I know ATM you trying to clone it but I just want to suggest this:
If a merc is camping in a corner I think it would be cool if the spys could run up next to them and do a move which throws them away from the corner, there'd obviously have to be some way to conteract this but I still think it could fix one of the problems/annoyances which CT had
the only time a merc would camp in the corner would be in a deathmatch game. Everyone here pretty much hatest deathmatch. Its a insult to the gameplay and anyone who plays it lack any sort of real skill.
In story, which is the only gamemode we will make as of now, that move would be useless.
Yeah, no way. This would just make the game more aggro oriented, and make a good aggro spy almost impossible to stop. A merc in a corner should be well defended.
On a side note about new moves, how do people feel about allowing spies to crawl? It could be a means to get around various unbeatable poison mine placements and such, though it would be very slow and leave the spy extremely vulnerable. Still, it'd be kinda nice to have a stealthy way to bypass lasers and difficult mines without need of chaff grenades.
Crawling would be cool or lying down. I've been in many positions that I could hide in if only i could lay down flat.
I was also thinking about another coop move. In Coop, you were able to have one spy crouching then have the spy throw the other spy over somethign or at a guy. I still think that'd be aweseom to be patrolling as merc turn the corner only to see a spy flying at you for a tackle. Down and out for 5 seconds.
Setting it up wouldnt make it practical. A quick sticky cam is way better than that.
Although it can work as a Coop move like the current Boost.
One passes a large gap and can (depending on level design) flip a switch so a bridge or something extends (temporarily? like the hold-button-doors in Missile Strike?)
yea cam is defiently better but still if these guys clone scct and really think and read the ideas of this website then they will create a whole new sc which everyone will enjoy right?
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to only make story games. When I played SCPT on PS2, there was no deathmatch and almost every server you'd join had different settings to allow a deathmatch-like game. I'd say it's a good idea to have a deathmatch mode so we don't have to deal with that in PS/SAM.
Just don't get rid of diskhunt :'(.
ha!
Quote from: MacBryce on March 18, 2007, 12:14:25 AM
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to only make story games. When I played SCPT on PS2, there was no deathmatch and almost every server you'd join had different settings to allow a deathmatch-like game. I'd say it's a good idea to have a deathmatch mode so we don't have to deal with that in PS/SAM.
Yeah, n00bs want to play DM for whatever reason. They're morons IMO and I hate DM with a passion, but I'd like to include the mode in PS just so that you don't join games and constantly hear ,"We're playing deathmatch!"
Give the DMers a little closet in hell so we don't ever have to interact with them.
Yes. I still prefer story(as the rest of us). I even hate playing Deathmatch Until Someone Joins lmao. Anyways I hope this game will turn out good and remember no rank= no cheaters. I HOPE xd
I prefere story
but when there arent any story severs i dont mind to play dm, dm isnt for noobs... its also hard to play. but u need different skilz then in a story server. but i dont mind if dm is gone in PS :D
Problem is that you can't truly "Get rid of DM", not without modifying the game to make aggro impossible. Otherwise, you'll just get the sort of casual DM that pandora had, and that sucked unbelievably, because you had to join several servers just looking for a real story game. Even if you don't have DM as a mode, people will still try to play it. It needs to be an option simply so story players can filter out the deathmatch games.
I got an idea!
Make a DM mode, yes do! Then, program it so whenever someone chooses to host/join a DM server their disk gets formatted. Or their PC explodes. Or or... their monitor, yes! And glass blasts in their face!
Quote from: Valserp on March 26, 2007, 11:29:24 PM
I got an idea!
Make a DM mode, yes do! Then, program it so whenever someone chooses to host/join a DM server their disk gets formatted. Or their PC explodes. Or or... their monitor, yes! And glass blasts in their face!
lmao valserp nice idea i agree but i do not play dm as much. But i insist that dm be put becuase when i first started playing scct thats all i played until i was pro at it. Then i actually started playing story and got good so dm is important for noobs
Quote from: Valserp on March 26, 2007, 11:29:24 PM
I got an idea!
Make a DM mode, yes do! Then, program it so whenever someone chooses to host/join a DM server their disk gets formatted. Or their PC explodes. Or or... their monitor, yes! And glass blasts in their face!
I think that privilege should be reserved for names with alternating capitals.
spy elbow punch works pretty well in most cases...except corners of course.
But honestly....i dont have enough sympathy for DMers to create a move for that. I personally think the fan base is big enough that we need to at least ALLOW DM to be played, although rail camping should be controlled to 2-3 steps only.
I say don't even bother with DM. It's not worth all those extra hours to create a new game mode that is incompatible with the game's overall premise in the first place.
hey like i said dm is a great start for noobs. i became a pro there then a super pro at story really fast. i say put dm
I say make a better DM where mercs have more grenades, can see spies on radar at all times except when they're sneaking or he's in smoke (and spies see mercs on radar at all time), let both teams bring one gadget of thier choice and let the fun begin!
Wha- Are you serious? I hope you're not serious... A DM game where the mercs knows where the spies are at all times? You're not serious, are you?
Assuming your not sarcasming, it would be an awesome idea. If spies are running, they don't care if they're seen or not and will be engaging mercs in smoke (which makes mercs not see spies on radar) but if the spy is running towards his partner, who is hidden in the shadows (sneaking spies don't show on radar), instant trap (knowing where the mercs on radar also makes traps easier)! And I gave the mercs more explosive power for fun and balance.
lol then people can use the things or w.e that the programmers used to make the merces see the spies on the radar and make a whole new cheat called radar cheat:D which people have in scct
Don't worry, we'll run it through the hackbuster 3000, twice.
Meh, formal program verification FTW.
I didn't understand that the first time you said it...what's it mean?
Mathematical proof of the correctness of code. That part is then 100% bugfree (not including wrong logic in the OS or hardware level)
What a vague description, I feel like you're trying to sell me something that would make me a millionare. Examples? And how do you "get" it in a week or two?
You ever had some more advanced math or logic class? ...
First we have Easter so no class then, so we'll start on that new subject in 2 weeks. Just finished Model Checking.
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_verification
I still don't get it. But it seems to (loosely) only apply to the math part of programming which is not what programming a mod is about.
Some examples why certain critical elements should be mathematically proven:
Quote
Therac 25, a computer-controlled radiation therapy machine made by Atomic Energy of Canada killed 6 people by radiation overdoses between 1985 and 1987 because of a timing problem on a data entry:
“An operator mistake could be fixed within 8 seconds, but even though the monitor reflected the operator change, the change did not affected a part of the programâ€
Quote
In 1994, 2 million Intel Pentium V had a bug in the FDIV operation. It could be detected by the following MS-Excel operation:
(4195835/3145727)x3145727-4195835 = 512 !!! (note by frvge: this should be 0)
Cost to Intel: $475 million
From 1994 Intel applies formal verification techniques to its products
Imagine the mainloop of the mod has a side-effect. Lateron, this can cause problems. The way to detect is, is not by simulating it 100000000000 times, because there is no guarantee that it will work at the 100000000001 time. ;) Although the chance is small... Simulation doesn't prove that the code works. This does.
So... Tell me if I got it correct in this simplified example:
You have 2 variables, say x and y. x and y can range from 0 to 100. The verification then tries all possibilities like this:
X=0
Y=0
X=1
Y=0
X=2
Y=0
(etc)
X=99
Y=0
X=100
Y=0
X=0
Y=1
X=1
Y=1
That seems to be one of two forms of validation, this thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_checking). I understand the what, where, when and why but how did it find those two problems? I read more into the second example and it seems that the discovery was done completely by mistake (at least on the public side, It didn't say how Intel came to know about it).
@Cyntrox: no, that's simulation which is unreliable when talking about infinite sequences of numbers. There's no math involved. It's possible because of the < 100 constraint, but that'd be with model checking I think.