🚀 go-pugleaf

Aaron Lawrence wrote:
> Can't find much info about the warfare play yet...
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

"GTD" <Stooopid@duuuh.net> wrote in message 
news:13llmscidu56272@corp.supernews.com...
> Aaron Lawrence wrote:
>> Can't find much info about the warfare play yet...
> 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

I think the whole orb thing ruins gameplay myself. 

goPostal schreef:
> "GTD" <Stooopid@duuuh.net> wrote in message 
> news:13llmscidu56272@corp.supernews.com...
>> Aaron Lawrence wrote:
>>> Can't find much info about the warfare play yet...
>> 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
> 
> I think the whole orb thing ruins gameplay myself. 
> 
>
Why'd you think that?
I thought it was a good improvement to the game.
It makes the game faster and more competitive in my opinion.
The orb's adds a great tactic element to the play as before it was 
more a straightforward capture a node, capture the next ... etc.
Now you can do must faster node captures with a bit of teamwork.

-- 
.~* Then you'll see,                      *~.
.~* that it is not the spoon that bends,  *~.
.~* it is only yourself.                  *~.

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:59:41 -0900, GTD <Stooopid@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?

Folk wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:59:41 -0900, GTD <Stooopid@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.

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

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:56:48 -0900, GTD <Stooopid@duuuh.net> wrote:

>Folk wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:59:41 -0900, GTD <Stooopid@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?

>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.

I'm the one providing information.  You appear to be the one that's
either whining or trolling.

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.

Aaron Lawrence wrote:
> Can't find much info about the warfare play yet...

Onslaught with a beachball.

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.

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.. . .

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?

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.

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.

On Dec 13, 10:18 am, Folk <F...@folk.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:15:54 -0800 (PST), GTD <toob...@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)
Who is the smart-ass that started with the "You're not paying
attention"? Sorry, but you're coming off like a punk. If you don't
like my "Lip", then deal with it. Do you know how to use a killfilter?
What a baby. . .
My point stands, that those stupid little gimmicks you pointed out add
absolutely no real asssault quality to the game. You're ignoring the
fact that assault was left out, and when asked about it, Epic
immediately mentioned Warfare. Warfare replaced assault and ONS.

> 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"?
FFS I can't believe you're still not getting it: Goal = an objective
of the game. Gimmick = something added to the game that really isn't
required. Need I point you to a dictionary?


>
> 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.
Are you serious? You don't think the ADDED arrows and such dumb it
down? You don't think the less-open maps, maps that direct you
straight to the goals dumb it down? The whole orb crap dumbs it down
IMO. The whole hoverboard thing makes it a joke IMO. Don't like my
opinions, then I suggest you not read my posts, since it seems you
have a hard time handling my opinion.

I'm convinced you're just a baby that can't handle another person's
opion when it differes from yours. You've arlready proved that you
can't take an honest position in a debate, and have to rely on
snipping apart and mis-representing what others post to try and get
your point across. Someone asked "how is warfare", and I gave my
opinion, don't like it, deal with it you big baby.

GTD wrote:

> I'm convinced you're just a baby that can't handle another person's
> opion when it differes from yours. You've arlready proved that you
> can't take an honest position in a debate, and have to rely on
> snipping apart and mis-representing what others post to try and get
> your point across. Someone asked "how is warfare", and I gave my
> opinion, don't like it, deal with it you big baby.
> 
There seems to be a pattern here :-)

Folk - to me it looks like you hammered home a M O N S T E R K I L L and 
it just hasn't sunk in yet at the fragged players end.

Take care
Bruno

"Bruno" <dont.use@this.address.ever> wrote in message 
news:47631031$0$7607$157c6196@dreader2.cybercity.dk...
> GTD wrote:
>
>> I'm convinced you're just a baby that can't handle another person's
>> opion when it differes from yours. You've arlready proved that you
>> can't take an honest position in a debate, and have to rely on
>> snipping apart and mis-representing what others post to try and get
>> your point across. Someone asked "how is warfare", and I gave my
>> opinion, don't like it, deal with it you big baby.
>>
> There seems to be a pattern here :-)
>
> Folk - to me it looks like you hammered home a M O N S T E R K I L L and 
> it just hasn't sunk in yet at the fragged players end.
>
> Take care
> Bruno


HOLY SHIT..IT..IT..IT..IT..it.it.it