Cyan. wrote:but some obedience would be nice, as you, I pressume, wanted to say.
Don't do that, it makes a press out of u and me.
Moderators: jelco, bert_the_turtle
jelco wrote:Cyan. wrote:Lowell, I am glad you like the game so much, but with all respect, I am guessing you are new and that what you have seen wasa nothing more then a nice finishing move. Wich is fine and nice to see, but not of real importance, tho correct me if I am wrong.
I'll correct you. How much longer are you going to pretend not understanding the countless messages directed to you which are all summarised as "stop acting like an arrogant twat"? Just because you think you don't need a certain feature doesn't mean people who do need it are playing it wrong.
No, don't hit the reply button right now, read on before returning another obnoxious comment.
Formations are used by many people. Shitloads. Fucktons. I have yet to witness a game that doesn't have formations. And you want to say that they are useless? What kind of logic did they teach you at school? Let's be clear about these 'faults' you're talking about: they are intentional. They are weaknesses to stop formations from becoming overpowered. Yes, they are easily surrounded/flanked, and don't have much firepower in the flanks. Imagine what would happen if this was not the case. Formations become some sort of free 'Rage' powerup because they have extra firepower to all sides and don't have any additional weaknesses. Grenades are not thrown by formations for exactly the same reason, and their weakness to grenades is only more than that of regular DGs because of their strong will and lack of evasive cowardly behaviour - but uh, when you start suggesting to remove that you have seriously missed the entire point of formations.
It's been discussed time and time again, in discussions about wildly varying feature suggestions which all boil down to the same thing: if you can't seem to use a game's feature in a useful way, start by changing your gameplay style before saying it's a fault of the game itself. And if you do give suggestions, make them sensible, taking into account the oh-so-important concept of 'balancing' or 'pro/con compensation'.
Finally, it would help if you take the time to not only read posts written up by others, but also those you've written yourself before hitting Submit. For example, the following sentence doesn't make any sense: "Formations are now almost never usefull and in the few cases they would be effective, they are of no use, becuase you could do easily without them."
Jelco
MrBunsy wrote:I'd love to see you try and join a club of some sort. I don't know many people here, but I try not to actively piss people off.
Cooper42 wrote:People also seem to assume they are for defence, and defensive positions only. Thing is, if you are in a position to have a formation and a cluster of loose MWs to hold a position, as I suggested, those MWs are more likely better put to use attacking, as MW tends to reward ballsy forward pushes. If you can't see a useful way to attack with those MWs, you're probably already screwed into a corner.
Out of the entire post, that's where you put the mistake.neo1000 wrote:Please apologize my english. I am not a native speaker.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests