🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 10, 9:57 am, Folk <F...@folk.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:56:48 -0900, GTD <Stooo...@duuuh.net> wrote:
> >Folk wrote:
> >> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:59:41 -0900, GTD <Stooo...@duuuh.net> wrote:
>
> >>> IMO, it's like a dumbed-down version of ONS. I've yet to see any of the
> >>> "assault" element...
>
> >> Come again?
>
> >> Avalanche:  
> >> Holding both the East and West nodes causes damage to prime.  If enemy
> >> holds your prime, you can start an avalanche by blowing barricades.
> >> The avalanche wipes out the prime and anyone nearby to retake the
> >> node.
>
> >> Downtown:
> >> No real gimmicks except the ability to blow barricades that allow
> >> better access to the battlefield for vehicles.
>
> >> Dusk:
> >> Control both Mine nodes to open a pit that contains a Cicada.
>
> >> Floodgate:
> >> Control the floodgate node for 60 seconds to cause a flood that takes
> >> 20 points of the enemy power core.
>
> >> Islander:
> >> Actually, the whole map layout is a gimmick.  Asymmetrical base layout
> >> where one base is all defensive structures and no vehicles and the
> >> other has the only node directly beside it plus two Goliaths, a
> >> Hellbender and a Palladin.  Also has barricades that can be blown for
> >> vehicle access to the defensive base.  
>
> >> Onyx Coast:
> >> A bridge activates/deactivates depending on who controls.
>
> >> And that's only half the maps.  You're not really paying attention,
> >> are you?
>
> >1. You conveniently snipped the portion where I stated: "although I
> >admit to not having tried them all." Makes for an easy straw-man
> >argument though, but I'm not impressed.
>
> But they all have Assault elements... I simply stopped at half the
> maps.  How many did you try?  One?  Two?  And that
> was enough to make
> sweeping generalizations about the gametype?

First, I don't consider many of those half-assed examples you pointed
out as fulfilling even the loosest requirement for an assault element,
and as I said, one little trick does not make it an assault map. OK,
so in the map holding two points gives you a vehicle, , one that is
not REQUIRED, ,but it gives you one, BFD. Obviously you consider that
a big deal, I for one do not. I didn't even recognize it as any big
deal in teh map, , ,wow, , real spectacular there. . .


>
> >2. One simple gimmick does not make an assault map. WHO is the one not
> >paying attention?
>
> Assault *is* gimmicks.  Pull the lever, lower the bridge,
> yada yada.
You totally missed the word ONE, didn't you? If you weren't a reg here
I'd question your ability to be honest. . .

>
> I'm the one providing information.  
No, you're avoiding the points. Yes, some maps have some gimmick in
them, , BFD, , that really doesn't make them anything like assault.
Now tha tI've played through some more of the maps, and seen some of
the bigger gimmicks in action, , I can honestly say "big fucking
deal". I'm still not very impressed. . .

> You appear to be the one that's
> either whining or trolling.-

Oh, , so if all else fails, accuse whoever doesn't agree with you of
trolling, ,or whining. Don't like my opinion, then don't read my
posts, , ,but, , ,YOU couldn't resist whining. . .could you?

To point is, which is the point YOU are overlooking, probably
intentionally, is the Warfare was touted as the replacement for
Assault and ONS, and I for one just don't see it as being a viable
replacement. Now, go back and play a few assault maps, then play some
warfare maps, , and tell me then how alike they are. Didn't think so.

Like I said, if you don't like what I have to say, then killfilter me.