you said, you're new to debating. ;) =P
internetexplorer, I'm with you... but I try to be optimistic... I really try to be.
I will come clean and be honest. When I look back at development for NS1 versus development for NS2, I see that the developer(s) listened to the community more and especially to the competitive community so much so that there was that veteran group made of the top competitive clans of the day to voice concerns and suggestions. Who else understood the current mechanics than people who played the dang game pro/semi pro every day? Bottom line, Charlie looked where we looked. Development was pretty OPEN..
Now, I feel like we are getting the hand, we are dismissed or ignored. I'm all for new stuff! but I want development to be honest with itself rather than push some idea cause it was "cool", "new", or "different".
<!--quoteo(post=1960928:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:58 PM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 10 2012, 11:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960928"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for the "you're new so you don't understand" comment, nice ad hominem. With that, you're trying to attack/discredit me, and by extension my argument, while not actually attacking my argument. I can forgive that though, since, as you said, you're new to debating. ;) =P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you literally don't have an argument, though
you're just writing all the buzzwords you learned in a debate class and telling me why everything I say is invalid
I'm not new to debating, but I know that I would have to be insane to treat some nerd on a forum like a real person debating a real issue, where the results could have a measurable impact on my life.
There's no question that you're "new", either. Your title clearly indicates you registered in the last week and have very few posts. Despite what you may claim about browsing 'during alpha' (itself a logical fallacy, an appeal to accomplishment), all I see is this
<i>Posts: 12 Joined: 5-August 12</i>
I'm a tremendous ###### for making a big deal out of that, but what does mine say?
<i>Posts: 1,250 Joined: 13-October 11</i>
My post history is like a drunken library of alexandria, and you could learn a lot from worshipping me instead of trying to be a junior dawkins musketeer.
<!--quoteo(post=1960916:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:40 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960916"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->a lot of people would like to believe that, and so far the evidence is against them (since this game isn't shaping up too well)
of course it's possible, but the approach so far has amounted to "not copying ns1" with little real thought or analysis beyond that...lots of experimentation, lots of (nigh on useless) feedback, but no real game design
we have them, they're called shifts...they do the same things MCs did but it doesn't work out the same way because the movement mechanics are crippled<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you might have a point there. This game does have balance issues, and from memory NS1 didn't seem to have similar problems. It's possible that bunnyhopping (which would affect balance) could be a step towards fixing those balance issues.
Comparing Shifts with MCs based on their function is a good point, and I think backs up your reasoning behind movement a bit.
<!--quoteo(post=1960920:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:48 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960920"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do I need to dig up all the posts where someone did this and got crushed under a wall of these phrases? <ul><li>it's a beta</li><li>it can't be like ns1!</li><li>you're an elitist</li><li>I like it fine the way it is</li><li>we're doing that after release, not before</li><li>we tried that in the first month of the beta and it didn't work so we're never approaching it again</li></ul>
I mean, hell, the OP shows up and gives his honest feedback about the game. What happens? A bunch of kids who aren't any different from him show up and tell him he's wrong and that he doesn't know what he's talking about. "Making proper solutions" is for people with jobs, who are getting paid. Like the developers of NS2.
Even beyond that, there's another issue: before you can make a solution you have to acknowledge that there is a problem. If people aren't willing to admit that this game isn't destined for success outside their niche community of fanboys, you certainly won't convince them about why walljumping sucks and bhop is superior.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you on this
Just in order: 1. - That's an observation. Sure, it has some relevance sometimes (like maybe on more polish-tier aspects of design) but largely saying something is a beta is a bit of a cop-out excuse. 2. - Not true really. It shouldn't necessarily be like ns1, but it doesn't have to strive to be different either. 3. - Ad Hominem, so yes you should disregard this because it's trying to paint your argument as invalid because it comes from an "elitist." 4. - This is just a reverse of "I don't like it how it is." and is just about as useless without any sort of reasoning given for it. 5. - I've seen this said a bit too, which seems odd. If it's something trivial then fine, I guess, but something bigger should probably be fit in before any release date. 6. - I can sort of see this one working, but at the same time it happened in the past. If something didn't work out good in the past, new factors that have been introduced/removed in subsequent patches of the game might affect the way that previously-tried idea would work, and it might have more favourable results on gameplay. So I guess it depends on how much the game has changed, and in what ways, since the last time they tried that.
The feeling that "making proper solutions is for people with jobs, who are getting paid" is an Appeal to Authority, I think. The idea that "the devs know what's right because they're the devs." In some ways this is convincing, because the devs have expertise in game design, but it's not a reason on its own to disregard somebody's opinion just because they aren't a game designer or employed by a game company. Either that or it's a Might Makes Right way of looking at things, where "it's the devs game because they have the power, so what they say goes." which is... TECHNICALLY true in practise, but just because what they ultimately say is what happens doesn't necessarily mean it's the best, or even a good decision.
I wouldn't call your opposition kids just because they don't agree with you though, even if you get that impression from the way they type or anything, it's just more ad hominem.
True that admitting/realising a problem is the first step. If you don't know it's broken you can't fix it. Personally, I don't THINK the game is broken in regards to bunnyhopping, but maybe I'm wrong. In other areas I know it's definitely not perfect though. I think Fades are a bit overpowered as they are, though I don't know if that's in this discussion, I think it was brought up in the opening topic right?
<!--quoteo(post=1960937:date=Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you literally don't have an argument, though<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> True, because I'm not trying to argue one way or the other. I'm just saying your argument is unconvincing, I'm not trying to argue that that there should or shouldn't be Bunnyhopping. So maybe it's less a debate and more you trying to convince somebody and them saying they're still unconvinced.
<!--quoteo(post=1960937:date=Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not new to debating, but I know that I would have to be insane to treat some nerd on a forum like a real person debating a real issue, where the results could have a measurable impact on my life.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That seems like a perception problem. True, you're likely not going to find much useful discussion in youtube comments, or on the internet in general, but why give up on the possibility (especially on a beta-forum). Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen. People on the internet are real people too, and issues are only as real as you take them. There are at least two people here, sure not face to face, discussing a topic.
<!--quoteo(post=1960937:date=Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's no question that you're "new", either. Your title clearly indicates you registered in the last week and have very few posts. Despite what you may claim about browsing 'during alpha' (itself a logical fallacy, an appeal to accomplishment), all I see is this
<i>Posts: 12 Joined: 5-August 12</i>
I'm a tremendous ###### for making a big deal out of that, but what does mine say?
<i>Posts: 1,250 Joined: 13-October 11</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, it's probably an Appeal to Accomplishment, though it was in response to an Ad Hominem, so either way it's a useless argument. I still don't see how signing up an account to the forums late invalidates an argument, but you acknowledge that.
As for what it says:
You've had a registered account longer. You've been a more active member of the forums.
In this case though, it doesn't really prove anything about age. You don't need an account to browse these forums, as it's visible to all guests. There could be somebody out there now who still hasn't made an account because they don't like to post, but they've been browsing since the forums first came up.
On The Escapist, I have an account I started in 2005, and I only have something like 7 posts in it.
So perhaps it's less about newness and more about involvement?
<!--quoteo(post=1960937:date=Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My post history is like a drunken library of alexandria, and you could learn a lot from worshipping me instead of trying to be a junior dawkins musketeer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet it uninterests me. Do I really have to worship you or oppose you? Isn't there some middle ground?
Also, sorry for all my own Ad Hominems, of which I think there were a quite a few. I got a bit frustrated myself with the continuous personal attacks.
<!--quoteo(post=1960949:date=Aug 11 2012, 12:27 AM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 11 2012, 12:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960949"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I got a bit frustrated myself with the continuous personal attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe... Congratulations on getting me talking this long if the whole thing were just a troll... (Though the productivity of trolling is quite questionable =P)
Otherwise, I did let your Ad Hominem's get to me a bit on the emotional level, if not the logical reasoning one. So even if I didn't let it convince me, I'm still at fault for letting it enflame me...
Just to be clear (because I probably said a few things earlier) I probably shouldn't have insulted you... So any mean things I said about you as a person (such as how things you say might sound ego-centric, and the like) I take back and apologise. =(
I don't think NS2 is perfect, but while I did play NS1, I wasn't very competitive. Maybe that make skews my perspective in a way that de-emphasises skill, or makes me less able to appreciate it?
I'll edit this just a sec when I re-check the main OP, because while I got caught on bunnyhopping, I think there was some other stuff in there too..
EDIT: <!--quoteo(post=1960820:date=Aug 11 2012, 10:11 AM:name=Kimpan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kimpan @ Aug 11 2012, 10:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960820"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And i suppose that is the reason they give fayde cloak when blinking, Since the blinking is so off and clumpsy. you get stuck everywhere. Its really sad.. It was always nice to see them blink in and out of fights and so on. Also its good in fights to use faydes to blink around the room. And the marines would shoot after him, while skulks move in and kill them, tactic. And playing as a marine and having faydes poof poof poof around with cloak just feels so cheap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just clarifying, but is he saying that you can't be seen as fades when they're blinking at the moment? As far as I know, you can still see blinking fades really easily in NS2 (they're sort of like an inkblot) and lots of marines still focus fire on them when they're blinking round their base, distracting them from Skulks.
Though you can't see them when they Shadow Step (shift key, a quick-dash forward-teleport), that's an instantaneous thing. Reading this again I think he might be confusing blink with shadowstep, though does that mean he thinks they should remove shadowstep?
Maybe shadowstep should only be useable by Fades that don't have blink? Makes it a bit more of a trade-off, though I don't know if that's desirable or not. I don't play Fade enough to really make judgment calls on them. =\ I usually go gorge at the end to bile-bomb everything, or attack (pretty badly) as an Onos. I do know that I have a lot of trouble killing Fades as a marine though, but maybe this has changed a bit since Carapace and Regeneration have been made mutually exclusive.
<!--quoteo(post=1960955:date=Aug 11 2012, 02:37 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Aug 11 2012, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960955"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would say there is a difference between insulting and trolling.
Not quite sure if calling ppl kids or stupid(like chicken) counts as trolling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True... though I guess it comes down to intent. I get annoyed when people confuse "trolls" with "people who disagree with me" for example (since that's how newcomers would learn the word through osmosis. As in, they'd see an argument on the internet, then they would see something like "Don't bother with him, he's just trolling", but they wouldn't understand the underlying intent of "trolling" and assume it just means whatever they take from that experience, whether it's "stupid" or "young" or "oppositional."
I guess it depends if the insulting was there to get some satisfaction out of making me mad or not, which is really hard to prove one way or the other. =P
Though either way, trolling and name-calling don't really contribute to a good community, unless that's the aim of the community I suppose...? I think there's at least one trolling community out there that join game servers with the intent of doing odd and nonsensical things, or otherwise angering people.
<!--quoteo(post=1960963:date=Aug 11 2012, 03:14 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 03:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960963"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everybody else claims they were trolling as a way out. I thought I'd try it. It's not as easy as it looks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, I've noticed that. =P You've probably seen the image that expresses that perfectly.
I guess that it seems to be more difficult in this situation could be taken as a compliment? That you were being taken seriously enough by everybody that the thought that you were just a mindless troll seems unrealistic/unbelievable?
I think the amount of productive dialogue that is going to occur with the continuation of this thread is pretty low. Lets try harder next time, shall we?
Comments
or I could make fun of you
######, where was I?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then prepare to fail.
You're the one that wants the game changed. You have to convince people of the benefits of this change. You can grumble that you've already fought this war, and that everybody should go and find your post so they can agree or disagree with you, but nobody will do so. As somebody who wants change you have to push for change. If people held one protest for change, outlining their ideas and wants, and then casually went back to the way things were, grumbling to people they meet about how things should be different, and then saying "go research it" if they get questioned about any aspects of it, they're not going to convince anybody. People assume this is a dead topic that was solved in the past, if it's still not being rallied for today.
EDIT: It's only really an "old" thread if the topic is out of date or beyond discussion. Many forums prefer you to necro old threads if you're discussing the same topic, instead of continuously making new threads. Maybe the rules are different here. Why don't you copy paste the opening post from it then? Since it's months old, I'm sure nobody will mind you re-posting the topic.
For really big topics that get tedious to explain to new people every time, sometimes it can help to put a name to a problem that is often brought up. A sort of FAQ of the topic. Such as "But why is bunnyhopping better than walljumping" with some name like the "Bunnyhopping Problem," which is an easily accessible topic linked somewhere that outlines the stance. This is often done in religious debates over the nature of morality depending on God with the "Euthyphro dilemma." Or in feminism with having a name for "mansplaining."
<!--quoteo(post=1960903:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:13 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it's too bad my only proof is 17 years of quake-like FPS games succeeding, including the first NS game
If only I had a full mathematical model with a bunch of theorem proofs and case studies. Dang, I guess I'm just not cut out for this game design stuff. Can you teach me?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And sadly, that's not proof. That's just conditioned preference due to experience. It's like when people claim proof of angels because, after praying, a nice man drove up out of nowhere and helped them fix their tire on a back-country road. If anything that lends more evidence to the idea that this is a very personal and subjective problem, and that the newer market won't have these 17 years of quake-like FPS gaming to compare NS2 to, allowing NS2 to be its own thing.
You don't need a mathematical model, or theorem proofs. You could probably do case studies, though they probably aren't required on this topic. If you're not cut out for debating (or game design) then you could always go learn it. Why would a game designer take advice from somebody who isn't making good decisions for the game on the whole as a product to be shared by many, but for instead for just themself? If you could convince enough people in the newer market that an old way was better, maybe you'd be able to get more attention and shift game design priorities.
Maybe just try to focus on more tangible things. Outline why bunnyhopping is beneficial. If it's more skillful than a current system, outline why that extra skill barrier is desirable, why those without the skill wont be too underpowered because of it, or why those with it wont be overpowered. Why the current system isn't good with reasons other than personal preference. What gameplay mechanic does a faster skulks serve that isn't already served?
As it stands, with current balance issues, faster organised skulks would just break the game because its easy enough to base rush the marines and kill their IPs and base right off. Hopefully that'll be fixed by release though.
You're the one that wants the game changed. You have to convince people of the benefits of this change. You can grumble that you've already fought this war, and that everybody should go and find your post so they can agree or disagree with you, but nobody will do so. As somebody who wants change you have to push for change. If people held one protest for change, outlining their ideas and wants, and then casually went back to the way things were, grumbling to people they meet about how things should be different, and then saying "go research it" if they get questioned about any aspects of it, they're not going to convince anybody. People assume this is a dead topic that was solved in the past, if it's still not being rallied for today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't want to have the game changed, because as I said it's much too late. I just want to see if more than 3 people on these forums know anything about anything. So far it's not the case.
Thank you for educating me about how to affect change, though. This seems to be your speciality.
<!--quoteo(post=1960911:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And sadly, that's not proof. That's just conditioned preference due to experience. It's like when people claim proof of angels because, after praying, a nice man drove up out of nowhere and helped them fix their tire on a back-country road. If anything that lends more evidence to the idea that this is a very personal and subjective problem, and that the newer market won't have these 17 years of quake-like FPS gaming to compare NS2 to, allowing NS2 to be its own thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
have you learned about inductive proof in high school yet?
<!--quoteo(post=1960911:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You don't need a mathematical model, or theorem proofs. You could probably do case studies, though they probably aren't required on this topic. If you're not cut out for debating (or game design) then you could always go learn it. Why would a game designer take advice from somebody who isn't making good decisions for the game on the whole as a product to be shared by many, but for instead for just themself? If you could convince enough people in the newer market that an old way was better, maybe you'd be able to get more attention and shift game design priorities.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not making <b>any </b>decisions on the product. Why should they listen to me? Because I'm a beta tester, and I've written and thought more about this game than the kids who show up on day one to say WOW I LOVE THIS GAME I'M GONNA RECOMMEND IT TO ALL MY FRIENDS ON XANGA
<!--quoteo(post=1960911:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe just try to focus on more tangible things. Outline why bunnyhopping is beneficial. If it's more skillful than a current system, outline why that extra skill barrier is desirable, why those without the skill wont be too underpowered because of it, or why those with it wont be overpowered. Why the current system isn't good with reasons other than personal preference. What gameplay mechanic does a faster skulks serve that isn't already served?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's almost like that's what my linked thread is for. You should try reading it.
<!--quoteo(post=1960911:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM:name=Shadrouge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shadrouge @ Aug 10 2012, 11:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As it stands, with current balance issues, faster organised skulks would just break the game because its easy enough to base rush the marines and kill their IPs and base right off. Hopefully that'll be fixed by release though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if by balance issues you mean "completely unacceptable level of hit registration and graphics performance", then sure. It's not that the rules of the game mean you can't have fast skulks. If you think anything we're talking about will even be <i>touched </i>by release, you're deluded...which makes sense since you're new.
I would like to believe it is possible to solve the problems ns2 has without looking at ns1 as the only possible solution for everything... (it wont be magically done in a week tho)
Please bring them back :D
I would like to believe it is possible to solve the problems ns2 has without looking at ns1 as the only possible solution for everything... (it wont be magically done in a week tho)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a lot of people would like to believe that, and so far the evidence is against them (since this game isn't shaping up too well)
of course it's possible, but the approach so far has amounted to "not copying ns1" with little real thought or analysis beyond that...lots of experimentation, lots of (nigh on useless) feedback, but no real game design
<!--quoteo(post=1960915:date=Aug 10 2012, 11:38 PM:name=CobraCommander)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CobraCommander @ Aug 10 2012, 11:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960915"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'll sum up all the posts in this thread with 2 words : MOVEMENT CHAMBERS!!
Please bring them back :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
we have them, they're called shifts...they do the same things MCs did but it doesn't work out the same way because the movement mechanics are crippled
Do I need to dig up all the posts where someone did this and got crushed under a wall of these phrases?
<ul><li>it's a beta</li><li>it can't be like ns1!</li><li>you're an elitist</li><li>I like it fine the way it is</li><li>we're doing that after release, not before</li><li>we tried that in the first month of the beta and it didn't work so we're never approaching it again</li></ul>
I mean, hell, the OP shows up and gives his honest feedback about the game. What happens? A bunch of kids who aren't any different from him show up and tell him he's wrong and that he doesn't know what he's talking about. "Making proper solutions" is for people with jobs, who are getting paid. Like the developers of NS2.
Even beyond that, there's another issue: before you can make a solution you have to acknowledge that there is a problem. If people aren't willing to admit that this game isn't destined for success outside their niche community of fanboys, you certainly won't convince them about why walljumping sucks and bhop is superior.
what were you thinking of?
lerk projectile spores
oh yeah. lerk spores in general need fixing, they are laggy as hell. i honestly don't care either way on that issue.
More rhetoric. It'd be more convincing if you said "if more than 3 people on these forums agreed with me." As it stands, it just makes you look more ego-centric by equating your opinion with knowledge, and the value of your credibility is weakened because of it. I'm glad you have an exclusive club of people who don't enjoy the game though. Feel free to not-enjoy it together and wear that status with honour.
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thank you for educating me about how to affect change, though. This seems to be your speciality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're welcome. Though I didn't so much tell you how to affect change in any way that wasn't obvious already. ("Convince people.") More I just told you what doesn't convince people, such as claiming anybody who doesn't agree with you doesn't know anything, because they're fresh, likely casual, and as such have no good opinions. I suppose you could convince people with threats of violence, if you have an army. It's not an entirely outdated model of 'debate', though less likely to succeed on these forums.
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->have you learned about inductive proof in high school yet?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you?
Inductive Reasoning is contrasted with Deductive Reasoning. If your point is there's no way to deal with facts on the 'feel' of a game mechanic, then you're right. Using your personal experience as "proof" of this isn't going to make a strong argument, though you're free to try. You might have a stronger argument if you can get similar opinions from people with high reputations in competitive gaming, or a few devs, or well known NS1 players. Even then though, the value of those opinions will only be so much as they're relevant to the game, NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not making <b>any </b>decisions on the product. Why should they listen to me? Because I'm a beta tester, and I've written and thought more about this game than the kids who show up on day one to say WOW I LOVE THIS GAME I'M GONNA RECOMMEND IT TO ALL MY FRIENDS ON XANGA<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're a beta tester because you pre-ordered the game (unless I'm mistaken, sorry for assuming this if that's the case). If you were hand-picked for your expertise, or valued opinion, then maybe your status would be a little higher. At the moment though, your opinion one way is directly counteracted by all those kids because they're also 'beta testers.' Though definitely not as useful, which is why you establish your reputation as a critical thinking person capable of analysis of the game through action, not through a position you paid to have.
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's almost like that's what my linked thread is for. You should try reading it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did. It was more formulated than this one, though still didn't convince me quite through, but that's just me personally and it might be more persuasive to who knows how many others. My point was that you should have linked that when it was brought up (prefferebly, the thread author should have linked it, since it's brought up in the opening post). Keep that link handy.
<!--quoteo(post=1960913:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if by balance issues you mean "completely unacceptable level of hit registration and graphics performance", then sure. It's not that the rules of the game mean you can't have fast skulks. If you think anything we're talking about will even be <i>touched </i>by release, you're deluded...which makes sense since you're new.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hit registration could fall under balance issues, as it affects how the teams can combat each other.
Exos are yet to release, which will affect end-game balance more so than early-game.
If you've given up on having the game changed to your liking, then have fun pointlessly whining and ranting, because you obviously know there's no point to what you're doing. At least you aren't insane then, by expecting different results each time. Unless you're expecting more people to agree with you, even while the forums are being filled with even more new people...
As for the "you're new so you don't understand" comment, nice ad hominem. With that, you're trying to attack/discredit me, and by extension my argument, while not actually attacking my argument. I can forgive that though, since, as you said, you're new to debating. ;) =P
I will come clean and be honest. When I look back at development for NS1 versus development for NS2, I see that the developer(s) listened to the community more and especially to the competitive community so much so that there was that veteran group made of the top competitive clans of the day to voice concerns and suggestions. Who else understood the current mechanics than people who played the dang game pro/semi pro every day? Bottom line, Charlie looked where we looked. Development was pretty OPEN..
Now, I feel like we are getting the hand, we are dismissed or ignored. I'm all for new stuff! but I want development to be honest with itself rather than push some idea cause it was "cool", "new", or "different".
After all.. we are all testing this *$#& out.
you literally don't have an argument, though
you're just writing all the buzzwords you learned in a debate class and telling me why everything I say is invalid
I'm not new to debating, but I know that I would have to be insane to treat some nerd on a forum like a real person debating a real issue, where the results could have a measurable impact on my life.
There's no question that you're "new", either. Your title clearly indicates you registered in the last week and have very few posts. Despite what you may claim about browsing 'during alpha' (itself a logical fallacy, an appeal to accomplishment), all I see is this
<i>Posts: 12
Joined: 5-August 12</i>
I'm a tremendous ###### for making a big deal out of that, but what does mine say?
<i>Posts: 1,250
Joined: 13-October 11</i>
My post history is like a drunken library of alexandria, and you could learn a lot from worshipping me instead of trying to be a junior dawkins musketeer.
of course it's possible, but the approach so far has amounted to "not copying ns1" with little real thought or analysis beyond that...lots of experimentation, lots of (nigh on useless) feedback, but no real game design
we have them, they're called shifts...they do the same things MCs did but it doesn't work out the same way because the movement mechanics are crippled<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you might have a point there. This game does have balance issues, and from memory NS1 didn't seem to have similar problems. It's possible that bunnyhopping (which would affect balance) could be a step towards fixing those balance issues.
Comparing Shifts with MCs based on their function is a good point, and I think backs up your reasoning behind movement a bit.
<!--quoteo(post=1960920:date=Aug 11 2012, 01:48 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 01:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960920"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do I need to dig up all the posts where someone did this and got crushed under a wall of these phrases?
<ul><li>it's a beta</li><li>it can't be like ns1!</li><li>you're an elitist</li><li>I like it fine the way it is</li><li>we're doing that after release, not before</li><li>we tried that in the first month of the beta and it didn't work so we're never approaching it again</li></ul>
I mean, hell, the OP shows up and gives his honest feedback about the game. What happens? A bunch of kids who aren't any different from him show up and tell him he's wrong and that he doesn't know what he's talking about. "Making proper solutions" is for people with jobs, who are getting paid. Like the developers of NS2.
Even beyond that, there's another issue: before you can make a solution you have to acknowledge that there is a problem. If people aren't willing to admit that this game isn't destined for success outside their niche community of fanboys, you certainly won't convince them about why walljumping sucks and bhop is superior.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you on this
Just in order:
1. - That's an observation. Sure, it has some relevance sometimes (like maybe on more polish-tier aspects of design) but largely saying something is a beta is a bit of a cop-out excuse.
2. - Not true really. It shouldn't necessarily be like ns1, but it doesn't have to strive to be different either.
3. - Ad Hominem, so yes you should disregard this because it's trying to paint your argument as invalid because it comes from an "elitist."
4. - This is just a reverse of "I don't like it how it is." and is just about as useless without any sort of reasoning given for it.
5. - I've seen this said a bit too, which seems odd. If it's something trivial then fine, I guess, but something bigger should probably be fit in before any release date.
6. - I can sort of see this one working, but at the same time it happened in the past. If something didn't work out good in the past, new factors that have been introduced/removed in subsequent patches of the game might affect the way that previously-tried idea would work, and it might have more favourable results on gameplay. So I guess it depends on how much the game has changed, and in what ways, since the last time they tried that.
The feeling that "making proper solutions is for people with jobs, who are getting paid" is an Appeal to Authority, I think. The idea that "the devs know what's right because they're the devs." In some ways this is convincing, because the devs have expertise in game design, but it's not a reason on its own to disregard somebody's opinion just because they aren't a game designer or employed by a game company. Either that or it's a Might Makes Right way of looking at things, where "it's the devs game because they have the power, so what they say goes." which is... TECHNICALLY true in practise, but just because what they ultimately say is what happens doesn't necessarily mean it's the best, or even a good decision.
I wouldn't call your opposition kids just because they don't agree with you though, even if you get that impression from the way they type or anything, it's just more ad hominem.
True that admitting/realising a problem is the first step. If you don't know it's broken you can't fix it.
Personally, I don't THINK the game is broken in regards to bunnyhopping, but maybe I'm wrong. In other areas I know it's definitely not perfect though. I think Fades are a bit overpowered as they are, though I don't know if that's in this discussion, I think it was brought up in the opening topic right?
True, because I'm not trying to argue one way or the other. I'm just saying your argument is unconvincing, I'm not trying to argue that that there should or shouldn't be Bunnyhopping. So maybe it's less a debate and more you trying to convince somebody and them saying they're still unconvinced.
<!--quoteo(post=1960937:date=Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not new to debating, but I know that I would have to be insane to treat some nerd on a forum like a real person debating a real issue, where the results could have a measurable impact on my life.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That seems like a perception problem. True, you're likely not going to find much useful discussion in youtube comments, or on the internet in general, but why give up on the possibility (especially on a beta-forum). Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen. People on the internet are real people too, and issues are only as real as you take them. There are at least two people here, sure not face to face, discussing a topic.
<!--quoteo(post=1960937:date=Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's no question that you're "new", either. Your title clearly indicates you registered in the last week and have very few posts. Despite what you may claim about browsing 'during alpha' (itself a logical fallacy, an appeal to accomplishment), all I see is this
<i>Posts: 12
Joined: 5-August 12</i>
I'm a tremendous ###### for making a big deal out of that, but what does mine say?
<i>Posts: 1,250
Joined: 13-October 11</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it's probably an Appeal to Accomplishment, though it was in response to an Ad Hominem, so either way it's a useless argument. I still don't see how signing up an account to the forums late invalidates an argument, but you acknowledge that.
As for what it says:
You've had a registered account longer.
You've been a more active member of the forums.
In this case though, it doesn't really prove anything about age. You don't need an account to browse these forums, as it's visible to all guests. There could be somebody out there now who still hasn't made an account because they don't like to post, but they've been browsing since the forums first came up.
On The Escapist, I have an account I started in 2005, and I only have something like 7 posts in it.
So perhaps it's less about newness and more about involvement?
<!--quoteo(post=1960937:date=Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Aug 11 2012, 02:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960937"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My post history is like a drunken library of alexandria, and you could learn a lot from worshipping me instead of trying to be a junior dawkins musketeer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet it uninterests me. Do I really have to worship you or oppose you? Isn't there some middle ground?
Also, sorry for all my own Ad Hominems, of which I think there were a quite a few. I got a bit frustrated myself with the continuous personal attacks.
chill bro, that's called gettin' trolled
there is a difference between insulting and trolling.
Maybe... Congratulations on getting me talking this long if the whole thing were just a troll... (Though the productivity of trolling is quite questionable =P)
Otherwise, I did let your Ad Hominem's get to me a bit on the emotional level, if not the logical reasoning one. So even if I didn't let it convince me, I'm still at fault for letting it enflame me...
Just to be clear (because I probably said a few things earlier) I probably shouldn't have insulted you... So any mean things I said about you as a person (such as how things you say might sound ego-centric, and the like) I take back and apologise. =(
I don't think NS2 is perfect, but while I did play NS1, I wasn't very competitive. Maybe that make skews my perspective in a way that de-emphasises skill, or makes me less able to appreciate it?
I'll edit this just a sec when I re-check the main OP, because while I got caught on bunnyhopping, I think there was some other stuff in there too..
EDIT:
<!--quoteo(post=1960820:date=Aug 11 2012, 10:11 AM:name=Kimpan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kimpan @ Aug 11 2012, 10:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960820"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And i suppose that is the reason they give fayde cloak when blinking, Since the blinking is so off and clumpsy. you get stuck everywhere.
Its really sad.. It was always nice to see them blink in and out of fights and so on. Also its good in fights to use faydes to blink around the room. And the marines would shoot after him, while skulks move in and kill them, tactic. And playing as a marine and having faydes poof poof poof around with cloak just feels so cheap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just clarifying, but is he saying that you can't be seen as fades when they're blinking at the moment?
As far as I know, you can still see blinking fades really easily in NS2 (they're sort of like an inkblot) and lots of marines still focus fire on them when they're blinking round their base, distracting them from Skulks.
Though you can't see them when they Shadow Step (shift key, a quick-dash forward-teleport), that's an instantaneous thing. Reading this again I think he might be confusing blink with shadowstep, though does that mean he thinks they should remove shadowstep?
Maybe shadowstep should only be useable by Fades that don't have blink? Makes it a bit more of a trade-off, though I don't know if that's desirable or not. I don't play Fade enough to really make judgment calls on them. =\ I usually go gorge at the end to bile-bomb everything, or attack (pretty badly) as an Onos. I do know that I have a lot of trouble killing Fades as a marine though, but maybe this has changed a bit since Carapace and Regeneration have been made mutually exclusive.
<!--quoteo(post=1960955:date=Aug 11 2012, 02:37 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Aug 11 2012, 02:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1960955"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would say there is a difference between insulting and trolling.
Not quite sure if calling ppl kids or stupid(like chicken) counts as trolling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True... though I guess it comes down to intent. I get annoyed when people confuse "trolls" with "people who disagree with me" for example (since that's how newcomers would learn the word through osmosis. As in, they'd see an argument on the internet, then they would see something like "Don't bother with him, he's just trolling", but they wouldn't understand the underlying intent of "trolling" and assume it just means whatever they take from that experience, whether it's "stupid" or "young" or "oppositional."
I guess it depends if the insulting was there to get some satisfaction out of making me mad or not, which is really hard to prove one way or the other. =P
Though either way, trolling and name-calling don't really contribute to a good community, unless that's the aim of the community I suppose...? I think there's at least one trolling community out there that join game servers with the intent of doing odd and nonsensical things, or otherwise angering people.
Some pretty pathetic trolling at that.
Everybody else claims they were trolling as a way out. I thought I'd try it. It's not as easy as it looks.
Yeah, I've noticed that. =P You've probably seen the image that expresses that perfectly.
I guess that it seems to be more difficult in this situation could be taken as a compliment? That you were being taken seriously enough by everybody that the thought that you were just a mindless troll seems unrealistic/unbelievable?
--Cory