*DAMN R6 Forum

      I'm just surprised that in the years that I've been gone, warzone, and it's place in the DAMN BL, have gone untouched.  I understand that the premise for warzone is to remove the effectiveness of either camping from the onset of a match, or making a single kill then camping.  While warzone is effective in that regard, it is also blatantly obvious that its affect on GHR is far broader than its basic premise, and that many of such affects are counterproductive to the fairness of the game.

There are two major problems with warzone:

1.     The first major problem with warzone, is that it significantly favours certain spawn locations over others.  I don't think anybody disagrees with the fact that warzone turns the beginning of any game within a match into a race for a predetermined location on the map, and whoever wins that race gains a large advantage over the other team.  However, GHR is played in an asymmetrical environment and, therefore, such a race will never be fair.  Off the top of my head, take a look at Stronghold, Vilnius, Riverbed, even Embassy and Downtown.  They all either have one spawn location that is considerably closer to the wz than all the others, or one spawn location from which it is considerably more difficult to reach the wz than all the others.  These are obiously just a few of many such maps, and it is a no brainer to realize that with 2 teams and 4 spawn locations, so long as one of those maps are being played there is a 50% chance that one team will either be given a gift, or get fucked at the start of the game.  Does it not seem a little ridiculous to anybody else that on many of the most prominent maps within GHR and the DAMN BL, that 50% of the time, one team will start with a large advantage over the other?  If you want to determine who is the best, you must strive to make the element of fortune play as little a role as possible within the match.  The current version of Warzone does not facilitate such circumstances.

2.  The second major problem with warzone is the time limit.  Quite simply, if you have a good, well co-ordinated team defending a wz, three minutes is not enough time to find the crack in their defenses and work out a way to break them down tactically.  This is especially a problem when compounded with the reality that the team who gains first control of the WZ is often determined by spawn locations, by luck of the draw.  Just to send a guy around a flank to get him to where you want him to be often takes minutes alone in Ghost recon.  Even if you know the location of an enemy, it often takes minutes just to get into a proper position to take him out.  Yet, with warzone, it will almost always be taken in the first 30 seconds of the game due to the race, and as a result, you don't have time for what you should do.  Not only do you now have to attack a fortified position because you got the shaft with the spawns, but you have only 3 minutes to do so against a well practiced and well co-ordinated team.  Ghost Recon isn't meant to be a rushed game, it's supposed to be tactical.  There are the two extreme ends of the spectrum, camping, and rushing, neither makes the game what it's supposed to be.  Pure LMS is camping, three minute WZ is rushing. 

     Again, the issue that warzone set out to resolve was the ability for a team to simply lay a sensor net near their spawn, and camp behind it.  Warzone was designed as a way to ensure that teams had to move forward, we don't need to ensure that teams rush forward at full tilt.  Warzone would still solve the issue even if it was four minutes, teams would still be forced to move forwards, teams would still be forced to fight over a location that took them away from their spawn points.  All that is necessary for warzone to serve its purpose is to compel teams to move forward, the rate at which they move forward isn't particularly relevant, because as long as they are moving forward, they can't camp behind their sensors at their base and force you to walk through them.  Warzone is better than pure LMS yes, but there is no question that it is a system that can be improved, so why not improve it?  The whole purpose of the DAMN BL is to determine which teams are the best; therefore, the scenario where the least is left to luck, and the most is dependent upon well rounded skill is the most desirable.  While pure LMS created the scenario where the most effective tactics, were the least dependent on skill, warzone in turn adds a significant element of luck to the game.  It forces you to rush in, and if you lose the rush, to make a hasty attempt against the odds to try and regain it.

Possible Solutions:

1.  I was talking to [a]LYNX about this, and he agreed and came up with the idea that the warzone only appear three minutes into the game.  However, we were unsure of whether or not this would be possible.

2.  Increase the warzone timer:

FIRSTLY:  considering how spawn locations affect the ability of the DAMN BL's current system to determine who are the best clans.

1.  As long as a map is asymmetrical, there will always be a discrepancy between spawn locations, there will always be one that is better than another to some degree.  CORRECT.

2.  The majority of Ghost Recon maps are asymmetrical.  CORRECT.

3.  The greater that spawn location discrepancies advantage one team over another, the greater the element of luck within the game.  CORRECT.

4.  The greater the role that luck plays in determining the outcome of a game, the lesser the role that skill plays in a game and, therefore, the lesser the role that skill plays in the cb.  CORRECT.

5.  Therefore, the greater the spawn location discrepancies, the lesser the role that skill plays in the cb, and the lesser that determination of skill and ability accomplished through the cb.  CORRECT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECONDLY: considering how to reduce the affect of spawn location discrepancies without making the game worse.

6.  The greater the ammount of time one team has to make their assault on the warzone, the greater their tactical possibilities in making that assault.  CORRECT.

7.  The greater the role that tactics are able to play in a cb, the greater the determination of skill in that cb.  CORRECT.

8.  However, most people seem to agree that they do not want a cb that has a maximum duration of over 10 minutes.  So that is the timeframe we have to work within.  CORRECT.

9.  Therefore, the warzone timer duration that is the longest possible, yet does not unacceptably compromise the ability of a game to be determined within the 10 minute time frame is the best solution.  CORRECT.

10.  Therefore, if the warzone timer duration can be increased without unacceptably compromising the ability of a game to be determined within the 10 minute time frame, logically, it should ammended.  CORRECT.

11.  Therefore it should be considered whether warzone will still function within a 10 minute time frame if the warzone timer is even increased by only 30 - 90 seconds, for if it can be and still remain functional, it will improve the game, it will put more skill into the game.  CORRECT.

Now do you honestly believe that 3 minutes is THE GOLDEN NUMBER, that if you go even 30 seconds over 3 minutes on the timer, warzone no longer works and it turns it into campy LMS?  If not, then unless you can point out a flaw in the prior reasoning, then you are consciously choosing to not improve the DAMN BL by refusing the proposition because, you just don't feel like getting around to making changes.

Has any other duration ever been tested?  NO.  At least not that I am aware of, and I was around when warzone was first introduced.  Nobody has ever tried a different time, and yet everybody assumes that three minutes is the maximum that the timer can be before warzone stops working and the game starts becoming campy.  You don't need to think in terms of minute intervals, the warzone timer could be made 3:26 seconds for all it matters, and if warzone still works at 3:26 seconds, then it is better for the BL, unless again, you can punch a logical hole through my prior reasoning.  So lets try it, and lets change it; lets find the threshold for the wz timer duration before it makes the game unacceptably campy - lets make it better.  The only reason for not doing so is pure laziness.  If you find that even adding 30 - 60 seconds makes it too campy, then we won't stick to it.  Why not just test it out in the off-season?

I agree that it should be changed, however it does have its advantages the way it is. If you're dealt a bad spawn at the beginning of the round, it means nothing. Where you spawn makes no difference at all if you and your team have the skill to win. 99% of warzone games do not end with the warzone being controlled. Rather, they end with one team being killed. This suggests that the three minute warzone timer is too long for competitive matches. If one team controls the warzone, but dies before the three minutes expire, what's the point in having a three minute timer? Increasing the time limit will only make the warzone itself more obsolescent. Maybe if the rules are changed to where one team must control the warzone for the time period to win, the games would be more meaningful.

Also, I don't think it's the team that starts farther away that has the disadvantage. From my experience, the team that tries to keep control of the warzone does the worst. The other team knows they're not going to grab the warzone without dying, so they go after the other players, whereas the team defending the warzone has to concentrate on covering eachother AND the warzone. The split attention is what kills it for them.

The reason the Warzone spawn locations are the way they are is because most of them are set to where the siege base locations would be.  Some maps have spawn locations that are equal distance to the base but they place you in such a horrible locations on the map your team has less a chance at winning.  The spawns could be changed so each spawn on every map was close to being equal but too many people would get upset because they don't want to see a change.  Warzone hasn't really been changed over the years that I've played on here and I don't think there are too many people complaining about it or actually want it to be changed.  I think changing the 3 min timer is ridiculous, 2 mins is too short and 4 mins is too long honestly I think its perfect the way it is, you should be preventing the other team from getting the smoke in the 1st place.
Changing the spawn locations on every map would offer a fresh start and change the way clan battles are played because every clan would have to re-think its strategy on how to play out the spawns on each map.

Introducing a new Warzone type called something like "Team Solo Warzone" may be an interesting idea, every member of each team would spawn in a different location on the map kinda like any solo mode but the premise would still be to get the Warzone.

In my opinion WZ is fine the way it is, you can't please everyone.

    Being dealt a bad spawn at the beginning of the round means nothing?  Where, you spawn makes no difference at all?  Those are ridiculous statements.  If the objective of the game is to control a central warzone point, and one team, as on stronghold, spawns right beside it and can gain control of it and the area within 15 seconds, and the other team has to run all the way across the map to get to it, that makes a huge difference.  Having a 3 minute timer saying, you have to take this objective from the other team who is already set up and defending it because they got lucky, and if you don't do it within 3 minutes,  you lose, that makes a huge difference. 


     Well no kidding 99% of warzone games do not end with the warzone being controlled.  What do you think a team is going to do if there's 30 seconds left to get the wz, and they don't have it, they are going to throw themselves at it in a last desperate attempt to regain it.  If they don't go for the warzone, they automatically lose, if they rush for the wz, they have a chance, not a very good one, but a chance.  The fact that most games do not end with the warzone being controlled indicates none of what you are suggesting.


   That's a pretty ridiculous claim dude.  Here is what you are saying: that a team who assaults a fortified position with equal numbers to the defenders has the advantage.  Furthermore, the team that is assaulting, is forced to run through their sensor net, meaning they often don't know where the defenders are, while the fortified defenders know the locations of many of the attackers.  Please tell me you can now comprehend who has the actual advantage.


     That's the problem, you can't prevent the other team from getting the smoke if you get the bad spawn, or if they get the good spawn and they immediately move for the wz, which they will.  I tell you what, come into a server with me, I'll turn off random inserts and we'll go map to map and i'll give you the bad spawn, or give myself the good spawn, and see if you can ever stop me from getting the smoke. 

     Also, please don't respond to logically constructed points by empty statements, develop them.  Don't just say 2 minutes is too short... explain why 2 minutes is too short; don't just say 4 minutes is too long, explain why 4 minutes is too long.  Anybody can respond to an argument by saying, "I disagree", that means nothing, that accomplishes nothing.  Again, if you're going to forward a point, develop it, or else it's worthless.


     Dude, the premise for introducing warzone was very very simple.  To force teams to move forward off the start of the game, rather than being able to lay sensors near their base and then run back behind them and camp for the whole match.  Having a short warzone timer or a long warzone timer does not hinder its ability to suit that purpose.  So long as there is a centered warzone that all teams must advance towards, or else the other team will gain control of it and run down the clock, then teams will be forced to move forwards.  All that having a shorter timer does, is it speeds up the pace that the team must move forwards at if they don't get the warzone first.  So long as there is a clock ticking, and it doens't matter if they make a kill or two, they still lose if they don't regain wz control, then teams can not camp behind sensor nets near their base; therefore, increasing the timer will not affect the ability of warzone to suit its purpose but, rather, will simply add more room for tactics to play a role in each team's assault on the other.  It puts more skill back into the game, and the more that the end result of the game is determined by skill, then the greater the DAMN BL serves its purpose of determining who is the best team.

   
I don't think you understand Warzone isn't always about winning by the smoke.  The premise for Warzone is to work as a team to either wipe out the opposing force or maintain control of the Warzone for 3 mins.

Can you imagine playing with a 2 min Warzone timer on larger maps like Vilinus, Farmday, Roadblock?  Teams will be forced to take the shortest routes possible just so they can get to the Warzone before it expires.  You would have no time to flank around the map.  Warzone would turn into a game as to who can run the fastest to the middle without getting shot. 

And a 4 min Warzone isn't going to help either, it would turn games into the ultimate camp fest.  After 6 mins into a game if noone has gotten the Warzone there would be no point in doing so, causing teams to sit back and play Team LMS for the last 4 mins.  Extending to 15 min games would lenghten CB's and I thought the league was trying to shorten the length of clan battles this season.

The only problem is a few maps have some spawn point disadvantages but any good player knows how to make this situation to their advantage.  There's no point in changing the system that has been working fine for the past years.

I've always thought there were two basic problems with GhR:
1.  The OICW/GL
2.  Sensors

The solution to Fridge's original problem would be to:
1.  Slow the rate of fire of the OICW/GL
2.  Eliminate sensors altogether (or, if they must stay, limit their distance and allow only 1 per kit)

I have done both on the games I host (I don't host CBs) and the games are still fun and seem more fair.

Now, the issue of spawn versus smoke location.  I think some maps have preferred spawns (e.g. GT, SH) but most don't.  The "rush to the smoke" tactic doesn't work often enough to be an excuse for losing.  Actually, I like to rush to near the smoke and wait for the other team to try to take the smoke.  Tactics aren't set in stone, adjust yours to match the gametype and spawn location.

     No, that is just the details of warzone, all you've done is explained how it works, which is you win by either controlling the warzone for a certain duration, or by wiping out the other team.  Warzone was introduced, however, because in LMS teams could simply plant a sensor net near their base and camp behind it for the entirety of the match.  Warzone made it so that teams could no longer do that; it forced teams to engage, to move forward or else they would lose.  That is what it was implemented for, that is the issue it set out to resolve, that was the premise for its inclusion into the battle league.


Yes, and that is what warzone is currently at three minutes.  It is an initial race to the warzone, and the team who loses the race then has a narrow time margin to work within in order to regain it.  You usually can't choose the route that makes the most sense from a survival standpoint in order to attack the wz once you commit yourself to going for it but, rather, you're generally forced to choose between one of the quickest routes, which are always well defended.  So basically, a considerable portion of who wins and who loses is determined by how well your spawn point facilitates you ability to take the wz before the other team does.


     Yes, and currently if the warzone hasn't been taken after 7 minutes then the teams can sit back and play team lms but, seriously, When has the warzone ever not been taken by the 6 minute point in a game.  It's usually taken in the first 30 seconds.

     Also, as you reveal through this statement, you're only true objection to lenghthening the wz timer is your concern for the length of cb's.  The only reason that you believe a longer warzone timer would make it campy is because, if nobody had taken the warzone after six minutes then you could just sit back and play lms.  Again though, that is an extremely rare case, the warzone is almost always taken very early in the game, and it almost never takes 6 minutes to gain control of it.  Teams don't leave the warzone unguarded either, if one team is going to retake the warzone from the other, people will die, firefights will ensue.

So look at it like this, with a 4 minute timer in a 10 minute game:

One team usually controls the warzone within the first minute, almost always.  The other team then has 4 minutes to retake the warzone.  Therefore, the absolute latest that they can retake the warzone is at the 5 minute mark.  Firefights will ensue, people will die in the exchange of the warzone.  Then the other team, has 4 minutes to make another attempt to retake the warzone or they still lose.  More firefights will ensue, more people will die in the exchange of the warzone.  So you see, even within only a 10 minute time frame, there will still be three major warzone exchanges, assuming that both teams survive the first two.  Lets be realistic, it will very rarely ammount to a campy lms standoff and, therefore, there is no valid reason for having a three minute warzone inistead of a four minute warzone.


LOL, WHAT!  Any good player knows how to turn getting fucked by the spawn points to their advantage.  So now you are suggesting that there is an advantage to having to attack a fortified position without superior numbers, and within a narrow time frame.  You can try and turn the situation around, but you can't use it to your advantage that the other team has an advantage over you.  

As for there's no point in changing the system because it has worked, if it is logically laid out before you that amending the system would infact result in the system's increased facilitation of the goal it sets out to achieve, and you can not defeat the logic with solid logical reasoning of your own, then you should accept the proposal, for it is more reasonable than the current one.  That is how everything works, that is how it is improvements are made.  The question you are asking is, "why improve anything?"  Why improve automobile technology if cars already work?  Systems don't reach a state of functionality, and thereafter refuse to consider all proposals to improve it, because it already works.

Heh, I was actually thinking about that yesterday, if so many people hate GL spamming, then why don't they simply slow the rate of fire on the GL down.  It wouldn't kill long range nading, it would simply make it so that in order to long range nade effectively you needed to be more accurate, to have more skill.  Puts the art into long range nading, I fully agree with you on that.

As for the preferred spawns thing, here look at it like this:

FIRSTLY:  considering how spawn locations affect the ability of the DAMN BL's current system to determine who are the best clans.

1.  As long as a map is asymmetrical, there will always be a discrepancy between spawn locations, there will always be one that is better than another to some degree.  CORRECT.

2.  The majority of Ghost Recon maps are asymmetrical.  CORRECT.

3.  The greater that spawn location discrepancies advantage one team over another, the greater the element of luck within the game.  CORRECT.

4.  The greater the role that luck plays in determining the outcome of a game, the lesser the role that skill plays in a game and, therefore, the lesser the role that skill plays in the cb.  CORRECT.

5.  Therefore, the greater the spawn location discrepancies, the lesser the role that skill plays in the cb, and the lesser that determination of skill and ability accomplished through the cb.  CORRECT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECONDLY: considering how to reduce the affect of spawn location discrepancies without making the game worse.

6.  The greater the ammount of time one team has to make their assault on the warzone, the greater their tactical possibilities in making that assault.  CORRECT.

7.  The greater the role that tactics are able to play in a cb, the greater the determination of skill in that cb.  CORRECT.

8.  However, most people seem to agree that they do not want a cb that has a maximum duration of over 10 minutes.  So that is the timeframe we have to work within.  CORRECT.

9.  Therefore, the warzone timer duration that is the longest possible, yet does not unacceptably compromise the ability of a game to be determined within the 10 minute time frame is the best solution.  CORRECT.

10.  Therefore, if the warzone timer duration can be increased without unacceptably compromising the ability of a game to be determined within the 10 minute time frame, logically, it should ammended.  CORRECT.

11.  Therefore it should be considered whether warzone will still function within a 10 minute time frame if the warzone timer is even increased by only 30 - 90 seconds, for if it can be and still remain functional, it will improve the game, it will put more skill into the game.  CORRECT.

Now do you honestly believe that 3 minutes is THE GOLDEN NUMBER, that if you go even 30 seconds over 3 minutes on the timer, warzone no longer works and it turns it into campy LMS?  If not, then unless you can point out a flaw in the prior reasoning, then you are consciously choosing to not improve the DAMN BL by refusing the proposition because, you just don't feel like getting around to making changes.

Has any other duration ever been tested?  NO.  At least not that I am aware of, and I was around when warzone was first introduced.  Nobody has ever tried a different time, and yet everybody assumes that three minutes is the maximum that the timer can be before warzone stops working and the game starts becoming campy.  You don't need to think in terms of minute intervals, the warzone timer could be made 3:26 seconds for all it matters, and if warzone still works at 3:26 seconds, then it is better for the BL, unless again, you can punch a logical hole through my prior reasoning.  So lets try it, and lets change it; lets make it better.

How about playing a team version of HH?

Take a poll, I'm betting over 90% of the people that play clan battles say leave Warzone the way it is.

Two more polls to add then:

1.  Slow down the OICW/GL?
2.  Eliminate sensors (or at least reduce their range and number of sensors per kit)? 

Edit:  Poll posted...

At first I opposed the thought of adding warzone... now that's the only gametype I play.  You're right fridge, it is the luck of the draw off the spawn... but with good teamwork any clan can go for the win.  Do you think the most winning clans since warzone has been added always get lucky?  It adds a really cool aspect to the game.  I was just like you on this issue when it was first brought to the *DBL but over time I think everybody who's been here realized it's actually a damn good addition.

... and a lot of people forget that people can still choose to play LMS if they want. All *DAMN did was add new options for players to choose.

I'm not opposed to warzone, I just feel it can be improved and can display why in a logical fashion. 

No, i never said anything to even imply that the winning clans have always been the lucky clans, I merely stated that the current system adds a greater degree of luck to the game than it would if it were improved in the fashion I have suggested.  Luck counteracts determinations of skill, if you want the DBL to most accurately determine who are the best clans, then the scenario where the most is dependent upon skill is ideal. 

I dont' think LMS is a better system, I stated multiple times that I believed warzone to be a better system than LMS, i merely argued that the current warzone version can and should be improved, and as of yet, nobody has been able to punch any hole through the logic I used to approach this conclusion.  If you can't find a logical flaw in the structure to the argument, then you can't logically disagree with it.

LMS would mean even more camp-fests than WZ.

oh.. would'nt the world be great if say, two football teams had the same stats, the same players, the same colour kits. would make an interesting game.

Every point you posted has already been posted by somebody else in this thread and been responded to.  Except for one...


What do you mean that by setting it so that the warzone pops up after 1 - 3 minutes in the game, that will lead to camping for those initial minutes that the warzone doesn't appear.  You have no basis for that point whatsoever, which is probably why you provided none in your post.  The warzone is still an advantage, just as it always has been, it is still tactically advantageous for your team to control the area where the warzone will appear, as when it does, you will gain a significant advantage over the other team.  As a result, you will still have two teams who push forward and fight for that advantage.  All that delaying the warzone does is it gives a team who has been disadvantaged by spawns more time at the beginning of the game to work against that disadvantage.

Waste of a post, develops no point.

oh, there was a point.. i just didnt need 5 lines to explain it  :)

Fridge, do you even play in the DBL?  What clan are you in?  Maybe you should convince your entire clan to post some comments to support you since you seem to have such extensive experience.  ----> http://www.damnr6.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=9167.msg123568#msg123568

Also, I recommend that you look through these boards since most of your ideas have been discussed extensively... They have been voted on by the community and the Admins many, many times...  I have been on both sides of the vote as well... as a player as well as a DBL admin... and I can assure you that these ideas  have been discussed and voted on...

It really just comes down to one thing I think... The game is just old and overplayed...  Spicing it up with salt and pepper just doesnt cut it anymore.

Oh, that's right now, when i rebut your points in a fashion that you can not respond to, you resort to an ad hominem argument.  If i was ever caught cheating as it claims I was in that post that you referenced, then how do you think I would be here posting on these forums under the same account I have always used?  I have never been caught cheating, so how about you look back for some actual detailed confirmation of my cheating before you spit out shit like that.   That detailed confirmation btw... it doesn't exist, because I have never cheated.  The list of general idiots who have repeatedly accused me of cheating and have stated they know I use cheats, yet have never come up with any proof that I cheat nor witnessed me cheating, is an extensive one including, off the top of my head, Saberian, Signtist, Eight, Sentinel, Lee Harvey, Onwig, Ghostsniper, Magnetic, Flies, oh god, I can keep going on for a long time so I'll just end it with etc.  However, this is the best evidence anybody has ever come up with to suggest I cheat:


The only argument that I cheated that had any basis to it was that I killed too many people when I was a new to the game.  So about me supposedly cheating KITKAT, as I have repeatedly said to everybody else like you who has brought it up, fuck off unless you have proof.  It is the people like you, and like Magnetic in that post, and like Ghostsniper in that post, who write shit about me cheating with nothing to back up their claims that have proliferated the retarded notion to a point where people believe I am a cheater yet have no clue what cheats I use.  Fuck off with that shit.

The rest of your post just says we've discussed this before and took a vote.  Yes, that's great, that still does nothing to affect the validity of the logic behind my conclusions.  Again, if you can not punch a hole through the logical reasoning I have employed to reach my conclusion, then you can not logically disagree with it.  People are almost always opposed to change; however, if the basis for the change is logical and you cannot display otherwise, then your personal lazy sentiments do not change the fact that the proposition before you is valid, and if valid, should be treated as such.

What you mean is you didn't feel like developing it.  Well if you don't feel like developing your points, then don't enter a discussion.  I know the general implication that you were trying to make, however it is fallacious upon multiple levels, and if you ever getting around to taking the time to actually develop your points, then I'll take the time to explain to you why it is that they are flawed.

Did I hit your funny bone or something... you edited your post like 10 times?   ::wall::

Oh.. By the way.. I dont agree with you.  I don't think your idea is logical.  Just my opinion.  Just like you have your opinion... And thats ok too.  Perhaps if you get enough people together we can try your idea...  I wish you the best.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

ok, so you want me to explain what i mean...

it really is quite simple.

this is how i interpret your incredibly long post to start of with, basically you want the spawns to be at the same distance on each map, giving everybody the same amount of time to run to the warzone, so no-one has an advantage, making it "fair".

And can you imagine the heated debates and discussions where everybody thinks a new spawn point would be "fair".

My post of making two teams identical i believe is still correct, take a game of football again, most of the time one team has more skill, should they have a player or two taken from them each game to make it more fair on the other team?, We always like to see a team that doesnt have an ideal start to a game try its best to win.

Make the most out of a bad situation, if you don't win get over it, go onto the next match, you might get the better spawn.... its a game after all.

And fridge... seeing as your calling me a "General Idiot" this might interest you.... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671723650/103-0872492-8079025?v=glance&n=283155 I thought you might have changed in the last 2 years... i guess not.

Ghost Recon's forte is it's realism. Therefore the "OICW/GL" was coded the way the actual gun is. Despite popular belief, the OICW is in no way a grenade launcher, nor does part of it have a grenade launcher on it. The top half of the OICW is a six shot, high-explosive (HE) 20mm gun. Grenades are TWICE the size of the HE rounds the OICW fires. This is also the reason the OICW HE rounds go much farther than a grenade launcher. They're not grenades and they're nowhere near as bulky. They're just big bullets that pack a big bang. In my opinion, the damage radius for the HE rounds is way too big. It's to reminiscent of the grenade launchers. A HE round is powerful, but it wouldn't nearly have the destructive power that you find in Ghost Recon. I think the explosion radius should be smaller but the gun should remain the way it is otherwise.

As for sensors, they're just plain dumb. I mean, even if they follow the tradition of Rogue Spear and its heartbeat sensors, how the hell do they constantly update your map? You should either have to look at some sort of computer, preventing you from firing, or they should just remove them period. They're ridiculous and completely overpowered.

Lol onwig, I have not the slightest interest in making friends with you... nor will I ever, and btw, that is not even remotely close to what my post suggested, I never said anything about changing spawn locations.  So as for the "general idiot' comment, it still stands.

Yes you hit my funny bone, I hate when people bring up the cheating bullshit that never had any basis to it.  That is how the whole Fridge cheats bullshit was grew so large in the first place, dumbasses saying that I cheated without any proof or actual evidence to support their claims.  You know, doing what you just did.

Oh, and btw, logic isn't a matter of opinion, if you can't punch a hole through the logical reasoning that is employed to reach a conclusion, or display a more logical sequence, then you logically agree with it.  Your opinion is of no matter in that regard.

Exactly the same happend to me KITKAT, people out there accused me of cheating - none of them have proved it. I do not know Fridge's issue, but i havnt seen a proof about cheating, like Typhy and voodoo got caught cheating, evidence was made and they got banned.

I don't see why people come on the forums and accuse other of cheating without evidence, it's silly and rest of time.

btw: i must agree with KK most of the time here, the game is just too overplayed - Frigde you might wanna try raven shield with me?  ;)

Regards,
Stripes

lol fridge.. i am sulking about that.. i really wanted to be penpals with you.

ok, if your post had nothing to do about spawns.. all that just for the time limit?

How about if you worded it quite simply... "how do people feel about making it 4 mins instead of 3?" and a few reasons why, even put a poll on it. Instead all you've managed to do is alienate the some of the more consistant DBL members.

What you are saying is, why don't you develop your points with a lesser degree of logical sequencing, why don't you dumb them down.  Umm, because then they would be less logical perhaps?

You can not present an argument in an unbreakable fashion by just posting the general idea and a few general reasons.  Then people can throw out random opinions with the feeling that they are relevant when they are not, rather, what I have done is constructed my argument in a fashion that in order to disagree with it, you must respond to the actual argument, not just state your feelings and, furthermore, you must be able to punch a hole through my actual statements in order to logically disagree with them.

The further you develop your points, the further people must develop their rebuttals in order for them to be admissably relevant.  If you're going to make a counter-arguement to the proposition, it must then be intelligent.  It weeds out the stupid people, and prevents people from jumping on their bandwagons, wasting time in the discussion.  It keeps the discussion on track, or moreso than it would otherwise be.

what?, i thought opinions were based on feelings? and we all have to "punch a hole" through your posts to be correct?


So people can't just say, "no i am not keen on that idea, i prefer it the way it is" that isnt good enough?

so, ok lets get back on track.

I've tried reading your first post again why don't you just come out and say what you would like to see?

is below what you'd like to see?

1, Timer to 4 mins
2, Warzone to appear after 3 mins
3, No sensors?

A simple yes or no, a brief explanation if neccessary, its a simple question.

No, it isn't enough, for if a logical sequence leads to a conclusion, and you can not find any way to punch a hole through the logical sequencing anywhere, then you logically agree with the conclusion.  It is that simple.

What I wished to see was either the wz appear after a certain duration, or else to have the warzone timer extended, by however much it could be and, now, a new version of warzone has been released for testing where the warzone appears after one minute.

erm, some people go every day of their lives still believing the world is flat. Your reasoning is invalid. I don't have to agree with anying in any logical sequence if I don't agree the sequence is logical in the first place. Proof can be proof but believing it is proof takes belief first.

so there I was..

Let me respond for Fridge.

My logic is blah blah blah blah while your logic is blah blah blah blah.. therefore... my logic blah blah cannot be blah blahed by your logic becasue my blah blah blah and your waste of a post is blah blah blah...  One cannot blah blah my absolutely perfect logic because blah blah blah and conclusively.. blah blah blah.

Yes, and those people are being irrational in doing so, for there is sufficient evidence to prove that the world is not flat, and yet they continue to believe that hte world is flat despite their inability to discredit such evidence.  It doesn't matter if you don't believe something is logical, it means nothing unless you can display otherwise.  Your perception does not change external states, by believing that something is not logical, that does not render it illogical.  You can believe the world is flat, but the world will still go on being round.  It doens't matter what you think logic is, that does not change what logic and what it means for somehting to be logical actually is.

Let me translate what KITKAT is saying... "I'm not intelligent enough to comprehend his point or to actually respond to it in an intelligent fashion, therefore, I'll post something like this that attempts to portray them in a negative light without requiring any actual reasoning."

Let me translate what Fridge is saying:

Yes, and those peopwe awe being iwwationaw in doing so, fow thewe is sufficient evidence to pwove that the wowwd is not fwat, and yet they continue to bewieve that hte wowwd is fwat despite theiw inabiwity to discwedit such evidence. It doesn't mattew if you don't bewieve something is wogicaw, it means nothing unwess you can dispway othewwise. Youw pewception does not change extewnaw states, by bewieving that something is not wogicaw, that does not wendew it iwwogicaw. You can bewieve the wowwd is fwat, but the wowwd wiww stiww go on being wound. It doens't mattew what you think wogic is, that does not change what wogic and what it means fow somehting to be wogicaw actuawwy is. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!

Haha,

Now apply all that logic to a game based on belief and not actual metaphysical life. That is what you are arguing.

Now Aristotle said it best, a chair is not a chair unless you consider it a chair.  A more simpler man would just say your sitting on shaped fucking wood. You go on believing in your chair nonsense.

see how it works...

are we off topic yet?

Once again, not intelligent enough to counter argue so you resort to the tactic of trying to discredit what I type by these little games that don't require you to think.

Why dont you go create 127 Damn accounts so that you can win the poll in the next room.

http://www.damnr6.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=5582.msg75987#msg75987

Umm, "actual metaphysical life"??  Metaphysical refers to the abstract.  

Also your latter point is also irrelevant.  I could write a long winded explanation that displays why it doesn't apply, or else I can just give you an example...

It doesn't matter if you believe that I am on fire, no matter how hard you believe it or think it, I'm still not burning.  Why?.. becuase your perception and your beliefs do not change external states.  They do not change actual conditions.

Again, an Ad hominem argument that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Actually its an Ad Hominem abusive....  Not an Ad Hominem argument.

...and cookie warned me about talkin immigration.    8)

Isnt it time for an admin to lock it?

Please, this is redicilous - i thought i'm wasting time being on my MAC.. but this is lol

An Ad Hominem abusive is still an Ad Hominem argument, it is just a further classification of an Ad Hominem argument, and it is still a logical fallacy of relevance.

Not only did Fridge take the Bait, he ate the fishing pole.

Oh, did I now, and what bait was that?

Fridge

Please forgive the unpardonably obstreperous nature of the rispostes to your logical argumentation. I urge you vehemently to comprehend that these persons are of a refractory disposition and have only made the acquaintance of one other member of your race.
So perturbed were they by his superior deductive prowess that in a state of abject discombobulation they consigned him to the role of First Officer on the starship Enterprise.
Thus, eschewing further association with these dissenters, I would be profoundly honoured to be the first to welcome you to our planet.

Subucni

Yes, congratulations on your geeky satire; however, it's targeted at my disposition and not the actual topic nor anything relevant to the topic, so again, who cares, wasted post.

The point I was making in my "geeky satire" was that your propensity for verbose and ponderous discourse seems more akin to vanity than the quest for logic that you meticulously defend.

For example, a purely logical person would appreciate that to reply to a post by claiming it was not relevant and therefore 'wasted', would necessarily fall foul of the same logic, rendering his reply equally 'wasted'.
 
This would not occur to a vane person. They would simply reply.

I got the point, and it still does nothing to contribute to the topic.  The reason I do not address posts that fail to do such, is because they detract from the focus of the conversation.  They are the reason that discussions veer off topic.

Additionally, no, my reply that one's post is wasted as it is irrelevant to the topic is not, by the same logic, a wasted post.  It serves the purpose of compelling the individual who makes the post to either develop theirs to show that it is relevant (as it did successfully with you and onwig), or else it conveys that I have no interest in discussing matters that are off topic and irrelevant.  It helps prevent people from making such posts in the future.

See how this is getting off topic now?  Now all that has to happen is one other individual comes along and, as there is now actual discussion over this (off topic) issue since I have replied in a thought-out manner, if they decide to post a reply giving their thoughts on this sub-discussion, Shabam!  We have a thread that is no longer discussing anything that it set out to compel consideration over.

you wasnt succesful at all, I had to develop my posts because you just didnt get it. I just wanted to see if you could answer a post simply.. and you've still proven you can't do that, you repeat the same sentences over and over.

Either post on topic or don't post at all. Any further spam will force me to lock this thread. Please stay on topic.

Hazard

This is where you still don't get it.  I never do have to believe that you are on fire and no you are not burning, you are basically in a state a metamorphasis, changing to glorious gases and carbon. So yes, perception and belief can have an effect on an external state, because i can think the result of it vastly different from yours. We can agree something is happening, but what. Life is just based on agreements of certain things so that we can understand and move through life easier. The people who see it differently or don't accept our terms are the ones we consider insane and odd.

I think a philosophy thread would be more appropriate huh? Right now you guys are running verbal circles around the real issue. Discuss the topic at hand or I'm locking this bad boy. Last warning.

Haz

That is irrelevant, we were talking about logic, and you were trying to state that my argument is not logical if people don't believe it is logical.  Not to their perception, then no, however that doesn't change the fact that there are actual measures in place to determine these things, and no matter what they perceive, those measures don't change for their perception.

# of times the term "logic" was used: 28
# of times used in a single sentence: 4

*DAMN Quote of the day :  "It doens't matter what you think logic is, that does not change what logic and what it means for something to be logical actually is."[/color]

I warned you.