dariv wrote:I think it's a pretty fair analogy.
Well, of course you do; you made it. I entertained it to the extent I could to try and make the point to you (and apparently failed), but I think it's loose at best. Fact is, look at how the game, its code, and settings are organised. Fortress, sumo, and CTF are defined by the code that applies to the behaviour of the zones. The physics are separate and arbitrary, and, not incidentally, preceded those game modes by years—that's what used to distinguish different servers. There's no particular reason behind this mentality that the new generation of players (and it is generational) have developed that inextricably binds the game mode to the game physics.
And what's even more nonsensical is when this bleeds over into regular free-for-all/deathmatch-type servers. Someone comes into Shrunkland and says, "this is like a cross between nano and sumo." Say what? We'll nevermind that Shrunkland's existence preceded both of those; that simply makes no sense. Or, that ID server that was just a regular free-for-all server, but was billed as a cross between fortress and CTF, and for training thereof. Wait, what? Or, yesterday I popped into Agility's high rubber testing server and someone says, "these are like CTF binds." Huh? Putting aside the obvious misuse of the term "binds," and replacing it with the more accurate "turn delay," there's no such thing as "CTF turn delay." There's CTF, and then there's CYCLE_DELAY. That a popular CTF server(s?) happens to use a low turn delay is just coincidence. There's no reason a CTF server couldn't have a different delay, or rubber, or speed, etc,
and still be CTF in every fundamental way. One is a game mode, the second is a physics setting. Likewise, "high rubber" and "low rubber" are no more game modes than speed, acceleration, wall length, brake value, explosion radius, or arena size are game modes. Get it?
Ironically, this new generation of players and server admins who have so embraced all these gimmicky game modes—who can't think of any other way to "innovate" than to cram in all other manner of unrelated and superfluous gimmicks—are the most resistant to any change to or variety in said game modes. Plain old free-for-all-style servers have had more variety over the history of this game, for real.
/rambling rant
vogue wrote:At least we're not posting in every LMS topic that the game mode has to disappear.
True, and easily done since there aren't any "LMS" topics. You're also the majority on this forum.
INW wrote:sinewav wrote:...like when you obsess over Phytotron, haha. Keep it up kid, we get good laughs out of it.
I don't. He starts arguing with me, I grab the bait and continue to argue with him.
You really do live in an alternate reality, don't you? One where you can repeatedly, not only admit, but boast of trolling and baiting, then say it was the other guy who did it. Spit in someone's face, then say, "I did not. You did." You're like that kid who grabs his sibling's arm and starts smacking himself with it, then cries, "mommy, he's hitting me!"
Also, if I didn't know better I would say sinewav just trolled us both.
Anyway, I don't have an opinion on this scoring subject (aside from, again, that I think people should not only be free, but be encouraged to do several variations on fortress—if these damn game modes are going to exist, at least be creative with them), but the little sub-debate about defense reminded me of something. I recall that back when I started playing again, Akira approached me and asked if I wanted to join a fortress team of "oldies." I told him the only way I would consider it is if everyone else involved would be open and committed to developing and trying something different, in terms of strategy and tactics. Needless to say, nothing came of that. But, the one idear I had had was to implement a predominantly defensive scheme—sort of analogous to an old-school smash-mouth style football scheme. I think it could be quite successful. Admittedly, it's kinda predicated upon the other team attacking, but given the pavlovian, compulsive adherence to the current fortress regimen, and resistance to any variance, it may be a given that the opposing team(s) would continue to attack, at least for awhile. A timed match might make it more viable. Or, a fortress where there was only one zone that switched teams every round. Anyway, sidebar rumination.
