🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:15:54 -0800 (PST), GTD <toobiep@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>
>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.

First off, I was addressing your statement:

"IMO, it's like a dumbed-down version of ONS. I've yet to see any of
the "assault" element, "

And so I pointed out several "assault elements" to you.  I never
claimed, (and Epic never claimed) that Warfare = Assault.  You're
reading a lot of stuff into my posts that aren't there.  I asked you
what you considered to be Assault elements and after several false
starts (and lot's of unnecessary lip) you finally answered the
question in the post above, although I'm pretty sure there were
Assault maps where you could lose territory that was previously
gained.  There are Assault maps where you press a lever or button to
lower a drawbridge.  There are Warfare maps where you build a node to
open a bridge.  Why do you call one a "gimmick" and the other a
"goal"?

And if Warfare = all the elements from ONS plus additional elements
from Assault, then how can it be "dumbed down"?  Something + something
else generally equals more than the original, not less.