40 replies to this topic

[Leggin Ho]

Wildstreak, on 13 June 2015 - 05:51 AM, said:

The solution to spawn camping is to never have respawns in the first place.

Yep True "Waves" in CW would keep the Spawn Camp from being possible.

[Novawrecker]

Omegasama, on 09 June 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

...It is not a realistic situation for combatants to be in either...

You just brought up "realism" in a sci-fi setting. Wrong start

However, since you did, lets add to that realism. Spawn camping is the method of cutting off reinforcements. A REAL method/tactic deployed in current warfare.

Call me radical, but maybe people should learn how to push back the oppressors (which can and DOES happen all the time) instead. I know, silly concept (one that happens to work as effectively as Spawn Camping, who'd-a-thunkith?)

Omegasama, on 09 June 2015 - 11:50 PM, said:

Dropships should not fly into an area filled with enemies. They should instead find an alternate drop location ...

...Take a page from CoD or Halo or Battlefield. The game chooses a safer spawn point for you, sometimes you still get killed there, but your odds are better. Battlefield lets you pick your spawn as a different way to solve the problem.

This is nither CoD, Halo, nor Battlefield and MWO behaves in many ways very differently than those games (granted, it also has some similarities). But, you are aware that spawn points can be changed in CW? It takes work from the commander, but it can be done.

Wildstreak, on 10 June 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

Even joking around this is not funny. Congrats on posting the most irrelevant, ill-conceived meme out there. Moron.

[YCSLiesmith]

I think there are a lot of things that come closer to **** than spawn camping. revenge porn, for example. or that evil craigslist thing where people post ads pretending to be their ex girlfriends and saying they want to get sexually assaulted. It's cool that he's deranged enough to think that beating him at a videogame is equivalent to a violent sexual crime, though

Edited by YCSLiesmith, 13 June 2015 - 03:27 PM.

[Wildstreak]

Novawrecker, on 13 June 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

Even joking around this is not funny. Congrats on posting the most irrelevant, ill-conceived meme out there. Moron.

Given all the bogus arguments I have seen posted in favor of spawncamping, I find it appropriate.

[YCSLiesmith]

Wildstreak, on 13 June 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

Given all the bogus arguments I have seen posted in favor of spawncamping, I find it appropriate.

really? so you see a lot of arguments in favor of sexual assault, to the point where it's a natural parallel to the arguments in favor of spawn camping in your mind? I recommend you make new friends.

[Monkey Lover]

YCSLiesmith, on 13 June 2015 - 05:48 PM, said:

really? so you see a lot of arguments in favor of sexual assault, to the point where it's a natural parallel to the arguments in favor of spawn camping in your mind? I recommend you make new friends.

(warning adult lang)

Edited by Monkey Lover, 13 June 2015 - 08:09 PM.

[Wildstreak]

YCSLiesmith, on 13 June 2015 - 05:48 PM, said:

really? so you see a lot of arguments in favor of sexual assault, to the point where it's a natural parallel to the arguments in favor of spawn camping in your mind? I recommend you make new friends.

I recommend you get a clue. The parallel is in how some people try to justify spawn camping like how a ****** or other criminal tries to justify his actions.
Who I, you or anyone is friends with has no bearing on anything we discuss here.

[YCSLiesmith]

i dont think most criminals say 'actually this would never have happened if my victim had a clue and could play videogames effectively' but then again, what do I know?

[Threat Doc]

I've heard both sides of the argument, and both sides actually have valid arguments for and against moving spawn points based on enemy activity. However, I would like to see respawns removed altogether, and objective-based warfare implemented, instead, where players have a choice of completing a mission through destroying their opponent, or by completing mission objectives. Each side gets one shot, defender and attacker, and that's it, per game played.

[Novawrecker]

Wildstreak, on 14 June 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

I recommend you get a clue. The parallel is in how some people try to justify spawn camping like how a ****** or other criminal tries to justify his actions.

Comparing cutting off reinforcements to r@pe (screw your PC board sensitivity, PGI!). I suggest all that believe this to practice what you just preached: get a clue.

Edited by Novawrecker, 14 June 2015 - 01:25 PM.

[Wildstreak]

YCSLiesmith, on 14 June 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

i dont think most criminals say 'actually this would never have happened if my victim had a clue and could play videogames effectively' but then again, what do I know?

Most criminals abuse a broken system, the same as people who spawn camp.

Novawrecker, on 14 June 2015 - 01:22 PM, said:

Comparing cutting off reinforcements to r@pe (screw your PC board sensitivity, PGI!). I suggest all that believe this to practice what you just preached: get a clue.

Claiming respawning is reinforcements shows I can safely ignore you.

[Novawrecker]

Wildstreak, on 15 June 2015 - 06:09 AM, said:

Claiming respawning is reinforcements shows I can safely ignore you.

Pray tell, what (in your little mind) makes you think that adding a mech to your forces after a your team of 12 lost one isn't sending reinforcements? Look up the definition and that will help clear matters up for you, or are you one of those with the Mario Bros mentality and think it's a "1UP" you just used?

Better yet, seeing that the concept eludes you, and you're the idiot that had the ret@rded audacity to compare cutting off reinforcements to r@pe. We should be the ones that need to safely ignore you.

Best yet, strongly suggest you follow your own advice: GET A CLUE

Edited by Novawrecker, 16 June 2015 - 02:41 AM.

[Wildstreak]

Given the content of your post, you only prove the argument against you.

Respawning is not reinforcements. Considering I already knew what the word meant plus have worked in the military, I do not need to look up squat. On top of that, a bunch of things I know about game design I learned at a company mostly run by people who served in the military and played a lot by military people both former and current. If you told any of them that respawning was reinforcements, they would give you sound lectures why you were wrong. That company's staff has not only served in the military, they have been designing games since long before computer games were a big deal, there were even a few successful computer game titles based off one of their games and there was no respawning. If you tried to sell him on the idea of respawns, you would get ignored, if you persisted, you would get tossed from the community for being a pest. Reinforcements in those games they designed are done right and nothing like this.

This is not a military engagement you are playing, it is sports. Respawning is like switching players in the 4 quarters of basketball. Player #21 Thunderbolt starts, when he has given his all, he is replaced by player #45 Firestarter. You can even use the same player for more than one quarter such as having 2 Stormcrows in the 1st and 3rd periods, player #63 playing twice, or a 4 Hellbringer drop deck with the same build on all 4 of them, player #87 playing the whole 4 quarters.

So you can keep getting ignored with your wrongful and horrible attempts to claim this is very much like a military engagement because the truth is it isn't. Go look stuff up yourself.

I not only use what I learned while interacting with those people I mentioned, I will count on their not only decades of military experience but also their successful decades of game design experience they have you and some others clearly must not.

You lost, are still losing and are only right in your own fantasy.

[Novawrecker]

Wildstreak, on 16 June 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

Given the content of your post, you only prove the argument against you.

You want to preach about arguments against one? You compared reinforcements to r@pe! GET the f00king clue, bud!

Wildstreak, on 16 June 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

Respawning is not reinforcements. Considering I already knew what the word meant plus have worked in the military, I do not need to look up squat.

1) I also served the military.
2) You definitely need to re-read what reinforcements means.

Wildstreak, on 16 June 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

On top of that, a bunch of things I know about game design I learned at a company mostly run by people who served in the military and played a lot by military people both former and current.

And? Several here can claim the same and still would think that you're wrong and an idiot for using r@pe as a comparison point.

Wildstreak, on 16 June 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

If you told any of them that respawning was reinforcements, they would give you sound lectures why you were wrong. That company's staff has not only served in the military, they have been designing games since long before computer games were a big deal, there were even a few successful computer game titles based off one of their games and there was no respawning. If you tried to sell him on the idea of respawns, you would get ignored, if you persisted, you would get tossed from the community for being a pest. Reinforcements in those games they designed are done right and nothing like this.

I will GLADLY take you up on this challenge. I bet you that many, if not majority can and will see that respawn in CW is exactly that: sending in reinforcements. That your thick skull doesn't want to comprehend this is not my problem.

Wildstreak, on 16 June 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

This is not a military engagement you are playing, it is sports.

Except that it's a game that emulates military engagements (i.e. warfare). Didn't you say you served the military? Surely you jest if you completely missed that aspect of this game.

Wildstreak, on 16 June 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

So you can keep getting ignored with your wrongful and horrible attempts to claim this is very much like a military engagement because the truth is it isn't

For someone that has me on ignore, you sure respond a lot to my posts.

Btw, as for this not being a military engagement. http://mwomercs.com/game -- specifically: "MechWarrior Online puts MechWarriors into a team-based and tactical battlefield (<-- psst! Hey, MILITARY Engagement!) where the victors swim in the spoils of war (<-- result of military engagement! Look at that! ).

But if this isn't enough for thy feeble mind. Here's another https://en.wikipedia...wiki/BattleTech - "is a WARGAMING and military sci-fi franchise." See that? WARGAMING and MILITARY franchise. BASED ON MILITARY (which includes engagements or there wouldn't be any fighting ) Nothing about sports, but M I L I T A R Y.

And, in case the first 2 were not sufficient, here's one more. https://en.wikipedia...ment_(military) - "A military engagement is a combat between two forces..." (<-- pretty much describes all of Battletech, MWO included).

Wildstreak, on 16 June 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

You lost, are still losing and are only right in your own fantasy.

You must of thought REAL hard when you looked in the mirror and came up with that one. But wake up man, this wasn't a competition. If it were though, look in that mirror of yours one more time for the one who lost.

Where done here, compadre. Educate yourself and move on.

Edited by Novawrecker, 16 June 2015 - 08:55 PM.

[Wildstreak]

For a guy who says move on, you sure keep coming back with more bogus points.

If you served in the military, then you know this is NOT reinforcements.

There was no 'challenge' but if you want to be stupid and go there, have fun especially when you get proven wrong. That company already had their game made into a computer version that does not have respawns in their version of CW.

There is far less military about this game than you think, if you served you should know that. This is actually part of the Disconnect issue that there are many stories about proving civilians do not know as much about military subjects as they believe they do, I am even doing blogs on that.

There's a lot of stuff using analogies trying to claim they are just like the military, go read the Disconnect articles before claiming these bogus comparisons are gospel. Remember, CBT does not have things like Pinpoint Convergence allowing large alphas into one location as one of many proofs MWO is not a military game.

My education is a heck of a lot better than yours.

[Novawrecker]

Wildstreak, on 17 June 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

For a guy who says move on, you sure keep coming back with more bogus points.

So far I've used this once. You've stated you've ignored me on several occasions. My "bogus" claims at least have been cited. What have you provided besides a lot of smoke? So much for that education of yours ...

Wildstreak, on 17 June 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

If you served in the military, then you know this is NOT reinforcements.

If YOU served any military what-so-ever, you would have known better and at least looked up the definition. I'll do you one better again and provide a cite for you. http://www.thefreedi...m/reinforcement - " ...an additional supply of personnel, ships, aircraft, etc..."

Wildstreak, on 17 June 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

There was no 'challenge' but if you want to be stupid and go there, have fun especially when you get proven wrong

You were dense enough to present it. I have at least provided facts with my statements. You're still using word of mouth (and you claim you're more educated than I? ) But again, bring it on. Link me this so called company and the contacts within them. I'll gladly present them the scenario and forward you the results (don't go crying home to your momma when I use your own resource to prove you wrong).

Wildstreak, on 17 June 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

That company already had their game made into a computer version that does not have respawns in their version of CW.

Once again, word of mouth. Practically rhetoric at this point. I have cited and linked sources (<-- something learned and done with education ). You're still talking from you arse. Btw, wasn't it you who said "who I, you, or anyone is friends with has no bearing on anything with discuss here"? *looks back at your posts* why, yes, indeed it WAS you. Yet here you are, pulling in your "friends" from this so called company.

Wildstreak, on 17 June 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

There is far less military about this game than you think, if you served you should know that.

The point was never how much "military", just that it IS military. You stated this wasn't at all (re-read your own posts). Now you're going back and say "it's far less". Thank you for conceding my point

Wildstreak, on 17 June 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

... of many proofs MWO is not a military game.

Aaaaaand back to not a military game. Yeah, you served the military alright

Wildstreak, on 17 June 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

My education is a heck of a lot better than yours.

Yes, your obvious comparison of cutting off reinforcements to r@pe completely notes this <insert sarcasm here>. Boasting about something is meaningless if you lack the means to prove it. Using r@pe as a comparison to a tactic displayed in a game demonstrates your dismal lack of education and common sense, in fact, it pretty much nulls any/all of your claims to be educated. But good luck with that

I'll state it once more: This conversation is done. That you cannot fathom you are incorrect is neither my concern nor problem. That you involved r@pe as part of your "justified" topic just proves your lack of education and humanity.

I wish you best of luck. Next time at least cite/link sources. More importantly: Educate yourself (sorely lacking there) and move on.

Edited by Novawrecker, 17 June 2015 - 03:45 PM.

[YCSLiesmith]

Wildstreak, on 17 June 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

My education is a heck of a lot better than yours.

lmao this is extremely unlikely

[Mystere]

Wildstreak, on 14 June 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

I recommend you get a clue. The parallel is in how some people try to justify spawn camping like how a ****** or other criminal tries to justify his actions.
Who I, you or anyone is friends with has no bearing on anything we discuss here.

I'm afraid you're totally way off.

**** is a criminal activity, and is punishable by death in some places. On the other hand, playing within the limits of MWO's rules is nowhere close to criminal activity. Get a clue.

[Mystere]

Wildstreak, on 16 June 2015 - 02:39 PM, said:

<claims of serving in the military>

Novawrecker, on 16 June 2015 - 03:11 PM, said:

<ditto>

Were either of you officers, or grunts?

[Novawrecker]

Mystere, on 17 June 2015 - 03:46 PM, said:

Were either of you officers, or grunts?

Navy - Petty Officer 3rd Class