Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Pointsfix debate - cleared - I plead guilty :(
cmatt42 wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 19:17 Goztow wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 01:26 For Renegade of course. I'm fully aware that TT shouldn't include balance changes, but the keyword here is should. I want to be damn sure it doesn't before it's pushed. The fact if something is a bug or a balance issue can be different in the eye of the beholder, as was shown in the past. I think this is the most nonsensical post I've ever seen you write. OK, one word: POINTSFIX.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 14:47 cmatt42 wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 19:17 Goztow wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 01:26 For Renegade of course. I'm fully aware that TT shouldn't include balance changes, but the keyword here is should. I want to be damn sure it doesn't before it's pushed. The fact if something is a bug or a balance issue can be different in the eye of the beholder, as was shown in the past. I think this is the most nonsensical post I've ever seen you write. OK, one word: POINTSFIX. Don't start that here...lol.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 14:47 OK, one word: POINTSFIX. The points issue is something that's been fixed a long time ago without the hands of APB or Reborn testers. As far as scripts 4.0 go, we're just testing the functionality to make sure everything works. Anything relating to Renegade's balance is, quite frankly, out of our scope.
cmatt42 wrote on Wed, 09 December 2009 08:16 Goztow wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 14:47 OK, one word: POINTSFIX. The points issue is something that's been fixed a long time ago without the hands of APB or Reborn testers. As far as scripts 4.0 go, we're just testing the functionality to make sure everything works. Anything relating to Renegade's balance is, quite frankly, out of our scope. Thank you, that's what I mean.
how can you say that changing the point system doesnt effect balence? half of renegade wasnt against it because they wouldnt get 50 extra points for hitting the harvy, as a certain person had u beleive.
huzzah! here we go
HaTe wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 22:21 Goztow wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 14:47 cmatt42 wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 19:17 Goztow wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 01:26 For Renegade of course. I'm fully aware that TT shouldn't include balance changes, but the keyword here is should. I want to be damn sure it doesn't before it's pushed. The fact if something is a bug or a balance issue can be different in the eye of the beholder, as was shown in the past. I think this is the most nonsensical post I've ever seen you write. OK, one word: POINTSFIX. Don't start that here...lol.
As a moderator: DO NOT START A POINTSFIX DEBATE/FLAME WAR IN THIS TOPIC. Offenders will be banned. Go start it where it belongs.
CarrierII wrote on Wed, 09 December 2009 16:27 As a moderator: DO NOT START A POINTSFIX DEBATE/FLAME WAR IN THIS TOPIC. Offenders will be banned. Go start it where it belongs. Thank you.
It was just an example .
CarrierII wrote on Wed, 09 December 2009 16:27 As a moderator: DO NOT START A POINTSFIX DEBATE/FLAME WAR IN THIS TOPIC. Offenders will be banned. Go start it where it belongs. Can you ban moderators ... Goztow
Gen_Blacky wrote on Fri, 11 December 2009 08:56 CarrierII wrote on Wed, 09 December 2009 16:27 As a moderator: DO NOT START A POINTSFIX DEBATE/FLAME WAR IN THIS TOPIC. Offenders will be banned. Go start it where it belongs. Can you ban moderators ... Goztow I can. YazooGang:!ban Goztow Fobby said so. Host: Sorry, Goztow is an awesome moderator, we cant ban him :/ Opps, sorry man, cant.
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Wed, 09 December 2009 16:01 how can you say that changing the point system doesnt effect balence? half of renegade wasnt against it because they wouldnt get 50 extra points for hitting the harvy, as a certain person had u beleive. again it seems that the extraordinary lengths i went to to acknowledge and respond to people's criticisms of the pointsfix are in inverse proportion to the attention they paid to my own statements. the only criticism from you that lasted more than thirty seconds in a debate was about mesa (although the fact you focused on this one map while totally ignoring the vastly improved fairness of under, field and wallsfly said a lot more than you meant it to), and i said right from the beginning that this was because the map itself had a huge bug that could also be fixed (deadzones). lo and behold, fixing that has revolutionised the map. don't go misrepresenting my statements on the pointsfix and don't go pretending that i didn't make an extraordinarly careful and thoughtful case in its favour, it's only gonna end with you looking stupid and/or dishonest yet again. but i will agree with you on one thing: i won't hear it said that the pointsfix doesn't affect balance. of course it does; it fixes a glaring balance problem. getting points and credits for absolutely no reason. of course removing this bullshit is going to affect balance; the fact it affects balance so positively is the best thing about it. "how can you say that changing the point system doesnt effect balence?" indeed. of course changing the original points system, thereby allowing you to get points and credits for absolutely no reason, will affect the game's balance.
What have I done?
Goztow wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 02:41 What have I done? Quick split topic b4 carrier comes back Pointsfix does suck imo tho.
SoQRadio wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 08:25 lmao, well done Goztoe
Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 01:46 "how can you say that changing the point system doesnt effect balence?" indeed. of course changing the original points system, thereby allowing you to get points and credits for absolutely no reason, will affect the game's balance. For "absolutely no reason" it has been perfectly fine the last 7 years.
KobraOps wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 21:59 Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 01:46 "how can you say that changing the point system doesnt effect balence?" indeed. of course changing the original points system, thereby allowing you to get points and credits for absolutely no reason, will affect the game's balance. For "absolutely no reason" it has been perfectly fine the last 7 years. Just like smoking is healthy. For years it was even recommended by doctors when people where stressed.
KobraOps wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 14:59 Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 01:46 "how can you say that changing the point system doesnt effect balence?" indeed. of course changing the original points system, thereby allowing you to get points and credits for absolutely no reason, will affect the game's balance. For "absolutely no reason" it has been perfectly fine the last 7 years. if you think it was "fine" then you obviously don't mind the wrong team winning, defensive play being rewarded instead of offensive play, the economy system almost disappearing, certain maps being horribly lopsided, the ladder being almost meaningless etc etc etc
KobraOps wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 14:59 Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 01:46 "how can you say that changing the point system doesnt effect balence?" indeed. of course changing the original points system, thereby allowing you to get points and credits for absolutely no reason, will affect the game's balance. For "absolutely no reason" it has been perfectly fine the last 7 years. OH GOD NO, CHANGE I GUESS WE HAVE TO BITCH AND MOAN ABOUT IT why not play 1.00 version of Renegade while you're at it
Cuz no flying, why else? And Spoony, did the ladder system ever really have a meaning? Not to mention that some of the other things you mentioned still exist.. I'm willing to adopt to whatever changes are made, but i would also prefer less major impact changes, so i do not have to adapt as much.
HaTe wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 18:44 And Spoony, did the ladder system ever really have a meaning? no, and the fact you could get points for absolutely no reason and the fact the wrong team won a lot of the time was a huge part of why. i've drawn up a system to make the public-server ladder worth something, just waiting for it to be implemented. and i've already done so with the clan ladder, as you know. Quote: Not to mention that some of the other things you mentioned still exist.. go on? Quote: I'm willing to adopt to whatever changes are made, but i would also prefer less major impact changes, so i do not have to adapt as much. it doesn't take much work to "adapt" to the original renegade points and economy system, you just need to remember to actually do damage instead of shooting things ineffectually.
Quote: it doesn't take much work to "adapt" to the original renegade points and economy system, you just need to remember to actually do damage instead of shooting things ineffectually. Thing is, for example, if you are used to sniping, and getting points to win by shooting tanks with heavy armor, then it does take adaptation to know that there is now no point in shooting them. Just one of many examples i could use, just takes less time, and is easier on us all if we just don;t have to, if not needed. I know you feel that it IS needed, which is fine by me, just that others do not.
HaTe wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 19:56 Thing is, for example, if you are used to sniping, and getting points to win by shooting tanks with heavy armor, then it does take adaptation to know that there is now no point in shooting them. the fault for this belongs entirely to the points bug - it taught you ridiculously bad habits. still, it shouldn't take you much brainpower to get over that one - if your reaction upon seeing a heavy vehicle threatening your base is to shoot it ineffectually, i put it to you that you were never a good player in the first place. Quote: Just one of many examples i could use don't hide behind that, give all of the "many". Quote: just takes less time, and is easier on us all if we just don;t have to, if not needed. I know you feel that it IS needed, which is fine by me, just that others do not. well, that says it all, doesn't it. if you don't think the maps should be fair, and if you don't think offensive play should trump defensive play, and if you don't think points ought to mean anything at all, and if you don't really think the game ought to have an economy system, then you won't see the need in implementing the original points system.
Spoony, there's no sense arguing. Any sensible person knows you're right- and someone who can't make any sense won't try to be anything else.
Re: Pointsfix debate - cleared - I plaid guilty :(
Split here. Sorry for starting this again .
mr zimmer, i dont think spoony is interested in a a relationship so u can stop sucking up to him now.
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 09:13 mr zimmer, i dont think spoony is interested in a a relationship so u can stop sucking up to him now. Ah yes, comments and inuendo about sexual preference. A sure fire way to win the arguement! Why not just do away with the actual debate all together and out right call him a fag? Oh wait, you did. You don't look clever, you don't look tough. If you've managed to impress anyone, it's only other retards.
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 08:13 mr zimmer, i dont think spoony is interested in a a relationship so u can stop sucking up to him now. looool. You do know that Spoony has tried for AGES to come to a compromise between people who want pointsfix and those who don't, right? Guess who try the hardest to make the compromises? The pro-pointsfix crowd. The anti-pointsfix crowd does nothing but throw out retarded "insults", make up stupid terms they refuse to change (calling the pointsfix a "pointmod" and such), using nonsensical logic constantly (THE POINTSFIX IS BAD BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT ORIGINAL RENEGADE USED SO POINTSFIX IS BAD), and generally being assholes. I see no reason why Spoony has to continue with the constant stream of bullshit. And people like you only further my opinion (which seems more and more to be a fact) of the anti-pointsfix crowd.
These threads stopped being funny a long time ago. 1. Pointsfix makes public server gameplay better 2. Pointsfix creates more problems than it solves in clanwars mmmmmhh
GOZTOE THIS TIME YOU HAVE GONE TO FAR! (I can't believe no one did that yet)
I fail to see how I'm in the anti-pointsfix crowd. Spoony, you known all of the adjustments the pointsfix made, so why would you want me to restate them? I have no intention of being quote spammed all day long you, as i am sure you would not hesitate to do. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you, all i said that is I will adjust to anything, as long as it is fair. Meaning that I will still play with the pointsfix, and i will not complain about it...I just think that some certain things will take some getting used to, and that I personally don't see them necessary. I have no intentions of posting every last one, as you would find a way to try and convince me that it is for the better in each case, and i just wish to save us both the time - I am arrogant. No need attacking a person for posting his opinion, when it is neither with you, or against you, it will just make said person turn more against you in the end. I think that that may be a reason why some people may not like you, but hey, that's just my opinion again.
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 15:13 mr zimmer, i dont think spoony is interested in a a relationship so u can stop sucking up to him now. Anti-pointfix camp loses because of Chew's law.
So the other day I am playing field. I am on GDI and trying to hold our position at Nod's base front. I had been using a MRLS most of the game, used a few meds when I could afford them... kept losing tanks because nobody was helping in field. It was a smaller game. Getting closer to the end of the round I was noticing somebody else on my team had a lot of points, they were even passing me at some times while I repaired. I look back and see a havoc... apparently this asshole had been sitting there all round shooting the harvester trying to get MVP. I didn't feel he deserved MVP for n00bjetting the harv for 30 mins... so I started trying to kill the harvester as soon as I could. If that stupid point whore would have actually helped me in the field we might have ended that map a lot sooner with a base kill... Stupid shit like this makes me for pointfix. If you want points you should do something worth the points. MVP = most valuable player... I don't give a shit how many points you get, you are not truly valuable to the team sniping a harvester... unless of course you downloaded some nifty extra that will enable you to actually kill the damn thing.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 13:54 ELiT3FLyR wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 15:13 mr zimmer, i dont think spoony is interested in a a relationship so u can stop sucking up to him now. Anti-pointfix camp loses because of Chew's law. LOL, gg. double post, but couldn't help it
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 18:29 KobraOps wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 14:59 Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 01:46 "how can you say that changing the point system doesnt effect balence?" indeed. of course changing the original points system, thereby allowing you to get points and credits for absolutely no reason, will affect the game's balance. For "absolutely no reason" it has been perfectly fine the last 7 years. OH GOD NO, CHANGE I GUESS WE HAVE TO BITCH AND MOAN ABOUT IT You dirty obama lover. Keep ur change. Oh and comparing playing a video game to smoking, wtf?
Chew wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 13:54 So the other day I am playing field. I am on GDI and trying to hold our position at Nod's base front. I had been using a MRLS most of the game, used a few meds when I could afford them... kept losing tanks because nobody was helping in field. It was a smaller game. Getting closer to the end of the round I was noticing somebody else on my team had a lot of points, they were even passing me at some times while I repaired. I look back and see a havoc... apparently this asshole had been sitting there all round shooting the harvester trying to get MVP. I didn't feel he deserved MVP for n00bjetting the harv for 30 mins... so I started trying to kill the harvester as soon as I could. If that stupid point whore would have actually helped me in the field we might have ended that map a lot sooner with a base kill... Stupid shit like this makes me for pointfix. If you want points you should do something worth the points. MVP = most valuable player... I don't give a shit how many points you get, you are not truly valuable to the team sniping a harvester... unless of course you downloaded some nifty extra that will enable you to actually kill the damn thing. Most servers allow you to shoot enemy buildings with your tank, fyi.
KobraOps wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 10:20 You dirty obama lover. Keep ur change. LOL KobraOps wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 10:20 Oh and comparing playing a video game to smoking, wtf? It actually makes perfect sense if you stop and think about it. Oh, wait, haha.
KobraOps wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 21:20 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 18:29 KobraOps wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 14:59 Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 01:46 "how can you say that changing the point system doesnt effect balence?" indeed. of course changing the original points system, thereby allowing you to get points and credits for absolutely no reason, will affect the game's balance. For "absolutely no reason" it has been perfectly fine the last 7 years. OH GOD NO, CHANGE I GUESS WE HAVE TO BITCH AND MOAN ABOUT IT You dirty obama lover. Keep ur change. Oh and comparing playing a video game to smoking, wtf? So, we shouldnt release TT at all As it will change gameplay (with or without pointfix) NOES!!!1!
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 15:08 KobraOps wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 21:20 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 18:29 KobraOps wrote on Wed, 16 December 2009 14:59 Spoony wrote on Sat, 12 December 2009 01:46 "how can you say that changing the point system doesnt effect balence?" indeed. of course changing the original points system, thereby allowing you to get points and credits for absolutely no reason, will affect the game's balance. For "absolutely no reason" it has been perfectly fine the last 7 years. OH GOD NO, CHANGE I GUESS WE HAVE TO BITCH AND MOAN ABOUT IT You dirty obama lover. Keep ur change. Oh and comparing playing a video game to smoking, wtf? So, we shouldnt release TT at all As it will change gameplay (with or without pointfix) NOES!!!1! Guess so, EWD. We have been defeated. I guess we should pack up our bags and leave, obviously we're no good to the Renegade community to want the pointsfix
KobraOps wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 14:22 Most servers allow you to shoot enemy buildings with your tank, fyi. No shit... rly? I will have to try that next time... Dumbass. Everytime I went up to hit the buildings I would lose my tank because no support and Nod was camping.
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 08:13 mr zimmer, i dont think spoony is interested in a a relationship so u can stop sucking up to him now. this is another thing you always see from the anti-pointsfix brigade. whenever someone agrees with me, there's always some way of trying to dismiss what they say because there must be some ulterior motive for it, instead of the simple truth: "he thinks spoony's right" GEORGE ZIMMER wrote You do know that Spoony has tried for AGES to come to a compromise between people who want pointsfix and those who don't, right? Guess who try the hardest to make the compromises? The pro-pointsfix crowd. The anti-pointsfix crowd does nothing but throw out retarded "insults", make up stupid terms they refuse to change (calling the pointsfix a "pointmod" and such), using nonsensical logic constantly (THE POINTSFIX IS BAD BECAUSE IT'S NOT WHAT ORIGINAL RENEGADE USED SO POINTSFIX IS BAD), and generally being assholes. I see no reason why Spoony has to continue with the constant stream of bullshit. And people like you only further my opinion (which seems more and more to be a fact) of the anti-pointsfix crowd. this is true and i've remarked upon it several times. i can and will go further on what the anti-pointsfix crowd likes to do: making up fake quotes and pretending i said them (THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A POINTSFIX DEBATE WHEN THEY DIDN'T TRY THAT!) no matter how many times the anti-pointsfix crowd get caught lying to the community to try to win an argument, insult anyone who disagrees with them etc etc etc - meanwhile i'm the one going to absolutely incredible lengths to encourage debate, engage everybody's opinion and suggest all sorts of compromises, they still have the bollock-brained stupidity of portraying me as the ignorant, offensive one. it's like something from a lewis carroll novel, it really is. SS wrote These threads stopped being funny a long time ago. 1. Pointsfix makes public server gameplay better 2. Pointsfix creates more problems than it solves in clanwars well, you might wanna try playing clanwars on the new system. four bugs are now fixed, and for the first time they've ALL been fixed. pointsbug, vehicle neutrality (i.e. jumping out of your tank before it dies), harv blocking, and mesa deadzones. all the maps are now fair. mesa was the exception, but that's precisely because there was another glaring map issue that needed fixing too - and i said so right from the beginning. disallowing harvblock also completes the jigsaw; with no harvblocking and the original renegade points and economy system, we're finally seeing renegade as it was supposed to be in the first place. creates more problems than it solves? well, you might have been around a couple of years ago when i had to make a certain new rule. you may remember it. certain players would always leave at the start of some maps if they got the "bad" side... maps like field, under, wallsfly. they'd always pretend that wasn't why they were leaving, but you knew it always was. i made a rule putting a stop to that... that rule would be totally unnecessary now because the maps are actually fair. and here's another big point - every single clanwar has been won by the right team now. that certainly wasn't the case before. a few people like simpee and karmai have tried to give examples to the contrary, and they get refuted immediately every single time. of course, they never admit as much and they'd certainly never change their overall viewpoint based upon it, but hey. HaTe wrote all i said that is I will adjust to anything, as long as it is fair. Meaning that I will still play with the pointsfix, and i will not complain about it... ah. i see where you're coming from. i'm much the same. i'll adjust to things as long as they're fair too... that's why i've been criticising the points bug for years, long before black-intel identified the code problem. HaTe wrote I just think that some certain things will take some getting used to, and that I personally don't see them necessary. again, this is exactly why the points bug is such a big pile of shit and why the pointsfix ought to be implemented widely. the points bug teaches people really shitty habits to new players. i don't think anyone new to the game ought to be subjected to it when they could be playing the game the way it originally was (pointsfix, no harvblock etc). this is a handy thought-exercise i proposed some time ago. give it a go. let's say the points bug never existed, and let's say someone like... pulling a name out of a hat here... simpee came along and suggested it. imagine how the conversation would go. remember, everybody by this time is used to the original renegade points and economy system, the pointsfix. simpee: hi guys, ive got an idea for a points mod. spoony: go on? simpee: it will mean you can get too many points for shooting tanks, and it will mean snipers and auto rifles can get points for shooting tanks even though they aren't doing damage. spoony: ummm.... why? simpee: i don't know. spoony: but it doesn't make sense... why did you come to this conclusion? simpee: you're asking a lot of questions. spoony: so.... more points shooting tanks, eh? simpee: well not exactly. here's the clever bit. ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE GREEN HEALTH! tadaa!! spoony: why? if you think this is a good idea, why not when they have red/yellow health too? simpee: shut up. spoony: and why just tanks if this is the way you're thinking? why not infantry too? why not buildings as well? simpee: there's something scary behind you! spoony: is there any evidence that this is what was SUPPOSED to happen? simpee: no, in fact all the evidence is the other way. spoony: the maps right now are pretty fair... i'm worried that this will affect balance. do you think balance between nod and gdi will be improved by this? simpee: are you kidding? i can't wait for easy wins on field, under and wallsfly as gdi. spoony: what about the economy system? if you can get money for no reason too, isn't that a BAD thing for the game's economy system? simpee: what were we talking about again? spoony: and isn't this going to teach people bad habits? for example, if there's a tank threatening your base, might not this teach people to shoot it with an autorifle like an idiot instead of actually doing something to fend it off, or fix a building? simpee: where am i? spoony: what about individual score? if you can get points for no reason then doesn't that mean individual score is rather meaningless, and therefore the ladder will be devalued? simpee: i sure hope so. spoony: so in a nutshell... this idea of yours, this points mod... it doesn't make any kind of sense, it contradicts itself internally, it makes some maps unfair, it ruins the economy system, it devalues the game's ladder, it teaches people stupid habits, and it wasn't supposed to happen in the first place.... is that a fair assessment? simpee: im gonna spend the next 2 years making up fake quotes and pretending u said them, thatll teach you for disagreeing with me spoony: without trying to sound too disrespectful, how did you even manage to come up with such a stupid idea? simpee: dunno, i think i dreamt it After all that, do you think anyone would want the points bug? all of its effects on gameplay are bad. I think I might actually start calling that "the point mod" from now on. after all, that's pretty much exactly what it is. people may have noticed that recently i've started referring to the pointsfix by another term: "the original renegade points and economy system".
Does it actually fix jumping out before your vehicle dies?
spoony, you will never ever ever ever convince simpee? why are you still bothering? :/
topic 9,012 on the pointsfix.. and imagine this: no one has changed their opinions.
indeed, a fanatical unwillingness to admit error is another staple of the anti-pointsfix crowd. what's really funny is simpee tries to make the same point against me - indeed, he said so barely a day ago - which would indicate that he disapproves of that kind of behaviour. trouble is he keeps getting proven wrong when he says so about me
JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 13:05 These threads stopped being funny a long time ago. 1. Pointsfix makes public server gameplay better 2. Pointsfix creates more problems than it solves in clanwars mmmmmhh sometimes, but not necessarily
Well, about the infantry shooting tanks thing, usually a heavy armored tank will easily kill an infantry unit, so the infantry unit needs something to get out of defending himself from the tank, points will work. I suppose maybe that is what EA and Westwood were thinking? It's more logic that what your fake logs with Simpee have at least , still though, I see what you mean, and the pointsfix is for the better, sometimes, in my opinion.
You can't really instantly conclude that it'll help or worsen clanwars and gameplay. Can't we just take a logical approach here, skip all the politics, and just put it to some testing?
shit y everyone gettin so serious Im just trying to hate on obama
KobraOps wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 18:46 shit y everyone gettin so serious Im just trying to hate on obama ... then make a different topic... prolly in spam fest. Pointfixmod is serious business.
Apparently. Does anyone read the essays spoony writes? I give u a B+ for the last one, i didnt read it but it appears you cited your sources well, because you have many quotes. And probably some strong refuting arguments. And how are smoking and renegade related? Renegade isnt real and smoking is. However studies do show that both Renegade and smoking will cause cancer, so if thats ur angle then u have a good point.
KobraOps wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 02:06 Apparently. Does anyone read the essays spoony writes? I give u a B+ for the last one, i didnt read it but it appears you cited your sources well, because you have many quotes. And probably some strong refuting arguments. And how are smoking and renegade related? Renegade isnt real and smoking is. However studies do show that both Renegade and smoking will cause cancer, so if thats ur angle then u have a good point. Well actually my point was that smoking and Renegade without pointfix causes brain tumors to evolve rapidly. Although at the moment scientists are researching the possibility the opposite is true: Those who are anti-pointfix already have a brain tumor and therefore their intelligence is already dropping. It's not yet official, but the first clues hint in this direction. Btw, this discussion ended about where the first faggot remark was made, pretty much right at the start.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 19:21 KobraOps wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 02:06 Apparently. Does anyone read the essays spoony writes? I give u a B+ for the last one, i didnt read it but it appears you cited your sources well, because you have many quotes. And probably some strong refuting arguments. And how are smoking and renegade related? Renegade isnt real and smoking is. However studies do show that both Renegade and smoking will cause cancer, so if thats ur angle then u have a good point. Well actually my point was that smoking and Renegade without pointfix causes brain tumors to evolve rapidly. Although at the moment scientists are researching the possibility the opposite is true: Those who are anti-pointfix already have a brain tumor and therefore their intelligence is already dropping. It's not yet official, but the first clues hint in this direction. I beg to differ. Having brain tumors does not necessarily mean a loss in intelligence. Faggot. But I dont think the pointsfix actually matters cause if people stop playing it isnt going to be because of it.
bla bla, mr i ruined two maps better than field to fix field, which only works because of an extra rule i had to add to make sure nod didnt dominate easy. so how bout that vechile allignment bla bla mod, the one that completes pointfix but only goes to create another glitch that u then dont even tell people about until they find out themselves and try to blow their tank up 5 seconds after they get out only realise its indestructable? u really didnt need to jump all over this, i cant resist the urge to post when the people patching the game are like, "wtf, changing the pointsystem doesnt change balence" but f00k this argument, the changes are almost all negative but theyre not worth the 4000 pages spent arguing over it.
HaTe wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 17:49 Well, about the infantry shooting tanks thing, usually a heavy armored tank will easily kill an infantry unit, so the infantry unit needs something to get out of defending himself from the tank, points will work. that's just downright stupid. Quote: I suppose maybe that is what EA and Westwood were thinking? it's been proven again and again and again that westwood did not intend the point mod to exist. Quote: It's more logic that what your fake logs with Simpee have at least actually no. they're not intended to be "logs", it's a fictional depiction of how the argument would have happened had the situation been the other way around. as it happens, the arguments within it are pretty good summations of the actual debates that have happened, i.e. absolutely nobody on the anti-pointsfix crowd coming up with even a poor answer to some pretty basic and important questions. and no, it's not more logical. BlueThen wrote You can't really instantly conclude that it'll help or worsen clanwars and gameplay. Can't we just take a logical approach here, skip all the politics, and just put it to some testing? of course you can't "instantly conclude" that, that's why i've insisted on a great deal of balance testing. as far as clanwars go, the results have been better than i'd hoped; all of my theories turned out to be absolutely right. every game on the new system has gone to the right clan; that was definitely NOT the case before. incidentally, quite a few people on the anti-pointsfix side have took their usual approach. during the initial testing they embarked on a campaign of lies, manipulation and sabotage to try to get it removed from the clanwar servers, then later lied to everybody and said they did test the full pointsfix (untrue). i'd have loved to "skip all the politics" there, but the anti-pointsfix crowd had other ideas. still, they utterly failed, the pointsfix is where it should be and the clanwars league just had the best month it's had in years. result. still, if people still want to talk about the pointsfix being applied "democratically", then you're not entitled to forget what its opponents did during the testing period. KobraOps wrote Apparently. Does anyone read the essays spoony writes? I give u a B+ for the last one, i didnt read it but it appears you cited your sources well, because you have many quotes. And probably some strong refuting arguments. as i said, lots of people on the anti-pointsfix crowd have a long history of completely ignoring what the person they're arguing with is saying, often following that up by calling me the ignorant one.
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 20:49 bla bla, mr i ruined two maps better than field to fix field, which only works because of an extra rule i had to add to make sure nod didnt dominate easy. which two maps are you talking about, and which "extra rule"? i think i know, but i'd like to hear it. Quote: so how bout that vechile allignment bla bla mod, the one that completes pointfix but only goes to create another glitch that u then dont even tell people about until they find out themselves and try to blow their tank up 5 seconds after they get out only realise its indestructable? that very briefly used to be the case, but it was tweaked as soon as we found that out, at my behest. even with the 5-second situation (which isn't the case anymore), it's far better than the previous situation. when i first came back to clanwars, you might remember i joined you and clear and some others in a few funwars using your point mod. the way you guys played was just laughable - getting loads of sakuras in the last minute of cityfly, jumping out of your tank before it dies every single time. you wanna go back to that ridiculous bullshit, you're welcome to it. i'd rather play the original renegade, as we currently are at clanwars. Quote: but theyre not worth the 4000 pages spent arguing over it. i certainly prefer this position to your previous position, which is that any clanwars league using the original points and economy system must be sabotaged, and that no public server must be allowed to use it either because then there'd be less servers with your point mod for you to play on. that old position of yours was perhaps going a little too far, hmmm?
KobraOps wrote on Thu, 17 December 2009 19:06 Does anyone read the essays spoony writes? I give u a B+ for the last one, i didnt read it but it appears you cited your sources well, because you have many quotes. And probably some strong refuting arguments. Wow...and that was one of the shorter ones. You should teach an English class or something... bet the students would love to have someone who just glances at something to see how long it is. I know I sure would have loved it. Why even bother posting in this thread if you are not gonna read what others have to say? Maybe if you took time to read you would agree with pointfix.
Fact is most people against it haven't even tried it. The only real objective and circumstanced argument I ever saw in a pointsfix debate came from Jelly (I think) who said the pointfix made marathon games less enjoyable because there's less money in the game. Spoony then launched a topic with multiple alternative solutions to bring more money into the game in an objective way but this was utterly ignored by all anti pointfix people.
The Pointsfix makes the game more balanced, it just took some of the speed out of clanwars...granted, I haven't played a clanwars in 2 years, but I guess the game is still pretty much over if i.e. your sniper gets shot in the face right away. Renegade is already rather predictable, the pointsfix simply makes it even easier to guess the opponents' cash supply. In a way, it made the game worse by making it better in theory. I can't comment on the harv blocking and jumping out of vehicles stuff...just out of curiosity, does that include blocking your opponent's harv?
Those special crates also make the game less predictable, that doesn't mean they make the games any better...
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 02:51 The Pointsfix makes the game more balanced, it just took some of the speed out of clanwars...granted, I haven't played a clanwars in 2 years, but I guess the game is still pretty much over if i.e. your sniper gets shot in the face right away. Renegade is already rather predictable, the pointsfix simply makes it even easier to guess the opponents' cash supply. oddly enough, the opposite is true. a lot of new strats have opened up. you speak of cityfly and wallsfly - you see more early rushes now, remote rush gambits, multiple lights, the odd MRLS etc etc etc. there's more than one way of playing the map now than just saving for an orca and a havoc... Quote: I can't comment on the harv blocking and jumping out of vehicles stuff...just out of curiosity, does that include blocking your opponent's harv? the main gist of the rule is that you're not allowed to block your own harv. this has done wonders for field and under, works well on cityfly too. you can hinder the enemy harv, but i did disallow that crap on complex/islands where you wedge the enemy harv next to the door. Goztow wrote Fact is most people against it haven't even tried it. The only real objective and circumstanced argument I ever saw in a pointsfix debate came from Jelly (I think) who said the pointfix made marathon games less enjoyable because there's less money in the game. Spoony then launched a topic with multiple alternative solutions to bring more money into the game in an objective way but this was utterly ignored by all anti pointfix people. mmhmm. what's sad is it's perfectly possible to keep your economy stable so long as you play it smart. most people have learned so many bad habits thanks to the points bug that they don't play smart. they say odd things like: if your base is under siege and you can't shoot the meds with a nod soldier, how are you supposed to get money? stop and think about that for a second, these people have been playing this game for years, but you wouldn't think so. i mean, they spend half the game shooting stuff they don't damage, and then they wonder why their harv never gets back and why they lose buildings all the time.
Why not play Rene the way we're supposed to? It might be 'unfair' in some people's opinions, but that's how the game as made. No need for any addon pointfixs imo.
Lol the game is already shit with the graphics, making it nicer with skins is the only way to make it a cooler game imo, and skill ofc. Anyway, I use skins to give Renegade a new look every month. So it doesn't bore me out.
Azazel wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 04:55 Why not play Rene the way we're supposed to? It might be 'unfair' in some people's opinions, but that's how the game as made. No need for any addon pointfixs imo. the pointsfix IS how the game was made, it IS the way we were "supposed" to play. the bug that allows you to get points and money for absolutely no reason, that is the addon, that is the mod. it does not even have the benefit of being there on purpose, nobody chose to put it there. check my semi-hypothetical conversation near the bottom of page two; if that does not convince you of how ridiculous the points mod is, i do not think you are capable of being convinced.
I guess I'll just have to play a clanwar to see if things have changed for the better. Wouldn't the no harv block rule make it much more difficult to camp in base with ramjets regardless of the pointsfix?
Goztow wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 03:40 Those special crates also make the game less predictable, that doesn't mean they make the games any better... Are you really this stupid? Unpredictable and random aren't the same thing...I don't think you're in a position to argue about clanwars, anyway.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 09:51 The Pointsfix makes the game more balanced, it just took some of the speed out of clanwars...granted, I haven't played a clanwars in 2 years, but I guess the game is still pretty much over if i.e. your sniper gets shot in the face right away. Renegade is already rather predictable, the pointsfix simply makes it even easier to guess the opponents' cash supply. In a way, it made the game worse by making it better in theory. I can't comment on the harv blocking and jumping out of vehicles stuff...just out of curiosity, does that include blocking your opponent's harv? You know that points always give away how much money someone made? Just add the gametime in seconds*2 to it and you have the amount of cash they have (roughly). That hasn't changed with or without pointfix.
Azazel wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 11:55 Why not play Rene the way we're supposed to? It might be 'unfair' in some people's opinions, but that's how the game as made. No need for any addon pointfixs imo. Yea, let's go back to v1.00 of ren, and abandon those stupid planes and what not.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 14:06 Goztow wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 03:40 Those special crates also make the game less predictable, that doesn't mean they make the games any better... Are you really this stupid? Unpredictable and random aren't the same thing...I don't think you're in a position to argue about clanwars, anyway. Those crates aren't less random than the points you get for shooting a med tank with a rifle soldier, tbh. Seeing as i played clanwars with both points bug and points fix and that I've played them both more recently than 2 years ago, I'd say I'm actually in a much better position to talk about it than you are...
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 07:02 I guess I'll just have to play a clanwar to see if things have changed for the better. aye, and there's never been a better time to play clanwars. i can say with utmost candour that i enjoyed last month's league more than any other league month ever... (this is going back to nov/dec 2003?) great competition between the top clans, everyone played fairly, no dodging at all, nobody tried pushing, were barely even any AR's, and almost nobody worth mentioning was suspected of cheating. and like i said, every single clan game has gone to the team that deserved it. i've never seen an undeserved win since the new system was put there. i saw plenty of them over the years before that. Quote: Wouldn't the no harv block rule make it much more difficult to camp in base with ramjets regardless of the pointsfix? well, the reasoning behind the no-harvblock rule is along the same lines as some of the arguments in favour of the pointsfix - promotion of aggressive play rather than defensive play, which we know was supposed to be the game's general gist anyway. on maps like field and under, it's not enough anymore for gdi to just take the field early on (usually a given unless they really fuck up the harv fight), kill the harv a few times then fall back and camp for the rest of the game with the harv blocked. previously nod had a bugger of a time just breaking even because they'd have to move all the way up instead of just MRLS at the back hills etc from gdi. now you've actually got to hold the field, and moving further up to hit buildings is much more worthwhile then staying further back to kill the harv every time - as it should be, given the greater risk and the more skill required to stay alive.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 07:12 Azazel wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 11:55 Why not play Rene the way we're supposed to? It might be 'unfair' in some people's opinions, but that's how the game as made. No need for any addon pointfixs imo. Yea, let's go back to v1.00 of ren, and abandon those stupid planes and what not. And keep the PT bug (which may be a good rule to implement against into CW, idk how big of a problem it may or may not be). And keep blue hell, taunt falling, the bug that shows Nod new vehicles in the middle of most maps, and invisible C4... and any other stupid bug in Renegade that is known of... Just because it was made that way does not mean it was supposed to be that way. GoldDrag wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 05:15 Lol the game is already shit with the graphics, making it nicer with skins is the only way to make it a cooler game imo, and skill ofc. Anyway, I use skins to give Renegade a new look every month. So it doesn't bore me out. This topic is about gameplay balance, not about how it looks. I use skins aswell, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with pointfix... Spoony wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 08:27 John Doe: Wouldn't the no harv block rule make it much more difficult to camp in base with ramjets regardless of the pointsfix? well, the reasoning behind the no-harvblock rule is along the same lines as some of the arguments in favour of the pointsfix - promotion of aggressive play rather than defensive play, which we know was supposed to be the game's general gist anyway. on maps like field and under, it's not enough anymore for gdi to just take the field early on (usually a given unless they really fuck up the harv fight), kill the harv a few times then fall back and camp for the rest of the game with the harv blocked. previously nod had a bugger of a time just breaking even because they'd have to move all the way up instead of just MRLS at the back hills etc from gdi. now you've actually got to hold the field, and moving further up to hit buildings is much more worthwhile then staying further back to kill the harv every time - as it should be, given the greater risk and the more skill required to stay alive. ^ C&C = Command and Conquer, not Command and Camp. In the old C&C games you didn't just build a base and defend it, you didn't win till you killed the other base. The only time there were timelimits was in the story mode, but in the skirmish mode which is basically what we play in Renegade you played till one or the other was dead. Now I don't much like to play marathon, but I hate the fact that some people would rather let their base die to camp and win by points. The only problem with turning the RTS game into a FPS is all the units have minds of their own now. So instead of one person deciding a certain tank rush, you got different people doing whatever they want. So if you say stank rush on hourglass, you may get 6 stanks together, but a lot of times 2 of them will go off to hill or other side and show themselves.
Chew wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 10:15 And keep the PT bug (which may be a good rule to implement against into CW, idk how big of a problem it may or may not be) i'm not yet decided on that, probably best to just try it. Quote: ^ C&C = Command and Conquer, not Command and Camp. In the old C&C games you didn't just build a base and defend it, you didn't win till you killed the other base. The only time there were timelimits was in the story mode, but in the skirmish mode which is basically what we play in Renegade you played till one or the other was dead. Now I don't much like to play marathon, but I hate the fact that some people would rather let their base die to camp and win by points. i do like the system of timed games and the possibility of point victories (indeed i prefer timed over marathon), but it only works so long as offensive play trumps defensive play and you can't get points for no reason... *cough* it literally amazes me that more people can't see the points bug for the huge balance problem it is. getting points for absolutely no reason - < that sentence alone ought to ring alarm bells for anyone who truly cares about the game being balanced.
ss u better come back or ELSE "aye, and there's never been a better time to play clanwars. i can say with utmost candour that i enjoyed last month's league more than any other league month ever..." that's because u played with me! ps: if u want to keep playing with me, i suggest u give me a valid renegade serial
"Spoony" that's just downright stupid. Why is that? The infantry can't do anything but get points, and hopefully lay a c4 on the tank...if you take away the points, what good are light infantry against armored tanks at all? Some people enjoy not sitting in a tank all game, so the infantry part has to come in play somewhere. Getting points for an infantry unit shooting an armored tank is no need for a whole discussion.... Or say there is a tank limit, and someone does not want to sit and repair a tank all game, getting points is still necessary for the win in many cases. Or if a team only has the bar or hon left, and they need credits, against a team that has tanks...it's only fair that they get them by actually shooting the tanks. Sure, maybe the pointsfix is making the gameplay better, in that teams go for the win by destruction, instead of time limit more, but it also takes some of the fun out of it for many people. Seriously, just one post with you explaining something without quoting to get your point across would be nice. You try and make all opposing look like idiots by proving them wrong with quotes in my opinion, and are not helping your cause.
HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 14:54 Why is that? The infantry can't do anything but get points, Black hand LCG, Engineer, Technician/Hotwire, Gunner, PIC Sydney/Raveshaw, and some others would like to have a word with you. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 14:54 what good are light infantry against armored tanks at all? LIGHT INFANTRY ARE NOT MEANT TO BE USED AGAINST TANKS. The ONLY reason people use them against tanks is because of pointsbug. With pointsfix, I guarantee there will be more anti-tank infantry on the field rather than some asshole shooting at your full health mammoth getting ridiculous amount of points doing absolutely nothing. OH NO HE CAN'T KILL THE TANK!!1 no shit sherlock, that's why you have the plethora of anti-tank infantry for that. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 14:54 Some people enjoy not sitting in a tank all game, so the infantry part has to come in play somewhere. Anti-infantry units are, guess what- I know this might be hard to wrap your head around, but bear with me- USED TO FIGHT INFANTRY, NOT TANKS.. Once more, if you want anti-tank, GET AN ANTI TANK INFANTRY UNIT. If you want both, GET AN LCG/SBH/SOME SEMBLANCE OF SKILL. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 14:54 Getting points for an infantry unit shooting an armored tank is no need for a whole discussion.... When it causes several members of your team to unfairly get points for doing absolutely nothing worthwhile except getting points and money, yes it is. That's a huge balance issue. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 14:54 Or say there is a tank limit, and someone does not want to sit and repair a tank all game, Once again, ANTI TANK INFANTRY. GDI even has a FREE anti tank unit. Oh, it's too hard to use? Stop sucking so hard, then. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 14:54 getting points is still necessary for the win in many cases. Or if a team only has the bar or hon left, and they need credits, against a team that has tanks...it's only fair that they get them by actually shooting the tanks. Fair enough, you need points to win. So you should get them by not only losing a vital structure, but also by abusing a game bug (which, time and time again, has been proven to be a bug)? OR, do it the LOGICAL WAY, and fight them off with ANTI TANK UNITS WHICH WERE PUT IN FOR A REASON. I can't believe I have to state the same point so many times, but it seems pretty necessary here since you can't seem to understand that there are infact ways to legitimately get points off of tanks and, hey, ACTUALLY DAMAGE THEM! Boohoo, so you're not getting RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS of points. That's called being better than the other team to win in that situation, then. Oh, you're not better? Then why the HELL should you win? HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 14:54 Sure, maybe the pointsfix is making the gameplay better, in that teams go for the win by destruction, instead of time limit more, but it also takes some of the fun out of it for many people. Because fending off another team against the odds using nothing but damn good skill and earning more points by a slim amount is clearly very boring and it happens all the time, compared to sitting there shooting tanks all day knowing you'll win by points. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 14:54 Seriously, just one post with you explaining something without quoting to get your point across would be nice. You try and make all opposing look like idiots by proving them wrong with quotes in my opinion, and are not helping your cause. It's called "arguing your opponent's points". I've come to respect Spoony for that,and attempt to do the same myself. If you don't like your points being proven wrong, maybe you should reconsider what the fuck you're arguing.
I feel that people have completely disregarded my earlier comment. Do you not realize that this is a perpetual argument, and will remain so until something here is actually put to test?
Quote: Black hand LCG, Engineer, Technician/Hotwire, Gunner, PIC Sydney/Raveshaw, and some others would like to have a word with you. Obviously i meant light infantry, the ones getting the points discussed in the pointsfix. Quote: LIGHT INFANTRY ARE NOT MEANT TO BE USED AGAINST TANKS. The ONLY reason people use them against tanks is because of pointsbug. With pointsfix, I guarantee there will be more anti-tank infantry on the field rather than some asshole shooting at your full health mammoth getting ridiculous amount of points doing absolutely nothing. OH NO HE CAN'T KILL THE TANK!!1 no shit sherlock, that's why you have the plethora of anti-tank infantry for that. But if they need to be, for credits, they can be useful. Also, for defense, a tank is shooting at you on under, you obviously have no chance of killing it if you are say, a soldier vs a med tank @ full life. The least the soldier can do is get points for defending himself. Quote: Anti-infantry units are, guess what- I know this might be hard to wrap your head around, but bear with me- USED TO FIGHT INFANTRY, NOT TANKS.. Once more, if you want anti-tank, GET AN ANTI TANK INFANTRY UNIT. If you want both, GET AN LCG/SBH/SOME SEMBLANCE OF SKILL. Insulting a person over the internet give a little eboner eh? Okay then. Once again, it's a credit issue, if you do not have credits, and no ref, GUESS WHAT!? You shoot tanks with light infantry, that's how it is done, it will be much harder to gain credits with the "pointsfix" in. "Sigh" at people attacking me, when i have already said i see both sides, really shows who is on the more defensive side here, with all of my opinions, some for, some against, i am yet to get flamed by an anti - pointsfix person...why so defensive? Quote: When it causes several members of your team to unfairly get points for doing absolutely nothing worthwhile except getting points and money, yes it is. That's a huge balance issue. The bold words really contradict yourself...except points and money? Isn't that what the whole issue is about, getting points and money? It is not unfair at all, as both teams can do it, and both get credits and points for doing so. It isn't a balance issue, it's just that people can't stand that other people get points and mvp's for shooting tanks with infantry, while they are doing something "worthwhile" by being in a tank. But isn't getting points for your team still "worthwhile" if the game ends by time limit? Quote: Once again, ANTI TANK INFANTRY. GDI even has a FREE anti tank unit. Oh, it's too hard to use? Stop sucking so hard, then. You have never played with me, assuming i suck just on my renegade beliefs is rather...judgmental, no? I happen to be a pretty good player, thanks. Quote: Fair enough, you need points to win. So you should get them by not only losing a vital structure, but also by abusing a game bug (which, time and time again, has been proven to be a bug)? OR, do it the LOGICAL WAY, and fight them off with ANTI TANK UNITS WHICH WERE PUT IN FOR A REASON. I can't believe I have to state the same point so many times, but it seems pretty necessary here since you can't seem to understand that there are infact ways to legitimately get points off of tanks and, hey, ACTUALLY DAMAGE THEM! Boohoo, so you're not getting RIDICULOUS AMOUNTS of points. That's called being better than the other team to win in that situation, then. Oh, you're not better? Then why the HELL should you win? Apparently, if they win, they are better, no matter how they do so. Ped wins are still in many servers, it takes no extra skill to ped nuke/ion to win, why not argue this case? A game bug you say? I'm pretty sure if this was indeed a "bug" it'd be fixed WELL before this, or do you think that everyone has overlooked this? In that case, you are mistaken. Quote: Because fending off another team against the odds using nothing but damn good skill and earning more points by a slim amount is clearly very boring and it happens all the time, compared to sitting there shooting tanks all day knowing you'll win by points. Who says you have to do it all game? Is there a rule I'm missing? If you can't get by light infantry with heavy tanks to win the game, then you don't deserve to win. Quote: It's called "arguing your opponent's points". I've come to respect Spoony for that,and attempt to do the same myself. If you don't like your points being proven wrong, maybe you should reconsider what the fuck you're arguing. Get off his wood, along with all the other high authorities on the forums, it's pathetic mate. Sad part is, I wasn't arguing, i was stating my point, before blatantly being attacked, defending myself is so BAD, isn't it? I tried Spoony's way, it is effective, is it not? I am mocking him by doing so, and mocking you, do i win a cookie? QUICK, reply and insult me, before anyone joins in on my side, god knows you all have nothing better to do.
BlueThen wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:05 I feel that people have completely disregarded my earlier comment. Do you not realize that this is a perpetual argument, and will remain so until something here is actually put to test? True (for the perpetual argument part), but for the most part, you have to agree that the pointsfix, even if it has its downsides, is undoubtedly better than without it. Besides that, pointsfix HAS been tested. So has pointsbug. Both have been tested, just not for every single server of Renegade. Pointsfix gets rid of retarded gameplay habits, while enforcing logical decisions (not having your WF being killed, using mammoth tanks more, using anti-tank infantry vs tanks rather than anti inf units).
Quote: True (for the perpetual argument part), but for the most part, you have to agree that the pointsfix, even if it has its downsides, is undoubtedly better than without it. . Pointsfix gets rid of retarded gameplay habits, while enforcing logical decisions (not having your WF being killed, using mammoth tanks more, using anti-tank infantry vs tanks rather than anti inf units). Opinions only, yours is no more superior than anyone elses last time i checked. I still am not FOR or AGAINST the pointsfix, i just think that if i need to adjust for something that won't make the game better, i don't see the point in it, but will still adjust to it (Being a since-release player, and a moderator).
Quote: True (for the perpetual argument part), but for the most part, you have to agree that the pointsfix, even if it has its downsides, is undoubtedly better than without it. . Pointsfix gets rid of retarded gameplay habits, while enforcing logical decisions (not having your WF being killed, using mammoth tanks more, using anti-tank infantry vs tanks rather than anti inf units). I implied that the pointsfix should be put to test in the field, have a clan war in it or something. We know it works, it's just a matter of finding out whether or not players would adjust or enjoy it. Arguing is clearly not helping.
BlueThen wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:53 Quote: True (for the perpetual argument part), but for the most part, you have to agree that the pointsfix, even if it has its downsides, is undoubtedly better than without it. . Pointsfix gets rid of retarded gameplay habits, while enforcing logical decisions (not having your WF being killed, using mammoth tanks more, using anti-tank infantry vs tanks rather than anti inf units). I implied that the pointsfix should be put to test in the field, have a clan war in it or something. We know it works, it's just a matter of finding out whether or not players would adjust or enjoy it. Arguing is clearly not helping. I couldn't agree more, i didn't come here to argue by any means, but was dragged into it when i was randomly blindsided by both Spoony and Mr. Zimmer, when posting my opinion. Testing is obviously the first logical movement. I have heard several players say that if the pointsfix is added, they will not play clanwars. Do we all think that more players will start clanwarring, then those who are going to leave it, with the pointsfix added? I don't believe so, but I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong. The more players, the better. Clan war's are a big part of Renegade again, we don't want them to die down again. So test it, see if the player counts go up, go down, or stay the same (of course assuming that player counts are already dropping), and then go on from there. It's obviously the logical thing to do, I don't see many players, if any, quitting clan war's all together, if the pointsfix is determined to decrease clan war players, and removed after testing.
HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 Obviously i meant light infantry, the ones getting the points discussed in the pointsfix. If you read my next point, you'd see that this logic is retarded. Light infantry are not meant to be used against tanks. If they were, they would do damage to them. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 But if they need to be, for credits, they can be useful. Or they can help clear out infantry in tunnels. You know, being anti-infantry. Which is their purpose. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 Also, for defense, a tank is shooting at you on under, you obviously have no chance of killing it if you are say, a soldier vs a med tank @ full life. The least the soldier can do is get points for defending himself. Because clearly there's no such thing as other infantry. Yep, no such thing as grenadiers, flamethrowers, etc. ONLY light infantry. You clearly can't defend with anything else by running to a PT, right? HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 Insulting a person over the internet give a little eboner eh? Okay then. Admittedly, that was a little out of line, but hot damn I don't see why you can't understand a simple concept of anti infantry are meant to kill infantry, anti tank are meant to kill tanks. Anti infantry SHOULD NOT get a shitton of points for dealing no damage. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 Once again, it's a credit issue, if you do not have credits, and no ref, GUESS WHAT!? You shoot tanks with light infantry, that's how it is done, Yes, that's how it's done, but that doesn't mean it's HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE. Back in the day it was acceptable to have blacks be slaves, because that's how it was done. Does that mean we should still have slaves? No, shit changes, and in this case, for the better. Boohoo, you have to change your tactics a little. But this way, it's way more logical and intended rather than using a stupid bug. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 it will be much harder to gain credits with the "pointsfix" in. Bullshit. I've gained plenty of credits WITHOUT abusing the pointsbug in games MANY times. How? By doing USEFUL things like repairing, being in tanks, getting anti-tank infantry, etc. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 "Sigh" at people attacking me, when i have already said i see both sides, really shows who is on the more defensive side here, with all of my opinions, some for, some against, i am yet to get flamed by an anti - pointsfix person...why so defensive? For one, I'm arguing your anti-pointsfix points. Whether you're for both is irrelevent (actually it's not because being for both is like being a nazi and a jew; you can't be both). I'm simply arguing against your points because 1: The anti-pointsfix crowd uses some of the (faulty) logic you've been using, and 2: what you're saying for anti-pointsfix generally is retarded. Also, it's probably because you haven't posted much pro-pointsfix stuff... the anti-pointsfix crowd is more likely to jump on Spoony before anyone else (as they instantly did in this topic), so yeah. They tend to ignore most others. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 The bold words really contradict yourself...except points and money? Isn't that what the whole issue is about, getting points and money? I suppose I should have worded that better. What I meant was, they're doing nothing NORMALLY worthwhile. Outside of getting points and money for doing NOTHING EXCEPT THAT, they're doing... nothing, lol. Plus, it's bug abuse... plain and simple. Once again, it IS a bug. And abusing that to get points is not only wrong, but is retarded as hell. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 It is not unfair at all, as both teams can do it, and both get credits and points for doing so. True, except that not everyone even knows about it still. I'd rather fix the issue than go on some campaign telling every single Renegade player how to abuse the pointsbug. It's like if in Tiberian Sun, the only way to use Ghost Stalker would be to build 5 Carryalls. They're almost entirely unrelated to eachother, and not everyone would know about it. Sure, you may stumble across it by accident, but generally speaking, you wouldn't even notice it otherwise. Hell, even then, the pointsbug is harder to figure out how to get it to work than my example. And before you go "LOL SEE SO ITS NOT EASY TO FIGURE OUT BLAHBLAHBLAH" or whatever, that's WORSE. A better example would be the only way to make credits in the original C&C would be to have to put in some random combination of letters together or some bullshit. It's fucking unnecessary, and only works for people who know about it, giving them an advantage over those who don't, and a false sense of superiority so they can claim they're pros. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 It isn't a balance issue, I guess we should give Havoc and Sakura ramjet rifles that insta-kill everything in one shot. Both can use it, so its balanced!1111. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 it's just that people can't stand that other people get points and mvp's for shooting tanks with infantry, while they are doing something "worthwhile" by being in a tank. But isn't getting points for your team still "worthwhile" if the game ends by time limit? I guess the government should make the only way to gain money IRL would be to chew on skunks. But they wouldn't tell you about it; you'd have to figure it out on your own. They still gain money, so it's definitely totally fine and needs no discussion, right? HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 You have never played with me, assuming i suck just on my renegade beliefs is rather...judgmental, no? I happen to be a pretty good player, thanks. Then why not use anti-tank infantry for their purpose to gain points rather than rely on a retarded bug to get points/money? HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 Apparently, if they win, they are better, no matter how they do so. Ped wins are still in many servers, it takes no extra skill to ped nuke/ion to win, why not argue this case? A game bug you say? I'm pretty sure if this was indeed a "bug" it'd be fixed WELL before this, or do you think that everyone has overlooked this? In that case, you are mistaken. And if they put in my example of insta-kill Havocs and Sakura, any team that wins using them is totally fine, right? Nope, no balance issues whatsoever. also, that logic of "If it's a bug, why wasn't it fixed before???" is utterly retarded as well... I shouldn't have to explain why. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 Who says you have to do it all game? Is there a rule I'm missing? If you can't get by light infantry with heavy tanks to win the game, then you don't deserve to win. For one, light inf don't give off near the points. They give like, 2 or something. Two, even if they die ALOT, they're getting WAY more points than the tanks are (see point 1). And then you have engineers sitting inside camping the MCT, getting additional points and ensuring that the team doesn't lose by base destruction. Then you still have the fact that the defending team can STILL TAKE OUT ENEMY TANKS just as they would with the pointsfix. So after they pointwhore the enemy's tanks, they can then take out some grenadiers or the like and kill the enemy tanks. If the assault fails, the defending team gets WAY MORE POINTS THAN NECESSARY. That's just one example, of course. There's still the fact that even in field fights, a team that's starting to lose just has to have their vehicles die (or just not use them altogether), run out with some infantry, gain some easy points and money, and bam, they have more tanks than the offensive team. It's this kinda bullshit that messes with the balance. Oh, and if you don't think the fact that the mammoth with pointsbug is practically useless because of how many points it gives off isn't a balance issue, you're DEFINITELY lacking some brain cells. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 Get off his wood, along with all the other high authorities on the forums, it's pathetic mate. hilarious. No, wait, immature and retarded is what I meant to say. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 Sad part is, I wasn't arguing, i was stating my point, before blatantly being attacked, defending myself is so BAD, isn't it? You were arguing against pointsfix AFAIK. Besides, stating your point invites arguing, deal with it. HaTe wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:40 I tried Spoony's way, it is effective, is it not? I am mocking him by doing so, and mocking you, do i win a cookie? Except Spoony usually has some facts and logic when he does the multiquote business QUICK, reply and insult me, before anyone joins in on my side, god knows you all have nothing better to do. [/quote] sure thing
Not even going to waist my time arguing with you, any person can see both the logic flaws, and the tripping on your own examples in your above post. Thing is, with your sakura and havoc example, that is not FAIR, because of the fact that no other unit would be able to kill them easily, unlike a heavy tanks vs light infantry. Also, bringing modernization into this by posting about slaves doesn't make much since to me at all, i at least saw your point in all of your other non-logic examples. I wasn't being more anti-pointsfix at all, just said that if it is put in to Renegade, then the changes better be for the better, based on ALL of Renegade players, not just ones who happen to post on this forums. Yet you attack me by saying this, proving my point that the pro-pointsfix crowd is mainly all on the forums, attacking any anti-pointsfix people, while the anti-pointsfix people are not waisting their time with it, and are, well, actually playing the game (Not whining about what should be, could have been, and what we may or may not improve.) Oops, i did argue just a little, i guess we are even. Wait, i didn't quote you once, i must be the loser here, eh? Please, use more sarcasm in a logical argument. Like i said, not even waisting my time with your other points, when most of them are so very....flawed in so many ways, that i don't feel i have to point them out, and feel that you already know how. If not, then you should clearly read into communism (Not much better than your slave example, i know). Seems you have beaten me based on the fact that I could care less about what you say, as you are obviously emotionally attached to this whole pointsfix thing, and i could really care less. I've been posting more about what the general Renegade population (based on things i've seen while ease dropping in Renegade, and on irc) has to say, rather than my own opinion, due to me bringing up points that they would make, if they were actually in this argument. Please, correct me in all my mistakes and everything, like i said, I'm not trying to argue, and could care less about this matter. It really shows how immature you are to be honest, to attack someone on something they see both sides on, it really makes people who post their opinions really want to join the anti side, no?
mr zimmer, uve never even played clanwars before so u dont know how it affects the game. i said mesa would be ruined by pointfix and it was. i said field would be ruined and it wouldve been if not for the harv block rule that had to be added. the gameplay is slower because theres less money, u might aswell give up if u get a shitty start on city fly, and infantry now has no chance in an infantry vs tank game on rush maps. but hey, atleast we can all rest easy in the fact that the nod shooter at the front of their base wont get any points he doesnt deserve as i role into his base with a mammy, right!?
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 18:45 mr zimmer, uve never even played clanwars before so u dont know how it affects the game. i said mesa would be ruined by pointfix and it was. i said field would be ruined and it wouldve been if not for the harv block rule that had to be added. the gameplay is slower because theres less money, u might aswell give up if u get a shitty start on city fly, and infantry now has no chance in an infantry vs tank game on rush maps. but hey, atleast we can all rest easy in the fact that the nod shooter at the front of their base wont get any points he doesnt deserve as i role into his base with a mammy, right!? Tanks > Infantry... that's how it should be, unless you got cordinated rave/pics and/or volt auto rifles and maybe ramjets for anti arty/mrls... If you don't wanna be stuck with the disadvantage of not having tanks... PROTECT YOU AS/WF. And no the shooter at the front of Nod's base shouldn't get any points for shooting the mammoth as he is not doing any damage... You argue these points like they would be good for the antipointfix cause... when really to someone with common sense it just makes you guys look like lazy fuckers who don't wanna played the game how it is supposed to be but still wanna win.
BlueThen wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 15:05 I feel that people have completely disregarded my earlier comment. Do you not realize that this is a perpetual argument, and will remain so until something here is actually put to test? OK, um, I guess there are several people in this forum thread that do not realize that the n00bstories.com server has been running with the "pointsfix" aka the Westwood-intended points and economy system for about 2 and a half years. To say that it hasn't been tested in a real game environment is laughable.
Crimson wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 19:17 BlueThen wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 15:05 I feel that people have completely disregarded my earlier comment. Do you not realize that this is a perpetual argument, and will remain so until something here is actually put to test? OK, um, I guess there are several people in this forum thread that do not realize that the n00bstories.com server has been running with the "pointsfix" aka the Westwood-intended points and economy system for about 2 and a half years. To say that it hasn't been tested in a real game environment is laughable. Then why are we arguing? This should be obvious by now.
The main issue is adding it in to clanwars, and whether to keep it there or not, if i'm not mistaken.
HaTe wrote Why is that? The infantry can't do anything but get points, and hopefully lay a c4 on the tank...if you take away the points, what good are light infantry against armored tanks at all? they're not supposed to be very good against heavy armoured tanks, otherwise what would be the point of buying weapons which ARE good against heavy armoured tanks? (rav/PIC, a tank of your own, gunner, LCG...) still, they are of some use as a last resort. engineers rushing an APC/tank can at least push it back and buy your team a bit of time, or you can fix your teammates or a vehicle... in other words, you can stop trying to get points for doing absolutely nothing, and do something useful instead because there's always, always something helpful you can be doing. Quote: Some people enjoy not sitting in a tank all game, so the infantry part has to come in play somewhere. rav/pics and havocs are still very worthwhile, lcgs+gunners+snipers have their uses, hotwires and techs are crucial... you don't need to get points for absolutely no reason for infantry to be helpful. Quote: Getting points for an infantry unit shooting an armored tank is no need for a whole discussion.... yes it is, considering what a glaring balance issue it is. Quote: Or say there is a tank limit, and someone does not want to sit and repair a tank all game, getting points is still necessary for the win in many cases. so get a rav/pic/ramjet/gunner/lcg, since they're reasonably powerful and doing damage gets you points or suck it up and heal your team's vehicles, what's your problem with doing that? it certainly helps the team. Quote: Or if a team only has the bar or hon left, and they need credits, against a team that has tanks...it's only fair that they get them by actually shooting the tanks. no it's not. they're achieving absolutely nothing, why should they get credits for it? Quote: You try and make all opposing look like idiots by proving them wrong with quotes in my opinion, and are not helping your cause. in a debate, proving people wrong doesn't help my case... uhhhh ok, this is another of those gems you only get from the renegade community, i think. Quote: Opinions only, yours is no more superior than anyone elses last time i checked. check again. not all opinions are equal. if person A has been right about everything he's said and person B has been wrong about everything he's said, their opinions are not equal. person B isn't necessarily you. Quote: Testing is obviously the first logical movement. see my reply to bluethen, it'll be a bit further down. Quote: I have heard several players say that if the pointsfix is added, they will not play clanwars. Do we all think that more players will start clanwarring, then those who are going to leave it, with the pointsfix added? I don't believe so, but I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong. The more players, the better. Clan war's are a big part of Renegade again, we don't want them to die down again. So test it, see if the player counts go up, go down, or stay the same (of course assuming that player counts are already dropping), and then go on from there. It's obviously the logical thing to do, I don't see many players, if any, quitting clan war's all together, if the pointsfix is determined to decrease clan war players, and removed after testing. you don't seem to be reading any of my posts. the pointsfix has been fully implemented at clanwars.cc for the first time, starting at the beginning of november. guess what? last month was brilliant. very active, very competitive, and very balanced - every single game went to the team that deserved it. and this was in spite of the occasional ddos attack from halo idiots. compare this to the entire year before november when i was away... people could have played as much as they like using the point mod, doesn't look like there was much activity then. but, your argument is SOLELY about the number of people playing - nothing about fairness, nothing about balance. that's why i don't think your argument is worth very much. anyone who knows my style of league administration knows that i value fairness and balance, and if that causes a few idiots to leave, then it's not so much a price worth paying as it is a nice bonus. Quote: just said that if it is put in to Renegade, then the changes better be for the better, based on ALL of Renegade players, not just ones who happen to post on this forums. it'd have been nice if that happened with the points bug years ago, eh? see my hypothetical debate about the merits of the points bug (i.e. the complete lack of) Quote: Yet you attack me by saying this, proving my point that the pro-pointsfix crowd is mainly all on the forums, attacking any anti-pointsfix people ok buddy. the anti-pointsfix crowd have used the most despicable tactics IMAGINABLE, and yet i still go out of my way to engage them in debate. Quote: Also, for defense, a tank is shooting at you on under, you obviously have no chance of killing it if you are say, a soldier vs a med tank @ full life. The least the soldier can do is get points for defending himself. but he's not defending himself. Quote: Insulting a person over the internet give a little eboner eh? Okay then. Once again, it's a credit issue, if you do not have credits, and no ref, GUESS WHAT!? You shoot tanks with light infantry, that's how it is done no, there is always something more useful than that you can do. Quote: The bold words really contradict yourself...except points and money? Isn't that what the whole issue is about, getting points and money? It is not unfair at all, as both teams can do it, and both get credits and points for doing so. both teams can do it so it's fair... please. if both teams could base to base on islands, would you approve of that? Quote: It isn't a balance issue, it's just that people can't stand that other people get points and mvp's for shooting tanks with infantry, while they are doing something "worthwhile" by being in a tank. this just proves that -a- you have no idea of the way i play and what i do and don't find annoying, and -b- you haven't read any of my posts on the subject. it is true that i object to people getting points for absolutely no reason - well done for noticing that - but you do a lot of damage to your assertion by putting the word "just" in there. Quote: But isn't getting points for your team still "worthwhile" if the game ends by time limit? if someone on your team base-to-based, would you approve of that? they're getting points for the team, right? that's all that matters? Quote: You have never played with me, assuming i suck just on my renegade beliefs is rather...judgmental, no? I happen to be a pretty good player, thanks. doesn't mean you can't be horribly wrong... just look at simpee. Quote: Apparently, if they win, they are better, no matter how they do so. this is only the case if the game is fair. the points bug is not fair. i earlier asked if winning is all that matters to you... seems like it is. Quote: A game bug you say? I'm pretty sure if this was indeed a "bug" it'd be fixed WELL before this, or do you think that everyone has overlooked this? In that case, you are mistaken. it's been conclusively proven that it's an unintended bug. CONCLUSIVELY proven. Quote: Who says you have to do it all game? Is there a rule I'm missing? If you can't get by light infantry with heavy tanks to win the game, then you don't deserve to win. that's a horrible argument. games are often quite close pointswise, and one or two players getting points for absolutely no reason with autorifles/ramjets is perfectly capable of swinging the win; it happens all the time. Quote: Get off his wood, along with all the other high authorities on the forums, it's pathetic mate. like i said to simpee... he agrees with me because he thinks i'm right, end of story. the only thing that's pathetic is when people like you try to look for ulterior motives to explain what he says. Quote: I tried Spoony's way, it is effective, is it not? no, you just used a lot of quotes. if you were really trying "spoony's way" you'd start by reading what i said and then responding to each point i make, and you clearly haven't done that.
Quote: You argue these points like they would be good for the antipointfix cause... when really to someone with common sense it just makes you guys look like lazy fuckers who don't wanna played the game how it is supposed to be but still wanna win. figures someone from this forum would think that the fact i get a few points for shooting tanks with shooters outweighs all the facts above it.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 14:47 cmatt42 wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 19:17 Goztow wrote on Tue, 08 December 2009 01:26 For Renegade of course. I'm fully aware that TT shouldn't include balance changes, but the keyword here is should. I want to be damn sure it doesn't before it's pushed. The fact if something is a bug or a balance issue can be different in the eye of the beholder, as was shown in the past. I think this is the most nonsensical post I've ever seen you write. OK, one word: POINTSFIX. This is why we are discussing it again. So how bout a poll? I will start one in another thread. With specific topics to debate. As this thread is on page 4 and the antipointfix camp has lost due to someone's sexuality being challenged for nonsexual related ideas.
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 19:56 Quote: You argue these points like they would be good for the antipointfix cause... when really to someone with common sense it just makes you guys look like lazy fuckers who don't wanna played the game how it is supposed to be but still wanna win. figures someone from this forum would think that the fact i get a few points for shooting tanks with shooters outweighs all the facts above it. I also addressed the part about infantry versus tanks... As for the part about it ruining maps... If you think that it ruins maps you prolly shouldn't even play Renegade as you cleary don't know how it should be played (and no I haven't played CW, and no I don't give a shit how much you have).
BlueThen wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:05 I feel that people have completely disregarded my earlier comment. Do you not realize that this is a perpetual argument, and will remain so until something here is actually put to test? well, *i* feel that you completely disregarded my direct response to your earlier comment. here's what i said. of course you can't "instantly conclude" that, that's why i've insisted on a great deal of balance testing. as far as clanwars go, the results have been better than i'd hoped; all of my theories turned out to be absolutely right. every game on the new system has gone to the right clan; that was definitely NOT the case before. incidentally, quite a few people on the anti-pointsfix side have took their usual approach. during the initial testing they embarked on a campaign of lies, manipulation and sabotage to try to get it removed from the clanwar servers, then later lied to everybody and said they did test the full pointsfix (untrue). i'd have loved to "skip all the politics" there, but the anti-pointsfix crowd had other ideas. still, they utterly failed, the pointsfix is where it should be and the clanwars league just had the best month it's had in years. result. still, if people still want to talk about the pointsfix being applied "democratically", then you're not entitled to forget what its opponents did during the testing period. seems like i answered you quite extensively here? it's been a huge success in clanwars, in spite of despicable tactics from the anti-pointsfix brigade. simpee wrote mr zimmer, uve never even played clanwars before so u dont know how it affects the game. well, you've played a lot of clanwars, but that hasn't stopped you being absolutely dead wrong over and over and over and over and over again. Quote: i said mesa would be ruined by pointfix and it was. this is really dishonest of you, simpee. (again.) check my earlier posts; i conceded that WITHOUT THE MAP FIXED, mesa isn't so fair. i said right from the beginning that if you fix the deadzones it'll revolutionise the map... i was right. but you keep harping on about mesa and you expose a lot about yourself when you do. you just said mesa's a better map than field? well, perhaps you can explain why nobody played it in clanwars before the pointsfix was used. nobody liked it until a few people decided it was a good anti-pointsfix argument, then suddenly it's their favourite map. that's not all. field, wallsfly, under etc are much fairer with the pointsfix and no-harvblock, and you never even mentioned that while raving about mesa again and again and again... that's another reason why it's difficult to take you seriously. remember? i had to make a rule to stop people leaving when they got the bad side, because they always did - they pretended that wasn't why they were leaving, but it wasn't hard to see through that. that rule isn't even needed now. Quote: i said field would be ruined and it wouldve been if not for the harv block rule that had to be added. you've got a really dishonest way of arguing, you know that? "that had to be added"... it's a rule that ought to have been there for ages and i've been advocating it for a long time. promoting offensive play over defensive play, remember? i've been saying this for years. don't give me this "had to be added or field would be ruined" shit, it's unbelievably dishonest... or it would be coming from someone other than you. Quote: the gameplay is slower because theres less money gameplay is often not slower at all... see my reply to ss about other strats opening up. Quote: u might aswell give up if u get a shitty start on city fly no, because they get less of a lead by killing your harv... Quote: and infantry now has no chance in an infantry vs tank game on rush maps. and why did they have a "chance" before? because they got points they didn't deserve? don't post again until that has sunk in. Quote: but hey, atleast we can all rest easy in the fact that the nod shooter at the front of their base wont get any points he doesnt deserve as i role into his base with a mammy, right!? again, it's incredibly dishonest of you to reduce my very very extensive arguments on the subject like this. it doesn't help your case; indeed it does your case far more damage than you think. i'm actually doing you a favour here, remember - i said that if you and clearshot you carried on lying to the community to make me look bad (which you still haven't apologised for), i'd just cut you out of the debate altogether because your behaviour was unbelievably appalling. given several chances, you just carried on with your bullshit. and yet here i still am, engaging you in a debate... make no mistake, you don't deserve that from me.
Spoony wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 20:05 BlueThen wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 16:05 I feel that people have completely disregarded my earlier comment. Do you not realize that this is a perpetual argument, and will remain so until something here is actually put to test? well, *i* feel that you completely disregarded my direct response to your earlier comment. here's what i said. of course you can't "instantly conclude" that, that's why i've insisted on a great deal of balance testing. as far as clanwars go, the results have been better than i'd hoped; all of my theories turned out to be absolutely right. every game on the new system has gone to the right clan; that was definitely NOT the case before. incidentally, quite a few people on the anti-pointsfix side have took their usual approach. during the initial testing they embarked on a campaign of lies, manipulation and sabotage to try to get it removed from the clanwar servers, then later lied to everybody and said they did test the full pointsfix (untrue). i'd have loved to "skip all the politics" there, but the anti-pointsfix crowd had other ideas. still, they utterly failed, the pointsfix is where it should be and the clanwars league just had the best month it's had in years. result. still, if people still want to talk about the pointsfix being applied "democratically", then you're not entitled to forget what its opponents did during the testing period. I must've missed your response.
Honestly the Renegade Points system sucks with or without the points fix... I've noticed a trend forming in newer games, Points go on the kill, not on the individual damage(aside from Kill Damage Assists). Ex: Kill = 2pts Kill Assist = 1pt Vehicle Kill = 2pts Vehicle Kill Assist = 1 Kill Assists = person who does the most support damage. If I shoot someone/something and it get's repaired my damage is negated. Repairing is rewarded based on how much damage you repair. Say for every 250pts of damage = 1pt (would have to be tweaked to work in renegade) Building Kills = no idea how many points this should be worth. not kill = 100pts damage before kill = 10,000pts spread out amongst 5 other players (yes that's wish full thinking) I understand that this is much harder than just using the released points system, or the modified/corrected points system. I do admire the passion of the people still putting an effort into this game. Hopefully it works out.
kadoosh wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 22:12 Honestly the Renegade Points system sucks with or without the points fix... I've noticed a trend forming in newer games, Points go on the kill, not on the individual damage(aside from Kill Damage Assists). Ex: Kill = 2pts Kill Assist = 1pt Vehicle Kill = 2pts Vehicle Kill Assist = 1 Kill Assists = person who does the most support damage. If I shoot someone/something and it get's repaired my damage is negated. Repairing is rewarded based on how much damage you repair. Say for every 250pts of damage = 1pt (would have to be tweaked to work in renegade) Building Kills = no idea how many points this should be worth. not kill = 100pts damage before kill = 10,000pts spread out amongst 5 other players (yes that's wish full thinking) I understand that this is much harder than just using the released points system, or the modified/corrected points system. I do admire the passion of the people still putting an effort into this game. Hopefully it works out. here are the facts. with the original points and economy system (aka pointsfix): the total points gained for killing a unit is 10% of the unit's cost, give or take a point for rounding up/down. so 80 for a med, 50 for an APC, 35 for a hotwire etc etc etc. half of that amount is gained by damaging the unit to very-nearly-dead. the other half is awarded on the actual kill. with buildings it's roughly the same principle. 750 points overall for killing a building, 250 of which is the final kill bonus. eg it takes five remotes to kill a building. say you had five remotes and you used them one after another. you'd get 100, then 100, then 100, then 100, then 350 (100+250) points for repairing: half the points the enemy got doing the damage in the first place. without the pointsfix, the points gained against green-health tanks is all over the place.
Spoony wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 23:26 kadoosh wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 22:12 Honestly the Renegade Points system sucks with or without the points fix... I've noticed a trend forming in newer games, Points go on the kill, not on the individual damage(aside from Kill Damage Assists). Ex: Kill = 2pts Kill Assist = 1pt Vehicle Kill = 2pts Vehicle Kill Assist = 1 Kill Assists = person who does the most support damage. If I shoot someone/something and it get's repaired my damage is negated. Repairing is rewarded based on how much damage you repair. Say for every 250pts of damage = 1pt (would have to be tweaked to work in renegade) Building Kills = no idea how many points this should be worth. not kill = 100pts damage before kill = 10,000pts spread out amongst 5 other players (yes that's wish full thinking) I understand that this is much harder than just using the released points system, or the modified/corrected points system. I do admire the passion of the people still putting an effort into this game. Hopefully it works out. here are the facts. with the original points and economy system (aka pointsfix): the total points gained for killing a unit is 10% of the unit's cost, give or take a point for rounding up/down. so 80 for a med, 50 for an APC, 35 for a hotwire etc etc etc. half of that amount is gained by damaging the unit to very-nearly-dead. the other half is awarded on the actual kill. with buildings it's roughly the same principle. 750 points overall for killing a building, 250 of which is the final kill bonus. eg it takes five remotes to kill a building. say you had five remotes and you used them one after another. you'd get 100, then 100, then 100, then 100, then 350 (100+250) points for repairing: half the points the enemy got doing the damage in the first place. without the pointsfix, the points gained against green-health tanks is all over the place. If all that was directed at my (wish full thinking) comment, then ... what ever you say. It makes no difference as the points system I mentioned above would never be adopted by the Ren community, so there's no point really discussing it any farther. I just thought I throw it out there as a comparison as to what games are using now. I still believe the Renegade Points system sucks ass With or Without the bug fix. Played it with both, hated it with both, though it is better with it.
If you play as a team, it doesn't matter WHO in your team gets the points on kill as long as the total amount is correct. If you play individually, then your remark about how the kill points are rewarded would be significant. But guess what: Renegade is supposed to be all about teamplay.