Rambo

I hear and read enough in the several hours I play every day. But I'm sure you know more about the community from your 1 hour every few weeks.

Wrong. Essentially, Ayn Rand doesn't believe in modern society. The way you've presented that quote in an effort to frame me as a false altruist, really diminishes the true meaning. Your manipulated translation implies that Ayn also believed imprisoning murderers and rapists to be wrong. That's not the case. On a side note, an objectivist quote seems tainted coming from a cynic.

This is mostly my concern. I may be wrong, but I believe your concern is that everyone is entitled to making, and learning from their own decisions. This is reinforced by the fact that everyone has purchased the game for his own, personal enjoyment. I think you also hope, or believe, that players will meet their circumstances with maturity and respect. The reason I'm pushing for a sniper limitation, is because through experience (especially as of late), there are many people not meeting this. And again, you might say that they're entitled to being ignorant. But as a community server, we're entitled to make rules. We are, in essence, entitled to revoke other player's entitlements. The exact same way that valve is entitled to change a game we purchased, as they see fit. A sniper limit is a rule that aims to please "the greater good" of the community. The only difference between this and lumping excessive snipers into the griefing clause, is that this is prematurely enforceable. As it stands now, all snipers are discriminated against when there's an excess. This class limit will validated the 2 players who fill the spots. These players will not always be the same. It's not perfect. But I think it's a good idea. You don't, and that's why this is a community and not a dictatorship. I'm not trying usurp legislature. I'm trying to speak on behalf of myself, and other who I know to feel similarly. Just as you are. I accused you of remaining ignorant to my view as a result of a few retorts that implied it: In my last post I went on to better explain myself, so you wouldn't have these misconceptions. I don't expect us to agree. I certainly make clear where we disagree. Similarly, I'd like to explicitly tell you where we're in correspondence. This way, you hopefully won't get the impression that I'm arguing for argument's sake. The reason I said anything at all was simply an effort to directly address anything you've stated. I suppose I could have said 'Okay' instead. I know this isn't how you feel. It is however the way that most people's arguments are being structured. And you know this: is something we share. I wanted to make that clear in my previous reply by including: "I used to LIKE playing on the weaker team. I enjoy when a game is fairly level. And I particularly like being able to have an influence on a team's outcome. Nothing's better than helping a team that wants to win but can't. Even if it's the difference between a score of 10-0 and 10-2. I'm happy." Happiness isn't anchored to winning. But few will disagree that winning, or losing, has a direct correlation to happiness. Like you said, this is the inherent nature of a game. Again I'll say, that if potentially 11 people are losing, as badly as they are, to accommodate a few selfish players, it diminishes the team's playing experience. An experience that they are equally entitled to. I know it's not perfect. But its application to a game won't have the same degree of repercussions as an application to society. The results are finite and far more predictable. I've already addressed my stance on winning earlier in this post. The class limit you endorse will make complete steamrolling less of a problem, but it will do so at the cost of simply having casual fun. And I don't think it's enough of a problem that it warrants limiting peoples fun in every other case.

Thank you for pointing this out!!! I didn't understand how they could justify that. This is just weird. I thought the nerf would target uberchaining. But this has a nul effect on that.

Again, I'm thinking of the greater good here. I'm not the only person effected by this. One sniper being unhappy, on occasion, is a better option than up to potentially eleven unhappy players. I don't think this is just me. I play sniper often as well. I'll lose out too.

Then it seems we're at an impasse, because you still don't understand where I'm coming from. I'm considering the success of a team, compared to the success of an individual. A selfish sniper on a team that is getting steamrolled, will not switch if he is doing well. A sniper could very well have a KDR of 10:1 on a losing team. He will be perfectly content running into spawn to preserve his own success, while not even considering to jump on the cart and save his team's last capture point. He could be an asset to his team as a soldier or heavy, but will think of nothing more than continuing to play the roll of a team's 4th sniper. I used my extreme example to lay to waste a constant, but shallow argument. "Don't tell people how to play" is being used as a common response to accusations concerning selfish players. This implies that ignorance to the success of a team is perfectly acceptable. If that is in fact how people feel, then my extreme situation is validated. Merely have all the self concerned players on one team, all the players who want to win on the other, and you have a recipe for total happiness. Somewhere along the line, many users have adopted the notion that wanting to win is wrong. Bad even. If this was the view held by the majority of the community, the MOTD would be structured very differently. I'll agree with you. This could happen and no, it wouldn't be fair. But it would be extremely rare. One of the few reasons we're having conflicting arguments is because I'm taking a utilitarianistic approach to the situation, instead of idealistic. Please trust me when I say that I understand that. Also trust me that I play far more TF2 than I should. I play almost exclusively on the server, and please trust me when I say it's becoming more and more frequent a problem. I used to LIKE playing on the weaker team. I enjoy when a game is fairly level. And I particularly like being able to have an influence on a team's outcome. Nothing's better than helping a team that wants to win but can't. Even if it's the difference between a score of 10-0 and 10-2. I'm happy. My win ratio is not (Wins: 1,621, Losses: 1,779) because I'm the worst player on the server. But over the course of the last month, I have not been helping teams that want to win. The losing team has been, and continues to be, a direct result of selfish individuals. This is extremely frustrating. It's not fair to anyone else on that losing team, and I think that instituting a rule that assists those people, even to a small degree, is more important than the happiness of someone who "wants to play sniper, and wants to play now". I'll say right now, that I don't think my bias on this situation makes anything stated less valid. I'm regarding the lottery as a chance of having an effective team. This was a miscommunication on my part. The odds of having a more effective team with a limit of 2 snipers is greater. The odds of having a good sniper remain on par with the opposing team's odds. Another reason we're finding disagreements is because you have the opinion that all classes are equal. I don't share this opinion. I believe that a team of entirely heavy and offensive classes will always have an edge when opposed with a team entirely comprised of support classes. In this respect, unlike yourself, I see it as a class problem, and not a play problem. I think that the average soldier or demoman has considerably more merit than an average sniper. I'll concede that an average sniper may prove equal to, or better than an unskilled soldier. But four snipers, regardless of skill, are incredibly unlikely to match four soldiers. (I'm realise I'm generalising. Every one of my arguments is a generalization. I acknowledge that there will be exceptions, but I'm not about to base my arguments on infrequency, when they can target the greater majority of situations) Agreed. But you act as though we're elliminating the class all together. People will still have opportunities to play sniper. It won't be available to them at any given moment, granted. I know this. Sniper is my second most played class. I realise that I won't be able to play it sometimes when I want to. But I'll still get to play it. It's not essential to play a class 24/7 to appreciate the lessons you speak of. It merely forces some players who remain ignorant to the lessons for selfish reasons, to sometimes yeild. For the most part, anyone who plays sniper, will still play sniper. Please forgive any previously stated hostile remarks. I found your sly use of "Capisce?" to be very condescending.

I understand where you're coming from. Try to understand where I'm standing. The people who play spy/sniper exclusively will join a team of 3 snipers, or 3 spies, and play that class anyway. Having a team that's comprised of at least 33% of a class that spends most of its time running away from trouble will, almost always lose. Unless the other team has an equally poor breakdown. I personally think that a team with 2 bad snipers will almost always do better than a team with 3 bad ones and 1 good one. So considering you may actually have a good sniper in those slots, that's a lottery with better odds than the current one. You can be a pretty bad demoman, or soldier, and still do far more good for your team than being a 3rd or 4th sniper or spy. So no, it probably won't turn a team with 4 snipers into a winner. But it will almost certainly make it better. I know, there were many people who whined. The biggest problem will be the people who play sniper and spy exclusively, as you said. But as I said earlier, if they have any concern for the team, they'd wouldn't be a 3rd sniper/spy anyway. They'd fill in the roles that the team was inevitably missing from having a surplus of support classes. Allowing absurd numbers of snipers and spies supports individuals who don't give a crap about their team. These people have been a problem lately. There have been a lot. This is a team central game, and if these people are only considerate of themselves, and not helping a team win, lets reward them by doing nothing? Actually, if people are content doing whatever and not winning, lets abolish the whole team stacking thing. We'll just have the people who don't give a shit on one team, getting rolled by the people who care about playing with a team. Capisce?

I won't be getting these games, but I hope they do something with the unnowns. I spent hours and hours getting them all, and trying to figure out what the A through Z mystery words.. or whatever.. pointed towards. And there was nothing. Never. Anything. If there was something in the games after Gold, or the movie... or the show. Tell me.

Try it over the weekend. After all, we "unanimously decided and trialed" turning off sudden death and limiting turbine to 2 engineers a while back. This couldn't hurt any more. This is ALREADY the case. Anyone who already has a problem with this, will not go sniper when there are already 2. I'd love to go sniper a lot of the time, to take out a sentry nest or something, but we have 3 already and it would only be hurting the team even more. So basically I'm thinking, if the people who care are already limited, why not the people who don't. This may be the only time I ever agree with an entire Atmuh post.

The two are incomparable. This is an online game. Presumably, everyone who liked L4D will be buying L4D2. The people who don't have the money for it, or don't want to get it are going to have to deal with a massive community drain. There will be far fewer servers to pick from, and likely a lot fewer friends to play with. This is inevitable, but it usually doesn't happen in such rapid succession. People bought L4D expecting the lifespan of a conventional online game. And it's not going to deliver. People buy 1P console games expecting a 1P console game. And they get it. This all being said, I don't own or plan to own any L4D game. But I can understand people who are a little ticked off at this turn of events. I'll agree with you however, that people are much harder to please today than they used to be.

So when's that spy/sniper limit happening. I'm really sick of being the only person on my team with over 125hp.

Whoa. Awesome. Thank you! This map almost always comes down to which team can camp the others' spawn more effectively. And yes, snipers never have any motivation to help cap the point, because they can sit uncontested in spawn. Any map with a direct line of sight from one spawn to another, is pretty foolish.

I'm not fond of sawmill in any form. CTF I would consider it's best, but I prefer both 2fort and Turbine to Sawmill. Also, viaduct by far I think is the best koth map. But it sure does trouble my computer. I don't mind if it stays or goes. If anything currently on the rotation goes, I'd rather it be nucleus.

Yeah. As of late, there have been plenty of support classes, with nothing to support.

pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease

You're so lucky.

Ditto! If melee only had any depth at all, suuure I'd play. But it mainly comes down to crits, and being a heavy. I like neither of those! :3 Also, I'd even abide by the "don't shoot the people melee-ing!!1!" If i didn't always end up promptly being hacked to death by someone when I turn my back on them. If you don't wanna eat scattergun or rocket, don't melee people holding guns. :3

Exactly this.

People often confuse clan stacking with team stacking. Sure, when you get a good clan it can be bad, but clan stacking doesn't necessarily cause a problem. Team stacking is always a problem. If the MVPs looked something like this: RED: Vahn, pavlvs, ubel BLU: scythe-messiah, miyako, joseki then there probably won't be a steamroll. It could end up being a really good match. The problem is that when people join, they never take a moment to evaluate the teams before joining. Or perhaps they do, and intentionally join the stronger team, I don't know. If you're a regular to the server though, you should take responsibility for making teams fairer. You know who's good, who isn't, and can probably size up a team before a match starts. So if you're a good player, instead of hitting random and taking a 50:50 chance of stacking a good team even more, evaluate and choose. Similarly, one or two good players changing from the stacked team to the losing team is often far more reliable than teamscramble. Take it into your own hands to make things fair if you're rolling. Regarding the ZUZ stacking: Everything I just said should apply. Sometimes there aren't enough good players to go around, and they should see that and split themselves up. If the server is full, and there are skilled players a plenty, they should be able to try and play together. That being said if they start rolling they should again, split themselves up.

Nope! Badwater! And people generally don't change when I suggest it. They say "fuck you rambo", and the likes.

Really?? Guess you're always on the right team. I'd be thrilled with 4/11 a lot of the time. Heck, sometimes we even have more medics than medicatable classes. I did a whole map at badwater last night with 3 spies and 3 snipers. The only heavy classes we had for the majority were myself as demo, and a pyro.

I liked what I saw as far as source pictures went, but I'd also never played the game. But I'd have entered if I wasn't busy. Next month, whatever the topic, I'll enter. I'll be home and bored. I was sad to see the turnout too, coop.

This is true more and more. I've been visiting a few other pubs recently, and they do always have a much better class breakdown. HOWEVER. They're all soldier and demo and heavy because it's easy. And every single one of them are bad. I can clean up in those pubs, but OCR has more skilled frequenters. This is why they're more comfortable trying other classes. Suuure not everyone always has the heart of the team in mind, but it's still more fun than being in a server with people who really CAN'T do better. At OCR you get some skilled players, while maintaining a mentality isn't complete douchebag. On a side note: THANK YOU darkesword. Not one person in this entire thread knows how to resize a photo.

I've been in an achievement_idle server for a few hours, and I've only gotten one grouping of items. They were all the items that valve took away which I had already earned through achievements. I wasn't there when it happened, but I'm assuming that wasn't just a coincidence because it was the exact 4 that I was left without, and all at once. I'm guessing the rumor was true that they would return items that you had the prerequisites for.

#1 No hat is earned. Whether you idle, fake idle, or play, getting a hat is chance. There is nothing systematic about random drops. Play time is not a factor in receiving a hat. The more time you're connected to a server, the more you're exposing yourself to random chance. However one player may connect for a minute and find a hat. Another may connect indefinitely and never see one. The player who found one in a minute hardly earned it. #2 ??? I've not seen this, if you can provide a link I'd appreciate it. If this is true, it seems strange that they'd then give people idling in-game halos. EDIT: just saw your last post. nvm. For the record, I've played approximately 300hrs since the random drops were initiated. I've found 0 hats in-game. I don't mind that they took away the hats I've found fake-idling, but rewarding the people who didn't care, didn't know, were too scared, or especially idled in-game, is just silly. So until they retroactively VAC-ban everyone who enters achievement_idle, I guess I'll start doing that while I'm not playing. EDIT2: Thanks for posting that Steam User Agreement Powerlord. I'd conveniently never looked at that.