personally I like the idea of impairments. Also you have no idea what kind of counters marines will have to these impairments. except for the fact that babblers being late game means there is no reason there shouldn't be a marine with a flame thrower to deal with them. I do kind of like the idea of heightened instead of dampened hearing when your dying. nothing like ###### your pants over every little sound at low health. also the sheer volume of noise you would hear could as disorienting as muffled sound. But either way would work for me.
also if you are attacking defense chambers you should probably have a thrower to counter umbra anyways. Mostly want to say I love the idea of fade sound not being where it is, just makes it all the more necessary for marine squads to have good sector control and communication. This ability just makes it easier for a fade to pick off the lone marine, which is something it should easily be able to do imho opinion.
<!--quoteo(post=1796850:date=Aug 30 2010, 02:19 AM:name=FocusedWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FocusedWolf @ Aug 30 2010, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796850"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If this is true then they seriously need to change it's name to avoid the in-game and in-forum confusion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really, people will forget about NS1 in no time. If it's a stomp it should be called Stomp.
<!--quoteo(post=1796828:date=Aug 30 2010, 11:15 AM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Aug 30 2010, 11:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->is where Harimau's logic lacks discipline<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your punctuation lacks discipline. But more to the point, <!--quoteo(post=1796828:date=Aug 30 2010, 11:15 AM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Aug 30 2010, 11:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->staying with a feature they put in from the start could still be based on a community response though<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No... That's only if they do a 180 and (independently of the community response) decide to <b>not</b> put it in, and then the community says "No! We want it in!" and then they <b>do</b> put it back in. The determiner is the starting condition. Your logic lacks understanding. <!--quoteo(post=1796828:date=Aug 30 2010, 11:15 AM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Aug 30 2010, 11:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->but thinking that is their sole basis on which they make decisions<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> When did I ever make that assumption? I put forward the idea that if Fade confusion is removed in concurrence with a vocal outcry against Fade confusion, it would be evidence that UWE place <b>too much</b> weight in community response. Your greatest error is assuming that this would be the first case in which they have made a decision that <b>could be seen</b> as being influenced by vocal community response - but everyone who has been following NS2 for the last year knows it wouldn't the first case. Once is a one-off. Twice in a row may or may not be coincidence. Any more and you've got a trend. Putting it another way: It would provide evidence that the "primary" basis, or the "leading" basis, (not the "sole" basis) upon which they make decisions was community response, and I find that possibility very worrying.
The thing about Fade confusion sounds is that it's a fresh and original (not to mention cool) idea, one of the few recent ones coming from Charlie and lot. Why else did we begin playing NS if not for "fresh and original", and why else do we support indie developers?
hookuy: Holocaust deniers say there was no holocaust, but the statistics say differently. Just food for thought. Take it as you will.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited September 2010
Putting bacon on ice cream is also "fresh and original (not to mention cool)", but obviously a bad idea. Flayra & co have had a lot of good ideas, but also an equal amount of truly horrifying ideas. Fade sound misdirection is somewhere in between those two extremes.
I played NS because it was a great game, not because of some ridiculous notion that it needs to be "fresh and original". I support NS2 and UWE because A. NS was a great game. B. I hope NS2 will be equally great.
<!--quoteo(post=1797088:date=Sep 1 2010, 12:29 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 1 2010, 12:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->hookuy: Holocaust deniers say there was no holocaust, but the statistics say differently. Just food for thought. Take it as you will.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you suggesting that the Devs listening to peoples suggestions (even tho, as pointed out by the Devs themselves, they make their own decisions) is somehow comparable to the Holocaust?
I said take it as you will. If that's how you wish to interpret it, then so be it.
(What I was actually implying was that I put more value in data trends than human statements - not because I think they're liars, but just because they're human. Maybe I was expecting too much for people to be intelligent enough to infer that.)
<!--quoteo(post=1797092:date=Sep 1 2010, 08:56 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Sep 1 2010, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797092"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Putting bacon on ice cream is also "fresh and original (not to mention cool)", but obviously a bad idea. Flayra & co have had a lot of good ideas, but also an equal amount of truly horrifying ideas. Fade sound misdirection is somewhere in between those two extremes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is not "obviously" a bad idea. It is obviously a good idea. (You see what's happening here? This is your <b>opinion</b> versus mine. Sad as I am to have to tell you, but you are not simply right.) Fade confusion, not the bacon on icecream, but I hear <a href="http://www.thisiswhyyourefat.com/" target="_blank">some people dig that</a>. <!--quoteo(post=1797092:date=Sep 1 2010, 08:56 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Sep 1 2010, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797092"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I played NS because it was a great game, not because of some ridiculous notion that it needs to be "fresh and original". I support NS2 and UWE because A. NS was a great game. B. I hope NS will be equally great.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So did I. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, NS was simply fun. But why did I pick up the game in the first place? The only mod I had ever played prior to NS was counter-strike, and that was already officially sanctioned by Valve. Well, NS was just simply cool, I loved the lore, I loved the gameplay, but it was also fresh and original - which is exactly what I have come to expect from modders, and independent developers. I didn't say that I played NS only because it was fresh and original - that doesn't even make sense, once you've begun playing it it's no longer as fresh and original. But I <b>began playing</b> NS (you didn't read this part carefully enough) because it was fresh and original.
Man I hate all these vision and hearing impairment effects that are found in every modern game except maybe starcraft, what an awesome game it is. Hopefully there won't be many in NS2.
AWP3 was a way to spoil a good game series with all of these bad effects. Don't even get me started on the motion blur. The multiplayer was just full of bad ideas.
<!--quoteo(post=1797101:date=Sep 1 2010, 09:49 PM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Sep 1 2010, 09:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797101"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Man I hate all these vision and hearing impairment effects that are found in every modern game except maybe starcraft, what an awesome game it is. Hopefully there won't be many in NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Same, but we'll see how it goes. I don't think they'll do anything drastic.
Note: Fade confusion isn't impairment, just as Silence and Cloaking aren't impairment.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1797088:date=Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your punctuation lacks discipline. But more to the point,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep, I should've quoted out "proof". But you do fail at sarcasm <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/tongue.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo(post=1797088:date=Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No... That's only if they do a 180 and (independently of the community response) decide to not put it in, and then the community says "No! We want it in!" and then they do put it back in. The determiner is the starting condition. Your logic lacks understanding.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Their original idea/implementation has nothing to do with this "proof". If they put in something in from the start and the community raves about it's awesomeness or how stupid it is. On which they then make a decision in terms of, <i>to keep or not to keep</i>, either of those choices <b>could</b> still be based on community response <b><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
See where your statement "lacked discipline". And @ the logic thingy, I think you've got that turned around here...
<!--quoteo(post=1797088:date=Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When did I ever make that assumption? I put forward the idea that if Fade confusion is removed in concurrence with a vocal outcry against Fade confusion, it would be evidence that UWE place too much weight in community response. Your greatest error is assuming that this would be the first case in which they have made a decision that could be seen as being influenced by vocal community response - but everyone who has been following NS2 for the last year knows it wouldn't the first case. Once is a one-off. Twice in a row may or may not be coincidence. Any more and you've got a trend. Putting it another way: It would provide evidence that the "primary" basis, or the "leading" basis, (not the "sole" basis) upon which they make decisions was community response, and I find that possibility very worrying.
The thing about Fade confusion sounds is that it's a fresh and original (not to mention cool) idea, one of the few recent ones coming from Charlie and lot. Why else did we begin playing NS if not for "fresh and original", and why else do we support indie developers?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Alright, you didn't say/insinuate "sole basis" But "leading basis" is not that much of a difference where "main decisions" for the game development are concerned. This other side of the coin has just has much "proof" as what you're saying <b><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
<b><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b><b><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b> I think alphz said it best with --> <!--quoteo(post=1796854:date=Aug 30 2010, 08:59 AM:name=alphz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alphz @ Aug 30 2010, 08:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796854"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If they keep a feature that announced their intention of implementing it could be due to community pressure, <u><b>but that would be difficult to prove. </b></u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GAH to many quotes syndrome makes readability unhappy :( (<-- that and I need a sad smiley)
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1797099:date=Sep 1 2010, 02:32 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 1 2010, 02:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797099"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is not "obviously" a bad idea. It is obviously a good idea. (You see what's happening here? This is your <b>opinion</b> versus mine. Sad as I am to have to tell you, but you are not simply right.) Fade confusion, not the bacon on icecream, but I hear <a href="http://www.thisiswhyyourefat.com/" target="_blank">some people dig that</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to say so I'll reply to all alternatives. Pick one:
A. I didn't say Fade misdirection was a bad idea. B. You're replying to my "this is my opinion" reply to your "this is my opinion" post with "well that's your opinion"? Really? C. Yes, "everything" is subjective. Yes, certainly it is possible that some people enjoy ice cream and bacon. No, my opinion doesn't necessarily have a higher value than that of somebody who loves ice cream and bacon. Yes, you're a moron for pointing this out. When someone uses words like "obviously" when stating their opinion, it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be a universally accepted opinion.
"Fresh and original" is a terrible buzzword with little to no actual content. Please stop using it as a crowbar for your argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1797099:date=Sep 1 2010, 09:32 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 1 2010, 09:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797099"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I said take it as you will. If that's how you wish to interpret it, then so be it.
(What I was actually implying was that I put more value in data trends than human statements - not because I think they're liars, but just because they're human. Maybe I was expecting too much for people to be intelligent enough to infer that.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Harimau, there is no trends to follow. In fact, it's quite simple. There were two options the Devs had, keep working on it or removing it. And there were 2 groups of people, the one that wanted it and the other that didn't. So following your way of thought, someone was gonna say that they listened to much to the forum no matter what they choose (either group). But like the Devs said before, they take decisions they think are for the best.
Like I said before, read Devs' post many times as you need, until you understand what they said. It's simpler than what you plot.
<!--quoteo(post=1797105:date=Sep 1 2010, 10:05 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Sep 1 2010, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797105"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But you do fail at sarcasm <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/tongue.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, my opinion is of great worth and your opinion is worth very little. <!--quoteo(post=1797105:date=Sep 1 2010, 10:05 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Sep 1 2010, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797105"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Their original idea/implementation has nothing to do with this "proof". If they put in something in from the start and the community raves about it's awesomeness or how stupid it is. On which they then make a decision in terms of, <i>to keep or not to keep</i>, either of those choices <b>could</b> still be based on community response <b><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
See where your statement "lacked discipline". And @ the logic thingy, I think you've got that turned around here...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Speaking of lacking discipline, none of what you said actually makes sense. Could you rephrase it? Maybe check it with your English teacher? Or check with your master in logic. I mean surely, with discipline such as yours, you must have been apprentice to some sort of grandmaster in logic! Anyway, I'll comment on the parts I did understand. <!--quoteo(post=1797105:date=Sep 1 2010, 10:05 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Sep 1 2010, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797105"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Alright, you didn't say/insinuate "sole basis" But "leading basis" is not that much of a difference where "main decisions" for the game development are concerned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course there's not much difference - wasn't that the entire point of my post? Why are you going in circles? "placing too much weight in the community opinion" -> "leading basis" -> not much difference from "sole basis" -> this is a problem. There <b>should</b> be much difference between the degree to which the developers "listen" to the community and their actual decision making criteria, and I <b>hope</b> that there is.
<!--quoteo(post=1797114:date=Sep 1 2010, 10:40 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Sep 1 2010, 10:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797114"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Fresh and original" is a terrible buzzword with little to no actual content. Please stop using it as a crowbar for your argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fine. Fade confusion is just a good idea. Anyway, I was under the impression that you're a moron for not seeing that your opinion is not any more valid than mine, so knowing that you're a moron, I felt that I had to educate you in this, by very clearly expressing it. It turns you're not a moron(?), so my concern was unnecessary. Well, how about that!
hookuy: Read the Bible as many times as you need, until you understand that Jesus is the true Lord.
<!--quoteo(post=1797126:date=Sep 1 2010, 01:45 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 1 2010, 01:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797126"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->hookuy: Read the Bible as many times as you need, until you understand that Jesus is the true Lord.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, nice argument, you have convinced me. (Pufff...)
<!--quoteo(post=1797120:date=Sep 1 2010, 04:09 PM:name=hookuy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hookuy @ Sep 1 2010, 04:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797120"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Harimau, there is no trends to follow. In fact, it's quite simple. There were two options the Devs had, keep working on it or removing it. And there were 2 groups of people, the one that wanted it and the other that didn't. So following your way of thought, someone was gonna say that they listened to much to the forum no matter what they choose (either group). But like the Devs said before, they take decisions they think are for the best.
Like I said before, read Devs' post many times as you need, until you understand what they said. It's simpler than what you plot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately the world doesn't work quite like this. Lets use a simple logic procession for a sample game mechanic;
1. developer announces a mechanic they are planning to implement
2. People complain about said implementation
3. Other people disagree about the people complaining, a flame war ensues
4. developer implements mechanic
or
5. developer does not implement mechanic.
Quick quiz guys, does step 4 require step 2 and/or 3? Does step 5 require either of those steps?
But back on topic;
I'd just purely and simply prefer discussion on actual experience and how the game plays out, rather than theory crafting. If you can present a reasonable discussion on how these features presented are a) classed as impairment b) what you interpret as impairment c) an alternative to said feature which would be more suitable but still add something to the game or why adding something is unnecessary.
Then people might be prepared to enter into productive discussion which might actually be useful.
<!--quoteo(post=1797403:date=Sep 3 2010, 11:35 AM:name=alphz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alphz @ Sep 3 2010, 11:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd just purely and simply prefer discussion on actual experience and how the game plays out, rather than theory crafting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why cant both be useful and viable? If kept seperate and its clear wether input is theory or feedback, I dont see why both cant be a productive use of the forum.
On topic, I usually get drunk while playing, so Im quite impaired enough without the game doing it. That said, if its immersive in the context of the game who'd even notice?
<!--quoteo(post=1797405:date=Sep 3 2010, 11:56 AM:name=Harathan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harathan @ Sep 3 2010, 11:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797405"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why cant both be useful and viable? If kept seperate and its clear wether input is theory or feedback, I dont see why both cant be a productive use of the forum.
On topic, I usually get drunk while playing, so Im quite impaired enough without the game doing it. That said, if its immersive in the context of the game who'd even notice?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a perfect world...
But really, they can and should both be productive. However, actual game play has the added benefit of evidence; while not the magic bullet for intelligent discussion it is generally a far more accepted currency than pure opinion.
<!--quoteo(post=1797160:date=Sep 2 2010, 03:45 AM:name=hookuy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hookuy @ Sep 2 2010, 03:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797160"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wow, nice argument, you have convinced me. (Pufff...)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Convinced you that your argument was terrible? I sure hope so. I hope you do realise that's what your statement essentially resembled? That your argument is just as ignorant, narrow-minded and zealous.
<!--quoteo(post=1797683:date=Sep 6 2010, 06:35 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 6 2010, 06:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797683"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Convinced you that your argument was terrible? I sure hope so. I hope you do realise that's what your statement essentially resembled? That your argument is just as ignorant, narrow-minded and zealous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow dude, thanks for the free aggression. I didn't know you were an erudite, please, show me the way to the light, sensei!
Seriously, haven't you realized yet that you have arguments with a lot of people in this forum? And you have the nerve to tell me I'm "ignorant, narrow-minded and zealous", wow man. Anyway, probably you are still young, so I should stop right here, and let you hit yourself hard with life.
<!--quoteo(post=1797550:date=Sep 4 2010, 12:35 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Sep 4 2010, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797550"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It depends if it is conducive to play, L4D2 did things really well I thought.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ahahahahaahahhahahahahahahaha
Sorry.
L4D does disabling animations and mechanics because it has FORCED TEAMWORK where is any one goes away alone, they should die a horrible death.
Most players would really, really dislike that for NS. You should be at a disadvantage in NS alone, but still have a moderate chance of survival and ability to do something useful.
L4D does disabling animations and mechanics because it has FORCED TEAMWORK where is any one goes away alone, they should die a horrible death.
Most players would really, really dislike that for NS. You should be at a disadvantage in NS alone, but still have a moderate chance of survival and ability to do something useful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> His point still stands; he wasn't suggesting that players should lose complete control as they do in L4D, but that impairment as it was implemented in that game worked very well for the type of gameplay.
Depending on the type of impairment and how strong the effects are, player impairment can also have a place in NS2
<!--quoteo(post=1796613:date=Aug 28 2010, 04:18 AM:name=Pyromaniac)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pyromaniac @ Aug 28 2010, 04:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796613"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->People love the feeling of being in complete control of their player and the dynamic is creates, this is why jump and air control are so often praised.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Praised by who, you and your elite cadre of self-appointed video game snobs?
Air control doesn't exist in real life, nor does the ability to propel myself down hallways at the speed of sound by jumping while wiggling my body around.
Ergo, the vast majority of players do not care too much about either of those things. It's unintuitive, and people are not going to miss something they never expected to exist in the first place. The population who makes a big ****ing deal about that make up an incredibly tiny and utterly insignificant population. A game is a combination of HUNDREDS of design choices and elements. That what happens when you press the spacebar is the single foremost concern regardless of anything else, ever, is damning proof that these people are imbeciles and are best ignored anyway since they're going to hate the game no matter what because in the end, they all just want a masturbatory celebration to an aging game people got tired of 13 years ago and won't be happy with anything else.
I accept that minor air control should be in all games if only to reflect the fact that controlling a real-life jump is a lot more accurate than controlling a jump with four analog directional inputs and a single 'press to perform a leap of only a set amount of power' bar. Tiny amounts of air control let you compensate for that inflexibility by letting you shorten, lengthen, or more finely direct yourself a little.
I really only got that far and decided I hate your post and it's probably the same inane drivel I've been crusading against on this forum for, oh, 9 years or so now.
<!--quoteo(post=1797851:date=Sep 8 2010, 12:46 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Sep 8 2010, 12:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797851"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Praised by who, you and your elite cadre of self-appointed video game snobs?
Air control doesn't exist in real life, nor does the ability to propel myself down hallways at the speed of sound by jumping while wiggling my body around
I really only got that far and decided I hate your post and it's probably the same inane drivel I've been crusading against on this forum for, oh, 9 years or so now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nor does NS2 exist in real life do we care? Any game with lifespan longer than 6 months has a good movement or excellent gameplay and air control is one the things included.
Are you hoping for realistic singleplayer experience for NS2?
<!--quoteo(post=1797852:date=Sep 7 2010, 09:57 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Sep 7 2010, 09:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797852"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nor does NS2 exist in real life do we care? Any game with lifespan longer than 6 months has a good movement or excellent gameplay and air control is one the things included.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
REMOVING GRENADES IS GOING TO KILL TF2
NO CONC JUMP TF2 IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED
OMG FUQ VAELV WHARZ MEH BHOP N SUPAR AIR CONTRUL
etc. etc. and subsequent lols.
Making a good game that lasts for a long time is about way, way more than simply reaching into some sort of god damn box full of gameplay features and slapping on a +5 BUNNYHOPPING OF LONGEVITY feature. If you seriously think that that's all that's needed to make a good game, well, see my aforementioned 'imbeciles' remark.
Let me put it this way, do you consider it better to have a game with a core userbase that plays for a long time, or a game with a flexible userbase that come and go constantly over a long time?
Because one of those is a successful business model. The other is dumb.
Making a good game that lasts for a long time is about way, way more than simply reaching into some sort of god damn box full of gameplay features and slapping on a +5 BUNNYHOPPING OF LONGEVITY feature. If you seriously think that that's all that's needed to make a good game, well, see my aforementioned 'imbeciles' remark.
Let me put it this way, do you consider it better to have a game with a core userbase that plays for a long time, or a game with a flexible userbase that come and go constantly over a long time?
Because one of those is a successful business model. The other is dumb.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Were your "quotes" made by top TFC players cause I think can find few funny ones for NS aswell?
Comments
Commander: "Stop rocking my boat, you stupid space gorilla!"
Not really, people will forget about NS1 in no time. If it's a stomp it should be called Stomp.
Your punctuation lacks discipline. But more to the point,
<!--quoteo(post=1796828:date=Aug 30 2010, 11:15 AM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Aug 30 2010, 11:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->staying with a feature they put in from the start could still be based on a community response though<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No... That's only if they do a 180 and (independently of the community response) decide to <b>not</b> put it in, and then the community says "No! We want it in!" and then they <b>do</b> put it back in.
The determiner is the starting condition.
Your logic lacks understanding.
<!--quoteo(post=1796828:date=Aug 30 2010, 11:15 AM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Aug 30 2010, 11:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796828"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->but thinking that is their sole basis on which they make decisions<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When did I ever make that assumption? I put forward the idea that if Fade confusion is removed in concurrence with a vocal outcry against Fade confusion, it would be evidence that UWE place <b>too much</b> weight in community response.
Your greatest error is assuming that this would be the first case in which they have made a decision that <b>could be seen</b> as being influenced by vocal community response - but everyone who has been following NS2 for the last year knows it wouldn't the first case.
Once is a one-off. Twice in a row may or may not be coincidence. Any more and you've got a trend.
Putting it another way: It would provide evidence that the "primary" basis, or the "leading" basis, (not the "sole" basis) upon which they make decisions was community response, and I find that possibility very worrying.
The thing about Fade confusion sounds is that it's a fresh and original (not to mention cool) idea, one of the few recent ones coming from Charlie and lot.
Why else did we begin playing NS if not for "fresh and original", and why else do we support indie developers?
hookuy: Holocaust deniers say there was no holocaust, but the statistics say differently. Just food for thought. Take it as you will.
I played NS because it was a great game, not because of some ridiculous notion that it needs to be "fresh and original". I support NS2 and UWE because A. NS was a great game. B. I hope NS2 will be equally great.
Are you suggesting that the Devs listening to peoples suggestions (even tho, as pointed out by the Devs themselves, they make their own decisions) is somehow comparable to the Holocaust?
(What I was actually implying was that I put more value in data trends than human statements - not because I think they're liars, but just because they're human. Maybe I was expecting too much for people to be intelligent enough to infer that.)
<!--quoteo(post=1797092:date=Sep 1 2010, 08:56 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Sep 1 2010, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797092"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Putting bacon on ice cream is also "fresh and original (not to mention cool)", but obviously a bad idea. Flayra & co have had a lot of good ideas, but also an equal amount of truly horrifying ideas. Fade sound misdirection is somewhere in between those two extremes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is not "obviously" a bad idea. It is obviously a good idea.
(You see what's happening here? This is your <b>opinion</b> versus mine. Sad as I am to have to tell you, but you are not simply right.)
Fade confusion, not the bacon on icecream, but I hear <a href="http://www.thisiswhyyourefat.com/" target="_blank">some people dig that</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=1797092:date=Sep 1 2010, 08:56 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Sep 1 2010, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797092"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I played NS because it was a great game, not because of some ridiculous notion that it needs to be "fresh and original". I support NS2 and UWE because A. NS was a great game. B. I hope NS will be equally great.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So did I. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, NS was simply fun. But why did I pick up the game in the first place? The only mod I had ever played prior to NS was counter-strike, and that was already officially sanctioned by Valve. Well, NS was just simply cool, I loved the lore, I loved the gameplay, but it was also fresh and original - which is exactly what I have come to expect from modders, and independent developers. I didn't say that I played NS only because it was fresh and original - that doesn't even make sense, once you've begun playing it it's no longer as fresh and original. But I <b>began playing</b> NS (you didn't read this part carefully enough) because it was fresh and original.
AWP3 was a way to spoil a good game series with all of these bad effects. Don't even get me started on the motion blur. The multiplayer was just full of bad ideas.
Same, but we'll see how it goes. I don't think they'll do anything drastic.
Note: Fade confusion isn't impairment, just as Silence and Cloaking aren't impairment.
Yep, I should've quoted out "proof". But you do fail at sarcasm <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/tongue.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo(post=1797088:date=Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No... That's only if they do a 180 and (independently of the community response) decide to not put it in, and then the community says "No! We want it in!" and then they do put it back in.
The determiner is the starting condition.
Your logic lacks understanding.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Their original idea/implementation has nothing to do with this "proof". If they put in something in from the start and the community raves about it's awesomeness or how stupid it is. On which they then make a decision in terms of, <i>to keep or not to keep</i>, either of those choices <b>could</b> still be based on community response <b><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
See where your statement "lacked discipline". And @ the logic thingy, I think you've got that turned around here...
<!--quoteo(post=1797088:date=Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Sep 1 2010, 02:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When did I ever make that assumption? I put forward the idea that if Fade confusion is removed in concurrence with a vocal outcry against Fade confusion, it would be evidence that UWE place too much weight in community response.
Your greatest error is assuming that this would be the first case in which they have made a decision that could be seen as being influenced by vocal community response - but everyone who has been following NS2 for the last year knows it wouldn't the first case.
Once is a one-off. Twice in a row may or may not be coincidence. Any more and you've got a trend.
Putting it another way: It would provide evidence that the "primary" basis, or the "leading" basis, (not the "sole" basis) upon which they make decisions was community response, and I find that possibility very worrying.
The thing about Fade confusion sounds is that it's a fresh and original (not to mention cool) idea, one of the few recent ones coming from Charlie and lot.
Why else did we begin playing NS if not for "fresh and original", and why else do we support indie developers?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright, you didn't say/insinuate "sole basis" But "leading basis" is not that much of a difference where "main decisions" for the game development are concerned. This other side of the coin has just has much "proof" as what you're saying <b><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
<b><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b><b><!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
I think alphz said it best with -->
<!--quoteo(post=1796854:date=Aug 30 2010, 08:59 AM:name=alphz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (alphz @ Aug 30 2010, 08:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796854"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If they keep a feature that announced their intention of implementing it could be due to community pressure, <u><b>but that would be difficult to prove. </b></u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GAH to many quotes syndrome makes readability unhappy :( (<-- that and I need a sad smiley)
(You see what's happening here? This is your <b>opinion</b> versus mine. Sad as I am to have to tell you, but you are not simply right.)
Fade confusion, not the bacon on icecream, but I hear <a href="http://www.thisiswhyyourefat.com/" target="_blank">some people dig that</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to say so I'll reply to all alternatives. Pick one:
A. I didn't say Fade misdirection was a bad idea.
B. You're replying to my "this is my opinion" reply to your "this is my opinion" post with "well that's your opinion"? Really?
C. Yes, "everything" is subjective. Yes, certainly it is possible that some people enjoy ice cream and bacon. No, my opinion doesn't necessarily have a higher value than that of somebody who loves ice cream and bacon. Yes, you're a moron for pointing this out. When someone uses words like "obviously" when stating their opinion, it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be a universally accepted opinion.
"Fresh and original" is a terrible buzzword with little to no actual content. Please stop using it as a crowbar for your argument.
(What I was actually implying was that I put more value in data trends than human statements - not because I think they're liars, but just because they're human. Maybe I was expecting too much for people to be intelligent enough to infer that.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Harimau, there is no trends to follow. In fact, it's quite simple. There were two options the Devs had, keep working on it or removing it. And there were 2 groups of people, the one that wanted it and the other that didn't. So following your way of thought, someone was gonna say that they listened to much to the forum no matter what they choose (either group). But like the Devs said before, they take decisions they think are for the best.
Like I said before, read Devs' post many times as you need, until you understand what they said. It's simpler than what you plot.
That's a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, my opinion is of great worth and your opinion is worth very little.
<!--quoteo(post=1797105:date=Sep 1 2010, 10:05 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Sep 1 2010, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797105"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Their original idea/implementation has nothing to do with this "proof". If they put in something in from the start and the community raves about it's awesomeness or how stupid it is. On which they then make a decision in terms of, <i>to keep or not to keep</i>, either of those choices <b>could</b> still be based on community response <b><!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->*<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></b>
See where your statement "lacked discipline". And @ the logic thingy, I think you've got that turned around here...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speaking of lacking discipline, none of what you said actually makes sense. Could you rephrase it? Maybe check it with your English teacher? Or check with your master in logic. I mean surely, with discipline such as yours, you must have been apprentice to some sort of grandmaster in logic!
Anyway, I'll comment on the parts I did understand.
<!--quoteo(post=1797105:date=Sep 1 2010, 10:05 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Sep 1 2010, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797105"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Alright, you didn't say/insinuate "sole basis" But "leading basis" is not that much of a difference where "main decisions" for the game development are concerned.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course there's not much difference - wasn't that the entire point of my post? Why are you going in circles? "placing too much weight in the community opinion" -> "leading basis" -> not much difference from "sole basis" -> this is a problem. There <b>should</b> be much difference between the degree to which the developers "listen" to the community and their actual decision making criteria, and I <b>hope</b> that there is.
<!--quoteo(post=1797114:date=Sep 1 2010, 10:40 PM:name=fanatic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fanatic @ Sep 1 2010, 10:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1797114"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Fresh and original" is a terrible buzzword with little to no actual content. Please stop using it as a crowbar for your argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fine. Fade confusion is just a good idea.
Anyway, I was under the impression that you're a moron for not seeing that your opinion is not any more valid than mine, so knowing that you're a moron, I felt that I had to educate you in this, by very clearly expressing it. It turns you're not a moron(?), so my concern was unnecessary. Well, how about that!
hookuy: Read the Bible as many times as you need, until you understand that Jesus is the true Lord.
Wow, nice argument, you have convinced me. (Pufff...)
Like I said before, read Devs' post many times as you need, until you understand what they said. It's simpler than what you plot.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately the world doesn't work quite like this. Lets use a simple logic procession for a sample game mechanic;
1. developer announces a mechanic they are planning to implement
2. People complain about said implementation
3. Other people disagree about the people complaining, a flame war ensues
4. developer implements mechanic
or
5. developer does not implement mechanic.
Quick quiz guys, does step 4 require step 2 and/or 3?
Does step 5 require either of those steps?
But back on topic;
I'd just purely and simply prefer discussion on actual experience and how the game plays out, rather than theory crafting. If you can present a reasonable discussion on how these features presented are a) classed as impairment b) what you interpret as impairment c) an alternative to said feature which would be more suitable but still add something to the game or why adding something is unnecessary.
Then people might be prepared to enter into productive discussion which might actually be useful.
Why cant both be useful and viable? If kept seperate and its clear wether input is theory or feedback, I dont see why both cant be a productive use of the forum.
On topic, I usually get drunk while playing, so Im quite impaired enough without the game doing it. That said, if its immersive in the context of the game who'd even notice?
On topic, I usually get drunk while playing, so Im quite impaired enough without the game doing it. That said, if its immersive in the context of the game who'd even notice?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a perfect world...
But really, they can and should both be productive. However, actual game play has the added benefit of evidence; while not the magic bullet for intelligent discussion it is generally a far more accepted currency than pure opinion.
Convinced you that your argument was terrible? I sure hope so. I hope you do realise that's what your statement essentially resembled? That your argument is just as ignorant, narrow-minded and zealous.
Wow dude, thanks for the free aggression. I didn't know you were an erudite, please, show me the way to the light, sensei!
Seriously, haven't you realized yet that you have arguments with a lot of people in this forum? And you have the nerve to tell me I'm "ignorant, narrow-minded and zealous", wow man. Anyway, probably you are still young, so I should stop right here, and let you hit yourself hard with life.
ahahahahaahahhahahahahahahaha
Sorry.
L4D does disabling animations and mechanics because it has FORCED TEAMWORK where is any one goes away alone, they should die a horrible death.
Most players would really, really dislike that for NS. You should be at a disadvantage in NS alone, but still have a moderate chance of survival and ability to do something useful.
Sorry.
L4D does disabling animations and mechanics because it has FORCED TEAMWORK where is any one goes away alone, they should die a horrible death.
Most players would really, really dislike that for NS. You should be at a disadvantage in NS alone, but still have a moderate chance of survival and ability to do something useful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His point still stands; he wasn't suggesting that players should lose complete control as they do in L4D, but that impairment as it was implemented in that game worked very well for the type of gameplay.
Depending on the type of impairment and how strong the effects are, player impairment can also have a place in NS2
Praised by who, you and your elite cadre of self-appointed video game snobs?
Air control doesn't exist in real life, nor does the ability to propel myself down hallways at the speed of sound by jumping while wiggling my body around.
Ergo, the vast majority of players do not care too much about either of those things. It's unintuitive, and people are not going to miss something they never expected to exist in the first place. The population who makes a big ****ing deal about that make up an incredibly tiny and utterly insignificant population. A game is a combination of HUNDREDS of design choices and elements. That what happens when you press the spacebar is the single foremost concern regardless of anything else, ever, is damning proof that these people are imbeciles and are best ignored anyway since they're going to hate the game no matter what because in the end, they all just want a masturbatory celebration to an aging game people got tired of 13 years ago and won't be happy with anything else.
I accept that minor air control should be in all games if only to reflect the fact that controlling a real-life jump is a lot more accurate than controlling a jump with four analog directional inputs and a single 'press to perform a leap of only a set amount of power' bar. Tiny amounts of air control let you compensate for that inflexibility by letting you shorten, lengthen, or more finely direct yourself a little.
I really only got that far and decided I hate your post and it's probably the same inane drivel I've been crusading against on this forum for, oh, 9 years or so now.
Air control doesn't exist in real life, nor does the ability to propel myself down hallways at the speed of sound by jumping while wiggling my body around
I really only got that far and decided I hate your post and it's probably the same inane drivel I've been crusading against on this forum for, oh, 9 years or so now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nor does NS2 exist in real life do we care? Any game with lifespan longer than 6 months has a good movement or excellent gameplay and air control is one the things included.
Are you hoping for realistic singleplayer experience for NS2?
REMOVING GRENADES IS GOING TO KILL TF2
NO CONC JUMP TF2 IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED
OMG FUQ VAELV WHARZ MEH BHOP N SUPAR AIR CONTRUL
etc. etc. and subsequent lols.
Making a good game that lasts for a long time is about way, way more than simply reaching into some sort of god damn box full of gameplay features and slapping on a +5 BUNNYHOPPING OF LONGEVITY feature. If you seriously think that that's all that's needed to make a good game, well, see my aforementioned 'imbeciles' remark.
Let me put it this way, do you consider it better to have a game with a core userbase that plays for a long time, or a game with a flexible userbase that come and go constantly over a long time?
Because one of those is a successful business model. The other is dumb.
NO CONC JUMP TF2 IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED
OMG FUQ VAELV WHARZ MEH BHOP N SUPAR AIR CONTRUL
etc. etc. and subsequent lols.
Making a good game that lasts for a long time is about way, way more than simply reaching into some sort of god damn box full of gameplay features and slapping on a +5 BUNNYHOPPING OF LONGEVITY feature. If you seriously think that that's all that's needed to make a good game, well, see my aforementioned 'imbeciles' remark.
Let me put it this way, do you consider it better to have a game with a core userbase that plays for a long time, or a game with a flexible userbase that come and go constantly over a long time?
Because one of those is a successful business model. The other is dumb.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Were your "quotes" made by top TFC players cause I think can find few funny ones for NS aswell?