<!--QuoteBegin-spinviper+Apr 30 2005, 10:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (spinviper @ Apr 30 2005, 10:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cerebral+Apr 29 2005, 01:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cerebral @ Apr 29 2005, 01:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-fanatic+Apr 28 2005, 06:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (fanatic @ Apr 28 2005, 06:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Parabiting is the new word on the block, yo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm just waiting for someone to make a script that does it...we all know they're coming
*edit* if someone does then send it to me so i can try it ^^ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm assuming you meant aim for you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Aim for him? I thought that it would just be a fastswitch that fires off parasite and then bites after a few waits. He'd still need to have the crosshair on the marines, but it means one less time hitting lastinv and switching back. I don't really see how you got aiming out of parabiting, am I missing something?
<!--QuoteBegin-inverted+Apr 29 2005, 01:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (inverted @ Apr 29 2005, 01:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-haymo+Apr 29 2005, 02:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (haymo @ Apr 29 2005, 02:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Shotty needs to learn that 1 parasite + 2 bites = kill.. So if you do what you usually do is parasite then ambush.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> haymo needs to learn how to read, I said that this change doesnt effect clan games as much, if at all because 1st clanners can get 3 bites on a rine, and 2nd clanners parasite more. However in pubs aliens usually find it hard enough gettin 2 bites. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because competitive players can land three bites just as easy as two. This is why armor 1 was seldom viewed as an important upgrade in previous versions.
As players begin parasiting by happid, understanding the new significance, the armor increase will have little effect. The little effect will help balance slightly. It also introduces a refreshing new style of alien and marine play.
<!--QuoteBegin-milosis+Apr 30 2005, 11:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milosis @ Apr 30 2005, 11:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Spinviper, cerebral is in terror, one of the best clans in NA CAL-ns. Hes no stranger, nor even an opponent of scripts. if u took the time to read the <i>2 line</i> post maybe u would have seen that... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is why it makes baby jesus sad that he can't throw a bunch of waits and slot switches together. Anyway, I've done about 4 different versions of the parabite so far - from parasite buttons (like the metabolize one - both in autosinglefire and classic +/- version), to the parabite with +/i, the singlefire parabite and even the slightly exploitive parabite with removed teeth (doesn't work quite as smoothly as the original, which is saying something - the old bite/switches without firing a para were already clumsy as all hell).
Anyway, none of them so far have beaten the habit of just switching and firing - because then I have most control over timing, and hence rarely miss the parasite. The only one thats tempting is the singlefire para, sans bite - its still easy enough to keep track of the timing and removes one keypress. I haven't found a key I like for it yet though.
For anyone interested, at 100 FPS it takes 10-12 waits after the switch to slot2 to fire a parasite reliably. Add 3-4 for 125 FPS.
You know, this thread, as well as the entire forum, would be a much friendlier environment if everyone could avoid directing their criticism at the the people posting and, rather, direct it towards the content of the posters' arguments.
<!--QuoteBegin-liquidscript+Apr 30 2005, 03:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (liquidscript @ Apr 30 2005, 03:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know, this thread, as well as the entire forum, would be a much friendlier environment if everyone could avoid directing their criticism at the the people posting and, rather, direct it towards the content of the posters' arguments. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> oh ok
maybe it helps to know if the person speaking is good or bad at ns
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
No, it doesn't.
A person may have the ability to correctly observe and analyze the game without being a skilled player. A skilled player may also lack the ability to correctly observe and analyze the game. This is true for most games and sports.
Wondering whether the person behind the words is good or bad at NS only draws the attention away from the message and to the person, and that is hardly a healthy nor a productive way of arguing.
wisdom of the devs > wisdom than the other forum ppl.
i would QFT, but the sig makes me reconsider <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I have not noticed any really major differences with my play since the patch, but I also have seen one thread saying its balanced for every thread that says its unbalanced, at least I think we can agree its a step in the right direction.
[EDIT] since I dont want to add spam, the first part was added cause I feel its true, it is in fact, a better way of stating something I have already posted, multiple times. The second part is legitamately on topic though, so please dont do the same (yes i know its an endless cycle.)
<!--QuoteBegin-DaJMasta+Apr 30 2005, 08:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DaJMasta @ Apr 30 2005, 08:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wisdom of the devs > wisdom than the other forum ppl.
i would QFT, but the sig makes me reconsider <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I have not noticed any really major differences with my play since the patch, but I also have seen one thread saying its balanced for every thread that says its unbalanced, at least I think we can agree its a step in the right direction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now you are doing the same thing though, you're referring to the person who said something, and not to what was said. This is as bad.
While it is not necessarily terribly important whether the person in question is actually good at NS, one can certainly consider someone's skill when evaluating his opinion.
True, logical arguments should be considered independently of the person presenting them. The problem is that people are often basing their arguments largely on empirical data.
If it were possible to make perfect arguments about a game's balance without having played it, then I would find it strange that the NS team has adopted this policy of frequent, small releases, presumably for the purpose of gathering empirical data in the form of having people play the game and comment on how it plays.
When one's ability at NS is called into question during a discussion of gameplay, the question is not really about the player's aim or ability to bunnyhop, but familiarity with how the game plays at high levels. There is a correlation between a person having played a lot of competitive NS and a player knowing how NS plays at that level.
It is easy to make broad claims in a forum about how a game plays, but logic is not very useful for supporting many of these claims. Claims are tested empirically, through trying things in the game and seeing how they turn out. Again, it seems that the NS team agrees with me, as they waited to see how alien vs marine balance was in 3.0f instead of listening to people's "logical arguments" in the forums. I admit that many of the posts regarding 3.0f did not have much logic. For the sake of appraising a forum post, though, I can think of few issues which have inspired such verbose responses from the community. For the practical purpose of appraising a post, I think that the 3.0f threads work fine as examples, as you'll rarely get more attempts at "logical arguments" than those.
Every time a patch comes out, people come up with instant complaints about balance. The NS team responds correctly by ignoring opinions that are not backed up by experience. There is no reason to listen to someone who has jumped on a server, failed to kill a marine in one focus bite, and left immediately to complain on the forums about how much it sucks.
Similarly, competitive players like to make sure that a person has the experience to back up his opinion before listening to a person expound on proper NS play. There is a huge number of incorrect claims made by players in the forum that are instantly recognizable to any competitive player as bogus. To say that we should look only at the logic of their argument and ignore their lack of experience seems a little strange to me. From people advertising unbeatable electrification rush strats to moderators (I don't recall who, specifically) saying they can still kill skulks in the same 8-10 bullets in 3.0f as 3.0b5 (as almost any competitive player can tell you without thinking, a skulk <b>never</b> died in 8 bullets in b5, and now always takes at least 10 bullets (and even more if you take into account that he is more likely to have celerity, decreasing your accuracy, or carapace, increasing his armor)).
Now, I agree that, if you define "skill" as aiming, movement, and the actual technical skills that rack you up frags and can be practiced on a combat server, then it is not a requirement to know things about the game. This assumes, however, little correlation between skill and knowledge of gameplay.
A player that joins CAL and lacks skill tends to practice and gain skill, or get frustrated and quit (Stukov excepted <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->). Nobody likes losing over and over. Players who learn how to play competitive NS thus tend to have skill.
A claim that I'll leave pretty much unjustified, except to say that I would find it hard to believe there are many competitive players who disagree with me, is that players are extremely unlikely to learn high-level gameplay without playing in a league. The NSA veteran's server, which is quite likely by far the highest-skill NS pub in existence at the moment, is still a far, far cry from an actual scrim or match (as people often complain).
Yes, a person can play 40 hours per week on his favorite pub and learn all about how the game works on that server. This, however, does not teach him about competitive gameplay.
Every clan player started out as a pubber. Every clan player has at least some moderate recollection of how much he knew about gameplay when pubbing, and how much more he knows now (in most cases, anyway <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (*cough* stukov *cough*)).
Competitive players focus on gameplay at the competitive level. They do not wish to discuss how the game works on public servers. Most players who know how the game plays at a competitive level have some reasonable amount of skill. In addition, I believe the insinuation often made by clanners is generally that posters lack experience with high-level gameplay, rather than skill.
I don't imagine competitive players mind so much people who ask questions or make suggestions. The seemingly greatest offenders are those who come into a thread and assert something about gameplay that betrays the poster's lack of experience (by "experience", I mean personal observation of how the game is played correctly, rather than necessarily thousands of hours of scrims and matches, though the two often go hand-in-hand).
I hope I didn't repeat my argument too many times. I sort of lost track <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<ul><li>Stukov and Dirm profess manlove</li><li>We should stop hating, and start stating</li><li>the obvious</li><li>namely that this is a forum intended for clanners, but nobody wants to openly admit to it, and instead we prefer to use a more politically correct term for fear of alienating idiots with a dangerous combination of ignorance and self-confidence. Wouldn't want to hurt those peoples feelings, no sir.</li><li>and that pubbers have the obnoxious tendency to think they know everything but really know sweet **** potatos</li><li>misused lists own your face.</li></ul>
A person may have the ability to correctly observe and analyze the game without being a skilled player. A skilled player may also lack the ability to correctly observe and analyze the game. This is true for most games and sports.
Wondering whether the person behind the words is good or bad at NS only draws the attention away from the message and to the person, and that is hardly a healthy nor a productive way of arguing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not going to listen to someone who doesn't play for a clan or spectate a lot of matches regularly about how the game is balanced
And so we go from a discussion based on the current build... to taking jabs at the clanner vs non clanner issues, to using scripts, and insights into etiquette concerning how you should respond to other member's posts.
Comments
I'm just waiting for someone to make a script that does it...we all know they're coming
*edit* if someone does then send it to me so i can try it ^^ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm assuming you meant aim for you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aim for him? I thought that it would just be a fastswitch that fires off parasite and then bites after a few waits. He'd still need to have the crosshair on the marines, but it means one less time hitting lastinv and switching back. I don't really see how you got aiming out of parabiting, am I missing something?
So if you do what you usually do is parasite then ambush.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
haymo needs to learn how to read, I said that this change doesnt effect clan games as much, if at all because 1st clanners can get 3 bites on a rine, and 2nd clanners parasite more. However in pubs aliens usually find it hard enough gettin 2 bites. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because competitive players can land three bites just as easy as two. This is why armor 1 was seldom viewed as an important upgrade in previous versions.
As players begin parasiting by happid, understanding the new significance, the armor increase will have little effect. The little effect will help balance slightly. It also introduces a refreshing new style of alien and marine play.
Spinviper, cerebral is in terror, one of the best clans in NA CAL-ns. Hes no stranger, nor even an opponent of scripts. if u took the time to read the <i>2 line</i> post maybe u would have seen that... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is why it makes baby jesus sad that he can't throw a bunch of waits and slot switches together. Anyway, I've done about 4 different versions of the parabite so far - from parasite buttons (like the metabolize one - both in autosinglefire and classic +/- version), to the parabite with +/i, the singlefire parabite and even the slightly exploitive parabite with removed teeth (doesn't work quite as smoothly as the original, which is saying something - the old bite/switches without firing a para were already clumsy as all hell).
Anyway, none of them so far have beaten the habit of just switching and firing - because then I have most control over timing, and hence rarely miss the parasite. The only one thats tempting is the singlefire para, sans bite - its still easy enough to keep track of the timing and removes one keypress. I haven't found a key I like for it yet though.
For anyone interested, at 100 FPS it takes 10-12 waits after the switch to slot2 to fire a parasite reliably. Add 3-4 for 125 FPS.
oh ok
maybe it helps to know if the person speaking is good or bad at ns
A person may have the ability to correctly observe and analyze the game without being a skilled player. A skilled player may also lack the ability to correctly observe and analyze the game. This is true for most games and sports.
Wondering whether the person behind the words is good or bad at NS only draws the attention away from the message and to the person, and that is hardly a healthy nor a productive way of arguing.
i would QFT, but the sig makes me reconsider <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I have not noticed any really major differences with my play since the patch, but I also have seen one thread saying its balanced for every thread that says its unbalanced, at least I think we can agree its a step in the right direction.
[EDIT]
since I dont want to add spam, the first part was added cause I feel its true, it is in fact, a better way of stating something I have already posted, multiple times. The second part is legitamately on topic though, so please dont do the same (yes i know its an endless cycle.)
i would QFT, but the sig makes me reconsider <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I have not noticed any really major differences with my play since the patch, but I also have seen one thread saying its balanced for every thread that says its unbalanced, at least I think we can agree its a step in the right direction. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you are doing the same thing though, you're referring to the person who said something, and not to what was said. This is as bad.
True, logical arguments should be considered independently of the person presenting them. The problem is that people are often basing their arguments largely on empirical data.
If it were possible to make perfect arguments about a game's balance without having played it, then I would find it strange that the NS team has adopted this policy of frequent, small releases, presumably for the purpose of gathering empirical data in the form of having people play the game and comment on how it plays.
When one's ability at NS is called into question during a discussion of gameplay, the question is not really about the player's aim or ability to bunnyhop, but familiarity with how the game plays at high levels. There is a correlation between a person having played a lot of competitive NS and a player knowing how NS plays at that level.
It is easy to make broad claims in a forum about how a game plays, but logic is not very useful for supporting many of these claims. Claims are tested empirically, through trying things in the game and seeing how they turn out. Again, it seems that the NS team agrees with me, as they waited to see how alien vs marine balance was in 3.0f instead of listening to people's "logical arguments" in the forums. I admit that many of the posts regarding 3.0f did not have much logic. For the sake of appraising a forum post, though, I can think of few issues which have inspired such verbose responses from the community. For the practical purpose of appraising a post, I think that the 3.0f threads work fine as examples, as you'll rarely get more attempts at "logical arguments" than those.
Every time a patch comes out, people come up with instant complaints about balance. The NS team responds correctly by ignoring opinions that are not backed up by experience. There is no reason to listen to someone who has jumped on a server, failed to kill a marine in one focus bite, and left immediately to complain on the forums about how much it sucks.
Similarly, competitive players like to make sure that a person has the experience to back up his opinion before listening to a person expound on proper NS play. There is a huge number of incorrect claims made by players in the forum that are instantly recognizable to any competitive player as bogus. To say that we should look only at the logic of their argument and ignore their lack of experience seems a little strange to me. From people advertising unbeatable electrification rush strats to moderators (I don't recall who, specifically) saying they can still kill skulks in the same 8-10 bullets in 3.0f as 3.0b5 (as almost any competitive player can tell you without thinking, a skulk <b>never</b> died in 8 bullets in b5, and now always takes at least 10 bullets (and even more if you take into account that he is more likely to have celerity, decreasing your accuracy, or carapace, increasing his armor)).
Now, I agree that, if you define "skill" as aiming, movement, and the actual technical skills that rack you up frags and can be practiced on a combat server, then it is not a requirement to know things about the game. This assumes, however, little correlation between skill and knowledge of gameplay.
A player that joins CAL and lacks skill tends to practice and gain skill, or get frustrated and quit (Stukov excepted <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->). Nobody likes losing over and over. Players who learn how to play competitive NS thus tend to have skill.
A claim that I'll leave pretty much unjustified, except to say that I would find it hard to believe there are many competitive players who disagree with me, is that players are extremely unlikely to learn high-level gameplay without playing in a league. The NSA veteran's server, which is quite likely by far the highest-skill NS pub in existence at the moment, is still a far, far cry from an actual scrim or match (as people often complain).
Yes, a person can play 40 hours per week on his favorite pub and learn all about how the game works on that server. This, however, does not teach him about competitive gameplay.
Every clan player started out as a pubber. Every clan player has at least some moderate recollection of how much he knew about gameplay when pubbing, and how much more he knows now (in most cases, anyway <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (*cough* stukov *cough*)).
Competitive players focus on gameplay at the competitive level. They do not wish to discuss how the game works on public servers. Most players who know how the game plays at a competitive level have some reasonable amount of skill. In addition, I believe the insinuation often made by clanners is generally that posters lack experience with high-level gameplay, rather than skill.
I don't imagine competitive players mind so much people who ask questions or make suggestions. The seemingly greatest offenders are those who come into a thread and assert something about gameplay that betrays the poster's lack of experience (by "experience", I mean personal observation of how the game is played correctly, rather than necessarily thousands of hours of scrims and matches, though the two often go hand-in-hand).
I hope I didn't repeat my argument too many times. I sort of lost track <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<ul><li>Stukov and Dirm profess manlove</li><li>We should stop hating, and start stating</li><li>the obvious</li><li>namely that this is a forum intended for clanners, but nobody wants to openly admit to it, and instead we prefer to use a more politically correct term for fear of alienating idiots with a dangerous combination of ignorance and self-confidence. Wouldn't want to hurt those peoples feelings, no sir.</li><li>and that pubbers have the obnoxious tendency to think they know everything but really know sweet **** potatos</li><li>misused lists own your face.</li></ul>
A person may have the ability to correctly observe and analyze the game without being a skilled player. A skilled player may also lack the ability to correctly observe and analyze the game. This is true for most games and sports.
Wondering whether the person behind the words is good or bad at NS only draws the attention away from the message and to the person, and that is hardly a healthy nor a productive way of arguing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not going to listen to someone who doesn't play for a clan or spectate a lot of matches regularly about how the game is balanced
The discussion concerning 3.03 seems to be over.