All Posts by baff

Originally posted by Zorvan

Originally posted by RZetlin

I do not understand how people hate cash shop items (which is optional) turn around and pay games like WoW or AoC (which is not optional).   

You cannot like cash item games and then at the same time pay a monthly fee of $15 for fee base games.  It is hypocrisy.

You either like free games or not.

 

$15 a month sub and everyone is even, or $100's a month to keep up with the next guy. It's not hypocrisy, it's intelligence.

P2P beats cash shop every time.

I don't know about even, in the monthly subscription model, "Unemployed Guy" rules the game. In cash for items model, "Wealthy Guy rules the game".

I don't see either as particularly fair or unfair.

I do agree that monthly subs keeps a lot of the children out.

Ultimately I would be happy to play either system if the game was great fun, but I have yet to see an Item Shop game that has appealed to me.

Originally posted by MarL

Originally posted by baff

You might want to recognise that there is a very large difference between a child saying "reported" in general chat, and you getting your account cancelled.

 

WoW isn't reknowned for griefing and ganking. Quite the opposite. If that's the best example of a game full of griefers and gankers you can come up with, then all is well in the world.

I have yet to experience any of your complaints about WoW. Not a one. When you do, contact a GM. It's what we pay them for. 

Ive known many that got accounts temp banned  in WoW for minor stuff like saying shit one time in general chat. A temp ban to me is canceled since i would cancel my account if i got temp banned. I was also "reported for afk in av when i was #1 in kills many times" A gm pms you takes up your time and messes up your match. Yet no action is done to players for false reporting.

Two games ive never seen griefers in are planetside and wwiionline (im sure there are but i never seen them) If you never seen a griefer in WoW im shocked and amazed. Did you play on a pve server?

I will never contact a gm for anything ever or an admin I deal with my own problems. I dont let people bother me.

And yet you still don't recognise the system of having a GM query you as preferable to just getting votekicked or autobanned or allowing botters free range to farm you.

Why am I less than suprised that you've known many that have had their accounts banned?

There is no need for you to have your revenge on whoever falsely reported you. You didn't get banned. 

The end.

Grow a pair and learn to behave like a man.

 Some people aren't emotionally able to deal with multiplayer games.

A GM sent you a tell. Boo hoo, How replying to people talking to you in game with a chat screen must really ruin your night. Obviously any who dared to cause this great a disturbence to you should be banned for their insolence.

Clearly you would prefer a system where cheaters botters and griefers take up your time and ruin your match as often as they like instead of a GM sending you a tell once in every 3 years.

The GM's are there for your benefit mate. They provide a service to aid the enjoyment of your game.

There is nothing manly about insulting someone online or griefing them to "sort out your problems". Nothing smart about not using the expensive resolution systems purposely built into the game for this very reason.

I fully suspect you never consider contacting a GM, becuase they would be completely unable to take any of your nonsense seriously and well you know it.

"Dear GM, Joe Blogs said "reported" in General chat, ban him for me."  "Dear GM, there I was minding my own business in Battlegrounds when someone ruined my night by sending me a PM".

You talk about kids in WoW, but if you don't mind me asking, exactly how old are you?

We have GM's to keep people like you in line. No one really cares if you don't like it. Count yourself lucky we don't just auto ban and Votekick you as we do in all your other games.

Have a look at what one button in a Kamov can do.

That stuff isn't stupid it's dead smart.

Originally posted by ikra

im a hardcore fps, rpg, multiplayer gamer. But I hate the subscription model. So I'm quite weird... but yeah, pay to play is just wrong - thus i play guild wars, even that game I dont stick to too much.  Much more of CSS, DoD, TF2, Dota, SC, D2, and stuff like that. If they had an mmorpg as good as wow (graphics wise and grind wise) where you only pay for the copy of the game, and pay for microtransactions/ expacs then i wont have a problem with it. I think Anet has the model bang on.

Speak for yourself mate.  Loads of FPs players pay for the servers you play on.

It's not free at all. You just aren't keeping your end up.

One of the benefits of MMO subscription models, is that it forces all the blaggers to pay their share.

That said, the Guild Wars model is by far my favourite. I can't see any other model out there that works better for the players intrests. They get no new money until the new content is delivered. If only more companies were willing to be as honest and fair trading as them.

Don't hold your breath.

Blizzard nets a billion a year on the current subscription model.

No one is in any great hurry to change it.

With a pay to get upgrades model, the company may need to produce new content as fast as it's player base wants it. Something no company has yet been able to do. Far better to just get paid anyway. The current model is well established and highly lucrative.

And with the only major company threatening to run their games on a pay to upgrade system being SOE, it is unlikely to get a lot of player support.

I'd be willing to try it, if the game was one I was intrested in playing, but I don't see that there is any competative will to start a price war.

Matrix is bad

Chop wood.

Get an axe and chop wood.

Or get a sledgehammer and break rocks.

Bench pressing women is another great one.

That's why we pay for active server admins.

So that you don't just get vote kicked.

I assume you are not old enough to remember the days pre-vote kick, when if a greifer targeted your server and no admin was online, the server was effectively ruined for as long as said griefer still found it funny.

You might want to recognise that there is a very large difference between a child saying "reported" in general chat, and you getting your account cancelled.

WoW isn't reknowned for griefing and ganking. Quite the opposite. If that's the best example of a game full of griefers and gankers you can come up with, then all is well in the world.

I have yet to experience any of your complaints about WoW. Not a one. When you do, contact a GM. It's what we pay them for. 

There are gankers in many FPS games. They are called spawn campers.

And Counterstrike has had immense problems with greifers over it's life time. No end of additions ot the code have been added to kick, ban, auto-kick, IP ban and even CDkey ban players have been included since it's release, along with friendly fire otpions, server admins, remotely accessable server admins, junior admins, passworded servers and even player rankings and statistics. Utilities that detect players who change their name etc etc. 

Counterstrike has had perhaps the poorest reputation of all online multiplayer games.

I am not looking for a game in which I can fight back with wankers. I am looking for a game in which they are not present.

There are enough wankers in my daily life already without me wanting to meet any in my relaxation time.

WoW is not a game reknowned for it's griefers. Having GM's/server admins online available to adjudicate is one of the many ways in which multiplayer games address the issue of griefing. In games without online admins, many of them use a votekick system, but an active admin is always preferable.

I acutally enjoy this team mechanic.

It's like playing football, we all know the rules. We all know the role in the team each position has assigned.

It doesn't have to be new to be fun.

That said, always nice to see innovation. Bring it on.

Originally posted by MarL

PvP is not needed in every mmo, but i will not play a mmo without pvp.

The main reason there are griefers/gankers is because of the level system.  So stop blaming it on pkers, its the system. If the game didnt want you getting killed they would not allow it.

 

Utter nonsense. Pker's and griefers are found in every single multiplayer game under the sun.

There is no level system in Counterstrike but there are still PK'ers and griefers. There are no rewards or benefits from killing other players in Microsoft Flight at all, but there is still that guy on the runway ramming into all the other planes anyway.

It's not the game it's the people you play with.

This is a persistent problem in every multiplayer game and one which all games have attempted to address in some degree; either through player kick functions, ban functions, friendly fire options or gameplay devices such as honour, NPC guards, safe zones, spawn protection and countless others.

You get griefers, gankers and PKer's because wankers exist. Game designs have evolved to counter anti-social people but you can never completely remove them from society.

What you can do, is to make the penalties for behaving in this fashion so high, that they are either excluded from play entirely or are forced to adhere to basic levels of social conduct via game mechanics.

Allow people free reign to behave like jerks to other people, and many of them will. Such is human nature.

Diablo 3 is coming out.

What investor in his right mind is going to continue funding Mythos.

They've been signed by 2K games.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2k-games-signs-new-cryptic-studios-mmo

So production has started for real.

The Sunni's and the Kurds are not participating in the government of Iraq, they are boycotting it and acting indenpently of it.

This is tolerated by the U.S. as they are co-operating against Al Quaeda.

When the surge ends, the same thing will happen as when the British surge ended, the new security regimes will be put to the test and a period of localised unrest will ensue as militia's vie to fill the power gap. Each force will test each others limits and a balance of power will be struck amongst them by bloodshed.

The war was won within the first 20 or so days. The country is under allied control.

Winning the peace in Iraq is something that every successive regime has failed to do with any degree of permanency since the countries creation. It has only ever managed an enforced peace,

Saddam's regime was about the most successfuls in this endeavour so far. The price of peace in Iraq, carries the same price as The U.S. paid for it's own peace and untiy. Genocide.

Wipe out the indians. Wipe out the Imperialists. Wipe out the Confederates. Swear allegiance, emigrate or die. That's how peace is achieved. It's the way it was achieced in your country, and it's the way it was achieved in my country. It's the way it has been achieved in every country that has ever known it.

If you wish to have a unified country, then one faction must dominate them all. Saddam Style. Henry the VII style. Abraham Lincoln style.

Standing in between the middle of rival factions only prolongs the agony. It's a thankless task and one which will make you a target from all sides. It excaserbates the problem.

It's nice to think that our puppet regime is currently strong enough to stay on top when we pull out, but as we have just seen in Basra, when push came to shove, and they tried to exert their domination from central Baghdad, they were forceably repelled by the locals and a British battlegroup had to step in to rescue them.

It won't play out nicely nicely. There won't be any fantasy ending. Iraqi politics are what they are. What they have always been.  The only thing capable of maintining any form of Iraqi unity would be a very strong, very bad man indeed.

Moqtada Al Sada is my current bet for Warlord of Baghdad. He has a strong chance in Basra too. His movement is certainly strong enough to repress the Sunni's into submission, but no one in Baghdad is going to have any particular control of the autonomous Kurds in my opinion. Their civil war was pretty much won when we invaded. They have seceded from the union in all but name.

Noobs can never catch up with vets.

It's the way the game is designed. Get over it and move on.

There is still plenty of enjoyment to be found in the game.

Plenty of people in this world deserve to lose their jobs. I have absolutely no sympathy with anyone intending to make their living by cynically exploiting their customers.

Good riddence. May more like you join the dole queues.

No one owes these people financial security, and they most certainly did not have the finaancial security of their customers held in any particular high regard. Why should I return the respect they don't share for me.

They had three years of well paid living on someone elses money. They took their cash in advance. $200 is a lot for someone who flips burgers at MacDonalds. The dev's have nothing to complain about, they had their money and they spent it. No need for sympathy there.

Good riddance Bill Roper.

 Thank god your bright vision of the future of gaming is not one that other companies will attempt to adopt.

Really, the game was passable (if perhaps unfit for purpose), but the company stank. I mean it really stank.

@Oldaddy. the Jews and the Palestinians have been fighting over that area since the dawn of time.

Look up Moses in the Old testament.

Prior to the creation of Isreal, the jews did not live in peace with their palestinain brothers but in fact behaved in a very similar way towards them as the palestians now do to them.

The reason Palestine is such an ill defined area is because of the amount of wars that have been fought there.

Neither is it true to say that Israel is a the root of all woes in the middle east. Rather it is yet another typical example of middle eastern politics.

The Persians and Arabs may all hate the Jews and consider Israel an illegal state, but the Persians and the Arabs all hate each other too. There as as many bones of contention in the middle east as there are tribes.

The Iranian supported Lebonese all try and kill the Syrian supported Lebanese who all try and kill the Western supported Lebanese. Sunni, Shia and Christian.

The Iranians don't hate the Jews because they love the Palestinians, they hate the Jews, because they have family members in Hizbollah and on the border regions of Isreal. Israel is at war with Irans natural allies and loved ones.

Almost everybody on the middle east hates the Palestinians. Sunni's, and Shia alike.  Only the Lebanese have any sympathy for them.

The borders imposed by Western powers, the naming of countries such as Israel, Lebanon and Iraqi, do not describe unified nations in the same way as our own country names define ours. They are all recent constructs born out of attempts by foreign powers to broker peace between rival factions.

Originally posted by jdun1

Originally posted by BushMonkey

Originally posted by SoulSurfer

And guess where all those troops that are leaving Iraq will be heading?  If you guessed Afghanistan, you win the prize!

 

 I disagree, most likely they will head into Pakistan if they don't get there shit together. Unless the Neocons make good on there threat of bombing them back to the stoneage. In which case a Pakistan invasion will not be needed.

 

 

 

They are already going to Afghanistan.  Pakistan can't control or won't control their own boarder. It has been label as safe heaven to terrorists. If Pakistan can't get the act together then it leaves us no choice huh?

Anyway our main concern isn't with Pakistan. Iran will be bomb, its just a matter of time. Either we do it or the Israeli. No Middle East country wants a nuclear Iran.

Pakistan is nuclear.

You are about as capable of invading them as you are climbing Mount Everest with a double decker bus on your head.
 

Or you could go down in history as being the first ever country to have it's invasion force one shotted I suppose.

Originally posted by jdun1

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by BushMonkey

 Thank God, hopefully the Iraqi's don't kill each other by the millions after we leave.

 

I can't imagine why they would all suddenly just stop after all these thousands of years, just because your soldiers have occupied the place for the last 5.

 

They realized that Iraq is a democracy and in a democracy no ones gets everything. It’s about compromise. All sides view the USA as a neutral fair partner that can help them reach agreements and stop potential conflicts between the three major groups.

 

Iraq is flood with US money. With so many troops in Iraq the living standard has been increase in every part of Iraqi's society. With US businesses coming into Iraq, it bring jobs to the poorest of Iraqi. Work is the natural enemy of war.

 

Fallujah was the heaviest fighting that US saw in the Iraqi insurgency. Once the hardcore fighters were killed by US Marines, the US military started providing jobs to the citizens of city. This tactic was applied across Iraq. It works extremely well in Sadr city. After the hardcore fighters were killed by US and Iraqi Army, the US government provided jobs for young adults that would otherwise have fought US troops.

 

At the end of the day Iraqi wants reductions of US troops but not to leave completely.  They want US to stay for many reason but the main two are security and money. US military bases bring billions into the Iraqi economy and no one like to kill the goose that lay golden eggs.

Lmfao. The U.S. organised and enforced sanctions against them and bombed them daily for 15 years. It's the reason they are so poor, not the reason they are so rich.

The U.S. didn't bring jobs, it brought poverty, unemployment and death. Your troops didn't bring an increase in living standards they turned one of the richest countries in the world into the worlds biggest humanitarian disaster.

Don't expect them to start thanking you any time soon.

At the end of the day, Iraqi's not only want your troops out, they never wanted them in. US military bases house U.S. troops who kiill Iraqi's. They lay their golden eggs at 10,000 feet above wedding partys.

The Iraqi's hate you. They utterly and completely hate you. They may be politie to you while you are pointing a gun in their face, but they still hate you.

They hate eachother too. If it's not the American's imposing Democracy it's the Iranians imposing Sharia, or the Sunni's imposing Baathism or the Shia or the Kurds or the Turks or the British or the Indians.

Everybody and his dog has tried the same old tactics the U.S. are currently trying to subdue the population. It's a tactic as old as time. The Romans did it too when they were in Baghdad 2,000 years ago.

Nothing changes. It's all been done before.