You seem to have mistaken my complaint to be one about cheaters. It isn't.
You're right. I sort of went in a different direction with the standard complaint - whether that aspect was expressed by you or not. You'll have to excuse me for taking the chance to make my point.
I think that's precisely what I find so wrong with games that reward sacrificed time rather than enhancing aptitudes. Because those "twitch monkeys" aren't at the top of any hill, are they? The gratification they get doesn't come from being the best, so what is it? Do they just like putting virtual bullets into virtual heads controlled by other players?
IMO this isn't healthy, and parallels games that reward time sacrifice: what exactly do these players enjoy doing? It isn't getting better at something, or being the best, because they aren't getting better or becoming the best, their characters are.
I disagree with the idea that players don't improve skills in these games. Sure - the games provide artificial advantages as rewards (RPGs are a no brainer, FPSs offer things like the classic BFG). But there is still a skill at playing the game.
Again - I use FPSs as the example as the difference between players is considerably less. A really proficient player will still out-perform their opponents in this environment. Meanwhile, I've experienced the difference between the skilled and unexperienced player in (for example) WoW. The experienced raider has a good idea of what they can do, where they need to stand, what to do in certain situations, etc. The inexperienced player will fold at trouble, get themselves killed in situations that should have been survivable, counteract their team's crowd-control, attract the attention of enemies that should have been avoided, etc. Likewise, the skilled PvP player understands what things are useless when fighting other players, understand how to support their teammates, avoid fights that are hopeless, etc.
There are, in fact, skill sets involved. And a player who puts the time in to playing the game will (most likely) pick up these skills.
Really, the same goes for almost any game. You've got to put in time behind basketball or chess to be good at it (though they reward different abilities). Is Chess a time sink that shouldn't be pursued?
It's pretty hard to cheat at chess - everything is right there in front of you. Basketball is difficult but perhaps a little easier as there's a lot more going on. Online games tend to be massively complex and, with the computer as the judge, impossible to cheat unless you install software that blinds the judge (who then won't complain).
I think if you set aside the morals and/or social contracts that affect how people feel about cheating, the role of cheat software to a cheater is identical to the role of the items/spells/powers your characters can accumulate: advancing your in-game advantage without advancing your own aptitudes.
I agree in so far as those game advantages take effort to get and installing the cheat is instant satisfaction. They both provide advantages. But the intended advantages require effort and time that the cheater is simply not inclined to put forward. They want instant gratification.
With MMORPGs its harder to see it. But take a FPS where the in-game advantages are limited on scale and scope. Speed hacks, wall hacks, auto-aim bots, etc. are all there to supplement skill rather than supplement game rewards. Speed hacks give you the ability to out-maneuver your opponents at any time. Wall hacks let you see where your opponents are and uncover ambushes (as do spiked models). Auto-aim bots provide perfect marksmanship. These all replace experience and intuition gained by time spent playing the game.
It seems to me that games like World of Warcraft and Pokemon have stumbled onto something that Final Fantasy was only beginn
The problem with that is not that there's a lack of benefit for the audience, it's that it becomes distracting. The whole experience seemed more like a "whoa - look at what I can do NOW" situation than "I've got some thing I'd like to show you, let me get it."
I've seen touch screen tech being used effecively, sure. Weather reporters come to mind. I don't watch much football, but if memory serves it's much the same thing. The indidual gets to write on the screen much like a whiteboard. That works. The gestures are often a part of the explanation (Team A moves this direction or Highs push the front in that direction). But, as another poster commented, when all the hand waving becomes a distraction you know your interface is failing it's intended purpose - aiding in the presentation.
Am I the only one who is pretty disgusted at the trend of games where the primary skill function is just how much time your character spends doing stuff?
Go play a FPS and you'll find autoaim bots, wallhacks, and other assorted cheating tools. Corner a cheater and they'll complain about how they have a "real life" and can't spend all their time playing the game to get the skills to compete with other players. This is simply more of the same.
There are thousands of folks who want instant gratification. Twitch monkeys who can't stand not being at the top of whatever hill they see but don't want to invest the time it takes to get there (nevermind that being at the top of the hill doesn't HAVE to be the point of a lot of these games). So they go for the short-cut.
Yeah, treadmills and grinds aren't for everyone. But that doesn't mean you get to ditch the rules because they're inconvenient for you. Play the game... or don't play at all.
Actually, they ARE kicking off the botting users. There are occasional massive bans that scoop up large amounts of botters. Google around a bit and you'll find out about it.
Accept the other 70% aren't exactly running away now, are they? That 70% seems pretty much willing to deal with the spam.
Have you ditched email because of spam? I haven't. But damned if I don't do everything I can to limit the spam that I ever see. And I'd be right up in line to punch the bastard(s) doing it if such a fantasy was ever made real.
I've also had to deal with spam in-game. Its an annoyance that has thankfully lessened with Blizzard's active involvement in decreasing it. Blizzard taking action increases the likelyhood that I'm going to continue paying my monthly fee(s).
Except for the fact that none of this is what most of the Glider users are interested in. They want instant rewards with no effort and / or fodder to convert to real currency in order to live out a dystopian future-shock dream.
(and I say this as an old fan of the AutoTravel mod before Blizzard killed it)
...it often felt like it was a cool technology in search of real use cases.
That's the general idea that came to my mind. "Oh look, Microsoft finally found a problem to go with their answer." But is it really a good fit?
CNN was showing some pictures from the Obama inauguration that day. They had some reporter standing in front of a huge touch screen doing all these gestures to pull up, enlarge, then stack photos. Then as if to really force the point, he did a "crumple in to a ball" effect one one image. I found myself thinking that this all was some kind of dog-and-pony show to highlight either CNN's vendor or their commitment to out-flashing FOX News. Nothing about it helped me get a feel for the story being reported on.
And I'm kind of wondering if that's where we'll get with this sort of situation too. Lots of flash. Some feeling of importance and being equipped. But not actually better prepared to handle the task at hand.
It could also be a bit of tit-for-tat. Dell made a swipe first:
"Mister Prime Minister, you spoke of the dangers of excessive government involvement, and I found myself really struck by that comment and surprised to hear that comment," Mr. Dell said. "Six months ago, I would have never imagined hearing that comment from yourself, but I have to say I completely agree with you."
While I might agree with Dell's comments, I could imagine someone like Putin wouldn't pass up the opportunity to strike back.
Exactly. VisiCalc was a killer app (heck - it defines the killer app). There was nothing else like it - spreadsheets didn't exist before it (or at least not as we view them now). VisiCalc allowed you to not only crunch numbers, but to do it in real time; modify a value and see the results. Is is the single reason microcomputers went from hobbyist toys to must-have business tool.
Word processing was a bonus. Most word processing was being done by dedicated hardware. Most of the "computers" you see on business desktops from photographs and movies during the 80s are really word processing machines. However, once someone got themselves a "VisiCalc machine", it wasn't too difficult to find a word processor to run when VisiCalc wasn't.
Its probably worth stressing again that all this completely changed business computing. It's not that small businesses couldn't afford a minicomputer. It's that most small businesses didn't WANT a computer at all; they had no need for one. VisiCalc blazed the trail to changing all that. It was the first step towards providing a reason to need a computer.
I thought decentralization was supposed to be a good thing, the whole motivation behind having personal computers to begin with but, in the age of web apps everywhere, we seem to be returning to the days of the totalitarian, you'll-do-it-our-way-and-like-it data center (mainframe) model.
The thing is, the old mainframe age was incredibly different than the times we're in now. And none of this is going back to that. Heck - it exists because we've gone in the other direction.
Back in the old age, there was a single mainframe and the priesthood that served it. If you wanted an answer, you coded up your cards and brought it to the priesthood so that they may take it to the mainframe. After dropping off your cards, you went away. At some time you returned where the priesthood passed along the answer. If it was an answer you didn't expect (say an error), you went back to re-punching your cards and starting over.
Minicomputers helped move away from the priesthood. You now got to timeshare on the computer via a terminal. Your response was pretty quick if not instantaneous. And with video terminals, that interaction improved.
Microcomputers are the step beyond. No longer do you share time. You have your own computer to do with as you please - all to yourself all the time.
But then they become plentiful. And they become interconnected. And those little microcomputers that were toys become clusters of commodity hardware that changes the very fabric previously sewn by minicomputers and mainframes.
The systems we have these days are amazingly powerful and interconnected. You can develop and deploy with pretty much the same systems. The only difference is what's on them and where they sit (if we gloss heavily over the details).
So while there's some push to centralize, it's using an amazingly decentralized network and technology. It's a far cry from the old days.
Having said that - I'm of two minds. Having to manage a lot of IT stuff, I'm used to a lot of centralization to try and keep a handle on the massive amounts of decentralized resources. We already centralize much of our data. So I can understand where it gets attractive.
However, I've always been a fan of running our own architecture. I don't want to hire out when we don't have to. It's great for folks who can't afford any other option. But if I were to, say, run a web world processor, I'd want to install it and run it myself (like we do with email and everything else we have centralized).
What are you babbling on about? You didn't pay for Naxx? What's the first raid dungeon in WOTLK? Oh yeah... that one. And not everyone that played WoW raided.
The Naxx you're talking about? That's not the same Naxx he's talking about. Unless you want to talk about lore - but we're talking content.
As for raiding - I suppose you're wanting to talk about the Battlegrounds then?
Imagine my surprise when, after going through the online tutorials for both and trying them each for a week or so she said "Yeah, I think The GIMP is going to be a lot easier for me."
One thing about GimpShop that appeals to me is the concept of using existing Photoshop tutorials without the knowledge of how to translate feature names / locations. I've never used GimpShop much less tried to follow a Photoshop tutorial with it. But I notice it's one of the features that gets mentioned a fair amount. So I'm trusting that this is as simple as claimed.
I introduced my wife to The GIMP for Windows after she realized her ancient copy of Photoshop was falling short of her needs (yet didn't justify the price tag of an updated version). I really expected a lot of grumbling about The GIMP's interface. I like it. But with all the grumbling the interface gets when someone just mentions "gimp" on/., I expected I'd be hearing it at home too. I was wrong.
Her initial reaction WAS a "woah" of surprise. Lots of windows opening up were a bit daunting at first. But it didn't take her long to get a hang of what's going on. I asked her just now how she's getting along. She's doing fine. "What about the crazy interface?" I ask. "It's more or less like Photoshop - everythings kind of where it would be if it was in a single window. No big deal."
So meh. To each their own. I understand there's folks who just don't like it (witness GimpShop). You get used to a tool you know and its a pain to be handed something alien to what you're used to. But that doesn't mean said tool is without merit.
Of course - this is all old hat. It's been said before. It'll come up again.
I would note that you helped define the troll debate. At least you didn't play the "viral" card.
I don't see this as a giant hurdle since the only people who would give a flying fuck about source are developers and they are perfectly capable (maybe) of adding whatever changes they want to the original.
I'm an end user the majority of the time. There is very little chance I'll contribute code to even a sliver of the Open Source software that I use. Yet the license is important to me. Everything that makes OSS interesting / worth investing in is further enforced by a license that ensures modifications / improvements are returned to the project.
The freedom for end users to have and be able to modify the source is the only one that really means anything.
I don't agree that it's the only thing that really matters. But I do agree that its a pretty major point that seems to be lost by the "more free than the GPL" arguments you see from time to time.
Another oddity - when we got permission to play in the woodlands in some areas in Germany, one stipulation tended to be that we didn't use specific colors which they used to mark trees for forestry management. I'd imagine it would be tragic to find whole areas cleared by mistake.
Semantics, but their original purpose was to paint trees with a mark. The game came later
Trees and livestock - the Nelspot 007. Fancy pumps were a later innovation. The first paintgun designed for sport was the Splatmaster (produced by NSG). I don't have a Nelspot. But I do have a Splatmaster, a Rapide, a GZ1000 (the return of Gurnsey) and in a similar class - a PGP.
In a wierd twist of history, I had one player's father buy a PGP to mark his cattle.
When we played in the German winters, we'd keep our paint in coolers (no ice) to maintain temperature. We would also trade out paint we had left in our hoppers for paint from the cooler every one or two games. It still only did so much.
One game got cold enough to decrease the pressure of the CO2 we were using (yeah - back in the old days when CO2 in 7oz bottles was still pretty advanced, siphon tubes belonged on gimmic guns using.62 cal, and dinosaurs roamed the earth). Our effective range began to drop. Paintballs that managed to lob far enough to hit someone just kind of bounced around a bit. Both teams decided to end the game and charge. I found myself pitted up against my wife who laughed at my attempts to shoot her. That is, until one hit squarely in her chest.
I saw the bruise. Once. It was a particularly cold few weeks that winter.
Yeah - that's speedball. Which is a fun game in itself. But that's a variation really designed for TV and fast elimination competition.
And honestly - I know where you're coming from. I've been around paintball for years. I've watched it go from "survival game" to "legitimate sport." You can call them markers all you want. It's valid. But they are, in fact, guns. They're a far cry from firearms and only a small subset of folks still try to equate them with firearms. But whether they be dressed up to replicate a M-16 or splash anodized and cut up to look like extreme sports gear, a gun is a gun. Not that there's anything wrong with that (unless you're trying to sell the sport side and keep out of the for-the-children and/or anti-war contingent).
No. You see, you have these things called "paintguns." You aim them at the opponent, pull a trigger, and if you're aim is good (and the gun isn't crap, the paint isn't crap, the wind doesn't pick up, and there's not a stray branch you didn't see between the two of you), you hit them. That's commonly referred to as "shooting."
OK - sure. You can call it "painting" as well if you really want to. But that's ignoring the actual mechanics of the equipment used (which shouldn't be confused with most painting that involves a brush).
Slashdot Mirror
No. Quake is not a game. It is a network performance analyzer.
You seem to have mistaken my complaint to be one about cheaters. It isn't.
You're right. I sort of went in a different direction with the standard complaint - whether that aspect was expressed by you or not. You'll have to excuse me for taking the chance to make my point.
I think that's precisely what I find so wrong with games that reward sacrificed time rather than enhancing aptitudes. Because those "twitch monkeys" aren't at the top of any hill, are they? The gratification they get doesn't come from being the best, so what is it? Do they just like putting virtual bullets into virtual heads controlled by other players?
IMO this isn't healthy, and parallels games that reward time sacrifice: what exactly do these players enjoy doing? It isn't getting better at something, or being the best, because they aren't getting better or becoming the best, their characters are.
I disagree with the idea that players don't improve skills in these games. Sure - the games provide artificial advantages as rewards (RPGs are a no brainer, FPSs offer things like the classic BFG). But there is still a skill at playing the game.
Again - I use FPSs as the example as the difference between players is considerably less. A really proficient player will still out-perform their opponents in this environment. Meanwhile, I've experienced the difference between the skilled and unexperienced player in (for example) WoW. The experienced raider has a good idea of what they can do, where they need to stand, what to do in certain situations, etc. The inexperienced player will fold at trouble, get themselves killed in situations that should have been survivable, counteract their team's crowd-control, attract the attention of enemies that should have been avoided, etc. Likewise, the skilled PvP player understands what things are useless when fighting other players, understand how to support their teammates, avoid fights that are hopeless, etc.
There are, in fact, skill sets involved. And a player who puts the time in to playing the game will (most likely) pick up these skills.
Really, the same goes for almost any game. You've got to put in time behind basketball or chess to be good at it (though they reward different abilities). Is Chess a time sink that shouldn't be pursued?
It's pretty hard to cheat at chess - everything is right there in front of you. Basketball is difficult but perhaps a little easier as there's a lot more going on. Online games tend to be massively complex and, with the computer as the judge, impossible to cheat unless you install software that blinds the judge (who then won't complain).
I think if you set aside the morals and/or social contracts that affect how people feel about cheating, the role of cheat software to a cheater is identical to the role of the items/spells/powers your characters can accumulate: advancing your in-game advantage without advancing your own aptitudes.
I agree in so far as those game advantages take effort to get and installing the cheat is instant satisfaction. They both provide advantages. But the intended advantages require effort and time that the cheater is simply not inclined to put forward. They want instant gratification.
With MMORPGs its harder to see it. But take a FPS where the in-game advantages are limited on scale and scope. Speed hacks, wall hacks, auto-aim bots, etc. are all there to supplement skill rather than supplement game rewards. Speed hacks give you the ability to out-maneuver your opponents at any time. Wall hacks let you see where your opponents are and uncover ambushes (as do spiked models). Auto-aim bots provide perfect marksmanship. These all replace experience and intuition gained by time spent playing the game.
It seems to me that games like World of Warcraft and Pokemon have stumbled onto something that Final Fantasy was only beginn
The problem with that is not that there's a lack of benefit for the audience, it's that it becomes distracting. The whole experience seemed more like a "whoa - look at what I can do NOW" situation than "I've got some thing I'd like to show you, let me get it."
I've seen touch screen tech being used effecively, sure. Weather reporters come to mind. I don't watch much football, but if memory serves it's much the same thing. The indidual gets to write on the screen much like a whiteboard. That works. The gestures are often a part of the explanation (Team A moves this direction or Highs push the front in that direction). But, as another poster commented, when all the hand waving becomes a distraction you know your interface is failing it's intended purpose - aiding in the presentation.
Except Exchange costs a lot more than the $50 copy of Windows. I mean, you've got a valid point. But the example you give completely fails to make it.
And, by the way, a sufficiently large installation of Exchange is going to require quite a bit of work to get right as well.
Am I the only one who is pretty disgusted at the trend of games where the primary skill function is just how much time your character spends doing stuff?
Go play a FPS and you'll find autoaim bots, wallhacks, and other assorted cheating tools. Corner a cheater and they'll complain about how they have a "real life" and can't spend all their time playing the game to get the skills to compete with other players. This is simply more of the same.
There are thousands of folks who want instant gratification. Twitch monkeys who can't stand not being at the top of whatever hill they see but don't want to invest the time it takes to get there (nevermind that being at the top of the hill doesn't HAVE to be the point of a lot of these games). So they go for the short-cut.
Yeah, treadmills and grinds aren't for everyone. But that doesn't mean you get to ditch the rules because they're inconvenient for you. Play the game... or don't play at all.
Actually, they ARE kicking off the botting users. There are occasional massive bans that scoop up large amounts of botters. Google around a bit and you'll find out about it.
Accept the other 70% aren't exactly running away now, are they?
That 70% seems pretty much willing to deal with the spam.
Have you ditched email because of spam? I haven't. But damned if I don't do everything I can to limit the spam that I ever see. And I'd be right up in line to punch the bastard(s) doing it if such a fantasy was ever made real.
I've also had to deal with spam in-game. Its an annoyance that has thankfully lessened with Blizzard's active involvement in decreasing it. Blizzard taking action increases the likelyhood that I'm going to continue paying my monthly fee(s).
Except for the fact that none of this is what most of the Glider users are interested in. They want instant rewards with no effort and / or fodder to convert to real currency in order to live out a dystopian future-shock dream.
(and I say this as an old fan of the AutoTravel mod before Blizzard killed it)
...it often felt like it was a cool technology in search of real use cases.
That's the general idea that came to my mind. "Oh look, Microsoft finally found a problem to go with their answer." But is it really a good fit?
CNN was showing some pictures from the Obama inauguration that day. They had some reporter standing in front of a huge touch screen doing all these gestures to pull up, enlarge, then stack photos. Then as if to really force the point, he did a "crumple in to a ball" effect one one image. I found myself thinking that this all was some kind of dog-and-pony show to highlight either CNN's vendor or their commitment to out-flashing FOX News. Nothing about it helped me get a feel for the story being reported on.
And I'm kind of wondering if that's where we'll get with this sort of situation too. Lots of flash. Some feeling of importance and being equipped. But not actually better prepared to handle the task at hand.
It could also be a bit of tit-for-tat. Dell made a swipe first:
"Mister Prime Minister, you spoke of the dangers of excessive government involvement, and I found myself really struck by that comment and surprised to hear that comment," Mr. Dell said. "Six months ago, I would have never imagined hearing that comment from yourself, but I have to say I completely agree with you."
While I might agree with Dell's comments, I could imagine someone like Putin wouldn't pass up the opportunity to strike back.
Exactly. VisiCalc was a killer app (heck - it defines the killer app). There was nothing else like it - spreadsheets didn't exist before it (or at least not as we view them now). VisiCalc allowed you to not only crunch numbers, but to do it in real time; modify a value and see the results. Is is the single reason microcomputers went from hobbyist toys to must-have business tool.
Word processing was a bonus. Most word processing was being done by dedicated hardware. Most of the "computers" you see on business desktops from photographs and movies during the 80s are really word processing machines. However, once someone got themselves a "VisiCalc machine", it wasn't too difficult to find a word processor to run when VisiCalc wasn't.
Its probably worth stressing again that all this completely changed business computing. It's not that small businesses couldn't afford a minicomputer. It's that most small businesses didn't WANT a computer at all; they had no need for one. VisiCalc blazed the trail to changing all that. It was the first step towards providing a reason to need a computer.
I thought decentralization was supposed to be a good thing, the whole motivation behind having personal computers to begin with but, in the age of web apps everywhere, we seem to be returning to the days of the totalitarian, you'll-do-it-our-way-and-like-it data center (mainframe) model.
The thing is, the old mainframe age was incredibly different than the times we're in now. And none of this is going back to that. Heck - it exists because we've gone in the other direction.
Back in the old age, there was a single mainframe and the priesthood that served it. If you wanted an answer, you coded up your cards and brought it to the priesthood so that they may take it to the mainframe. After dropping off your cards, you went away. At some time you returned where the priesthood passed along the answer. If it was an answer you didn't expect (say an error), you went back to re-punching your cards and starting over.
Minicomputers helped move away from the priesthood. You now got to timeshare on the computer via a terminal. Your response was pretty quick if not instantaneous. And with video terminals, that interaction improved.
Microcomputers are the step beyond. No longer do you share time. You have your own computer to do with as you please - all to yourself all the time.
But then they become plentiful. And they become interconnected. And those little microcomputers that were toys become clusters of commodity hardware that changes the very fabric previously sewn by minicomputers and mainframes.
The systems we have these days are amazingly powerful and interconnected. You can develop and deploy with pretty much the same systems. The only difference is what's on them and where they sit (if we gloss heavily over the details).
So while there's some push to centralize, it's using an amazingly decentralized network and technology. It's a far cry from the old days.
Having said that - I'm of two minds. Having to manage a lot of IT stuff, I'm used to a lot of centralization to try and keep a handle on the massive amounts of decentralized resources. We already centralize much of our data. So I can understand where it gets attractive.
However, I've always been a fan of running our own architecture. I don't want to hire out when we don't have to. It's great for folks who can't afford any other option. But if I were to, say, run a web world processor, I'd want to install it and run it myself (like we do with email and everything else we have centralized).
What mainframe ran VisiCalc?
What are you babbling on about? You didn't pay for Naxx? What's the first raid dungeon in WOTLK? Oh yeah... that one. And not everyone that played WoW raided.
The Naxx you're talking about? That's not the same Naxx he's talking about. Unless you want to talk about lore - but we're talking content.
As for raiding - I suppose you're wanting to talk about the Battlegrounds then?
Imagine my surprise when, after going through the online tutorials for both and trying them each for a week or so she said "Yeah, I think The GIMP is going to be a lot easier for me."
One thing about GimpShop that appeals to me is the concept of using existing Photoshop tutorials without the knowledge of how to translate feature names / locations. I've never used GimpShop much less tried to follow a Photoshop tutorial with it. But I notice it's one of the features that gets mentioned a fair amount. So I'm trusting that this is as simple as claimed.
I introduced my wife to The GIMP for Windows after she realized her ancient copy of Photoshop was falling short of her needs (yet didn't justify the price tag of an updated version). I really expected a lot of grumbling about The GIMP's interface. I like it. But with all the grumbling the interface gets when someone just mentions "gimp" on /., I expected I'd be hearing it at home too. I was wrong.
Her initial reaction WAS a "woah" of surprise. Lots of windows opening up were a bit daunting at first. But it didn't take her long to get a hang of what's going on. I asked her just now how she's getting along. She's doing fine. "What about the crazy interface?" I ask. "It's more or less like Photoshop - everythings kind of where it would be if it was in a single window. No big deal."
So meh. To each their own. I understand there's folks who just don't like it (witness GimpShop). You get used to a tool you know and its a pain to be handed something alien to what you're used to. But that doesn't mean said tool is without merit.
Of course - this is all old hat. It's been said before. It'll come up again.
Yeah! And Vi is a piece of crap too!
Wait... what were we talking about again?
Engrish.
<dragged_into_troll_debate>
I would note that you helped define the troll debate. At least you didn't play the "viral" card.
I don't see this as a giant hurdle since the only people who would give a flying fuck about source are developers and they are perfectly capable (maybe) of adding whatever changes they want to the original.
I'm an end user the majority of the time. There is very little chance I'll contribute code to even a sliver of the Open Source software that I use. Yet the license is important to me. Everything that makes OSS interesting / worth investing in is further enforced by a license that ensures modifications / improvements are returned to the project.
The freedom for end users to have and be able to modify the source is the only one that really means anything.
I don't agree that it's the only thing that really matters. But I do agree that its a pretty major point that seems to be lost by the "more free than the GPL" arguments you see from time to time.
Another oddity - when we got permission to play in the woodlands in some areas in Germany, one stipulation tended to be that we didn't use specific colors which they used to mark trees for forestry management. I'd imagine it would be tragic to find whole areas cleared by mistake.
Semantics, but their original purpose was to paint trees with a mark. The game came later
Trees and livestock - the Nelspot 007. Fancy pumps were a later innovation. The first paintgun designed for sport was the Splatmaster (produced by NSG). I don't have a Nelspot. But I do have a Splatmaster, a Rapide, a GZ1000 (the return of Gurnsey) and in a similar class - a PGP.
In a wierd twist of history, I had one player's father buy a PGP to mark his cattle.
When we played in the German winters, we'd keep our paint in coolers (no ice) to maintain temperature. We would also trade out paint we had left in our hoppers for paint from the cooler every one or two games. It still only did so much.
One game got cold enough to decrease the pressure of the CO2 we were using (yeah - back in the old days when CO2 in 7oz bottles was still pretty advanced, siphon tubes belonged on gimmic guns using .62 cal, and dinosaurs roamed the earth). Our effective range began to drop. Paintballs that managed to lob far enough to hit someone just kind of bounced around a bit. Both teams decided to end the game and charge. I found myself pitted up against my wife who laughed at my attempts to shoot her. That is, until one hit squarely in her chest.
I saw the bruise. Once. It was a particularly cold few weeks that winter.
Yeah - that's speedball. Which is a fun game in itself. But that's a variation really designed for TV and fast elimination competition.
And honestly - I know where you're coming from. I've been around paintball for years. I've watched it go from "survival game" to "legitimate sport." You can call them markers all you want. It's valid. But they are, in fact, guns. They're a far cry from firearms and only a small subset of folks still try to equate them with firearms. But whether they be dressed up to replicate a M-16 or splash anodized and cut up to look like extreme sports gear, a gun is a gun. Not that there's anything wrong with that (unless you're trying to sell the sport side and keep out of the for-the-children and/or anti-war contingent).
No. You see, you have these things called "paintguns." You aim them at the opponent, pull a trigger, and if you're aim is good (and the gun isn't crap, the paint isn't crap, the wind doesn't pick up, and there's not a stray branch you didn't see between the two of you), you hit them. That's commonly referred to as "shooting."
OK - sure. You can call it "painting" as well if you really want to. But that's ignoring the actual mechanics of the equipment used (which shouldn't be confused with most painting that involves a brush).