T:V Suicide Punishment
- Thread starter Fraggy Poo
- Start date
Fraggy Poo
Veteran X
Fool said:
I use this line all the time in political threads.
Sojourn said:
This doesn't really make sense.
I did in fact enjoy playing T2 Base in competition. Just as I did Base++ and again in Classic.
I predominantly play Classic, but at times play Base with some friends that still play Base. Only thing I don't like about Base, after playing Classic are the hit sounds.
Sure it's slower, but it's just a different way of playing Tribes. (can't wait for the quoted reply from this line.. "Ya, not different but WRONG/SHITTY/ETC.")
There's so much more to playing Tribes TO ME than fast heavies and mach 2 cap routes. Not to say I don't like those features.
I've enjoyed each and every Tribes incarnation. T1, T2 (base, base++, v2 and classic) were all fun to play. They were all built on what I love about playing Tribes. Variety, Depth, Skill based, Challenging and of course, FUN!
I guess what I like most about T1 competition was what I'll call "The thrill of the chase". It wasn't even the speed of T2 that bothered me as much as the lack of the chase. If you got the flag further away than 100m from the enemy base, you tended to cap it. But 9 out of 10 cap runs ended at the flag stand or 100m before you got there. Chasing was done by vehicles, escapes were done in vehicles. (note: This is reference to Base, not Classic which is a mod and therefore not described as "T2")
In T1, you could expect resistance before the flag, and you could expect close pursuit after the grab. That's what made it exciting. That flag grabs were possible, but the defense wasn't going to just let you get back to your base with it. Call it the illusion of hope, an illusion that was not present in T2.
In T1, you could expect resistance before the flag, and you could expect close pursuit after the grab. That's what made it exciting. That flag grabs were possible, but the defense wasn't going to just let you get back to your base with it. Call it the illusion of hope, an illusion that was not present in T2.
KillerONE said:
Tribes has never been just about fast heavies and mach 2 cap routes. I'm sorry you felt that it was just about that.
But you still didn't understand my point. Fool's example involved 1 skilled defensive player taking out 6 skilled offensive players. In other words, there is no challenge if 1 player on defense can take out 6 players on offense of equal skill. That being said, your response implied that why it might not be exciting to him, it's exciting to you (or others). My point is that competition is supposed to be fun, sure, but it's supposed to be challenging. There is no challenge in Fool's example.
Sojourn said:
Umm, that's exactly what I said.. Tribes is MORE than Fast Heavies and Mach 2 cap routes.
I'm not sure that example applies. He's making something up, and calling it fact.
Alternatively, I can say.. 2 heavies ski into our base.. own it the whole map and we can't do anything about it. This to me isn't fun, either. But that's an isolated incident. Fool is picking out events that weren't fun, and saying that was what T2 is about. When it's not. There are elements in all games that can be undesirable.
What was learned in T1, couldn't be applied in a cookie cutter fasion to T2. T2 was different in how it played. That difference is what divided people. Because it DIFFERED in their opinion of a FUN game.
So we will always come back to arguing over opinion. And ultimately we get nowhere. Which is where everyone gets when they try to debate T1/T2 or opinion vs opinion.
hi yeah,
people here need to go out in the world and try arguing the way theyre arguing here, because theyll get beat up by some sensible but quick to anger guys pretty quick.
certain people seem to think that their opinion is the only opinion. even when ostensibly claiming to understand that what they think is not a universal truth, they follow it up with something reaffirming, to themselves as much as to anyone else, that they do in fact believe their opinion is the universal truth.
those are the people who need to get their faces smashed, because they wont learn how to be normal, reasonable, intelligent human beings otherwise. theyll be belligerent, irritating people their whole life... you know this is true, youve met them yourselves, and thought "my god, what a twat... theres no point talking to him". well thats you, right now, and i have to point it out to you because you apparently think the smart thing to do is say "im right and represent everyone in the world" then when called on it, to say "yeah i know its a personal opinion and i pulled that everyone bit out my ringpiece... but my personal opinion is right because of X reason". WRONG.
to get real truths and real answers, you can only look outside yourselves. config.sys is right to post those server stats. they show that, irrespective of what spin and qualifiers and niggles anyone can invent to try and dismiss them as relevant... in the real world, the vast, vast majority of online game players - tribes' target audience - choose to play the kinds of games that veer away from "fighting sport" titles, and therefore are not akin to the fighting sport you people want in t:v.
THAT is a fact, verifiable. not an opinion you believe in, its there on the stats page, truth. and saying tribes isnt like those games is a retarded thing to say, because it doesnt matter. online players are online players, they play games online, games they like. if they like t:v theyll play it. if t:v proves to be bad for them, theyll go back to playing those other games that are so unlike tribes; theyre normal, they do what they enjoy. there is not a special interest group of tribes-only players out there who will snap up t:v as the first game they play since the last tribes game.
except there is, and theyre called tribalwar forum whores. this strange breed of people believe that their INCREDIBLY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE ONLINE GAMING MARKET governs all of it, or at least that their love of fighting-sports is what drives, or is what should drive, everyone. they forget that their numbers are a drop in the ocean of potential tribes players. in fact many of them refuse to accept it, claiming, against the decisive evidence of sales figures, server figures and media content outside of tribalwar, that they are it when it comes to tribes players.
personally, because im not one of them and ive seen that decisive evidence, i believe that if t:v is too fighting-sport oriented, fast paced, unforgiving and rampantly nonsensical compared to other games in favour of competition... then it wont be loved by the public. for example, ive never seen anyone suicide at all, let alone as a matter of course to play the game, in counterstrike. or ut. or wolfenstein. or any of those other games that are irritatingly popular, there on the stats. thats the audience t:v is competing for. not its own, special, secret, super-loyal kind that get a hardon for tribes and nothing else ever and are in hibernation right now.
i think thrax and the team know all this. what they choose to do with it, i dont know. but rest assured of this; he told sierra something that perked their fatcat ears, and made them greenlight an addition to a franchise that they had considered, with good reason, dead. you dont do that by pandering to fansites. you do that by pandering to profits. i tend to believe that what he told them was "single player". isnt it interesting that most of the fighting-sport types around here couldn't give a damn about the single player?
ps. real competition grows from a game, it isnt born with it and it isnt an integral part. only the most hardcore approach a game from the start with an eye to real competition. again, the hardcore are a minority.
people here need to go out in the world and try arguing the way theyre arguing here, because theyll get beat up by some sensible but quick to anger guys pretty quick.
certain people seem to think that their opinion is the only opinion. even when ostensibly claiming to understand that what they think is not a universal truth, they follow it up with something reaffirming, to themselves as much as to anyone else, that they do in fact believe their opinion is the universal truth.
those are the people who need to get their faces smashed, because they wont learn how to be normal, reasonable, intelligent human beings otherwise. theyll be belligerent, irritating people their whole life... you know this is true, youve met them yourselves, and thought "my god, what a twat... theres no point talking to him". well thats you, right now, and i have to point it out to you because you apparently think the smart thing to do is say "im right and represent everyone in the world" then when called on it, to say "yeah i know its a personal opinion and i pulled that everyone bit out my ringpiece... but my personal opinion is right because of X reason". WRONG.
to get real truths and real answers, you can only look outside yourselves. config.sys is right to post those server stats. they show that, irrespective of what spin and qualifiers and niggles anyone can invent to try and dismiss them as relevant... in the real world, the vast, vast majority of online game players - tribes' target audience - choose to play the kinds of games that veer away from "fighting sport" titles, and therefore are not akin to the fighting sport you people want in t:v.
THAT is a fact, verifiable. not an opinion you believe in, its there on the stats page, truth. and saying tribes isnt like those games is a retarded thing to say, because it doesnt matter. online players are online players, they play games online, games they like. if they like t:v theyll play it. if t:v proves to be bad for them, theyll go back to playing those other games that are so unlike tribes; theyre normal, they do what they enjoy. there is not a special interest group of tribes-only players out there who will snap up t:v as the first game they play since the last tribes game.
except there is, and theyre called tribalwar forum whores. this strange breed of people believe that their INCREDIBLY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE ONLINE GAMING MARKET governs all of it, or at least that their love of fighting-sports is what drives, or is what should drive, everyone. they forget that their numbers are a drop in the ocean of potential tribes players. in fact many of them refuse to accept it, claiming, against the decisive evidence of sales figures, server figures and media content outside of tribalwar, that they are it when it comes to tribes players.
personally, because im not one of them and ive seen that decisive evidence, i believe that if t:v is too fighting-sport oriented, fast paced, unforgiving and rampantly nonsensical compared to other games in favour of competition... then it wont be loved by the public. for example, ive never seen anyone suicide at all, let alone as a matter of course to play the game, in counterstrike. or ut. or wolfenstein. or any of those other games that are irritatingly popular, there on the stats. thats the audience t:v is competing for. not its own, special, secret, super-loyal kind that get a hardon for tribes and nothing else ever and are in hibernation right now.
i think thrax and the team know all this. what they choose to do with it, i dont know. but rest assured of this; he told sierra something that perked their fatcat ears, and made them greenlight an addition to a franchise that they had considered, with good reason, dead. you dont do that by pandering to fansites. you do that by pandering to profits. i tend to believe that what he told them was "single player". isnt it interesting that most of the fighting-sport types around here couldn't give a damn about the single player?
ps. real competition grows from a game, it isnt born with it and it isnt an integral part. only the most hardcore approach a game from the start with an eye to real competition. again, the hardcore are a minority.
red_hex said:
Interesting. So I might be a very opinionated person, but you think I need to get beat up because of that? You want to talk reasonable and intelligent? That isn't it, pal.
Both sides are claiming, in one way or another, that their opinion is right. Both sides are making claims that are half truths. Some people, that is - not you, realize that while both sides might be making generalizations, they are talking about people that share their opinions and agree with them.
Perhaps you should read the responses to his post. See, there is no game on there that is in the category that T:V would likely be in. No game that fits into that niche. In other words, you can't categorize it against other games. The server stats prove something, certainly, that people favor war-style games over deathmatch and team deathmatch. If Tribes focused primarily on deathmatch and arena, I would consider it a valid comparison, but it doesn't. For all your implied enlightenment, you apparently missed that.
You saying that it is retarded to say that Tribes fits into none of those categories is ridiculous. If I show statistics that prove basketball is more popular than football (or vice versa) and then go on to say that this is proof that this no one would want to watch golf, I'm going to laugh and say that you need to work on your comparisons. No one is claiming any special interest groups. What people are claiming is that you can't compare two completely different game styles, and try to integrate T:V's new style into the results.
Now you're putting words in the mouths of many of the people here. People are not claiming that it is the love of the sport's aspect that governs the game, they are saying it is what they and many others loved about Tribes. They are saying they feel it is something that the game should embrace, and that T2 lacked. I happen to agree. I'm not saying it makes one game better than another. I'm saying I enjoyed one over the other as a result.
So, you think that a game with a new idea is a bad idea because people right now currently play a lot of war-style games? That's just great.
Bullshit. Many of the players who played Tribes are excited about single-player. But single-player is not the reason they will buy the game. People here thrive on the competition. You obviously don't realize that. They are their own group, just like players who enjoy playing single-player, or the 5-minute gamers. In other words, you're attacking people here for enjoying the multi-player aspect of the game. Nice work. What makes you think the single-player would be the most important thing to them? Gee, let me think.. Tribes.. multiplayer only. Tribes 2.. multiplayer only. Stands to reason that the people here really get into the multiplayer aspect. Funny how that works.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. That doesn't mean you should overlook competitive play. The Dev team has repeatedly said that they want to make things easier and more simplified for the 5-minute gamer. In fact, they've said it so many times I'd be surprised it's not on the box when the game ships. You'd think, with the effort you put into writing such a long-winded post, that you might learn to read a little more about what you are writing about.
red_hex said:
This sounds like a challenge. I will not be belligerent in my entire reply. Let us enjoy this debate.
You might be the type to strike a belligerent debater, or you might know several people who are the type, but I would not be so hasty to generalize the social nature of the entire world. I have had heated debates in which name calling and insults lead to nothing but loud voices and hurt egos.
Anyways, this moralizing is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. While painting "the enemy" in a bad light is a nice rhetorical trick, it will hold little water in convincing or shaming anybody; especially those who you believe to be "belligerent."
This is silliness. Everyone knows there are other opinions. What you should be saying is, "Certain people think that their opinion is the correct opinion." This is true of basically everybody. You believe the opinion you gave is correct. I believe this critique of your opinion to be a correct opinion. You've attempted to turn natural human behavior into a despicable terror of intellectualism run rampant.
Moralizing over the kindness or social skills of a person does not do anything to discredit or destroy the veracity of his opinion. You are implying the opposers to your opinion are unreasonable people; this cannot possibly be proved. You cannot be determine whether or not they are telling the truth, simply on the level of force of personality they utilized in an attempt to intimidate you. While it isn't nice, it definately doesn't make their point wrong.
Your subtle attempt to say their opinions can't be truths because they are delivered forcefully is hereby denied.
Hypocrisy is a common human trait, so I forgive you. You act quite belligerently in this passage. This is especially ironic considering you have just attempted to discredit the veracity of the opinions of others, based on the belligerence apparent in their posts.
If we accepted the criteria you were using to judge others, your own opinion would also be discredited by that measure. This only goes to show how ultimately irrelevant your own moralizing is to the points presented in this debate.
The visual theme of the game is irrelevant to the style of gameplay used in the game. Excluding BF1942 and Raven Shield, most of those games are intimate, high-paced shooters in the vein of CS. These are "fast" games, supported by the CPL for their sport-like ease of play and quick rounds.
I must preemptively note that fast does not imply fast footspeed. Rather, it implies gameplay that constantly and consistently engages all players in combat. In BF1942, Raven Shield and Tribes 2, I was able to wait for long periods of time, doing nothing, without harming the overall team effort. In a fast game, the opposite is true: all players must be fully engaged at all times.
By this more objective criteria, built from the concepts of game design theory rather than wishful thinking, we can easily show that the market is not dominated by only slow games, but rather has a mix of all sorts.
Your point, while believable, doesn't actually disprove what you say it disproves. Specifically, you say, "and saying tribes isnt like those games is a retarded thing to say, because it doesnt matter" which you then back up with the following passage:
"online players are online players, they play games online, games they like. if they like t:v theyll play it. if t:v proves to be bad for them, theyll go back to playing those other games that are so unlike tribes; theyre normal, they do what they enjoy."
The conclusion that most people draw from this is as follows: "If Tribes is fun to play, people will play it." If you notice, this conclusion has nothing to do with "isnt like those games is a retarded thing to say, because it doesnt matter." In fact, to better back up your argument, you'd have to show fast games aren't fun, which is a ludicrous proposition.
As I have shown above, the theme of the game isn't as important as the engagement it gives the player. Along these lines, the market is much more evenly divided then you would have us believe.
To claim the game will only be entertaining to Tribalwar players is an extraordinary claim, and you would need extraordinary evidence to prove it.
You haven't proved that there is no market for Tribes. Your proof is lacking, and so is your conviction that T:V will not sell.
You take issue with suicide in particular in this passage, as if it was a reason people would reject Tribes. It is such an inconsequential element of Tribes gameplay, so specific to gametype, that I'm surprised you chose *it* above anything else. Your comparison is weak; and even then, it is a comparison made between a game which has been released and a game still in development that hasn't even been completely feature-revealed to the public.
Don't you think you'd be jumping the gun a little to declare outright your foreknowledge of T:V's failure? Or is there a hidden agenda in your argument; say, you'd like T:V to fail because it doesn't fit your vision of a Tribes game?
I believe so.
What particularly titled the Tribes series, "rightfully dead?" This sounds like more hopeless opinions being enforced as fact: the very behavior you declared hopelessly false! As I said, it doesn't disprove your point, but it goes a long way to show you are being incoherent and driven by irrational emotions rather than reason.
I believe you fear the change in the Tribes series; the official recognition of the faster gamestyle has not only scared you, but it has pleased those who have historically offended you; namely, the competitive players!
I pity you, more than anything. You are so emotionally attached to the future of Tribes as an epic warfare game that you are flaming competition players as an effigy for the development team who has taken the game in a direction you don't like.
The hardcore also provide the vast majority of the free and press hype that a game recieves. If you don't at least marginally please hardcore players prior to release, your game will get a bad reputation on the internet, which will then only be countered by beyond stellar gameplay.
Have a good evening, red_hex.
Welcome to Tribalwar's Tribes Talk. We actually talk about Tribes here. :]
Edit: So beaten by Sojourn. Good work dawg.
Last edited:
Pardon my use of the term cowboy. In T1, if you got away from the flag stand and were on a good route you really didn't need much help getting back to the base. To a lesser extent, same with T2/Classic. It T2 Base/Base++ that wasn't possible, or was very rare. You had to have escorts and very often the person capping was not the person grabbing. I'm not saying T1 didn't have any teamwork, just that T1 and T2 teamwork is different and that I prefer that of T2.Sojourn said:
I played a ton of T1 and up until T2 it was the best game in the world. I loved it and played it contantly. When T2 came out, bugs aside, it was like the best game reinvented and improved because it catered to my style of play. Sure there are a lot of gameplay and teamwork aspects in T1 and T2 that overlap, but some dont and I perfer those that don't in the T2 game over those in T1. Off all the demos of T1 and T2 I have seen and casts heard, I even seem to like the T2 stuff better. The stuff that occured on the field in T2 was more exciting to me. IMO T2Base++ had a better flag chase than in T1 or T2/Classic, and being a capper it was much more exciting to me.The majority of this thread has been Tribes 2 players whining about T:V and Tribes, and you think we're the one crying? Tribes produced some insane demos, excellent gameplay, and many last second heartbreaks.. does that mean it was perfect? Hmm.. sounds like flawed logic to me.
I don't want a carbon copy of T1 gameplay. I don't want a carbon copy of T2 gameplay either. I want something the brings the best parts of T1 and T2 together in to a single game. The issue is what are the best parts of each game. That is a personal opinion for us all which is why we're having this debate. It seems to me that most (not all) the T1 players want to have Enhanced T1 Gameplay and that anything in T2 was just worthless and to forget about it.
Things like team sizes, MD, speed, map size, flag location, suicide, etc are generally different between the two previous games. All I want is a little of everything.
1 Simple example is the Mine Disk. To me that was just stupid. Yes it served a purpose as T1 gameplay matured, but never had I ever had a T1 player agree with the following:
Make grenades shootable. Make them equal to the power of a mine. Make the length of time you hold down the key determine how long the fuse for the nade lasts instead of the velocity. The end result would be a MD with two added bonuses. No stray mines, and if you timed it right, the nade could go off next to the enemy even if you missed it with the disc. I absolutely DESPISE getting killed by MD litter, which ultimately caused me to stop playing T1.
I even brought this up when classic was being developed, yet I was either ignored or flamed because I was trying to change the sacred T1 style of play, even though it would have been better for all involved. The added fuse time even made it a bit more complex to do, another skill that could be perfected but no one would hear of it.
To me it seems that the hardcore T1 players are the least flexible when it comes to change. I'm going to start another related to this, and I would love to hear what you have to say.
Just to get back on the actual suicide topic...
Zooloo's comment about ctrl-k (or whatever) being gametype specific got me thinking. It's been a long time since I played anything but CTF or maybe Arena. but you didn't ctrl-k much in C&H or D&D. Since the objective was to press forward on O, there was rarely any value in killing yourself off, since you might achieve your offensive goal with only a sliver of life left. In those gametypes there is no real concept of chasing (there's nothing to bring home), so defense never really does it either.
The exception would be when offense needed to resynch to attack in a coherent strike, we would ctrl-k on command from our offense leader so we could re-equip and run out together. And on really super rare occasions, we would do it to reinforce the defense in an emergency.
And anyone who ctrl-k's in Arena is a fruithead.
Note that none of this has much to do with the topic except perhaps to reinforce the idea that there's little point in extra punishment for ctrl-k on the basis that it serves a niche roll in one gametype.
Zooloo's comment about ctrl-k (or whatever) being gametype specific got me thinking. It's been a long time since I played anything but CTF or maybe Arena. but you didn't ctrl-k much in C&H or D&D. Since the objective was to press forward on O, there was rarely any value in killing yourself off, since you might achieve your offensive goal with only a sliver of life left. In those gametypes there is no real concept of chasing (there's nothing to bring home), so defense never really does it either.
The exception would be when offense needed to resynch to attack in a coherent strike, we would ctrl-k on command from our offense leader so we could re-equip and run out together. And on really super rare occasions, we would do it to reinforce the defense in an emergency.
And anyone who ctrl-k's in Arena is a fruithead.
Note that none of this has much to do with the topic except perhaps to reinforce the idea that there's little point in extra punishment for ctrl-k on the basis that it serves a niche roll in one gametype.
vawlk said:
Can't argue with that. Usually help came from offense trying to get chasers off your tail, and your own defense coming in to escort you once you got close to the base.. but inbetween your base and their base you're pretty clear in most cases.
Fair enough. Preference is preference, afterall. I don't think anyone can argue that there are a lot of similarities between T1 and T2, but that the games were really very different when it came to actually playing. Had I been able to run T2 originally (Let's just say my computer was absolute shit when it came out and leave it at that.
) I might have enjoyed it more than when I started playing it later. I got to try the Beta, but I was just not happy playing it. For starters, I wasn't all that pleased with how the game played at the time, and then it was just not worth the effort because it ran so choppy and had so many issues on my computer. Obviously the game had some good in it, because you did enjoy it that much.I wouldn't like to see a carbon copy either. In my opinion the point of making another game is to improve upon the previous game(s) and to even allow the game to evolve. Obviously there will be some things we don't like initially, and some things we do. I actually thought T2 had some great ideas, and I hope to see some of them in T:V. If you take the good of Tribes, and the good of Tribes 2, and maybe add a little new things into the recipe for some spice, I think you'll wind up with a pretty bitching game.
There's a first time for everything, so don't be too surprised when I tell you I like that idea. I do enjoy mines, though, even when they aren't being used for mine/discing. I think they add extra depth to the game, mining routes, and strategically placing them at locations around your base. It's too bad mine/discing became so prominent, because I really feel a lot of people overlooked mines as, well.. mines. They were just a part of mine/discing, and were just not used as often by some people as they were meant to be. As a result, I'm not keen on the idea of eliminating them completely.
My only real complaint with that, aside from tossing mines completely, is that mine(grenade)/discing would still be relatively low skill.