Why I'm not playing T2

<img src="http://home.dti.net/ianc/nitro/nitroofr.gif" width="1000">

http://home.dti.net/ianc/nitro/nitroofr.gif

Diamondsoul, you should redo your sig so you get all of Michael Angelos name in there. Someone as r33t as a guy who has a 4 neck guitar configured in an "X" and can supposedly play said instrument deserves to have his complete name shown.

It is a pocket answer. Like many others on this thread, instead of actually making some positive points toward the topic at hand, maybe making some VALID points to dislikes / problems that Nat and others have suggested, a good portion of the people are just reaching down in their pocket and pulling out "hey! dont play!" when others are looking for an entertaining solution that many could possibly enjoy. The reason most these people get that answer is because they saw some other idiot post it, thought it was a "brilliant idea", and its all they have to go on cause they can't think for themselves. I dont understand why peoople who obviously dont care about the topic at hand actually read the thread (or at least the topic of the first post) and spend time to reply.

/me reaches down into his pocket, pulling out "HEY DONT READ THE THREAD!"

btw.. i stopped playing tribes 1 cause i felt that the situation at the time did not lead to much competition, and the reason i was playing at the time was for some good competition. T2 simply sux0rs in general, and thats why i'm here looking at others ideas/opinions on the subject, seeing if there is a way some fun FPS or game or whatever could come out of all this. I'm not here to "pine" or whatever as you said.. i'm looking for something FUN to play as are a bunch venting what they dont like on this thread. If that becomes t1 again, then so be it.

<img src="http://philosophy.wisc.edu/lang/pd/gifs/logic.3.gif" width="600">

im still confused on how this got to 41 pages

Personally I think that they took the mine disc combo which "gave lights a one shot kill ability" and replaced it with the laser rifle. On the few maps I've played with no D snipers I've been able to clear all the "invincible" turrets in 1 or 2 runs.

If the dmg to hvy from those damn things was reduced you'd see HO again.

btw: I know that a shield pack can protect you from a few laser shots but it takes away the mobility of an e-pack and drains your energy, so what if it protected you from that sniper when youre stuck now with no energy to move to deal with that LD that just began granading your ass.\


PS: And yeah the mortar pretty much sucks now, I launch one at a light, he walks by it, kills me, it explodes harmlessly.

uh this thread is too long

Omg, im totally enlightened now. Thanks guys. :cool:

Since we have brought up the reliability of deterministic claims, modern philosophers of quantum mechanics will no doubt be wondering whether the logic described above can be generalized so as to include degrees of reliability. The answer is yes. They might then wonder whether any paradox-free non-agnostic thinker might believe, regarding some proposition about the external world, that the degree of reliability is neither 0% nor 100%. The answer to this depends, of course, upon what one means by “percent reliability”. If, for example, I have 100 cows and I claim that all of them are black, but actually only 50 of them are, then some people might suggest that my claim was 50% reliable. This is a “frequentist” notion of probability. It isn’t terribly interesting, for it boils down to the idea that I’ve actually made 100 claims, 50 of which are 100% reliable and 50 of which are 0% reliable. Thus, for frequentists, the notion of percent reliability doesn’t really refer to anything different from what we did above (so there must be a non-paradoxical way of holding probabilistic beliefs in this sense).
Then there is the “subjective” notion of probability. When a subjectivist says that my claim that all of my cows are black is 50% reliable, they mean that they are willing to bet, with even odds, that the claim is true. They are fully aware that they will lose the bet if only 50 of my cows are actually black, so they are not using a frequentist notion of percent reliability. In fact, their act of placing a bet betrays their expectation that someday we will be able to tell who won the bet. That is, they must expect that my claim will eventually be found to be 100% reliable or 0% reliable. Thus, the belief that a claim has some percent reliability other than 100% or 0%is sensible to subjectivists only as a temporary belief. However, the concept of reliability as associated with the symbol ‘ @ ‘ was defined with the words “we will never be able to prove” that the proposition in question is logically paradoxical. Thus, right from the start, the subjective notion of reliability is quite different from that associated with our symbol. In generalizing our logic, we will adjust our definition of reliability to permit multiple kinds of reliability, including subjective kinds. It may come as no surprise[12], but we will be able to prove that subjectivists’ acceptance of beliefs on a temporary basis must prevent them from being able to formulate a non-paradoxical complete set of beliefs. Subjectivists cannot both hold beliefs and avoid paradoxes unless they remain agnostic about certain wide classes of propositions.

The notion of probability that would interest philosophers of quantum mechanics, however, is quite different from the two mentioned above. This third notion allows the supposition that we may forever be unable to determine the truth of the claim that a given spot on a given cow is/was/will be black at a given time, yet may still be able to objectively assign a degree of reliability (besides 0% or 100%) to that claim. The complexity of this notion has given rise to visions of parallel universes (some with black cows, some without) and of questions for which at times there is supposedly “no fact of the matter”. Some theorists, like Albert Einstein, have complained that these notions are absurd. Generalizing the logic we developed above will allow us to prove that Einstein had good reason to think so. Specifically it will allow us to show that non-agnostic paradox-free thinkers must believe that reliability to any degree (other than complete lack) entails complete reliability[13].

To generalize our logic, we would need to modify our definition of reliability so as to include multiple degrees or kinds of reliability. We will add an index to our reliability symbol so that it may in general be displayed in the form ‘ @n ‘. The ‘n’ in this display represents a number (such as a percentage) or a specification of a kind of reliability (such as “of the temporary kind that lasts for only five minutes”). We will then have a potentially infinite number of @ introduction rules, the nth of which justifies the final lines in the following displays:
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/lang/pd/gifs/logic.25.gif
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/lang/pd/gifs/logic.25.gif



When speaking of “degrees”, the kinds of reliability are ordered such that any proposition reliable to the nth degree is also reliable to every lesser degree. For example if A is 50% reliable, then A must also be 30% reliable and 7% reliable. (Customarily, we only label each proposition by its greatest degree of reliability.)

The rule is justified analogously to our original reliability rule. Imagine that n is a degree of reliability. Then, if we have a derivation of ~A from ~B, proof that B is logically paradoxical would constitute proof that A is logically paradoxical. Furthermore, A can be no more reliable than B, since[14] ~A (being derivable from ~B) must be at least as reliable as ~B. Therefore, if ~B entails that A is reliable to the nth degree, then B must be reliable in general to that same degree (at least). Likewise, in the case of kinds, B must have “n-reliability” (at least).

Note that along with the new rule, we pick up a potentially infinite number of metaphysical assumptions: ~@nC and @nB for all n. These assumptions are required if the notion of “degree” or “kind” of reliability is to be meaningful. The first says that, for each degree or kind of reliability, there must be at least one proposition that is not reliable to that degree (or in that way). If that were not the case, then that degree or kind of reliability would fail to discriminate. The second assumption says that, for each degree or kind of reliability, there must be at least one proposition that is reliable to that degree (at least) or in that way. If that were not the case, then there would be no point in speaking of that kind or degree of reliability. These allow us to derive the following:

Theorem VI: (~@mC®(@nB®(@mA®@nA)))

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/lang/pd/gifs/logic.26.gif


Thus, if there is any proposition that is not reliable to the mth degree and any proposition that is reliable to the nth degree, then every proposition which is reliable to the mth degree must also be reliable to the nth degree. For example, if at least one proposition about the real world isn’t reliable at all (perhaps because it’s false) and at least one is reliable to the highest degree, then every proposition about the real world which is reliable at all must also be reliable to the highest degree. Alternately, if at least one proposition about the real world doesn’t have reliability of a given kind, then every proposition which has that kind of reliability also has every other kind of reliability that any proposition has.

Let’s step through this surprising form of reasoning with an example. Imagine that A is the proposition that the next toss of the coin will land heads, and we maintain that the reliability of A, call it “x”, is at least m (=50%). That is x ³ 50%. Given this fact, it would be paradoxical to outright claim that A is false. Rather, we should say that the reliability of the claim that A is false is only (100%-x), which can be no more than 50%. Now, in the context of maintaining the paradoxical combination of claims that A is both outright false and yet at least 50% reliable, any proposition, B, leads to paradox. Let’s make B the proposition that “I exist” (for which let’s suppose n=100%). Therefore, given our initial claim that the reliability of A is at least 50%, the claim that B is paradoxical would follow from the hypothesis that A is outright false. Thus, the reliability of the claim that B is paradoxical would have to be at least that of the claim that A is outright false. That is, (100%-n) ³ (100-x). But the claim that B is paradoxical is not reliable at all (for 100%-n = 0%), so we have: 0% ³ (100-x). Then the reliability of the claim that A is outright false must be 0%, and the reliability of A must be 100%. To avoid paradox, our claim that the coin has (at least) a 50% of landing heads must entail that it necessarily will land heads.

The moral of our story is that all kinds and degrees of reliability present in the real world (aside from complete lack of reliability) are logically equivalent. Thus, our initial definition of reliability need not be revised. Moreover, any complete set of knowledge must include knowing that it is necessarily paradoxical (regardless of the definition of “disproof”) to believe that any given proposition about the real world is neither completely reliable nor completely unreliable[15].

Keep this up, and I'll post Dharma Bums.

Originally posted by Ceiling_Fan


The damage to Heavy was reduced last patch. Pay attention.

Sorry havent had a chance to play latest patch much yet, bah. I'll go cry now.

<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>
<H1>THIS STOPPED BEING FUNNY 20 PAGES AGO.</h1>

Originally posted by Pubknight
Maybe it's just me... but it seems like some (not all) of the "big name" people that are speaking out against T2 also stopped playing T1 for various reasons.

So, while T2 is not T1 in terms of gameplay, etc, for these people... apparently T1 was not T1 either.

I guess I just fail to see the point of all the lamenting.
It's a different game, maybe you like it, maybe you don't.
If you want T1, no one is making you uninstall T1, it is still there to play.

T1, in its twilight, was the experience it was because of the community around it. If that community has fragmented, then T1 will never be the T1 that people recall from the "good old days".

Those that want for people to return to T1, aren't just making a choice for T1 over T2, they are trying to turn back the clock.

It's like pining for the "golden age" of any era, and often, memories are more favorable than the realities.

T1 was not bug free, the pubs were not grandiose places to play, and the game was plagued by cheating towards its end.

I personally enjoy T2 a lot... but it took time to grow on me. It has a lot more subtleties than T1 ever did.

If you don't like it, you don't like it, but pining for yesterday doesn't do anyone any good.

Thank you for so elequently stating what I was thinking by utering the crass stament of "Stop living in the past". You are a wordsmith sir :)

Actually, you interrupted a discussion Locke was trying to start.

Now it's lost back a few pages.

:hrm:

vet.

Fuck it. Post away.

Hey, I have a request here for some Upanishads.. think you can hook me up Polaris?

thats probably the longest page in tribalwar history

Polaris I like you and CF but wtf are you ... the Thought Police? If you don't like it move on. Sorry man but your tirade isn't exactly needed. :hrm:

Originally posted by Polaris
Since we started on page 37, I would agree tha tthe bickering about Nat's views on T2 stopped being funny 20 pages ago. Stop beating a dead horse and you wont get the next 60 chapters, plus the epilogue, of Bleak House.

On the good side, at least you get to find out how it ends.

Im totally agreeing with Natural 100% on this one..the makers had rushed it out of the factory too fast, and spent "too much time" trying to make the graphics perfect. Too bad a lot of the T1 CTF original clans won't come back, since the sequel is already here; moving on.

besides, you never really feel the magic of Tribes 2 as you do in T1, and how the hell are we supposed to chain down a flag runner now that the ChainGun spread is wider?