🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 12, 12:47 pm, Folk <F...@folk.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:40:03 -0900, GTD <Stooo...@duuuh.net> wrote:
> >Folk wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:28:51 -0800 (PST), GTD <toob...@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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

One simple gimmick does not make an assault map.

It's that simple. Maybe you've never played assault, , but assault was
a series (key word there, "SERIES") of sucessive goals, and totally
one-directional gameplay. You take a goal, and it's taken, period,
there is no losing it, there is no re-gaining it by the defending
team. Yes, the gimmicks in Warfare are similar to those in assault,
and that does not in my opionon as the assault "element" any more than
saying that UT is just like Zork, because in either game you can pick
up weapons, kill, and die. You are trying to make this about the
individual 'gimmicks' (In warfare, they are just that, GIMMICKS, in
assault they are GOALS, can you appreciate the difference?) and that
was not the point of my post. You're simply trying to set up a straw-
man arguement.