Double Binding

[Phytotron]

I have no additional difficulty against multibinders, nor do most (any?) singlebinders (or most-time singlebinders) I know. I don't think it really requires any extra thought or anything. If you're good, you're good. There's more to the game than squiggles. If anything, multibinders tend to overestimate themselves and assume singlebinders must be "noobs."

The primary problem with multibinding is servers with sub-0.1 CYCLE_DELAY. Still, it does provide certain lame advantages. But, bleh, very old subject.

[Word]

...and some singlebinders think the exact same thing (okay, only one or two ).

but it's not as bad as the "playing open"-crap

[Nelhybel]

but it's not as bad as the "playing open"-crap

Agreed

I don't see how non-ctf fortress ruined the game - You always say, Phytotron, that people should simply play other video games rather than adding bunches of "gimmicks" to Armagetron. While I disagree with this thought, I suppose it is a valid argument against things like CTF.

But it is not a valid argument against Fortress. What other video game has anything like the mode Fort we have in tron? None that I am aware of.

Plus the ladle attracts well over 100 people each month in players and spectators, and has certainly been a huge success in terms of how it long it has lasted and is still appreciated and anticipated each month.

Fortress has ruined Armagetron? No, sir.

PS: I voted no, double binding has not ruined play. Whatever your playing style is (single/multiple), your ability in the game is judged by your score, and, when applicable, your contribution to your team.

[Word]

What other video game has anything like the mode Fort we have in tron?

GTA

[Cody <3]

the chances of single binders?

Didn't ruin anything for me, I like a challenge

[Phytotron]

What other video game has anything like the mode Fort we have in tron? None that I am aware of.

You never heard of King of the Hill?

Besides this, even if something similar wasn't found in other games, that doesn't refute my position. I've never argued, "if it can be found in another game, it doesn't belong in Arma; but if it can't, by all means, slam it in there and just use lightcycles and walls as a medium and pretense." My fundamental position has been one of a core concept of the game, and what does or does not conform or relate to that. In my view, Fortress does not. Referring to other types of games and saying, "just go play that instead!" is a rhetorical device that, while absolutely true valid in its point, is not the beginning nor end of it.

Oh yes, and argumentum ad populum to you, "sir." I'll take quality over quantity/popularity most any time.

PS: I voted no, double binding has not ruined play. Whatever your playing style is (single/multiple), your ability in the game is judged by....

He didn't ask about ability, judgement thereof, and doublebinding's role in that. I believe it has harmed the quality of the game, regardless of outcome. (Just because something is effective doesn't necessarily mean it's good.) But, again, this subject and argument is at least 6 years old (by this forum's history) and a well-worn one at that. So, yadda yadda...

[syllabear]

unfortunately in all cases of what ruins or doesn't ruin a game theres several factors which influence the point that its impossible to qualitatively determine if something actually ruins it or not in most cases, and so all are just opinions.

Of course, if something is introduced that means everyone or the majority of the playerbase decides to stop playing, that probably qualifies as detracting from the game.

But in the case of doublebinding or fortress, or whatever

a) we don't know how the game would be diffferent otherwise: maybe if fort hadn't been introduced, arma would have died out. Maybe if doublebinding hadn't been discovered, certain game modes wouldn't be around.

b) It's someones opinion on what makes the game more enjoyable for THEM. To me, high rubber is just stupid. Running into a series of walls in quick succession might be skillful in some instances, but generally I think sumo/fort/ctf are better. Thats my opinion. Phyroton is perfectly entitled to his that these are worse, or whatever.

[Phytotron]

High rubber ruined it, too. [insert smirking emoticon—we need one of those]

[gawdzilla]

Shut up.

[madmax]

The primary problem with multibinding is servers with sub-0.1 CYCLE_DELAY.

This, and ARENA_AXES > 4, too much effort.

[Tobe]

In organized teambased play, I'd say multibinders always have a clear advantage, no matter what

And I don't see what multibinding has ruined

[Mkay1]

What about concord, he single bonded, arguably the 'leader' of the late plus.

He is/was one of fortress premier strategists.

Also wildcat is one of unks strongest menbers, and he as well single binds.

[Tobe]

But single binds limit your ability to perform "stunts" that help you perform better under certain situations.

[Cody <3]

But single binds limit your ability to perform "stunts" that help you perform better under certain situations.

A single binder can do anything a double/triple/quad can do...trust me

come watch the 1v1 SB tournament and you'll be amazed.

[gawdzilla]

Doubling/tripling has nothing to do with being able to do things, it's being able to do things faster.