gkuo88
User
- Oct 29, 2016
- 24
- 54
- 688
- 31
I say backys name because you say the same liberal shit as he does. Dont know where the whole “killing the server” thing comes from, but its totally fine to think about it like that deep down. Also I dont remember seeing any votes for minor changes nor do I see any new servers people are playing on.
You really are bad at reading. There is a big difference between “most” and “all” because it is easy to counterargue “all” by finding a single exception. Then again finding a single exception doesnt prove the exact opposite either.
You havent given any arguement proving that people fear changes. The number of people who voted in the last event was <50, while the server gets like 500 players each day, which kinda shows most people dont really know of whats going on.
My second point was that most people play to win, not all of them. I realize that people do come to enjoy time with friends, but why were their friends there in the first place? And how do they usually enjoy that time? With a casual map or with a tryhard map? Also how are you going to fuck them up and how is that going to get them to not play to win? The entire doorhuggers example was to demonstrate how there are players who will not play by your ideals no matter what you do to them.
Ummm i3d is dead isn’t it? Dont really think thats a good example because it will be easier to argue that those sessions upset enough people that they choose not to come back to it. With double ammo on unloze its an unknown. I could argue that you guys could be in a far better place if you still had it.
People need to work harder for their victory is purely ideal based. In reality, the best defenders are limited as to how much they can defend. One can only shoot oh so many bullets in a time frame, and further difficulty will be dependent on their team to not fuck up rather than them. Its the same thing with failnades, a player can play at perfection only to get their effort ruined by a noob who couldnt throw a nade correctly. Eventually they are not going to find failnades fun, after multiple repeated failures. In short people are not making mistakes but still getting punished. Thus you should expect them to go back to easier maps.
When you come on, you will usually lead, that is an ideal situation as leading helps players to have a decent time without having to constantly lose. But just like you and I have said, the server will not constantly have a leader and good team. When that happens, people can choose to continue to tackle the same hard maps and lose continuously, or they can choose to fall back to easier winable maps. You may not consider the latter as fun, but from the actions of the players, they consider it more fun than tackling a map where the situation seems hopeless.
It seems that our definitions of teamwork have been mixed up. Either way, the teamwork on the easy maps that the server continues to play often is not reliant on a skilled team and leader. Adding more “teamwork” may worsen the maps reputation, as players spefically have chosen the map even when they know it is not a challenge, because it isnt a challenge.
Remember the only thing i would agree with would be a limited test on a one or two popular maps, so the results after several months can be seen. Implementing it on all easily beatable maps is dangerous as even easy maps serve a distinct purpose, and if the changes do end up unpopular, the damage would be limited to those one or two maps
You really are bad at reading. There is a big difference between “most” and “all” because it is easy to counterargue “all” by finding a single exception. Then again finding a single exception doesnt prove the exact opposite either.
You havent given any arguement proving that people fear changes. The number of people who voted in the last event was <50, while the server gets like 500 players each day, which kinda shows most people dont really know of whats going on.
My second point was that most people play to win, not all of them. I realize that people do come to enjoy time with friends, but why were their friends there in the first place? And how do they usually enjoy that time? With a casual map or with a tryhard map? Also how are you going to fuck them up and how is that going to get them to not play to win? The entire doorhuggers example was to demonstrate how there are players who will not play by your ideals no matter what you do to them.
Ummm i3d is dead isn’t it? Dont really think thats a good example because it will be easier to argue that those sessions upset enough people that they choose not to come back to it. With double ammo on unloze its an unknown. I could argue that you guys could be in a far better place if you still had it.
People need to work harder for their victory is purely ideal based. In reality, the best defenders are limited as to how much they can defend. One can only shoot oh so many bullets in a time frame, and further difficulty will be dependent on their team to not fuck up rather than them. Its the same thing with failnades, a player can play at perfection only to get their effort ruined by a noob who couldnt throw a nade correctly. Eventually they are not going to find failnades fun, after multiple repeated failures. In short people are not making mistakes but still getting punished. Thus you should expect them to go back to easier maps.
When you come on, you will usually lead, that is an ideal situation as leading helps players to have a decent time without having to constantly lose. But just like you and I have said, the server will not constantly have a leader and good team. When that happens, people can choose to continue to tackle the same hard maps and lose continuously, or they can choose to fall back to easier winable maps. You may not consider the latter as fun, but from the actions of the players, they consider it more fun than tackling a map where the situation seems hopeless.
It seems that our definitions of teamwork have been mixed up. Either way, the teamwork on the easy maps that the server continues to play often is not reliant on a skilled team and leader. Adding more “teamwork” may worsen the maps reputation, as players spefically have chosen the map even when they know it is not a challenge, because it isnt a challenge.
Remember the only thing i would agree with would be a limited test on a one or two popular maps, so the results after several months can be seen. Implementing it on all easily beatable maps is dangerous as even easy maps serve a distinct purpose, and if the changes do end up unpopular, the damage would be limited to those one or two maps
