Also, I learned tonight that you shouldn't let Jason get behind you. Because it will burn.
LOL, I had almost zero pyro kills. Playing against small numbers of people is much more challenging, because their attentions are always on you, and they are hyper-aware. It makes playing a spy nearly impossible. It also makes every round very rock-paper-scissors as you hedge bets on what class others will use.
LOL, I had almost zero pyro kills. Playing against small numbers of people is much more challenging, because their attentions are always on you, and they are hyper-aware. It makes playing a spy nearly impossible. It also makes every round very rock-paper-scissors as you hedge bets on what class others will use.
I just stealth about till I see someone else, and then take their class, unless it doesn't make as much sense - for example, a sniper running back towards the base from the enemy base? A little suspicious.
The Cloak and Dagger is invaluable in smaller games, where disguising is almost impossible.
I'm still waiting for it to drop, but I disagree that disguising is almost impossible, just a bit harder. You only need that second or two of doubt to get past, you just have to use it cleverly, rather than as a constant method of getting about. Pick your time, class and place, and you shouldn't have that much trouble - like I said before, I don't have trouble infiltrating, only getting back out. Having The Ambassador helps, too, because if you're a good enough shot, you can drop someone who is in your way without much trouble, unless it's a heavy - in which case, you can normally get away.
Hold the bitching for a sec, let me give you the dope on it first - since I didn't bother to go into detail before, as I figured since he's mentioning cloak and dagger, he'll know the details of the ambassador at least generally - it's more accurate and powerful, but you shoot much, much slower, you have to be a good shot or it's useless, only the first shot does more damage with a headshot, following shots before the reticule shrinks don't do headshots and do much less damage than the regular revolver - and of course, you're still the same old squishy, squishy spy, so if you miss that first shot - and by miss, I mean hit anything but a headshot - and you don't dodge hard and then follow it up with another accurate shot(though the second doesn't always have to be a headshot) you're fucked.
In short, really, you're just trading out a pistol that does mid damage all the time for a pistol that does high damage once per two or so seconds, if you're skilled and lucky with it, and then does low damage the rest of the time. If you miss that first shot, the enemy will crush you like a bug. Miss the second shot even if you hit the first - it won't kill anyone at full health with a single hit - and they still have a good chance of killing you.
Valve is pretty decent at making everything balanced, and I did perfectly well as a Spy without it, and I've done perfectly well against anything from rank newbies to fully geared out long-term players with the standard equipment. I just had to change tactics a little, which I don't really mind - it's far more interesting than charging in the same way every time and shooting at everything you see while constantly bunnyhopping before some dude bags you with an AWP, calls you a faggot mexican jew lizard, and then teabags your corpse, or waiting for enough cash to buy the better weapons or your usual loadout.
NOW if that's still unacceptable, carry on, carry on. I just don't like the idea of bitching without having enough information on the matter.
I find this game so frustrating, to be a sniper you have to be really good at staring down your scope till your meter bar fills before you shoot yet if you shoot somebody with a headshot without scoping you get a hit but not a kill and a full charge head shot doesn't kill a Heavy. It feels like it punishes skill and helps those who want to pay for stuff. I feel the maps are way too small as well.
NOW if that's still unacceptable, carry on, carry on. I just don't like the idea of bitching without having enough information on the matter.
It is unacceptable to me. I want a level playing field, yet would be forced to grind out what are effectively levels to have the same tactical options as the rest of the players. If I could choose any item without having to pointlessly "earn" it outside of the context of an individual match, I would have zero complaints about said items.
Borderlands was mostly ruined for me by its stateful leveling, in that multiplayer with disparate levels was a pointless endeavor. There is no reason the game shouldn't let me pick a level for multiplayer.
I want a level playing field, yet would be forced to grind out what are effectively levels to have the same tactical options as the rest of the players. If I could choose any item without having to pointlessly "earn" it outside of the context of an individual match, I would have zero complaints about said items.
This. That's the only complaint I have.
Of course, achievement servers still exist, right? I suppose it's a decent enough solution. I just dislike that such a solution need be enacted at all.
I'm in the process of installing SourceMod. With me not always being next to the server, this will allow, among other things, for you guys to choose maps without me having to manually issue the changelevel command. Here are the commands you guys are going to need to know:
nominate - Nominate a map to be in the end-of-map voting. rtv - "Rock the Vote", start end-of-map voting early. 60% of players need to agree with you in order for the vote to start. Map will change on round end.
(Also, I could easily set up a CS:S server. I don't know about "alongside" or "in addition to", but I could easily switch between them. SSH clients on your phone ftw)
A fully charge headshot from the standard sniper rifle does 450 damage, a Heavy has at default 300 at most he overcharges to 450. So you should be able to unless he's being overcharged, in that case just shoot him in the head twice. That's what I do, and I use the Huntsman that does only 360 on a fully charge headshot.
Why do playing fields have to be equal again? Maps can be lopsided, the mix of classes picked by people already makes the play unequal. The game is about using your tools to even an uneven playing field.
Competition is ALMOST NEVER equal. Do you think the Olympics are "unfair" because different countries' athletes have access to different training facilities and coaches? Is the pizza business unfair because Pizza Hut has so many locations? Is horse racing unfair because of differences in the breeding? Is baseball unfair because the Yankees have the most money?
Unbalanced play is better because it drives innovation. If there are four scouts versus one engineer, that engineer has to be very clever. For me, the most boring games are the ones in which all the rules and terms making player footing exactly equal: Chess, checkers, Connect Four, Battleship. These games because measurements of static factors. The smarter person or the person with more knowledge will always win. That's no fun.
Also, doesn't it feel waaaaaaaay better to overcome the odds?
ITT: People who suck at videos games like TF2 because it allows them to win. They put more time into the game therefore they will win more often due to meaningless rules of equipment distribution.
Why do playing fields have to be equal again? Maps can be lopsided, the mix of classes picked by people already makes the play unequal. The game is about using your tools to even an uneven playing field.
Competition is ALMOST NEVER equal. Do you think the Olympics are "unfair" because different countries' athletes have access to different training facilities and coaches? Is the pizza business unfair because Pizza Hut has so many locations? Is horse racing unfair because of differences in the breeding? Is baseball unfair because the Yankees have the most money?
Unbalanced play is better because it drives innovation. If there are four scouts versus one engineer, that engineer has to be very clever. For me, the most boring games are the ones in which all the rules and terms making player footing exactly equal: Chess, checkers, Connect Four, Battleship. These games because measurements of static factors. The smarter person or the person with more knowledge will always win. That's no fun.
Also, doesn't it feel waaaaaaaay better to overcome the odds?
Amen to that. Figuring out how to deal with limited resources can be just as much fun as having all the resources.
Why do playing fields have to be equal again? Maps can be lopsided, the mix of classes picked by people already makes the play unequal. The game is about using your tools to even an uneven playing field.
They don't have to be. I'm talking specifically about factors outside of an individual match.
I love asymmetric maps and matches. The only thing I dislike is that there are asymmetries carried over between unrelated matches.
For me, the most boring games are the ones in which all the rules and terms making player footing exactly equal: Chess, checkers, Connect Four, Battleship. These games because measurements of static factors. The smarter person or the person with more knowledge will always win. That's no fun.
I also find them to be boring in many cases, and dislike all of the games you just listed. But adding stateful factors is not the way to fix them.
ITT: People who suck at videos games like TF2 because it allows them to win. They put more time into the game therefore they will win more often due to meaningless rules of equipment distribution.
This is childish. I could just as easily say, "People who suck at video games don't like TF2 because they have to have all the equipment to win."
It is unacceptable to me. I want a level playing field, yet would be forced to grind out what are effectively levels to have the same tactical options as the rest of the players. If I could choose any item without having to pointlessly "earn" it outside of the context of an individual match, I would have zero complaints about said items.
Cool, that's a perfectly sensible complaint - but from the tone of your original post, it sounded like you were sighing over an item that would give a clear advantage over people who don't have such things, when that's not the case.
Admittedly, I find it a little annoying too, simply because I have to either grind achievement servers, wait for a lucky random drop, or spend money to get items that I'm looking for. If it wasn't linked to achievements and there was no paid component(Since the "Hey, why wait? You can buy it right here, instead of waiting to be lucky or grinding" provides an extra little thorn of annoyance), and it was just random drops and crafting, I think that would be much better - but then again, without the paid store, there'd be no free TF2, so I can't complain too much.
This is why the rhetorical question is a weak form of argument.
It's strong if you expect the ramifications of answering to be too dangerous for your opponent. It's dangerous, however, in that they might very well answer.
Rhetorical questions generally are an escalation of an argument. They force the opponent to either concede some deeper point which renders the current discussion moot, or to challenge that deeper point and move the debate to a lower, more fundamental level.
It's strong if you expect the ramifications of answering to be too dangerous for your opponent. It's dangerous, however, in that they might very well answer.
Does that make it a Dismiss, because it's dangerous and can only be countered by a Rebuttal? I may have to use that. My Dismisses are typically much more inflammatory.
Comments
Also, I learned tonight that you shouldn't let Jason get behind you. Because it will burn.
In short, really, you're just trading out a pistol that does mid damage all the time for a pistol that does high damage once per two or so seconds, if you're skilled and lucky with it, and then does low damage the rest of the time. If you miss that first shot, the enemy will crush you like a bug. Miss the second shot even if you hit the first - it won't kill anyone at full health with a single hit - and they still have a good chance of killing you.
Valve is pretty decent at making everything balanced, and I did perfectly well as a Spy without it, and I've done perfectly well against anything from rank newbies to fully geared out long-term players with the standard equipment. I just had to change tactics a little, which I don't really mind - it's far more interesting than charging in the same way every time and shooting at everything you see while constantly bunnyhopping before some dude bags you with an AWP, calls you a faggot mexican jew lizard, and then teabags your corpse, or waiting for enough cash to buy the better weapons or your usual loadout.
NOW if that's still unacceptable, carry on, carry on. I just don't like the idea of bitching without having enough information on the matter.
I find this game so frustrating, to be a sniper you have to be really good at staring down your scope till your meter bar fills before you shoot yet if you shoot somebody with a headshot without scoping you get a hit but not a kill and a full charge head shot doesn't kill a Heavy. It feels like it punishes skill and helps those who want to pay for stuff. I feel the maps are way too small as well.
I'm going to stick with L4D2.
Borderlands was mostly ruined for me by its stateful leveling, in that multiplayer with disparate levels was a pointless endeavor. There is no reason the game shouldn't let me pick a level for multiplayer.
Of course, achievement servers still exist, right? I suppose it's a decent enough solution. I just dislike that such a solution need be enacted at all.
nominate - Nominate a map to be in the end-of-map voting.
rtv - "Rock the Vote", start end-of-map voting early. 60% of players need to agree with you in order for the vote to start. Map will change on round end.
(Also, I could easily set up a CS:S server. I don't know about "alongside" or "in addition to", but I could easily switch between them. SSH clients on your phone ftw)
Competition is ALMOST NEVER equal. Do you think the Olympics are "unfair" because different countries' athletes have access to different training facilities and coaches? Is the pizza business unfair because Pizza Hut has so many locations? Is horse racing unfair because of differences in the breeding? Is baseball unfair because the Yankees have the most money?
Unbalanced play is better because it drives innovation. If there are four scouts versus one engineer, that engineer has to be very clever. For me, the most boring games are the ones in which all the rules and terms making player footing exactly equal: Chess, checkers, Connect Four, Battleship. These games because measurements of static factors. The smarter person or the person with more knowledge will always win. That's no fun.
Also, doesn't it feel waaaaaaaay better to overcome the odds?
I love asymmetric maps and matches. The only thing I dislike is that there are asymmetries carried over between unrelated matches. I also find them to be boring in many cases, and dislike all of the games you just listed. But adding stateful factors is not the way to fix them.
Newsflash: I use lots of vanilla equipment.
Admittedly, I find it a little annoying too, simply because I have to either grind achievement servers, wait for a lucky random drop, or spend money to get items that I'm looking for. If it wasn't linked to achievements and there was no paid component(Since the "Hey, why wait? You can buy it right here, instead of waiting to be lucky or grinding" provides an extra little thorn of annoyance), and it was just random drops and crafting, I think that would be much better - but then again, without the paid store, there'd be no free TF2, so I can't complain too much.
/doesn't like baseball anyhow
Rhetorical questions generally are an escalation of an argument. They force the opponent to either concede some deeper point which renders the current discussion moot, or to challenge that deeper point and move the debate to a lower, more fundamental level.