🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:40:03 -0900, GTD <Stooopid@duuuh.net> wrote:

>Folk wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:28:51 -0800 (PST), GTD <toobiep@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Yes, some maps have some gimmick in
>>> them, , BFD, , that really doesn't make them anything like assault.
>> 
>> Then what makes it Assault?  I dabbled a little bit in Assault and
>> basically it was gimmicks (pull a lever, press a button, etc.)  I'm
>> not understanding the distinction you're trying to make between
>> Assault and the objectives found in Warfare.
>
>The part you snipped, , AGAIN. . .go back and read that if you really 
>want to know.. . .

Although I'm not sure why I'm even bothering with this...

Here's everything you've posted in this thread:
*******************************************************************************************************
IMO, it's like a dumbed-down version of ONS. I've yet to see any of
the 
"assault" element, and I've yet to find any maps that are as big as
they 
were boasting, although I admit to not having tried them all.

I for one am not impressed

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.

2. One simple gimmick does not make an assault map. WHO is the one not
paying attention?


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. . .

You totally missed the word ONE, didn't you? If you weren't a reg here
I'd question your ability to be honest. . .

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. . .


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.

**********************************************************************************************

That's the sum total of everything you've posted in this thread.  What
part did I snip out that explains what you feel is the distinction
between Warfare objectives and Assualt?  You gave some negative
examples (actually, most of what you posted above has a negative
slant) like:

"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. . ."

but you haven't given any examples of how Assault differs from Warfare
objectives.

So is there any chance of hearing why you feel Warfare's objectives
are different than Assault, or are you just trolling?  At least I'm
giving "half-assed examples" (thanks for that).  What are you
contributing?