Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
ITT: A poll with 2 distinct options. If you vote option 1, you are saying that you think that the original point system was a bug (like a lot of other things in Renegade). AKA the pro-pointfix camp. If you vote option 2, you are saying you think that the game was meant to give you a lot of points when sniping tanks, but doing very little damage, because of a balance issue. AKA the anti-pointfix camp. This poll was made because of the other thread which didn't actually follow with the original discussion. If you reply in this thread, this is what I ask that you include in you post: 1. A logical reason as to why you think that the point system was or was not intended to be how it is. 2. No derailing this topic please. Keep to is it or is it not a "bug". 3. No flaming, including insulting people's intelligence, and questioning people's sexual preference as this is not a thread about sexual ideas.
I voted option 1, as I think that it does not make sense for someone to get a lot of points when they are barely damaging vehicles. And if anyone votes option 2, I would ask them to explain to me why it was needed to "balance" Renegade.
to put it bluntly, you can only think 2 if you ignore all the evidence. it's been conclusively proven that the point bug was never supposed to be there. here's the thing that must be said: at the beginning of the pointsfix debates, the entirety of the argument from the anti-pointsfix side was: "this was supposed to happen, it's not a bug". that was the only argument they felt was necessary; evidently they were convinced of it and they were also convinced that it was enough to close the debate. it was soon proven wrong, and then the anti-pointsfix crowd basically split into two schools of thought. 1. people who refused to look at the evidence 2. people who did acknowledge that the pointsfix is the original renegade points system, but at that point decided that whether it was the original points system didn't matter at all anymore. when they thought the opposite, they considered it the be-all end-all of the argument. when it was proven wrong, it suddenly became irrelevant. i'm sorry to say that people are not allowed to forget that they did this.
So 1 vote for option 2, but no post containing a logical answer as to why?
whoever said it wasnt a bug? why get rid of a bug that makes the game better? ps. i just know zimmer fag or the likes will be like LOL LETS KEEP BLUESCREEN THNE?!!?!
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 21:43 whoever said it wasnt a bug? why get rid of a bug that makes the game better? ps. i just know zimmer fag or the likes will be like LOL LETS KEEP BLUESCREEN THNE?!!?! You already lost... A. You admitted it is a bug, B. You already called someone a fag, C. You voted wrong, you said bug in post, but voted option #2... I would suggest that you do not publicly represent the anti-pointfix camp anymore as you are not doing them any favors. I had to catch myself like 3 times, I almost broke one of my own rules by making a remark about his IQ...
Chew wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 22:51 ELiT3FLyR wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 21:43 whoever said it wasnt a bug? why get rid of a bug that makes the game better? ps. i just know zimmer fag or the likes will be like LOL LETS KEEP BLUESCREEN THNE?!!?! You already lost... A. You admitted it is a bug, B. You already called someone a fag, C. You voted wrong, you said bug in post, but voted option #2... I would suggest that you do not publicly represent the anti-pointfix camp anymore as you are not doing them any favors. I had to catch myself like 3 times, I almost broke one of my own rules by making a remark about his IQ... owned?
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Fri, 18 December 2009 21:43 whoever said it wasnt a bug? check my reply.
ELiT3FLyR wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 04:43 whoever said it wasnt a bug? why get rid of a bug that makes the game better? ps. i just know zimmer fag or the likes will be like LOL LETS KEEP BLUESCREEN THNE?!!?! Ha, didn't even comment in this and I'm already getting called a fag. Anyways, definitely a bug. Evidence aside, it's just buggy in nature. It's also a pretty damn big balance issue- it's giving people who know of it an advantage over those who don't. This is a terrible way for any form of gameplay, and I guarantee Westwood would not have intended for it to be this way.
I don't think it's a bug nor do I think it was implemented for balance reasons. I think it was just a scoring oversight on EA's part.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 07:33 I don't think it's a bug nor do I think it was implemented for balance reasons. I think it was just a scoring oversight on EA's part. Yeah. That would make it a bug.
I will moderate the fuck out of this topic. I expect some nice logical replies from the anti- and pro- pointsfix camps. Then we can leave the damned thing alone. Hahah, hahah, ha. Ha.
If this was intended, there wouldn't have been a difference between armour and health. You now get bugged points when shooting armour. When it goes in the yellow (health) you'll get 'pointfixed' points.
StealthEye already proved it was a bug: see the other topic for my post.
Dover wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 12:02 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 07:33 I don't think it's a bug nor do I think it was implemented for balance reasons. I think it was just a scoring oversight on EA's part. Yeah. That would make it a bug. No, a bug is an unintended side effect of doing something else. For example, changing the armor type of a vehicle to let it be more resilient to something else, but at the same time screwing up the balance with another vehicle using the same armor type. Or a line of code used to amplify a graphical technique that accidentally conflicts with something else causing crashes or black screens. This issue was just a forgotten balance addressing. It was just so subtle of a problem, so tiny, so unimposing, that no one noticed it until years after the retail version was released. It's like forgetting to buy a certain item when you went out shopping.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 12:31 Dover wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 12:02 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 07:33 I don't think it's a bug nor do I think it was implemented for balance reasons. I think it was just a scoring oversight on EA's part. Yeah. That would make it a bug. No, a bug is an unintended side effect of doing something else. For example, changing the armor type of a vehicle to let it be more resilient to something else, but at the same time screwing up the balance with another vehicle using the same armor type. Or a line of code used to amplify a graphical technique that accidentally conflicts with something else causing crashes or black screens. This issue was just a forgotten balance addressing. It was just so subtle of a problem, so tiny, so unimposing, that no one noticed it until years after the retail version was released. It's like forgetting to buy a certain item when you went out shopping. 1. It has already been proven to be caused by an error in code = bug. Reference Carrier's post in the other thread. 2. It likely subtle at first, because what person would start to play this game and think first to go snipe a harv? Nobody. Later on though someone was prolly just being bored and started shooting at it one day when there where no other targets, or maybe they missed there intentional target and hit it a few times. Then they realized, "Hey I just got a lot of points for that lols... I SHOULD DO THIS MORE OFTEN TO GET MVP". And so the bullshit spread like the black plague infecting every n00b that couldn't use a tank.
Well, tbh... I've never payed attention to points. I mean, I look at the scoreboard every so often to either check my position in the ladder or to check to see if I'm hitting my target at the edge of my range (score will change if I hit something). But I don't think I've ever noticed the exact number values that have changed or taken note. But then again, I don't play in clan matches and I don't have a need to do so, so don't take what I say to heart. However the reason why I responded was to reference something you said: Quote: It likely subtle at first, because what person would start to play this game and think first to go snipe a harv? Nobody. Me, actually. I've been guilty of doing such pointless tasks simply because of force of habit. It's rather hard to explain, but for as long as I can remember, shooting certain armored vehicles with a ramjet gave off this feeling of satisfaction. The same sort of feeling when you fire at a helicopter or buggy... except you don't notice the physical damage. It's sort of like satisfying a habit or an itch. Actually, it really isn't specific to a ramjet. Any infantry, other than engineers. I'll waste autorifle clips of firing at a light tank because I think I'm actually significant damage to it. (some damage is better than no damage, right?) I have caught myself wasting ammo on such vehicles and then asking myself what was doing that in the first place. (Sort of catching yourself staring into space.) When I say 'certain armored vehicles,' I mean more specifically the Light tank, the Stealth tank and the Harvester. For some reason it feels like I should shoot them with the ramjet. It sounds stupid, I know, but there just so 'shootable' that it's hard to resist lol. (This does not go for other vehicles like Medium tanks, flame tanks, ect as they don't give off that same feeling of accomplishment that the Light tank and stealth tank do.) I've ever since stopped it, however, since I learned about the point imbalance (which was rather recently, I might add. I never noticed the point issue until someone brought it up on these forums). But to get to my point, I'm saying you shouldn't put it past you that someone might just shoot the vehicle just because they might have the urge to do so. Don't assume and try to apply your own reasoning as to why they are doing it because most of the time you will be wrong. Something doesn't have to be logical for it to happen. People are illogical, no matter how much you might not believe so, most of the tasks people perform every day have no logical meaning to them and yet people do them anyway. My communication teacher says to never attempt to understand other people; you will waste your life away. Before you try to understand other people, you first have to learn to understand yourself.
Actually, when I'm in a light, massed GDI autorifles (like, 6+ soldiers) is quite scary...
Ok, so then it isn't my imagination then.
Yes, if you had a whole team of Havocs sniping the harv it would do pretty noticable damage, but they would all stop when it's health goes into the yellow lols... Also if you plan on attacking a tank, you should get a mobius or pic... hell you could do more damage with a grenader... it takes what your timed and not quite all your grenades to kill the harv? How many havoc shots would it take? If I have a Havoc and I see a tank really low on health I will shoot at it, but I am not gonna waste my ammo shooting a full health harv.
Toggle Spoiler 1. ARGUMENT FROM CODE This is the formula for calculating points. vehicledamagemultiplier * rawdamage * warheadmultiplier / warheadmultiplier If you know anything about maths it's not hard to see the problem here. The same variable is multiplied into the equation and then immediately divided again. This is, quite simply, nonsense. It's clearly a mistake. It should be: vehicledamagemultiplier * rawdamage * warheadmultiplier ^ The pointsfix is a simple alteration of the formula into the formula above. The missing warhead-multiplier is why certain weapons get extraordinary points for doing unremarkable damage. With the bug fixed, the following two statements become true: 1. points gained for attacking vehicles are directly based on how much damage is done, and the cost of the target. Makes no difference what weapon you use to attack it. 2. points gained for repairing vehicles is half what the enemy gets for attacking them (exactly like structures) 2. ARGUMENT FROM INCONSISTENCY there are essentially three different types of target in this game that can be attacked normally. infantry, vehicles, and structures. -WITHOUT THE POINTSFIX- vs green health buildings: points = damage vs red/yellow health buildings: points = damage vs green health vehicles: points does not = damage vs red/yellow health buildings: points = damage vs green health infantry: points = damage vs red/yellow health buildings: points = damage why on earth should this one out of six be different? what sense does this make? with a building, you get a set amount of points for killing it no matter you use to kill it. you get 750 points for killing a powerplant (assuming it isn't repaired) whether you nuke it, get a tech in there, hammer it to dust with an arty, or roast it with a flamer. you get 35 points for killing a technician (again assuming he isn't 'repaired'). Doesn't matter how you killed him, whether you run him over, shoot him in the face with a sniper rifle or med tank shell, or pistol him. and the same is true for red/yellow health vehicles. when a med is over half dead, you get points for how much damage you're doing to it, regardless of what weapon you're using to do that damage. so anyone who challenges the assertion that the pointsfix is the intended points system must answer these two questions. 1. why vehicles? why not infantry and not buildings? 2. why only when the vehicles have green health? why not when they have red/yellow health? 3. ARGUMENT FROM INSURMOUNTABLE PROBABILITY after the pointsfix was implemented and when we were testing it, i noticed something interesting. here are the killpoints you earn for blowing up a vehicle, assuming they aren't being repaired. Mammoth Tank: 150 Harvester: 100 Apache/Orca: 90 Stealth Tank: 90 Medium Tank: 80 Flame Tank: 80 Chinook: 70 Light Tank: 60 APC: 50 MRLS: 45 Artillery: 45 Hummvee: 35 Buggy: 30 do you notice anything about these figures? if you don't, let me make another list. this one is how much each vehicle costs. Mammoth Tank: 1500 Harvester: n/a Apache/Orca: 900 Stealth Tank: 900 Medium Tank: 800 Flame Tank: 800 Chinook: 700 Light Tank: 600 APC: 500 MRLS: 450 Artillery: 450 Hummvee: 350 Buggy: 300 when a vehicle is killed, it yields points to the tune of 10% the vehicle's cost. give or take one point for rounding, this is also true for infantry (except free infantry, for obvious reasons, and also the Nod Rocket Soldier due to an unrelated coding mistake) - eg a tib sydney (150) gives 15 points upon death, a hotwire (350) yields 35 points. not only this, but the kill-bonus also follows the same pattern as tanks. 50% of the points are gained for bringing your target to the brink of death, and the other 50% for the actual kill. now, here's the point. I noticed this AFTER the pointsfix was identified and coded. nobody noticed these figures until the testing period, when it was used on the jelly server, n00bstories, blackintel, and spoonysrv. let's put aside all other arguments for the pointsfix being the true intended pointsystem for a moment. to believe that the pointsfix was unintended, you HAVE to believe that all these numbers magically lining up into 10% of the vehicle cost is a complete coincidence. stop and think about this for a moment. EVERY vehicle in the game suddenly has its kill-points set to 10% of its cost, the same ratio as infantry have always been, AND vehicles now follow the same 50-50 ratio between damage and the kill bonus. Think how improbable this must be if it were an accident. The odds against it must be absolutely enormous. 4. ARGUMENT FROM BALANCE Quite simply, why should one get points when one is not doing damage? Shooting a heavy tank with a ramjet or an auto rifle achieves nothing. With the pointsbug fixed, every method of gaining points is something which demonstrably helps your situation in the here and now. Damaging the enemy, repairing an ally, or disarming c4 and beacons. That is all. Look at maps like Walls Flying. It is a simple matter to get some ramjets on the wall. They can strip any enemy vehicle in the field for huge points - and they can do it in almost complete safety, and they can scarcely miss no matter how good or bad the sniper happens to be. So we have an automatic method of gaining huge amounts of points despite no skill, no teamwork, no risk, no venture into enemy territory, and no actual achievement. Alarm bells ringing yet? It becomes rather unwise to move out with vehicles at all. What sense does this make? How can anyone think this is good for balance? Westwood were no fools. They did make some oversights, but they would never have chosen to do something as stupid as this. Another example. Field. It has been a common thing for GDI teams to "let the WF die" when Nod pounds it with artillery. Common sense would seem to indicate that GDI deserves to lose a game like this. If they can't kill a few Nod vehicles, Nod is clearly the better team. They either have better tank skills or they have better teamwork, or both. So why should GDI get the victory just because they decided to let a building go and then camp in base? Many games like that have been won without the Nod base taking a scratch; without GDI even holding the field for more than a couple of minutes. Good balance? In a nutshell, the points bug penalises offensive play, and rewards defensive play in some rather odd ways. Players involved with the beta test, such as Crimson and Spotelmo, have testified to the fact that the designers definitely wanted to promote aggressive play. It also means that individual score is incorrect too, which will have a negative impact on the official ladder (on top of the negative impact of the 'wrong' team winning). Players who achieved less may earn higher scores and thereby more rank. 5. ARGUMENT FROM WESTWOOD no matter how high all the evidence piles up, quite a few people looked at it all and said it didn't prove anything (makes me laugh, to be honest). they said they would never believe it unless someone from westwood said it. (bit like a creationist saying he won't believe evolution is true until he hears it from god) A while ago, Tom "LordMot" Spencer-Smith appeared on the official Renegade forums to say hi to the community and promote his new game. He was the online lead for Renegade; in other words, he was in charge of beta testing Renegade (and Sole Survivor) I asked him about the pointsfix, i.e. whether Westwood intended it, blah blah. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/MaidenTy1/lordmot1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/MaidenTy1/lordmot4.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/MaidenTy1/lordmot5.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/MaidenTy1/lordmot2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/MaidenTy1/lordmot3.jpg This completely corresponds with everything myself, Crimson and BlackIntel have been saying. It wasn't intended, it was a mistake that wasn't noticed in time.
Spoony, I'm going to have to reprimand you on account of the fact your post contained more logic than is allowable in any sort of debate. Furthermore, your post actually backed itself up with evidence. This is unacceptable. I will be discussing the length of your ban period with the administration. Toggle Spoiler SARCASM!
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 13:15 Well, tbh... I've never payed attention to points. You don't have to pay attention to points to be affected by this bug. As you undoubtedly know, points = credits, and surely you have made purchases with credits that you wouldn't have earned doing the same action on a fixed server. So, let's say that you're down to your barracks and the other team has you pinned. You can't leave your base without dying, they are sending wave after wave of vehicles after your barracks. Your engies/hotties are getting credits (at half the rate of the enemy) for repairing the barracks, but your Mobius and PICs are killing the stanks/ftanks and getting so much extra money, that they are able to replace their character when they fail to dodge the several snipers surrounding the base. This never-ending loop continues... Nod has plenty of income from their attacks so they don't have to let up on them. GDI makes stupid money from shooting tanks that they can keep a good stock of PIC and Mobius despite heavy sniper cover. Unfortunately, GDI's unbalance and bugged point growth eventually overshadow's Nod and now the team that was pwnt to the max wins that map. This can not stand, surely.
I did not say I wasn't affected. Quote: I've ever since stopped it, however, since I learned about the point imbalance (which was rather recently, I might add. I never noticed the point issue until someone brought it up on these forums). The point I was making in what you quoted was that I never intentionally try to win by score. They are just a by-product of playing the game the way it's meant to be played.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 21 December 2009 07:25 I did not say I wasn't affected. Quote: I've ever since stopped it, however, since I learned about the point imbalance (which was rather recently, I might add. I never noticed the point issue until someone brought it up on these forums). The point I was making in what you quoted was that I never intentionally try to win by score. They are just a by-product of playing the game the way it's meant to be played. you're saying points victories were somehow not supposed to happen? there's not much evidence for that...
No, that's not what I'm saying. Points are there for one reason: Tie braking. The main objective in the game is to destroy the enemy team's base, not to whore the most amount of points in the time given. The reason why I said "how it's meant to be played" was because Renegade can actually be played as a whore fest if you really wanted it to.
surth? / surth! wrote on Tue, 22 December 2009 18:14 no. I concur.
I voted option 1. I am not a coder but I think gaining points from shooting tanks with making little damage is a side effect or something of making sniper rifles effective against flying vehicles and long range vehicles (mrls and mobile artilery).
archerman wrote on Tue, 22 December 2009 22:16 I voted option 1. I am not a coder but I think gaining points from shooting tanks with making little damage is a side effect or something of making sniper rifles effective against flying vehicles and long range vehicles (mrls and mobile artilery). You voted for the right option, but you must have missed the part explaining the error in the code. The error only occurs when you shoot a tank with green health (meaning it still has armor), as soon as the vehicle goes to yellow and it has no armor left you start getting the points you should. Because of this bug in code you have idiots sniping tanks (besides artys/mrls apaches/orcas) doing hardly any damage, but getting RIDOCULES amouts of points/creds.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 01:11 No, that's not what I'm saying. Points are there for one reason: Tie braking. The main objective in the game is to destroy the enemy team's base, not to whore the most amount of points in the time given. The reason why I said "how it's meant to be played" was because Renegade can actually be played as a whore fest if you really wanted it to. If you relate points to damage, then it strongly encourages the main objective: destroying the base. If a team can get points for doing no damage, then it discourages doing damage, hence discourages destroying the base.
Out of this rather large group of people that are always arguing about the pointsfix, how many have played constantly on a server running it?
for my part, my favourite game style is clanwars, and other than that my favourite server is the koss2. both of which are pointsfix. people were always whingeing about how the pointsfix would kill clanwars... it was fully implemented at clanwars (for the first time fully implemented) last month and we've just had the best league month in years.
Goztow wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 02:56 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 01:11 No, that's not what I'm saying. Points are there for one reason: Tie braking. The main objective in the game is to destroy the enemy team's base, not to whore the most amount of points in the time given. The reason why I said "how it's meant to be played" was because Renegade can actually be played as a whore fest if you really wanted it to. If you relate points to damage, then it strongly encourages the main objective: destroying the base. If a team can get points for doing no damage, then it discourages doing damage, hence discourages destroying the base. No it doesn't. Like I've said in my previous post, and I'm probably not the only person who plays this game who feels this way, I don't pay attention to points when I'm playing the game. I play it for the cinematic feel of being in the battle and working with my team, not to whore redundant points off of the enemy. That's not fun, that's melodramatic retardation. If you want to do that, get some friends together and play a marathon of Asteroids or something. The only way points offers me a reward is when I'm unsure if my attacks are hitting a target at the edge of my range. I use the points counter to see if my attacks are connecting. But other than that, they play no role in the reasoning as to why I attack the enemy base.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 10:12 Goztow wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 02:56 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 01:11 No, that's not what I'm saying. Points are there for one reason: Tie braking. The main objective in the game is to destroy the enemy team's base, not to whore the most amount of points in the time given. The reason why I said "how it's meant to be played" was because Renegade can actually be played as a whore fest if you really wanted it to. If you relate points to damage, then it strongly encourages the main objective: destroying the base. If a team can get points for doing no damage, then it discourages doing damage, hence discourages destroying the base. No it doesn't. Like I've said in my previous post, and I'm probably not the only person who plays this game who feels this way, I don't pay attention to points when I'm playing the game. I play it for the cinematic feel of being in the battle and working with my team, not to whore redundant points off of the enemy. That's not fun, that's melodramatic retardation. If you want to do that, get some friends together and play a marathon of Asteroids or something. The only way points offers me a reward is when I'm unsure if my attacks are hitting a target at the edge of my range. I use the points counter to see if my attacks are connecting. But other than that, they play no role in the reasoning as to why I attack the enemy base. lolwut
R315r4z0r... your post are not making any sense. Do you agree that it is a bug, or do you think it adds some balance?
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 10:12 Goztow wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 02:56 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 01:11 No, that's not what I'm saying. Points are there for one reason: Tie braking. The main objective in the game is to destroy the enemy team's base, not to whore the most amount of points in the time given. The reason why I said "how it's meant to be played" was because Renegade can actually be played as a whore fest if you really wanted it to. If you relate points to damage, then it strongly encourages the main objective: destroying the base. If a team can get points for doing no damage, then it discourages doing damage, hence discourages destroying the base. No it doesn't. Like I've said in my previous post, and I'm probably not the only person who plays this game who feels this way, I don't pay attention to points when I'm playing the game. I play it for the cinematic feel of being in the battle and working with my team, not to whore redundant points off of the enemy. That's not fun, that's melodramatic retardation. If you want to do that, get some friends together and play a marathon of Asteroids or something. The only way points offers me a reward is when I'm unsure if my attacks are hitting a target at the edge of my range. I use the points counter to see if my attacks are connecting. But other than that, they play no role in the reasoning as to why I attack the enemy base. Perhaps you are a casual player, R3? Sure sounds like it with this post.
I don't really know what you would call me. I'm not casual because I like to compete. But I don't like to compete in retarded tedious points fail ways.
what would be your opinion of someone who said the following: "points don't matter, and neither does basekill. i just keep trying to ped nuke all the time because that's how the game is meant to be played"
Well, it would be the same as it is now. The game's main objective is to destroy the enemy team's base while protecting your own (it says that on the loading screen.) The secondary means to win a game is to score higher than your opponent in the matches time limit or to plant a beacon on the enemy's pedestal. You have to look at it from the developer's point of view, not the twisted (I don't mean that negatively) clanwar perspective. The reason why the game was made was to show what C&C is like in the first person perspective. C&C mode (or AOW) in Renegade was conceived with the idea of attempting to capture the RTS's feel in FPS form. Using that, you can deduce that the main objectives is to destroy the enemy base.. that's what the battle's plot is. It's a secondary means to win a game to win by score or to win by pedestal placement. But let me clarify something that you guys seem to be confused with. I've never said that I was for or against the pointsfix. I've even said not to pay much attention to what I had to say because I don't play clanwars. I don't feel as if you should do something just because I said so. My opinion isn't god, I just thought it be constructive to hear as many different points of view as possible on the subject so you can meet everyone in the middle.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 20:26 I don't really know what you would call me. I'm not casual because I like to compete. But I don't like to compete in retarded tedious points fail ways. Then you should prolly agree with the pointfix, because without it you are likely to play against retards who just wanna snipe your harv. Like Spoony has said pointfix encourages more aggressive gameplay, because with it you actually have to do some damage to get the points... which (unless you are playing marathon) are important and decide the winning a lot of times.
You're misunderstanding my position. I don't give a crap what other people do. It's what I do that I keep an eye on. If I think it's unfair or "cheating" then I wont do it. That's just how I am. You wont see me in any of those crazy modded servers because of that fact. But you wont see me intervening with other people's ways of playing in such instances. If you guys want to implement a global fix then fine, by all means. However if you decide to forget about the entire thing, that's fine too. It makes no difference to me either way because I'm going to play the game the same way either way. *face palm to the person who asks why I'm even involved in the conversation in the first place.*
Wow... you don't care what other people do to win, as long as you don't do it? I have a hard time believing that if you said you are more competitive. So you wouldn't care if you lost because the other team sent 10 ramjets to snipe your harv and tanks? Not exactly likely to happen, but all the shots fired at green health vehicles can add up in a non-pointfix game.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 22:06 Well, it would be the same as it is now. The game's main objective is to destroy the enemy team's base while protecting your own (it says that on the loading screen.) The secondary means to win a game is to score higher than your opponent in the matches time limit or to plant a beacon on the enemy's pedestal. actually, a ped nuke is on the same level as basekill since it trumps the points situation. Quote: You have to look at it from the developer's point of view, not the twisted (I don't mean that negatively) clanwar perspective. I think my "perspectives" have always held up pretty well. Quote: The reason why the game was made was to show what C&C is like in the first person perspective. C&C mode (or AOW) in Renegade was conceived with the idea of attempting to capture the RTS's feel in FPS form. Using that, you can deduce that the main objectives is to destroy the enemy base.. that's what the battle's plot is. It's a secondary means to win a game to win by score or to win by pedestal placement. If that's how you came to "deduce" it then there's something wrong with the method, since you arrived at the conclusion that ped nuke is equivalent to a points victory, both trumped by basekill. it's quite clearly the case that a ped nuke is equivalent to basekill, both trumping a points victory. Quote: But let me clarify something that you guys seem to be confused with. I've never said that I was for or against the pointsfix. I've even said not to pay much attention to what I had to say because I don't play clanwars. i didn't suggest otherwise. Quote: I don't feel as if you should do something just because I said so. My opinion isn't god, I just thought it be constructive to hear as many different points of view as possible on the subject so you can meet everyone in the middle. "meeting everyone in the middle" is a common threat to these kind of debates, i find. and if you do think that basekill is crucial and points are worthless, then the pointsfix should still suit you simply because of the economy situation and the fact you are much less likely to win games by playing defensively... after all, with the original renegade points system, crippling the enemy's economy is actually a valid option, destroying their WF is actually an advantage, etc. what's more, when the points are added up at the end if bases are still standing, then with the original renegade points system, the points are a direct indicator of which team did more damage - in other words, which team came closer to the goal of basekill. when you let people get points for absolutely no reason, that clearly is not the case.
From the perspective he's portraying the worse thing would be for him to win because of 10 ramjets sniping harvs, whilst he's trying to kill the base. I bet he'd probably care if someone was cheating and killed his tanks in ONE SHOOT though.
Chew wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:27 Wow... you don't care what other people do to win, as long as you don't do it? I have a hard time believing that if you said you are more competitive. So you wouldn't care if you lost because the other team sent 10 ramjets to snipe your harv and tanks? Not exactly likely to happen, but all the shots fired at green health vehicles can add up in a non-pointfix game. No, I'd care. But not for the reason you'd care. I'd be upset over the fact that I couldn't steamroll over a team of ramjets. The points they earn is of no consequence to me. I honestly do not care if I win or lose by points except for in rare instances where my team is on the verge of enemy base destruction when the time runs out and the other team wins by score. (Care not as in 'punch the monitor' care, but care as in '"aww man" then get on with my life' kind of care) But if the time runs out and no structures on either team are destroyed, it isn't as much of an impact on me as losing via base destruction. Like I said before, I play for the cinematic feel, not for the statistical game. I'm competitive in that I wont want to lose the battle, not in that I don't want to lose the game.
Spoony wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:30 what's more, when the points are added up at the end if bases are still standing, then with the original renegade points system, the points are a direct indicator of which team did more damage - in other words, which team came closer to the goal of basekill. when you let people get points for absolutely no reason, that clearly is not the case. you can concede this point, surely?
Now your arguments are just getting dumb... you can't argue for nuetral, not in a pointfix debate at least. Snipers = long range... often times you can't just run them over. If you are about to kill a base, but time is running out... of course the other team is gonna try to hold off and win by points, with the original bugged points system they can do this often in a very easy and completely retarded way. If you honestly don't give a shit about points then why the hell would you come into a pointfix thread?...
Spoony wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:30 actually, a ped nuke is on the same level as basekill since it trumps the points situation. It is, it does, I agree. Did I say otherwise? Perhaps I did word it a bit confusingly. Perhaps I should have said it this way: -Main victory condition: destroy enemy base --Alternative: pedestal placement -Secondary victory condition: points victory Spoony wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:30 I think my "perspectives" have always held up pretty well. Ok? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that at Renegade's heart is a C&C game. Spoony wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:30 If that's how you came to "deduce" it then there's something wrong with the method, since you arrived at the conclusion that ped nuke is equivalent to a points victory, both trumped by basekill. it's quite clearly the case that a ped nuke is equivalent to basekill, both trumping a points victory. No, you misread (which again, was probably my fault.) I see ped placement as a secondary means to achieve base destruction. (Achieve the main objective a different way). You asked me my opinion on that hypothetical opinion you detailed, which I did. You said, hypothetically, that the pedestal was the main objective in itself. That is what I disagreed with. It's like calling the difference between using nuclear weapons in a war as opposed to using infantry and armor. I understand what you were trying to do with that statement in trying to get me into a position were I'd have to chose between two options that are physically different but are still the same in the longrun. However, linking the difference between those two things and linking the difference between base destruction and points victory call upon two different forms of opinions. 1. Destruction vs Points calls upon the ideal of whether you believe you should focus on trying to score more than your opponent rather than trying to simply destroy their base. 2. Destruction via manual assault vs pedestal placement calls upon the ideal of which method you prefer to reach base destruction. I would agree with a person who prefers pedestal placement over points victory but not over the idea that pedestal placement is the MAIN FOCUS of the game. Spoony wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:30 i didn't suggest otherwise. I wasn't necessarily directing that at you. However, because of my indifference on the matter it's the only possible reason I can think of for people to keep on finding something to pick on in what I say. I feel like I'm the rope in a game of tug-o-war. Spoony wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:30 "meeting everyone in the middle" is a common threat to these kind of debates, i find. You would be correct if this 'debate' wasn't about a video game. The point of a video game is to provide entertainment. As such, you should try your best to make sure everyone can reach some mutual agreement. You aren't debating over taxes or employment, it's about a video game. Spoony wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:30 and if you do think that basekill is crucial and points are worthless, then the pointsfix should still suit you simply because of the economy situation and the fact you are much less likely to win games by playing defensively... after all, with the original renegade points system, crippling the enemy's economy is actually a valid option, destroying their WF is actually an advantage, etc. I don't believe points are worthless... just not as important. I mean, they play a role but aren't exactly the 'main goal' if you get what I'm saying. Spoony wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:30 what's more, when the points are added up at the end if bases are still standing, then with the original renegade points system, the points are a direct indicator of which team did more damage - in other words, which team came closer to the goal of basekill. when you let people get points for absolutely no reason, that clearly is not the case. I can agree with this as it will call more focus onto the battle's view rather than the points view.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:08 1. Destruction vs Points calls upon the ideal of whether you believe you should focus on trying to score more than your opponent rather than trying to simply destroy their base. i'm not understanding your use of the words "rather than". again, points are a direct indicator of how much damage you've dealt to the most important targets. (at least, that's the case in the original renegade points system. it isn't the case when the modification that lets you get points for no reason is there) R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:08 Spoony wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:30 "meeting everyone in the middle" is a common threat to these kind of debates, i find. You would be correct if this 'debate' wasn't about a video game. The point of a video game is to provide entertainment. As such, you should try your best to make sure everyone can reach some mutual agreement. You aren't debating over taxes or employment, it's about a video game. i was referring to the fact that the anti-pointsfix crowd are the most unappeasable group the world has seen since the late 30's. first it was: "whoever wins the argument gets to use their points system" the anti-pointsfix crowd lost all the arguments - badly - and then it became "everything you say might be right, spoony, and we've been wrong so many times you can barely count them all, but we like getting money for no reason" so, several compromises were suggested to accommodate this, involving keeping the original points but increasing the cash flow. all of these were violently rejected. then we (TT) just said ok, we'll give you everything you wanted. each community can choose for itself whether to use the original renegade points system or not. however, at the time i said that this would not appease them - the anti-pointsfix crowd would carry on acting as pathetically as they always had, carry on ruthlessly attacking anyone who disagrees with them (i turned out to be absolutely dead right; if anything the immature flaming from their camp increased) what's more, they weren't even satisfied with that. they've also demanded that i shouldn't be allowed to use the original renegade points system in my own community, and they supported a small group of cheaters who tried subverting my authority in the league thanks to a campaign of lies and manipulation and rigged polls. they also went berserk at the suggestion that the original renegade points system ought to have priority on the official renegade ladder (given that the anti-pointsfix crowd has been soundly thrashed in every debate about the subject) you want to try meeting these people in the middle? you're welcome to try. i went to UNBELIEVABLE lengths to attempt this (despite the fact all they ever did in return was insult me); look at what happened. R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:08 Spoony wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 23:30 what's more, when the points are added up at the end if bases are still standing, then with the original renegade points system, the points are a direct indicator of which team did more damage - in other words, which team came closer to the goal of basekill. when you let people get points for absolutely no reason, that clearly is not the case. I can agree with this as it will call more focus onto the battle's view rather than the points view. again, you've lost me at "rather than"
Points aren't so much directly related to base damage as you might be implying. You can, for example, be winning the battle but have less points. It has happened to me in the past many times. I've lost games I was about to win via base destruction because the time ran out and the other team won because they had more points. You can get points more ways than attacking the base, that's why they aren't a direct relationship to base damage. In fact, probably the most common method of getting points involves the exact opposite of attacking the enemy base: repairing your own base. You can spend the entire game repairing and end up in the top 5 of a match. This is what I was getting at when I said "rather than." You can ignore the points counter and just attack the enemy base OR you can hunt down every last kill, repair every last structure and vehicle, lay/disarm mines in every nook and cranny, or basically do whatever it takes to score more than your opponent. Now, I'm backing you up here. It is a good thing to implement. But realize, points are not in a direct relationship to damage dealt. The points fix will make it more fairly proportional, however it will not make it directly involved because there are just too many variable things that can happen that give off points without actually attacking the enemy base. edit: That last line sounded elitist and egotistical. lol. I mean to say you've swain my opinion.
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 08:44 Points aren't so much directly related to base damage as you might be implying. You can, for example, be winning the battle but have less points. It has happened to me in the past many times. I've lost games I was about to win via base destruction because the time ran out and the other team won because they had more points. ONLY BECAUSE OF POINTSBUG. In 99 % of the times, this will not happen with pointsfix. Maybe you've stopped caring about points because they never made any sense due to pointsbug? R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 08:44 You can get points more ways than attacking the base, that's why they aren't a direct relationship to base damage. While this is true, with pointsfix the points for damaging a building are far more important than those for damaging anything else. Without pointsfix, the opposite is true. Quote: In fact, probably the most common method of getting points involves the exact opposite of attacking the enemy base: repairing your own base. You can spend the entire game repairing and end up in the top 5 of a match. Only if the others have they fingers up their ***. Quote: Now, I'm backing you up here. It is a good thing to implement. But realize, points are not in a direct relationship to damage dealt. The points fix will make it more fairly proportional, however it will not make it directly involved because there are just too many variable things that can happen that give off points without actually attacking the enemy base. If you mean not directly related to damaging buildings, then you're right. But see my previous reply for that. Now to open it up a bit more: do you care about the credits you get in a game? Credits determine directly which units you can get and hence influence the odds of base destruction. Points are directly related to credits.
Round 3. It's impossible to win, so I'm throwing in the towel. What do you people want from me? To fly to your house and give you chocolate and an apology? I can't say pointsfix is bad. I can't say pointsfix is good. I can't say I don't give a crap either way. Why are you guys picking on ME of all people?! There are other people in this thread... so why ME? Like I said: rope in a game of tug-o-war.
100 % frankly: I'm not having a go at you at all . I appreciate you as a person and respect your opinion and your will to stand up for it. But for me there's a sort of twist in your reasoning that I just cannot grasp. Surely you can not care about points but they always influence your gaming one way (by credits) or another (by other people caring for points). So don't take this personal.
Oh, no. I'm not taking it personally. I'm not some sort of elitist emofag. I just find it funny how I got into the conversation with a very straight forward and topic evading observation. But seriously, in this thread so far I've started in a neutral position. That started a war and then I moved over to agree with Spoony. In a few previous threads I've even argued against it, but that was short lived. I've been an all sides of the argument, and yet there are people (from both sides) still yanking me one way or the other. (As in a pro-fix person urging me to be anti-fix (???) ) I don't know. It's all so confusing and funny at the same time. Ahh, internet.
I've had it running for around a month now on my server, from this out of all players on the server only 4 have said anything about it at all the rest have not noticed or just don't care about it. My personal view of it that its a good thing, the example I give is this: City flying, everyone knows the situation - you're GDI and Nod have destroyed everything except your Barracks and Refinery so you camp and protect what little you have left and over and over Nod tries and fails to destroy your remaining buildings So with this normally GDI gain a huge amount of points (3000+) 95% of the time will win by time expired, do they deserve the win?, not really, so the same with the 'fix' and the scores are so much closer and GDI are required to work to win With that said, I've been GDI in this situation and I've been more than happy to lose the map, people keep pointing of the simple fact of points over and over, imo the 'fix' also adds more fun and team play to the map. Hex. edit: is there even a public release of the fix?
Hex, your experience is the same as mine, we've been running the fix for over 2 years now already (first mentions of pointsfix on our forums go back to the beginning of 2008). I don't think there has been a public release yet. But I have a publicly available link to the modification. I'm just not sure if BI is OK with me posting it.
I doubt BI will be, EWD refused to let me have it, I can release mine of anyone ever wanted it.
I know for a fact that EWD didn't think they had a standalone of it until he went to look for it for me a while back. Maybe you asked before this?
naw, (don't want to get off topic),I'll PM you
Hex wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 10:19 I doubt BI will be, EWD refused to let me have it, I can release mine of anyone ever wanted it. The reason behind this was that we just don't have a separate release. Our current pointfix code is either combined with BICEPS (which isn't very much good tbh) or TT as far as I know. Also, the reason at the time not to release it was pretty simple, we should be done wit the ladder bits pretty soon (or so we though) and then release it with a (possible) ladder patch. After that it became clear that TT would be created and StealthEye and me expected it to take less time than it does now. (this due to various circumstances like finding new bugs that need to be fixed or the need of reverse enginering a function that seems small but then suddenly affects the whole of renegade) Wait, perhaps we do have a version that is integrated with our released version of BIATCH. Not sure, I'll try to look this up this afternoon.
Hex wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 10:17 Out of this rather large group of people that are always arguing about the pointsfix, how many have played constantly on a server running it? Me StealthEye Crimson (I guess) Spoony Goztow
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 01:44 Points aren't so much directly related to base damage as you might be implying. You can, for example, be winning the battle but have less points. It has happened to me in the past many times. I've lost games I was about to win via base destruction because the time ran out and the other team won because they had more points. You can get points more ways than attacking the base, that's why they aren't a direct relationship to base damage. this happened all the time in the bugged points system; it's quite rare with the original renegade points system. buildings are by far the most valuable targets, so killing buildings or spending huge amounts of time hammering them with powerful tanks is gonna trump the enemy killing lots of tanks unless they kill A LOT of them, and i do mean a lot. R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 01:44 In fact, probably the most common method of getting points involves the exact opposite of attacking the enemy base: repairing your own base. You can spend the entire game repairing and end up in the top 5 of a match. but you won't win the match. repairing gets you half the points the enemy got for doing the damage in the first place. R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 01:44 Now, I'm backing you up here. It is a good thing to implement. But realize, points are not in a direct relationship to damage dealt. yes, they are. they really, really are. points gained are directly determined by two things and two things alone: 1. amount of damage dealt 2. the worth of the target. buildings are by far the "worthiest" targets. then you have all units. "worth" = credit cost. R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 01:44 Round 3. It's impossible to win, so I'm throwing in the towel. What do you people want from me? To fly to your house and give you chocolate and an apology? I can't say pointsfix is bad. I can't say pointsfix is good. I can't say I don't give a crap either way. Why are you guys picking on ME of all people?! There are other people in this thread... so why ME? "picking on you"? i'm just responding to what you say. in these debates, the clear majority of the people on the anti-pointsfix side (not that i'm suggesting you are actually on that side at all) don't even do us that courtesy.
"picking on me" was a poor choice of words, I suppose. My point is, however, why is it that no matter what side of the argument I'm on do you still have something to disagree with?
[quote title=EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 12:40 The reason behind this was that we just don't have a separate release[/quote] Now now EWD, don't lie, from what I remember you, StealthEye and Ghostshaw talked about letting n00bless having it, they both said it was fine but you said no because you wanted something in return for it
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 11:11 "picking on me" was a poor choice of words, I suppose. My point is, however, why is it that no matter what side of the argument I'm on do you still have something to disagree with? well, what's the problem with that? it's been a civilised debate.
If you're getting heat, it's because you're presenting valid points, and everyone knows logic is hated on teh interwebs.
Unsupported: http://www.blackintel.org/files/blackintel.pointfix.zip
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 25 December 2009 05:18 Unsupported: http://www.blackintel.org/files/blackintel.pointsfix.zip http://www.blackintel.org/files/blackintel.pointfix.zip
reborn wrote on Fri, 25 December 2009 11:30 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 25 December 2009 05:18 Unsupported: http://www.blackintel.org/files/blackintel.pointsfix.zip http://www.blackintel.org/files/blackintel.pointfix.zip Meh... Fixed it. But that's all the support you're gonna get
Interesting how the thread died with the release of the pointfix...
Maths and proven logic error makes it a bug. Fixing it makes it go away. As I'm sure it's written somewhere in every book about coding, good code works so well you don't notice it. Given as the points system now makes perfect sense, no one has any reason to notice the points code, and will therefore not notice the points code.
I'm back to get this thread locked again! Anyway pointfix is retarded and everyone in this thread is retarded! Bye!
resistor1 wrote on Sun, 27 December 2009 19:57 I'm back to get this thread locked again! Anyway pointfix is retarded and everyone in this thread is retarded! Bye! I can ban you for this. Bye!
I've stayed out of this, I don't mind either way about the fix on our servers. People harp on about logic, and maths. Thing is the game is highly illogical in its whole makeup. Trying to apply logic to the illogical is pointless in my eyes. What makes it fun is what counts, not what makes it logical. If people find it fun how it is, then that's what matters to them. Logic doesn't make the game fun for alot of people, no matter how much math and evidence you throw at them, however right it may be on paper, they simply like the game the way it is, they played it for this long, and they're happy with it. I won't go on about it for pages on end, it's just my opinion. We ran the fix for close to a year, I liked it, as I hate nubjetters. However the overwhelming opinion was to remove it at the time. People found the usual system more fun. You can't tell people what they find fun, they tell you what's fun to them. No amount of maths, evidence, logic can change that.
I can agree with parts of the idea above, but personally I don't find it fun to lose to idiots who can hit the harv with ramjets... or I wouldn't find it fun to go snipe the harv to win. Some people are just odd I guess.
Jellybe4n wrote on Sun, 27 December 2009 19:42 I've stayed out of this, I don't mind either way about the fix on our servers. People harp on about logic, and maths. Thing is the game is highly illogical in its whole makeup. Trying to apply logic to the illogical is pointless in my eyes. What makes it fun is what counts, not what makes it logical. If people find it fun how it is, then that's what matters to them. Logic doesn't make the game fun for alot of people, no matter how much math and evidence you throw at them, however right it may be on paper, they simply like the game the way it is, they played it for this long, and they're happy with it. I won't go on about it for pages on end, it's just my opinion. We ran the fix for close to a year, I liked it, as I hate nubjetters. However the overwhelming opinion was to remove it at the time. People found the usual system more fun. You can't tell people what they find fun, they tell you what's fun to them. No amount of maths, evidence, logic can change that. ^Fits my opinion of pointsfix almost perfectly.
Jellybe4n wrote on Sun, 27 December 2009 19:42 People harp on about logic, and maths. Thing is the game is highly illogical in its whole makeup. Trying to apply logic to the illogical is pointless in my eyes. I know these are your opinions mate but I duuno about those Jelly...! If the game was illogical, then City Fly will have no buildings and you join and spawn under the bridge and get in one of the many free vehicles parked there on the highway and just drive around in circles and shoot the tiberium drums under the bridge to see neat green explosions! A neat illogical system that doesn't need logic applied to it! But instead we have balanced factions in Nod and GDI, different maps with different tactics to apply to them, a credit based economic system that is tied to tiberium harvesting, classes of infantry with specific costs and uses, assorted vehicles with distinct firepower for unique purposes, and buildings that serve highly specialized roles within a base = ALL of these game features are tied to a mode called Command & Conquer Mode in which 2 teams try to coordinate themselves to destroy each other and win each round by basekill, points, or ped beacon. So the game is highly logical in "its whole makeup" with many complex factors. So the point about trying to apply logic to the illogical doesn't seem to stand.
The game's makeup is very logical. That doesn't mean the game mechanics ned to be nitpicked to death in the name of logical accuracy.
Altzan wrote on Mon, 28 December 2009 00:50 The game's makeup is very logical. That doesn't mean the game mechanics ned to be nitpicked to death in the name of logical accuracy. No, but when you gain an advantage through an unintentional bit of coding (which it's been proven it is), then it becomes a problem- hence, it's a BUG. There's really no arguing it, it's been proven in so many ways it's a bug. It really comes down to whether or not you think it should stay- hence, the 57454864789 pointsfix topics.
Jellybe4n wrote on Sun, 27 December 2009 19:42 I've stayed out of this, I don't mind either way about the fix on our servers. People harp on about logic, and maths. Thing is the game is highly illogical in its whole makeup. Trying to apply logic to the illogical is pointless in my eyes. What makes it fun is what counts, not what makes it logical. If people find it fun how it is, then that's what matters to them. Logic doesn't make the game fun for alot of people, no matter how much math and evidence you throw at them, however right it may be on paper, they simply like the game the way it is, they played it for this long, and they're happy with it. I won't go on about it for pages on end, it's just my opinion. We ran the fix for close to a year, I liked it, as I hate nubjetters. However the overwhelming opinion was to remove it at the time. People found the usual system more fun. You can't tell people what they find fun, they tell you what's fun to them. No amount of maths, evidence, logic can change that. there are two problems with this, as relating to the way the jelly community participated in the debates. firstly, at the beginning of the debates, the only argument they put forward was "that's not a bug". that was literally the be-all and end-all of their case, the only thing they thought it necessary to say. it wasn't until that was overwhelmingly refuted that they completely changed their tune to "it doesn't matter if it's a bug" stop and think about that for a moment. it's like the anti-war movement at the beginning of the iraq war debate. the most common argument they put forward was: you can't invade iraq, as soon as you set foot across the border saddam will massacre our boys with WMDs. (there's no way i can be the only person who remembers this). now it's: we shouldn't have invaded because he never had WMDs, you should've listened to us! when the anti-pointsfix crowd thought they had the facts about whether it's a bug or not on their side, it was a debate-stopping argument in their eyes. as soon as it turned out they DIDN'T have the facts on their side, it became totally irrelevant. secondly, you must have remembered the HUGE number of posts complaining about individual score from "pointwhores". the most obviously example is bllybobb. if you remember, he said it was a GOOD thing that the wrong team won a lot of the time with the points bug, because it made the game "exhilarating". however, you may also remember he started a thread outraged at the fact someone on his team, who'd been helpfully hammering the shit out of the enemy base with an art, had a higher score than him. plenty of other people made similar whinges. again, they were trying to make "logical" points then, saying: he shouldn't have a higher score than me. bottom line is, every time you see someone on the anti-pointsfix crowd say that things like "logic" and "balance" etc etc etc don't matter, you can usually go back a few months to a situation when they said it was absolutely crucial. Altzan wrote The game's makeup is very logical. That doesn't mean the game mechanics ned to be nitpicked to death in the name of logical accuracy. you don't need to "nitpick" the points system "to death" to see what an absolutely huge flaw there is, getting points for no reason. and please don't try to reduct the entire pro-pointsfix debate to "in the name of logical accuracy". sure it's more logical, it's also "in the name of" balance, fairness, making sense, being accessible to new players etc etc etc etc etc
pawkyfox wrote on Mon, 28 December 2009 00:18 Jellybe4n wrote on Sun, 27 December 2009 19:42 People harp on about logic, and maths. Thing is the game is highly illogical in its whole makeup. Trying to apply logic to the illogical is pointless in my eyes. I know these are your opinions mate but I duuno about those Jelly...! If the game was illogical, then City Fly will have no buildings and you join and spawn under the bridge and get in one of the many free vehicles parked there on the highway and just drive around in circles and shoot the tiberium drums under the bridge to see neat green explosions! A neat illogical system that doesn't need logic applied to it! But instead we have balanced factions in Nod and GDI, different maps with different tactics to apply to them, a credit based economic system that is tied to tiberium harvesting, classes of infantry with specific costs and uses, assorted vehicles with distinct firepower for unique purposes, and buildings that serve highly specialized roles within a base = ALL of these game features are tied to a mode called Command & Conquer Mode in which 2 teams try to coordinate themselves to destroy each other and win each round by basekill, points, or ped beacon. So the game is highly logical in "its whole makeup" with many complex factors. So the point about trying to apply logic to the illogical doesn't seem to stand. Four headshots to kill someone? Run over 5 proxy mines to kill someone? That's the kind of logic I am talking about. And what you did is exactly what I'm talking about, throw out some info that may well be spot on, but it isn't what made the game fun for 8 years. Some people love the game the way it is. I appreciate you trying to over analyze my post though, it shows how hard people are trying to push the idea down peoples throat. For the record I never wanted to remove the fix, so you're preaching to the converted here, you can't win or lose the argument over the fix with me. My point is you can't tell people what to like, no matter how many facts and statistics you throw at them, they like it the way it is. When people go out to buy a car, they look at the figures for alot of cars, but they don't all settle on the same ones people like different things. No matter how much buying one car makes much more sense than the others, people don't always choose the same thing. Like I said, you can't tell people what they like.
Jellybe4n wrote on Mon, 28 December 2009 07:20 And what you did is exactly what I'm talking about, throw out some info that may well be spot on, but it isn't what made the game fun for 8 years. You're right, shooting harvesters with a ramjet is what makes Renegade fun.
Like smashing your head into a wall this. I'm not debating the points fix, read it, I said I like the damn thing. I'm saying you can't dictate to people what they enjoy.
No Jelly because you mentioned something that is not pro pointfix propaganda you are obviously anti pointfix. that means you are like ... who ever spoony keeps saying lies to the comunity again and again and again.
Sorry, but.. can you read? He said he likes the point fix.. but people liked renegade better without pointfix.. I totally agree with Jelly, sometimes it's not about math/logic, it's about what people find more enjoyment from.
Jellybe4n wrote on Mon, 28 December 2009 12:38 He was being sarcastic
Oh sorry bro lol
I can agree with Jelly somewhat, so the real question is: why do we get a 11 page thread just because I write the word pointsfix down? Think about it...
goztow wrote on Mon, 28 December 2009 13:47 I can agree with Jelly somewhat, so the real question is: why do we get a 11 page thread just because I write the word pointsfix down? Think about it... Pro-pointsfix people want a logical, bug-free game Anti-pointsfix people want an easier way to make money because they see easy as fun that's why. Also, this topic kinda serves no purpose- it's been shown numerous times that it's a bug.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Mon, 28 December 2009 14:50 goztow wrote on Mon, 28 December 2009 13:47 I can agree with Jelly somewhat, so the real question is: why do we get a 11 page thread just because I write the word pointsfix down? Think about it... Pro-pointsfix people want a logical, bug-free game Anti-pointsfix people want an easier way to make money because they see easy as fun that's why. Also, this topic kinda serves no purpose- it's been shown numerous times that it's a bug. Or, they like the way the game's been for over 7 years, hence the reason they still play it. I don't see that as a reason to talk down to people, even if you do.
Actually, I wasn't even pointing in that direction at all.
Why would you? It's still on topic. I haven't strayed, I've merely put a different slant on the discussion.
oh, there's nothing wrong with the "we prefer it this way" point, but it must be pointed out that a GREAT MANY people of the "we don't care if it's a bug" crowd were very insistent that "it's not a bug, case closed" when they thought they had the facts on their side. i really don't think people are entitled to forget saying stuff like this.
As long as people are free to say, I don't like it, I don't care why, I prefer the game as it's been for 7 years and not be talked down to. Even if people tried to defend it with reason, and were proved wrong, they're still entitled to their opinion. I didn't tell people who play my servers what to like. I put the fix on, tried it for well over 6 months, and as much as I preferred it, public opinion was the opposite, massively.
Spoony wrote on Mon, 28 December 2009 02:04 you don't need to "nitpick" the points system "to death" to see what an absolutely huge flaw there is, getting points for no reason. and please don't try to reduct the entire pro-pointsfix debate to "in the name of logical accuracy". sure it's more logical, it's also "in the name of" balance, fairness, making sense, being accessible to new players etc etc etc etc etc Two different logics we're confusing here. The game's logical form of realism is one thing, and the logical setup of gameplay (point distribution/earning a big part of that) is another. While I do not support editing a game excessively to make it more realistic (not happening here), I do support fixing a bug that people like exploiting because getting points from shooting harvs is not very game-mechanic logical at all.