Solo Saber Nerfed Thread

[Gabrobot]

Originally posted by Ardent

Go ahead and find a dictionary with a definition of gameplay. Seriously, go ahead.

 

You won't have much luck because gameplay isn't a word with an accepted definition. The definition differs with every person you ask. You're all content to sit around and argue semantics until whenever.

 

I'm not. The evidence is there. I'm sorry you can't see it, but it is there. If you can't understand that any change to a game will affect the gameplay because at least one person's definition of gameplay will include the subject of alteration...

 

Then take your personal jabs and go away. You're not here to learn anything.

 

The base gameplay can not be changed by the levels. You have not provided any proof that it can. The level has level dynamics which may work better with certain strategies than others, but the base gameplay is the same. You can do all the same moves, it's just whether they would work as well as others.

 

Making changes to the levels is completely separate from changing the base gameplay like adding kicks. You keep going off on tangents about the definition of gameplay, but you haven't proved that making level changes can change the base gameplay. If you can't prove otherwise because you're wrong than say that...traj is right when he said "wtf is the point of debating the meaning of the word gameplay?". There is no point to it, and it has no bearing on the real issue. I guarantee you, you can't add kicks, or any other change to the base gameplay, by making changes to the levels.

[Giddamon]

Originally posted by Gabrobot

The base gameplay can not be changed by the levels.

 

Mhhh, really? Try a duel on Temple Map and try a duel on Bespin Exaust Vents map..don't tell me you play in the same way on both maps

[Gabrobot]

Originally posted by Giddamon

Mhhh, really? Try a duel on Temple Map and try a duel on Bespin Exaust Vents map..don't tell me you play in the same way on both maps

 

The base gameplay is still the same...you have the same moves, the same saber swings, you can do them the same way, they do the same damage, ect.

 

The level dynamics are different depending on the way the level is designed, but the base gameplay is still the same.

[JaredSyn]

Originally posted by Gabrobot

The base gameplay is still the same...you have the same moves, the same saber swings, you can do them the same way, they do the same damage, ect.

 

The level dynamics are different depending on the way the level is designed, but the base gameplay is still the same.

 

 

The timing on practically every move(aside from the pathetic duel sabers which are completely new) is wrong.JO has a way better feel for saber combat.

[Giddamon]

Am I the only one to feel like a cheerleader when using Dual Sabers?

[Spider AL]

Ardent:

 

gameplay is an amorphous term used to describe both the indication and contraindication of certain elements in a game on a personal level. What is irrefutable: anything done to a game can and will affect gameplay because nobody's definition or idea of gameplay is the same.

I think "how the game plays" is a pretty good definition of "gameplay" myself. You can try to mask that all you like in order to bolster your unstable position, but it's obvious, it's the root of the fricking word itself. New maps? Great. Doesn't change core gameplay. Start changing damage specs, adding new moves? THAT would change gameplay. That's what you want, that's not been confirmed, therefore you haven't gotten what you wanted. Sorry 'bout that.

 

Traj:

 

wtf is the point of debating the meaning of the word gameplay?

The point is, you want to change the gameplay. But you're trying to hide that by claiming that bugfixes are gameplay-specific changes. They're not. Gameplay changes are subjective attempts to make a game more "fun." Bugfixes fix unintended flaws in the game's code or resources that have produced abberant results. That's objective.

 

Good stuff btw Gabrobot, couldn't have said it better.

 

No premature gameplay changes Raven, remember JO v1.03!

[AxVegetA]

I want a patch that fies bugs and not changes gameplay.

The game is great the way it is.

I think its very well balanced, for single, duals or staff.

Same with force powers.

 

The elevator bugs are demn stupid, same as the overhead rolling stabs.

 

Do you people want the JO step in heads stuff, not just because its more fun, but because u cant now step in somebodys head and do lethal damage. When u dfa a bunch of people u end up hovering on everybodys head.

But its also good because its more real in many ways.

[Ardent]

You define speeding up lifts as a non-gameplay issue? It meets every single one of YOUR requirements.

 

The fact is, your requirements are only one possible definiton of gameplay. What you happen to feel is correct isn't. The industry feels that the definition of what gameplay is varies from person to person.

 

Saying the same thing over and over again isn't going to make Raven any more likely to pay it mind, even if you're hedging your bets as to their actually reading these forums. If anything, showing that you're not here to learn isn't going to bode well for your "findings." I've shifted my stance with each genuine assault (and they've been few and far between) but I've held my ground. You just stand there and allow yourself to be hacked to pieces, repeatedly trying to land a shot that has been deflected every single time.

 

Which is probably an accurate description of the differences in the way we play.

[porkduckrice]

wow, ive never seen ardent like this.....so sexeh....

[FK | unnamed]

Originally posted by Gabrobot The base gameplay can not be changed by the levels.

 

 

I'm not going to sit here and argue what each person defines as "game play" but make sure you all are totally clear on the fact that there are "level specific" game play styles.

 

The way two veteran duel players will play on duel_temple and duel_carbon in jk2 are nothing alike.

 

Even the most dedicated dark siders will go light side on duel_temple and do "strafing runs".

 

Where as even the most dedicated light sider knows that to win on duel_carbon, you must play dark side.

 

Even CTF is the same.

 

Defenders will whore rage+DFA's on ctf_yavin, but those same defenders will go light when the map comes to ctf_ns_streets.

 

All serious players understand that for each map, game play must be adjusted accordingly to ensure success.

 

In serious competition game play, the map is about 25% of your opponent.

 

you must master the map before you can beat the person.

 

 

In games like quake 3, if you can control the map, you will control the player.

 

JK2/JA is the same.

[babywax]

Haven't posted in this for a while, but maps won't alter CORE gameplay, they alter the end gameplay, and that's what's important to almost ALL players.

 

You can't make a map where the ceiling is so low you have to duck to move and then expect gameplay to be the same, it's just that simple, BUT, the default FFA maps don't really have varying enviroments. Some of them have neats graphics, but for the most part all of the fighting is done on a flat open space with no obstacles or limits.

 

Maps have the potential to alter gameplay greatly, but with the base JKA maps, that potential doesn't seem to show itself.

[Ardent]

Originally posted by FK | unnamed

Defenders will whore rage+DFA's on ctf_yavin, but those same defenders will go light when the map comes to ctf_ns_streets.

 

All serious players understand that for each map, game play must be adjusted accordingly to ensure success.

 

In serious competition game play, the map is about 25% of your opponent.

 

you must master the map before you can beat the person.[/b]

 

actually, in CTF the map is 50% of your opponent...go ahead and ask those of us who cap how many times we've been killed because of a wall hangup or simply whored into a pit.

 

adjusting something like the speed and/or activation time of a lift will drastically affect how we play. if you slowed down the ns_streets lifts by 100% and added a three second startup delay, I guarantee you no fc with half a brain would touch a lift while they had the flag...

 

but you can SEE, outright, the difference between a map veteran and a map nub. Relative skill of the players in mind (they could be absolute equals for the sake of control here), the player that knows the map OWNS the player who doesn't.

 

When you cut right to the chase, the map is just as likely to kill as a player is, if you haven't made it your ally. Adjusting facets of a map will change the dynamic. That affects gameplay if I use your definition of "how the game plays."

[Gabrobot]

Originally posted by FK | unnamed

I'm not going to sit here and argue what each person defines as "game play" but make sure you all are totally clear on the fact that there are "level specific" game play styles.

 

The way two veteran duel players will play on duel_temple and duel_carbon in jk2 are nothing alike.

 

Even the most dedicated dark siders will go light side on duel_temple and do "strafing runs".

 

Where as even the most dedicated light sider knows that to win on duel_carbon, you must play dark side.

 

Even CTF is the same.

 

Defenders will whore rage+DFA's on ctf_yavin, but those same defenders will go light when the map comes to ctf_ns_streets.

 

All serious players understand that for each map, game play must be adjusted accordingly to ensure success.

 

In serious competition game play, the map is about 25% of your opponent.

 

you must master the map before you can beat the person.

 

 

In games like quake 3, if you can control the map, you will control the player.

 

JK2/JA is the same.

 

I think you misunderstood what I said. When I talk about "level dynamics", what I mean is the way the level is played. When I talk about "the base gameplay", I mean things like how much damage weapons do, or what moves there are and how they are done.

 

What I am saying is that doing something like adding kick, can't be accomplished by changing the level dynamics. That's something that has to be changed in the code, and has nothing to do with the creation of the game's levels. One of the basic things a level designer, like myself, must take into account, is the level dynamics, and I know what you mean.

[Spider AL]

Unnamed:

 

I'm not going to sit here and argue what each person defines as "game play" but make sure you all are totally clear on the fact that there are "level specific" game play styles.

 

The way two veteran duel players will play on duel_temple and duel_carbon in jk2 are nothing alike.

You're not going to sit here and debate it... and yet you do.

 

Level dynamics are COMPLETELY separate from core gameplay. The levels are the ARENA in which the game is played. Changing one's tactics to match the arena one is in has NOTHING to do with the core gameplay of the game! Gameplay is a constant ACROSS different levels! It consists of: How much damage weapons do, the range of those weapons, the rate of fire of those weapons, the trajectory of the respective projectiles, the speed at which the player can move, the height to which the player can jump and MANY other things! But core gameplay isn't affected by maps. The way YOU PLAY is affected by maps, the way the GAME PLAYS, in other words the core gameplay, is not. It's a clear distinction. If a player decides to camp, that hasn't "changed the gameplay". That's a player-specific choice.

 

All serious players understand that for each map, game play must be adjusted accordingly to ensure success.

lol, the way YOU play must be adjusted for each map. Gameplay is a core constant of the game.

 

Adding kick is changing gameplay, purely and simply. It is NOT a bugfix, and you have no god-given right to demand such gameplay-specific changes, no matter how much you play the roles of aggrieved and wronged consumers.

 

Ardent:

 

If anything, showing that you're not here to learn isn't going to bode well for your "findings." I've shifted my stance with each genuine assault (and they've been few and far between) but I've held my ground. You just stand there and allow yourself to be hacked to pieces, repeatedly trying to land a shot that has been deflected every single time.

 

Which is probably an accurate description of the differences in the way we play.

Yawn. What a propagandaist. You might as well just be sitting there screaming "YOU LOSE LOZOR!!!11" You've just spent an entire paragraph ranting on about how "leet" you are, but exactly what relevance does ANY of that have to this discussion? None. You refuse to debate rationally, instead slinging baseless and ego-driven personal slurs around. Where's your counter to the point that core gameplay doesn't change across different levels? You obviously have none, you're merely dancing around the fact not-very-elegantly. Every ne'er-do-well who creates an addon map hasn't magically changed the gameplay of JA, have they.

 

Saying the same thing over and over again isn't going to make Raven any more likely to pay it mind, even if you're hedging your bets as to their actually reading these forums.

Hedging? They're as likely to read it now as they ever were. If you think it's impossible that they could read this thread, why are YOU still here, and why were you ever here in the first place? Just to argue?

 

So I say:

 

No premature gameplay-alterations Raven! Remember JO v.1.03!

[razorace]

Originally posted by Spider AL

No premature gameplay-alterations Raven! Remember JO v.1.03! [/b]

 

Ok, now you're just starting to get annoying. While I understand the point of not patching prematurely, repeatly stating it in a thread that Raven isn't going to read is pointless.

[FK | unnamed]

Al, wake up dude, I respect you (even though I give you hell now and then) but you are really talking out your arse on this one.

 

Remember, we play ff/so. The way that game type functions is no where like all weapon games.

 

Powers, attack and defense strategy are all *very specific to the maps.

 

Example:

 

In maps like ctf_yavin, a game of ff/so could be played (and in some cases did) without either team using a single kick.

 

For defense, it's all about the rage+dfa on that map.

 

 

 

 

But...

 

On maps like ctf_ns_streets, a game without kicks is impossible.

 

The map structure makes the only viable form of defense... yep you guessed it, kicking the cappers off of stuff.

 

 

Now if in JK2 not using a single kick on some maps, but being totally dependant on them for others, is not "map specific game play", I then really have no clue what the hell it is you are trying argue about (other than the personal satisfaction I think you get from just sitting here and using every chance you get, valid or not, to tell a person he is wrong).

 

And yes, before you say it, JA maps are the same way.

 

A map like that streets one would be so heavily reliant on kicks (if they were there), where as a map like the yavin hill tops would have a very high concentration of rage+dfa use due to the large open are that each team has for a base.

[Ardent]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Yawn. What a propagandaist. You might as well just be sitting there screaming "YOU LOSE LOZOR!!!11" You've just spent an entire paragraph ranting on about how "leet" you are, but exactly what relevance does ANY of that have to this discussion? None. You refuse to debate rationally, instead slinging baseless and ego-driven personal slurs around. Where's your counter to the point that core gameplay doesn't change across different levels? You obviously have none, you're merely dancing around the fact not-very-elegantly. Every ne'er-do-well who creates an addon map hasn't magically changed the gameplay of JA, have they.

 

I won't deny being a propagandist. I'm really good at what I do, too. I haven't made any claims of "leetness." I'm just pointing out the difference in our debate tactics. If I happen to believe mine superior, I didn't outright say so. People are left to draw their own conclusions, and people love to draw their own conclusions, even if it's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the pool of evidence.

 

I'm not going to counter "core gameplay" because it's not defined. I can create my very own definition of core gameplay and it'll be just as valid as yours. As I said, arguing the semantics of gameplay is pointless.

 

Hedging? They're as likely to read it now as they ever were. If you think it's impossible that they could read this thread, why are YOU still here, and why were you ever here in the first place? Just to argue?

 

I originally came here under the impression they were reading here. Now, however, I remain only because to do so amused me. The more it seems you can't get single, simple little points however, the less I find myself amused.

I directly e-mail the development team at Ravensoft. Because I know if nothing else, they'll see the subject heading.

 

As unlikely as it may seem to you, perhaps there is something I know that you don't...

[Gabrobot]

Originally posted by FK | unnamed

Al, wake up dude, I respect you (even though I give you hell now and then) but you are really talking out your arse on this one.

 

Remember, we play ff/so. The way that game type functions is no where like all weapon games.

 

Powers, attack and defense strategy are all *very specific to the maps.

 

Example:

 

In maps like ctf_yavin, a game of ff/so could be played (and in some cases did) without either team using a single kick.

 

For defense, it's all about the rage+dfa on that map.

 

 

 

 

But...

 

On maps like ctf_ns_streets, a game without kicks is impossible.

 

The map structure makes the only viable form of defense... yep you guessed it, kicking the cappers off of stuff.

 

 

Now if in JK2 not using a single kick on some maps, but being totally dependant on them for others, is not "map specific game play", I then really have no clue what the hell it is you are trying argue about (other than the personal satisfaction I think you get from just sitting here and using every chance you get, valid or not, to tell a person he is wrong).

 

And yes, before you say it, JA maps are the same way.

 

A map like that streets one would be so heavily reliant on kicks (if they were there), where as a map like the yavin hill tops would have a very high concentration of rage+dfa use due to the large open are that each team has for a base.

 

AL and I aren't denying that some parts of the base/core gameplay may be more affective on some levels than others...we are saying that you can't actually change that base/core gameplay by changing the level dynamics.

 

To Ardent:

I'm not going to counter "core gameplay" because it's not defined. I can create my very own definition of core gameplay and it'll be just as valid as yours. As I said, arguing the semantics of gameplay is pointless.

 

Both AL and I have stated what we consider the base/core gameplay...you might not consider them the same thing, but you do know what we are referring to when we talk of the base gameplay or the core gameplay.

 

Now, I'm going to be blunt: Quit the bull****. Stop going off talking about the definition of gameplay. We have stated what we consider base/core gameplay, and even if you don't call it the same thing, we have told you what we are refering to.

 

Also, you keep making cracks like:

If anything, showing that you're not here to learn isn't going to bode well for your "findings." I've shifted my stance with each genuine assault (and they've been few and far between) but I've held my ground. You just stand there and allow yourself to be hacked to pieces, repeatedly trying to land a shot that has been deflected every single time.

What is the point in saying something like that? You continually sidestep our questions and points with **** about how your arguments smash ours...you rarely actually counter any of our points with anything, however. I'm asking that if you are going to debate something with me, that you respond to my points, and you cut out all your elite bull****...that is what you're saying. There really is no other way to take a statement like: "You just stand there and allow yourself to be hacked to pieces, repeatedly trying to land a shot that has been deflected every single time.".

I'm saying enough! We have provided the points...now it's up to you to actually respond to them. So far, you seem to have no points yourself, as you have to rely on saying that you consider the definition of gameplay different from ours...great, but that means nothing, as we have stated what our definition of the base/core gameplay is...we are referring to the moves/weapons/force powers/ect. When we talk of the level dynamics, we are referring to the way the level is...some moves, weapons, or force powers are more useful in some levels than in others. That is the level dynamics. The moves/weapons/force powers are the same as they are in the other levels...some may be more useful than others, but they work the same way.

[Ardent]

Originally posted by Gabrobot Both AL and I have stated what we consider the base/core gameplay...you might not consider them the same thing, but you do know what we are referring to when we talk of the base gameplay or the core gameplay.

 

My defintion happens to be different. I'm taking my time and trying to look at it from your perspective, but frankly, it seems like an arbitrary division designed wholly to make a point. My definition, well, doesn't exclude anything for the point of this argument.

 

Now, I'm going to be blunt: Quit the bull****. Stop going off talking about the definition of gameplay. We have stated what we consider base/core gameplay, and even if you don't call it the same thing, we have told you what we are refering to.

 

Hey look, if you can't bring yourself to respect my point of view, then you may as well remove yourself from the discussion.

 

What is the point in saying something like that? You continually sidestep our questions and points with **** about how your arguments smash ours...you rarely actually counter any of our points with anything, however.

 

Your interpretation, not my words. Something must be running through your head to support that interpretation, though.

 

 

I'm asking that if you are going to debate something with me, that you respond to my points, and you cut out all your elite bull****...that is what you're saying. There really is no other way to take a statement like: "You just stand there and allow yourself to be hacked to pieces, repeatedly trying to land a shot that has been deflected every single time."

 

I can think of a few ways to take it, and at least one more appropriate way to not take it.

 

I'm saying enough! We have provided the points...now it's up to you to actually respond to them. So far, you seem to have no points yourself, as you have to rely on saying that you consider the definition of gameplay different from ours...great, but that means nothing, as we have stated what our definition of the base/core gameplay is...we are referring to the moves/weapons/force powers/ect.

 

Sorry, what? You want the same sort of respect you've been failing to give my points for your own? I don't play by your rules, I play by my own...somewhat tailored to suit the forum administrator's wishes.

 

When we talk of the level dynamics, we are referring to the way the level is...some moves, weapons, or force powers are more useful in some levels than in others.

 

Which is part of HOW THE GAME PLAYS. Which is your very own freaking definition. How difficult is that to comprehend?

 

That is the level dynamics. The moves/weapons/force powers are the same as they are in the other levels...some may be more useful than others, but they work the same way.

 

If you're going to say that applying a game feature is different from the application of a game feature, you're just trying to mince words and may as well just come out and say "Well, I haven't got anything but semantics."

 

UJ and I have gone out of our ways to work our answers to your standards, but I, personally, have personal beliefs I will not alienate for the sake of an argument.

 

Your definition of core gameplay, by the way, just supports our point that how you play the game (FF/NF SO/Guns) will make a difference. Removing one part of that "core gameplay" destroys the fragile balance that was achieved. So, give us our freaking cvars and you won't have to be bothered by us...or play with us, for that matter.

[Gabrobot]

Ok look, answer a basic question: How is it possible to add kicks through level design?

 

That's what it all boils down to...the difference between level dynamics and base/core gameplay (or whatever you would call them) are very important...to change the core/base gameplay you have to modify the game code and to change the level dynamics you have to modify the levels. These are very different things done by different people...you're original point was that because Raven was modifying the levels, they might as well add kick...that doesn't make sense, as I've pointed out.

 

[Note: By the way, I consider gameplay as how the whole game plays. I consider core/base gameplay as how the actual basic gameplay is (the way the moves, the force powers, the weapons, ect. work). I consider level dynamics as how a level changes the way the base/core gameplay is used (like if you have narrow catwalks over a bottomless pit, you wouldn't be able to safely use certain moves). I'm not claiming the names I'm using for these types of gameplay are official or anything...I just prefer to use them, because they make sense. You might think of things a bit differently, but the fact remains that what I refer to as base/core gameplay and level dynamics are two separate things.]

[Ardent]

Originally posted by Gabrobot

Ok look, answer a basic question: How is it possible to add kicks through level design?

 

Dunno, I don't work with the ARIOCHE engine. Not really my problem, either. That'd be yours...self-imposed at that.

 

That's what it all boils down to...the difference between level dynamics and base/core gameplay (or whatever you would call them) are very important...to change the core/base gameplay you have to modify the game code and to change the level dynamics you have to modify the levels. These are very different things done by different people...you're original point was that because Raven was modifying the levels, they might as well add kick...that doesn't make sense, as I've pointed out.

 

You created the division, not me. FYI, and seeing as you're a "level designer" you ought to know this, but at least 50% of the work I did on levels involved scripting to some degree or another...scripting often calls "core gameplay elements" or whatever. For instance...a lift script.

 

And that was about three years back working with LG's Thief engine. Another great example, come to think of it, of how level dynamics are very much a major factor in gameplay. At least as much as "core gameplay." More, in my case, since I don't even consider the term definite of anything.

[FK | unnamed]

Originally posted by Gabrobot

I'm saying enough! We have provided the points...now it's up to you to actually respond to them. So far, you seem to have no points yourself, as you have to rely on saying that you consider the definition of gameplay different from ours...great, but that means nothing, as we have stated what our definition of the base/core gameplay is...we are referring to the moves/weapons/force powers/ect.

 

Welcome to the club.

 

When many of you kept babbling on about how "it's a totally new game" and I pointed out how the majority of the swings, and all of the powers were direct identical ports from jk2, no one seemed to be able to deny the information I was laying out with any factual claims, so all I got was “premature patches are bad” or “adapt and learn” as responses.

 

I said absorb functions just like it did in jk2, I said forward + attack, left + attack, forward + attack in single saber heavy stance, gives you the same combo it did in jk2, does anyone reply with factual evidence disputing my claims?

 

Nope.

 

I got bull<bleep> like “adapt and learn” as a response from you people.

 

 

You sit here and make factual points like I did then have some idiot spout off cliché catch phrases then claim to have “proved you wrong”, then see if you do not lose your temper after a while.

 

 

 

The reason I gave up on this debate was when I say something like:

 

"Other than the button sequence for the DFA, the swings in the single stance are identical in every aspect to their jk2 versions.

 

The only “change” other than what was listed above (hit detection I consider to be part of the overall game engine since it applies to all forms of hit box detection, sabers, guns etc.) was the nerf to the yaw spin on the yellow DFA, the lowering of the red DFA damage scale and the force cost for specials.

 

That’s it, a direct port from JK2, hell the same jk2 swings were even recycled into the secondary stances for the new stances."

 

*note when I say change I mean change, not addition.

I know the roll+stab and Katas were added, those are additions not changes… (just stating this because I know some jackass would be bound to “point it out”)

 

 

 

But do people prove that statement was wrong?

 

Nope.

 

 

The just toss out the usual cliché catch phrases or say some really asinine crap like “well the differences are they but I’m going to let you find them”.

 

Oh really?

 

So if I press down+forward+attack in single saber light stance I get a different result than I did in jk2?

 

“Stop whining adapt and learn!”

 

 

Right….

 

You guys have sat here from day one and spouted off a pile of bull**** and done nothing that even comes close to factually backing up your claims.

 

Al, yourself and that stormage guy have been like the three lone rangers of the “we must argue with these guys at all costs” army.

 

No one is backing you guys up with any evidence that disputes the competitive crowds claims, you sure as hell are not doing it, so grasp the fact that you 3 are alone on this little island of make believe fairy tale Jedi land, and call it a day.

 

not to mention, and I really do love this part... you guys don't even play our game type, you have no serious knowledge of the major differences between "casual" game play and "competitive" game play... yet you have the down right arrogance to sit here and lecture the people who do play this game type on a competitive level?

 

 

You guys are totally and utterly clueless about full force saber only game play.

 

Yet you want to lecture people who have done NOTHING but play that game type on a competitive level for over a year straight?

 

Do me a favor and just shut the <bleep> up with your ignorant bull<bleep>.

 

You don't know a damn thing about our game type, chances are you never will even play it, so do me a favor and get the <bleep> out of this discussion because you have no business here.

[Gabrobot]

Originally posted by Ardent

Dunno, I don't work with the ARIOCHE engine. Not really my problem, either. That'd be yours...self-imposed at that.

 

First, JA uses a heavily modified Quake III engine...the ARIOCHE terrain system is just for the terrain. Secondly, I'm telling you, as an editor, there is no way to add kick through level design.

 

Originally posted by Ardent

You created the division, not me. FYI, and seeing as you're a "level designer" you ought to know this, but at least 50% of the work I did on levels involved scripting to some degree or another...scripting often calls "core gameplay elements" or whatever. For instance...a lift script.

 

And that was about three years back working with LG's Thief engine. Another great example, come to think of it, of how level dynamics are very much a major factor in gameplay. At least as much as "core gameplay." More, in my case, since I don't even consider the term definite of anything.

 

What I refer to as the core/basic gameplay, is for the things that are done by the code...that would include moves/weapon function/force power function/ect. It is done through the code. Elevators are part of the environment, like brushes or terrain or doors or models. I make single player levels, and one of the largest problems with JKII, is that the SDK was only released for MP, so I can't change the base/core gameplay.

 

(By the way, much of what I do is scripting as well, but that has to do with cutscenes and a bit of stuff for puzzles)

[FK | unnamed]

Originally posted by FK | unnamed

 

not to mention, and I really do love this part... you guys don't even play our game type, you have no serious knowledge of the major differences between "casual" game play and "competitive" game play... yet you have the down right arrogance to sit here and lecture the people who do play this game type on a competitive level?

 

 

You guys are totally and utterly clueless about full force saber only game play.

 

Yet you want to lecture people who have done NOTHING but play that game type on a competitive level for over a year straight?

 

Do me a favor and just shut the <bleep> up with your ignorant bull<bleep>.

 

You don't know a damn thing about our game type, chances are you never will even play it, so do me a favor and get the <bleep> out of this discussion because you have no business here.

 

 

^

[Gabrobot]

Hmmm? I'm not quite sure what that has to do with what I just said there...