Your argument simplifies down to "3.1.3 was better but I don't know how it was better, so we should go back to it but keep the parts of 3.2 which were better, but I'm not sure which parts those are--and its all very subtle and I can't tell you why 3.2 is worse."
Honestly, who do you expect to convince with that? I can understand your desire not to get in a fight over details with the supporters of 3.2--but if you aren't going to put up a fight, that puts you in the position of hoping the 3.1.3 supporters are <i>already</i> in the majority, rather than taking any actions to try to gain <i>more</i> supporters. And the numbers just don't support you on that one. 3.2 has more supporters than 3.1.3 does.
<!--quoteo(post=1623083:date=Apr 25 2007, 04:01 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 25 2007, 04:01 PM) [snapback]1623083[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Honestly, who do you expect to convince with that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1623072:date=Apr 25 2007, 03:07 PM:name=ubermensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ubermensch @ Apr 25 2007, 03:07 PM) [snapback]1623072[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just wanted the general idea of the possibility of a "rollback" on the discussion table.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1622926:date=Apr 25 2007, 02:44 AM:name=ubermensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ubermensch @ Apr 25 2007, 02:44 AM) [snapback]1622926[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I mostly wanted to toss this out into the public discourse. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1623083:date=Apr 25 2007, 04:01 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 25 2007, 04:01 PM) [snapback]1623083[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can understand your desire not to get in a fight over details with the supporters of 3.2--but if you aren't going to put up a fight, that puts you in the position of hoping the 3.1.3 supporters are <i>already</i> in the majority, rather than taking any actions to try to gain <i>more</i> supporters. And the numbers just don't support you on that one. 3.2 has more supporters than 3.1.3 does.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
gotta concede, you're certainly right about that, on these forums anyway
I have, along with everyone else, noticed the huge number of complaints about the current version. Does this mean this version is a failure? Not even close. If you go and read all these complaints, 95% of them are about either fade blink or how easy it is to kill a skulk. Infact I have read more different positive feed back then different negative feed back. When you dont like something, you feel you have a reason to complain about it to anyone and everyone, as much as needed to try and get it changed. If you like something you typically say it only once, since nothing needs changed and in your mind there is not a need to keep talking about it (The "If it's not broke, don't fix it" attitude), so you hear very little positive feed back.
Version 3.2 did one thing well, but we have not had the time to see the full effects yet, and that is to shrink the learning and skill curve. A long term skill player still has a major advantage, but what happens now that has the "leet" players (Those who think they are the best based solely on score, this is not a reference to competitive players who use team work to get high scores) can no longer go fade or JP marine and get scores of 100-1 but now have to settle for scores of 75-5, since advanced scripts that they used are not intagrated into the game, making it so that anyone can attempt to use them. This scares thos players since it means that once a average player learns how to use it properly they could become better then the leet players. And since the leet players think they are the best, they can not improve their game since in their minds there is no need to. And once they start to get beat, instead os realizing that the game has changed and that they need to change their tactics to stay on top, the instead think that all new features that were used to beat them should be removed, because their ego is telling them that to change thier tactics is to admit that they may not be the best players. Hopefully this make sense
Over all I have had more fun playing 3.2 then any version since 1.04 when I started, thoug hthat version to become stale to me after a few months. There are things I wish was different, but this game was made for everyone, not just me, or any other one person. As a result there has to be stuff for everyone to enjoy, and as the community changes the game changes with it. People though that players having 8 different configs that they changed between as they played, with 50+ scripts were unfair, so the the NS team added in mp_blockscripts to let server ops choose. And when a tactic was discovered that was extremely difficult for the average player, but could make a hard core player all but invincible, the made that tactic accessable to the avearage player using the +movement key. The made it still require skill to use properly, but they made it so that is was no longer who sat and plracted on a empty lan server the most and had fast enough fingers. The game has come along way, and is sadly nearing the end of it's life.
The game is living up to it's name still though. It has adapted to stay alive for 6 years now (2001 I believe, correct me if I am wrong). We can all name games that have lasted longer, but we all know that that is a very respectable life time, and it is not dead yet. Infact it is still evolving, and will eventually become NS2. When that happens the current form of NS will evetually die out, but the concept of the game still will live one. Just look at the most extreme example, Simcity, It has evloved in to Sims 2 and is still going after 19 years, but the original game only lasted 4 years. I think we could expect to see alot good from this franchise, we just have to be patient
You know--all you guys heaping praise on +movement for making NS accessible to bad players--I never understood what was so "leet" about using hud_fastswitch 1. (I like +movement though.)
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
although it can do less damage we have to think about what SJ said..
LERK as in LURKING not Uberbird of Doom, Death and Decay. A lerk should lurk in shadows, spore, umbra and only bite for emergency defense. Its a support class and finally its being used as one again. Every med a comm has to drop is 2 res less. Every umbra your mates are in takes loads of damage off there back. lerks are like gorges... hardly any frags but absolutely needed in the field.
<!--quoteo(post=1623090:date=Apr 25 2007, 03:42 PM:name=ubermensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ubermensch @ Apr 25 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]1623090[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You know--all you guys heaping praise on +movement for making NS accessible to bad players--I never understood what was so "leet" about using hud_fastswitch 1. (I like +movement though.) <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I considered myself a pretty decent user of hud_fastswitch 1, though not quite "pro". Here's my observation on it...
(1)--With fastswitch and weapon_slot binds trying to use attack 1, then quickly switch to attack 2, and use that, was quite simple. (Leap/Bite, Blink/Swipe) (2)--Using attack 1, switching to attack 2, back to attack 1, and back to attack 2 quickly was noticeably tougher, if still doable. (leap in/bite/leap away/leap in/bite/leap away) (3)--Alternating between attacks 1 2 and 3 all together in rapid fire was extremely tricky to pull off. (blink/swipe/meta)
+movement basically pushes each of those down 1 level in difficulty. Those who could only pull off trick 1 can now pull of tricks 1 and 2. Those who could already do 1 and 2 can now handle trick 3 as well. And those who could already do all 3 don't gain access to anything new, but they can probably perform trick 3 a little more reliably than before.
People who couldn't even grasp trick 1 before are obviously not going to get full use out of +movement, but there's a good hope that they'll at least manage the 1st trick now.
While, I'm not entirely happy with NS, I'm don't agree with your points.
I believe in what Blackhawk writes. Leet players still dominate, but stuff like +movement helps some people catch up.
But in terms of actual gameplay, I think 3.2 is a large improvement. But shoving a pro player into a relatively newb server is still a problem, but that's been the case for a while now.
I like the gradual lessening of the skill curve, but I'd still like a solution for stacking or one-player dominance.
3.2 is probably the best version that I've played, but if skill stack can be fixed (which happens in comp play, though RIP), we'd see better quality games.
Stacking happens in all games, I'm sure if there was a way of fixing it, somebody would have worked it out by now. <insert generic "stop crying because youre bad" comment here>
<!--quoteo(post=1623106:date=Apr 25 2007, 06:05 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 25 2007, 06:05 PM) [snapback]1623106[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Those who could already do 1 and 2 can now handle trick 3 as well. And those who could already do all 3 don't gain access to anything new, but they can probably perform trick 3 a little more reliably than before. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That'd be me. I like having +movement bound to MOUSE2, if for nothing else to make leap easier. Yes it's most helpful for fades, but having charge and leap on it too is great. Having it bound to a mouse button allows me to aim my movement ability so much easier. I just wish it had a use for gorge and lerks too. (like healspray and umbra?)
<!--quoteo(post=1623182:date=Apr 26 2007, 02:50 AM:name=F4tManMGS2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F4tManMGS2 @ Apr 26 2007, 02:50 AM) [snapback]1623182[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> lol "im not going to post an arguement so you cant prove me wrong"
thats some good stuff.
anyway, everyone I know hated 3.2 beta. 3.2 came out. they played it some more. they love it.
people hate change, I think that's the bottom line here. I know I've quit NS because of a verison change. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1623182:date=Apr 26 2007, 02:50 AM:name=F4tManMGS2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F4tManMGS2 @ Apr 26 2007, 02:50 AM) [snapback]1623182[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> lol "im not going to post an arguement so you cant prove me wrong"
thats some good stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol. SpaceJesus' foul stench is already lingering on this thread, I dare not invite 9 or 10 pages of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1623106:date=Apr 25 2007, 06:05 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 25 2007, 06:05 PM) [snapback]1623106[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(1)--With fastswitch and weapon_slot binds trying to use attack 1, then quickly switch to attack 2, and use that, was quite simple. (Leap/Bite, Blink/Swipe) (2)--Using attack 1, switching to attack 2, back to attack 1, and back to attack 2 quickly was noticeably tougher, if still doable. (leap in/bite/leap away/leap in/bite/leap away) (3)--Alternating between attacks 1 2 and 3 all together in rapid fire was extremely tricky to pull off. (blink/swipe/meta)
+movement basically pushes each of those down 1 level in difficulty. Those who could only pull off trick 1 can now pull of tricks 1 and 2. Those who could already do 1 and 2 can now handle trick 3 as well. And those who could already do all 3 don't gain access to anything new, but they can probably perform trick 3 a little more reliably than before. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've had some pretty nasty invective thrown at me on BS1 servers for habitually doing (3)... yet I can't barely beat Guitar Hero II on hard.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Those changes come together in subtle ways to alter the vast and unfathomable economies of the game. On paper a dozen changes might seem insignificant, but the only way you can appreciate them is by playing. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The best line of BS I've heard all year. Go ahead and quote that list, then specifically provide those 'subtle ways' that those changes altered the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1623213:date=Apr 26 2007, 06:54 AM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Apr 26 2007, 06:54 AM) [snapback]1623213[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The best line of BS I've heard all year. Go ahead and quote that list, then specifically provide those 'subtle ways' that those changes altered the game.
I <i>dare</i> you. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That sounds like a challenge Haze, I hope he/she takes you up on it. It would be interesting and perhaps beneficial.
Actually, server data shows that NS servers are either empty (or nearly empty, 1-4 ppl) or jam-packed large servers. Do I have to give you a frikin screenshot because you are too lazy to sort "Find Servers" by size? Are there ever any servers with 6v6 anymore? Pff! Hardly, and outside of clan scrims I'd say practically not at all. The "NS is for 6v6" BS is getting really ###### annoying. NS isn't 6v6 at all! We are talking 99% of the time public NS, the foundation of a game community, is either an empty server or a large full one.
That's my two cents, which are still kinda smoldering.
<!--quoteo(post=1623249:date=Apr 26 2007, 09:38 AM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Apr 26 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]1623249[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, server data shows that NS servers are either empty (or nearly empty, 1-4 ppl) or jam-packed large servers. Do I have to give you a frikin screenshot because you are too lazy to sort "Find Servers" by size? Are there ever any servers with 6v6 anymore? Pff! Hardly, and outside of clan scrims I'd say practically not at all. The "NS is for 6v6" BS is getting really ###### annoying. NS isn't 6v6 at all! We are talking 99% of the time public NS, the foundation of a game community, is either an empty server or a large full one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah because obviously the level of retardedness of the community in general changes the number of players the game was designed for? proshoes logic. Grade A.
<!--quoteo(post=1623213:date=Apr 26 2007, 05:54 AM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Apr 26 2007, 05:54 AM) [snapback]1623213[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The best line of BS I've heard all year. Go ahead and quote that list, then specifically provide those 'subtle ways' that those changes altered the game.
I <i>dare</i> you. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1623285:date=Apr 26 2007, 12:39 PM:name=F4tManMGS2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F4tManMGS2 @ Apr 26 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]1623285[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> ah but then would could prove him wrong! <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, he would have to prove himself right to begin with.
<!--quoteo(post=1623318:date=Apr 26 2007, 06:40 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Apr 26 2007, 06:40 PM) [snapback]1623318[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> No, he would have to prove himself right to begin with. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How can one prove an opinion to be right?
<!--quoteo(post=1623319:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:50 PM:name=ubermensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ubermensch @ Apr 26 2007, 03:50 PM) [snapback]1623319[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> How can one prove an opinion to be right? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You stated your "opinion" as a fact, and therefore you should back it up with data supporting it.
No, but even opinions need to have reasons to back them up - valid, arguable reasons - to warrant any change. An opinion it might be, but "It just feels wrong!" is a terrible way of persuading others to your side of the argument. Simply waving the "It's an opinion!" flag might as well be a tiny white flag of surrender. Unless you're here to defend your opinion, then its typically unnecessary to even post a topic. Opinions can be aired, yes, but this entire topic is requesting some merger between two different versions of NS and hardly presents any <i>concrete</i> reasons (READ: Not "feel") as to why this change would be beneficial, and the OP seems reluctant to provide any reasoning on his part. All I've seen so far from them are short, 'witty' strings of bullish that do nothing to justify such a merger, such as -
<i>"Those changes come together in <b>subtle ways to alter the <u>vast and unfathomable economies</u></b> of the game."</i>
I really don't need to say anymore. Every change needs a reason behind it, and no reason has been provided here. Instead of tiptoeing around the subject and flaming other posters in retaliation to their flamings (<b>just ignore them</b>), why not actually backup your opinions and make a respectable argument for your case here?
<!--quoteo(post=1623353:date=Apr 26 2007, 10:58 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Apr 26 2007, 10:58 PM) [snapback]1623353[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Every change needs a reason behind it, and no reason has been provided here. Instead of tiptoeing around the subject and flaming other posters in retaliation to their flamings (<b>just ignore them</b>), why not actually backup your opinions and make a respectable argument for your case here?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because I realize the futility of all of this. I don't take it seriously enough to pinpoint issues, and I certainly don't want to encourage an environment where the well known NS vet/playtester attitude of browbeating and dismissive arrogance can reign.
The OP was more meant to rabble-rouse than to give a list of specific grievances that I feel need remedying. Specific lists of grievances have been given and the only thing that was remedied by those lists was the delusion by their poster that anything they say would be taken seriously.
I know that what I say will be simplified by people like Golden who, while good at the game, are simpletons in terms of broad understanding. Notice how he simplifies what I say and removes any reference to economy: <!--quoteo(post=1622943:date=Apr 25 2007, 04:16 AM:name=ubermensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ubermensch @ Apr 25 2007, 04:16 AM) [snapback]1622943[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Those changes come together in subtle ways to <u>alter the vast and unfathomable economies of the game</u>. On paper a dozen changes might seem insignificant, but the only way you can appreciate them is by playing.<!--quoteo(post=1623053:date=Apr 25 2007, 01:01 PM:name=Golden)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Golden @ Apr 25 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]1623053[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Really, they do? Then why don't you tell us how? Just saying "<u>they come together in subtle ways and alter the game</u>" doesn't mean anything. Come up with some specific ways in which 3.2 sucks ###### and maybe we'll actually listen to you. Otherwise, FLAME ON!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His post couldn't've been more timely because it illustrates how anything I say will be oversimplified and then belittled with a disingenuous arrogance. I knew this before hand. I know it now. I know this thread will only continue to illustrate this. It's why I won't indulge the likes of him.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I think you are the arrogant one ubermensch. These people trying to debate with you deserve a detailed explanation of what you are saying. You can't simply wave your hand at an argument and leave it at that, and if you do, you can't call people arrogant because they refute your point and ask for evidence.
To me, it looks like you have made up your mind and are not willing to engage in a discussion to test your ideas. The people you accuse of being arrogant are at least explaining what they think and why they think it.
I probably would have quit NS by now if it was still in 3.1.3. I was getting really bored, and that version was a really bad game. The 2 hive lock down syndrome was infinitely worse then it is now, and MC/SC/DC was utterly locked in (not that that has really changed).
It was a pretty fun version competitively, the fades were elite, the lerks were elite, but the game just stunk in pubs. After I quit playing competitively I couldn't stand 3.1.3 any more. It had not enough redeeming factors unless you stuck to combat mode.
I will admit, I think 3.1.3 CO maps were more fun then they are now in 3.2
When reading this thread, especially the more thoughtful and eloquent posts like BigD's, I find myself swept into the fantasy that change is good, that the changes just need to settle in, and that overall 3.2 has been beneficial.
Yes, I find myself agreeing with them. "Maybe they're right" idealistically rings in my head as I find my outlook brightening. "Maybe I'm just being a persnickety hardass" I think.
And then I hop in a game and play. <- some time around this stage is when reality hits me, in the form of crippling boredom, the likes of which 3.1.3 could achieve in 1 out of 10 games what 3.2 achieves in 1 out of 3. Same servers, same people. It's 3.2 that's different, dare I say <i>worse</i>.
I'm gonna re-read bluemary's and other threads and try to come back with some specific reasons in a little while.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited April 2007
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> some time around this stage is when reality hits me, in the form of crippling boredom, the likes of which 3.1.3 could achieve in 1 out of 10 games what 3.2 achieves in 1 out of 3 <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Same servers, same people. It's 3.2 that's different, dare I say worse. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation#Correlation_and_causality" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation#C...n_and_causality</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm gonna re-read bluemary's and other threads and try to come back with some specific reasons in a little while. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know, I know; I'm not going to quote them and cite it a proof, rather, I'm gonna try and pinpoint some issues that makes 3.2 stale and use other those posts as a guide.
Comments
Honestly, who do you expect to convince with that? I can understand your desire not to get in a fight over details with the supporters of 3.2--but if you aren't going to put up a fight, that puts you in the position of hoping the 3.1.3 supporters are <i>already</i> in the majority, rather than taking any actions to try to gain <i>more</i> supporters. And the numbers just don't support you on that one. 3.2 has more supporters than 3.1.3 does.
<!--quoteo(post=1623072:date=Apr 25 2007, 03:07 PM:name=ubermensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ubermensch @ Apr 25 2007, 03:07 PM) [snapback]1623072[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just wanted the general idea of the possibility of a "rollback" on the discussion table.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1622926:date=Apr 25 2007, 02:44 AM:name=ubermensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ubermensch @ Apr 25 2007, 02:44 AM) [snapback]1622926[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I mostly wanted to toss this out into the public discourse. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1623083:date=Apr 25 2007, 04:01 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 25 2007, 04:01 PM) [snapback]1623083[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can understand your desire not to get in a fight over details with the supporters of 3.2--but if you aren't going to put up a fight, that puts you in the position of hoping the 3.1.3 supporters are <i>already</i> in the majority, rather than taking any actions to try to gain <i>more</i> supporters. And the numbers just don't support you on that one. 3.2 has more supporters than 3.1.3 does.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
gotta concede, you're certainly right about that, on these forums anyway
Version 3.2 did one thing well, but we have not had the time to see the full effects yet, and that is to shrink the learning and skill curve. A long term skill player still has a major advantage, but what happens now that has the "leet" players (Those who think they are the best based solely on score, this is not a reference to competitive players who use team work to get high scores) can no longer go fade or JP marine and get scores of 100-1 but now have to settle for scores of 75-5, since advanced scripts that they used are not intagrated into the game, making it so that anyone can attempt to use them. This scares thos players since it means that once a average player learns how to use it properly they could become better then the leet players. And since the leet players think they are the best, they can not improve their game since in their minds there is no need to. And once they start to get beat, instead os realizing that the game has changed and that they need to change their tactics to stay on top, the instead think that all new features that were used to beat them should be removed, because their ego is telling them that to change thier tactics is to admit that they may not be the best players. Hopefully this make sense
Over all I have had more fun playing 3.2 then any version since 1.04 when I started, thoug hthat version to become stale to me after a few months. There are things I wish was different, but this game was made for everyone, not just me, or any other one person. As a result there has to be stuff for everyone to enjoy, and as the community changes the game changes with it. People though that players having 8 different configs that they changed between as they played, with 50+ scripts were unfair, so the the NS team added in mp_blockscripts to let server ops choose. And when a tactic was discovered that was extremely difficult for the average player, but could make a hard core player all but invincible, the made that tactic accessable to the avearage player using the +movement key. The made it still require skill to use properly, but they made it so that is was no longer who sat and plracted on a empty lan server the most and had fast enough fingers. The game has come along way, and is sadly nearing the end of it's life.
The game is living up to it's name still though. It has adapted to stay alive for 6 years now (2001 I believe, correct me if I am wrong). We can all name games that have lasted longer, but we all know that that is a very respectable life time, and it is not dead yet. Infact it is still evolving, and will eventually become NS2. When that happens the current form of NS will evetually die out, but the concept of the game still will live one. Just look at the most extreme example, Simcity, It has evloved in to Sims 2 and is still going after 19 years, but the original game only lasted 4 years. I think we could expect to see alot good from this franchise, we just have to be patient
LERK as in LURKING not Uberbird of Doom, Death and Decay. A lerk should lurk in shadows, spore, umbra and only bite for emergency defense. Its a support class and finally its being used as one again. Every med a comm has to drop is 2 res less. Every umbra your mates are in takes loads of damage off there back. lerks are like gorges... hardly any frags but absolutely needed in the field.
You know--all you guys heaping praise on +movement for making NS accessible to bad players--I never understood what was so "leet" about using hud_fastswitch 1. (I like +movement though.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I considered myself a pretty decent user of hud_fastswitch 1, though not quite "pro". Here's my observation on it...
(1)--With fastswitch and weapon_slot binds trying to use attack 1, then quickly switch to attack 2, and use that, was quite simple. (Leap/Bite, Blink/Swipe)
(2)--Using attack 1, switching to attack 2, back to attack 1, and back to attack 2 quickly was noticeably tougher, if still doable. (leap in/bite/leap away/leap in/bite/leap away)
(3)--Alternating between attacks 1 2 and 3 all together in rapid fire was extremely tricky to pull off. (blink/swipe/meta)
+movement basically pushes each of those down 1 level in difficulty. Those who could only pull off trick 1 can now pull of tricks 1 and 2. Those who could already do 1 and 2 can now handle trick 3 as well. And those who could already do all 3 don't gain access to anything new, but they can probably perform trick 3 a little more reliably than before.
People who couldn't even grasp trick 1 before are obviously not going to get full use out of +movement, but there's a good hope that they'll at least manage the 1st trick now.
I believe in what Blackhawk writes. Leet players still dominate, but stuff like +movement helps some people catch up.
But in terms of actual gameplay, I think 3.2 is a large improvement. But shoving a pro player into a relatively newb server is still a problem, but that's been the case for a while now.
I like the gradual lessening of the skill curve, but I'd still like a solution for stacking or one-player dominance.
3.2 is probably the best version that I've played, but if skill stack can be fixed (which happens in comp play, though RIP), we'd see better quality games.
thats some good stuff.
anyway, everyone I know hated 3.2 beta.
3.2 came out.
they played it some more.
they love it.
people hate change, I think that's the bottom line here. I know I've quit NS because of a verison change.
Those who could already do 1 and 2 can now handle trick 3 as well. And those who could already do all 3 don't gain access to anything new, but they can probably perform trick 3 a little more reliably than before.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That'd be me. I like having +movement bound to MOUSE2, if for nothing else to make leap easier. Yes it's most helpful for fades, but having charge and leap on it too is great. Having it bound to a mouse button allows me to aim my movement ability so much easier. I just wish it had a use for gorge and lerks too. (like healspray and umbra?)
<!--quoteo(post=1623182:date=Apr 26 2007, 02:50 AM:name=F4tManMGS2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F4tManMGS2 @ Apr 26 2007, 02:50 AM) [snapback]1623182[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
lol "im not going to post an arguement so you cant prove me wrong"
thats some good stuff.
anyway, everyone I know hated 3.2 beta.
3.2 came out.
they played it some more.
they love it.
people hate change, I think that's the bottom line here. I know I've quit NS because of a verison change.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol "im not going to post an arguement so you cant prove me wrong"
thats some good stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol. SpaceJesus' foul stench is already lingering on this thread, I dare not invite 9 or 10 pages of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1623106:date=Apr 25 2007, 06:05 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 25 2007, 06:05 PM) [snapback]1623106[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(1)--With fastswitch and weapon_slot binds trying to use attack 1, then quickly switch to attack 2, and use that, was quite simple. (Leap/Bite, Blink/Swipe)
(2)--Using attack 1, switching to attack 2, back to attack 1, and back to attack 2 quickly was noticeably tougher, if still doable. (leap in/bite/leap away/leap in/bite/leap away)
(3)--Alternating between attacks 1 2 and 3 all together in rapid fire was extremely tricky to pull off. (blink/swipe/meta)
+movement basically pushes each of those down 1 level in difficulty. Those who could only pull off trick 1 can now pull of tricks 1 and 2. Those who could already do 1 and 2 can now handle trick 3 as well. And those who could already do all 3 don't gain access to anything new, but they can probably perform trick 3 a little more reliably than before.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've had some pretty nasty invective thrown at me on BS1 servers for habitually doing (3)... yet I can't barely beat Guitar Hero II on hard.
The best line of BS I've heard all year. Go ahead and quote that list, then specifically provide those 'subtle ways' that those changes altered the game.
I <i>dare</i> you.
The best line of BS I've heard all year. Go ahead and quote that list, then specifically provide those 'subtle ways' that those changes altered the game.
I <i>dare</i> you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds like a challenge Haze, I hope he/she takes you up on it. It would be interesting and perhaps beneficial.
Actually, server data shows that NS servers are either empty (or nearly empty, 1-4 ppl) or jam-packed large servers. Do I have to give you a frikin screenshot because you are too lazy to sort "Find Servers" by size? Are there ever any servers with 6v6 anymore? Pff! Hardly, and outside of clan scrims I'd say practically not at all. The "NS is for 6v6" BS is getting really ###### annoying. NS isn't 6v6 at all! We are talking 99% of the time public NS, the foundation of a game community, is either an empty server or a large full one.
That's my two cents, which are still kinda smoldering.
Yeah because obviously the level of retardedness of the community in general changes the number of players the game was designed for? proshoes logic. Grade A.
The best line of BS I've heard all year. Go ahead and quote that list, then specifically provide those 'subtle ways' that those changes altered the game.
I <i>dare</i> you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ah but then would could prove him wrong!
ah but then would could prove him wrong!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, he would have to prove himself right to begin with.
No, he would have to prove himself right to begin with.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can one prove an opinion to be right?
How can one prove an opinion to be right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You stated your "opinion" as a fact, and therefore you should back it up with data supporting it.
<i>"Those changes come together in <b>subtle ways to alter the <u>vast and unfathomable economies</u></b> of the game."</i>
I really don't need to say anymore. Every change needs a reason behind it, and no reason has been provided here. Instead of tiptoeing around the subject and flaming other posters in retaliation to their flamings (<b>just ignore them</b>), why not actually backup your opinions and make a respectable argument for your case here?
<!--quoteo(post=1623353:date=Apr 26 2007, 10:58 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Apr 26 2007, 10:58 PM) [snapback]1623353[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Every change needs a reason behind it, and no reason has been provided here. Instead of tiptoeing around the subject and flaming other posters in retaliation to their flamings (<b>just ignore them</b>), why not actually backup your opinions and make a respectable argument for your case here?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because I realize the futility of all of this. I don't take it seriously enough to pinpoint issues, and I certainly don't want to encourage an environment where the well known NS vet/playtester attitude of browbeating and dismissive arrogance can reign.
The OP was more meant to rabble-rouse than to give a list of specific grievances that I feel need remedying. Specific lists of grievances have been given and the only thing that was remedied by those lists was the delusion by their poster that anything they say would be taken seriously.
I know that what I say will be simplified by people like Golden who, while good at the game, are simpletons in terms of broad understanding. Notice how he simplifies what I say and removes any reference to economy:
<!--quoteo(post=1622943:date=Apr 25 2007, 04:16 AM:name=ubermensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ubermensch @ Apr 25 2007, 04:16 AM) [snapback]1622943[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Those changes come together in subtle ways to <u>alter the vast and unfathomable economies of the game</u>. On paper a dozen changes might seem insignificant, but the only way you can appreciate them is by playing.<!--quoteo(post=1623053:date=Apr 25 2007, 01:01 PM:name=Golden)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Golden @ Apr 25 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]1623053[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Really, they do? Then why don't you tell us how? Just saying "<u>they come together in subtle ways and alter the game</u>" doesn't mean anything. Come up with some specific ways in which 3.2 sucks ###### and maybe we'll actually listen to you. Otherwise, FLAME ON!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His post couldn't've been more timely because it illustrates how anything I say will be oversimplified and then belittled with a disingenuous arrogance. I knew this before hand. I know it now. I know this thread will only continue to illustrate this. It's why I won't indulge the likes of him.
This thread is ripe for locking I think.
To me, it looks like you have made up your mind and are not willing to engage in a discussion to test your ideas. The people you accuse of being arrogant are at least explaining what they think and why they think it.
It was a pretty fun version competitively, the fades were elite, the lerks were elite, but the game just stunk in pubs. After I quit playing competitively I couldn't stand 3.1.3 any more. It had not enough redeeming factors unless you stuck to combat mode.
I will admit, I think 3.1.3 CO maps were more fun then they are now in 3.2
Yes, I find myself agreeing with them. "Maybe they're right" idealistically rings in my head as I find my outlook brightening. "Maybe I'm just being a persnickety hardass" I think.
And then I hop in a game and play. <- some time around this stage is when reality hits me, in the form of crippling boredom, the likes of which 3.1.3 could achieve in 1 out of 10 games what 3.2 achieves in 1 out of 3. Same servers, same people. It's 3.2 that's different, dare I say <i>worse</i>.
I'm gonna re-read bluemary's and other threads and try to come back with some specific reasons in a little while.
some time around this stage is when reality hits me, in the form of crippling boredom, the likes of which 3.1.3 could achieve in 1 out of 10 games what 3.2 achieves in 1 out of 3
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Same servers, same people. It's 3.2 that's different, dare I say worse.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation#Correlation_and_causality" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation#C...n_and_causality</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'm gonna re-read bluemary's and other threads and try to come back with some specific reasons in a little while.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I look forward to hearing it.