Anyway, of course a Knoppix (or ANY OTHER HARDWARE TEST DISC) is going to be limited to the hardware it supports. It's just common sense--before you choose a hardware test methodology, make sure that methodology supports all the hardware on your machine.
Knoppix does pretty well in that regard, since it has never failed to detect a piece of hardware for me personally--ymmv, of course. It's also a bit weak for graphics diagnostics, as it can't really exercise the 3d functions of newer cards IIRC.
As far as I can determine, it's the social aspects that make it less appealing as we age: I rarely game solo anymore, but playing games with my fiancee is fun. Playing games at LAN parties still rocks my world, and playing games at a LAN party where the median age is 34 and everyone is showered, shaved, and a productive member of society is more fun than any college-age blast.
But I can't play long single-player games anymore. Final Fantasy-style stuff with long+good stories being the notable exceptions.
Really odd--I've got a P3 733, 512MB ram, and a Radeon 9500 Pro and Halo is just beautiful for me (for values of beautiful equal to ~20fps) at 1024x768x32.
Your car analogy is flawed--the average driver has to go through a minimum of a driver's ed. course in high school, pass a written test, practice with an experienced driver for a length of time (varies by state), take a test from a state employee, and be licensed.
THEN we still don't trust them for a while (higher insurance rates ages 16-25, higher insurance rates until you have three accident-free years with a car (at least from my company)).
Using a computer requires you to sit down and turn it on. No licenses, no training, no tests. I no more expect Joe Average to be able to use a computer error-free than I'd expect a completely untrained 16-yr-old to drive well.
Admittedly, I don't use Xinerama, but I have a 19" and a 17" that behave properly under X. It's really quite simple if you're at all comfortable with mucking with text config files, you just set up two different configurations for your two monitors, then X does what you'd expect it to do (or at least what I'd expect it to do). Advantages of this configuration include the two monitors set to different resolutions at the same color depth, your panel stays on your main monitor and doesn't split between the two, and maximizing windows maximizes them to the current monitor, not both (so no gaps in the display because the window's stretched all over the bloody place). Best of all, no dead zones X thinks is there but can't display. Example XF86Config stuff follows, obviously change the details to match your hardware and resolution prefs:
He does what he can, of course, but the thing he usually falls to is one mage+we and one mage+blizzard, so half his peons get killed trying to get to the burrows. Then the mages just stay out of range and pound the base from the outside in, while the footmen and we keep the burrows+tower occupied.
The funny thing about those languages where they only had words for 1, 2, and many is that anthroplogists would usually notice that even with no system of expressing numbers, people would look at their herd of sheep (or whatever) and know if one was missing, or how many were missing. The concepts seem to be more or less hard-wired even when no language structure supports them.
*I* don't get successfully rushed--but my roomie has some serious problems holding off mage+mage+footmen rushes with orcs. Granted, I generally counterattack immediately (I was a PoM person for the archer/hunts bonus aura myself, but with latest balance patches I dunno if she's a viable first hero anymore) but by then the damage is usually done, regardless if I tp to his base to help (which tends to set the game back by five-ten minutes) or attack the enemy base (which takes time).
Actually, most of my WC3 experience is 2v2 (my roommate and I bought it for each other for christmas back in college. =P) Even in 2v2, we found that you either had a perfectly optimized first five minutes or you were dead, esp. against certain enemy combinations (2 humans both archmage rushing, for example, is frickin' HARD to beat even with NE/Orc as we played).
This discussion is getting out of hand--perhaps we'd best chalk it up to "personal preference" and find other things to do with our time? =)
Admittedly, I was speaking more of WC3 than anything else--StarCraft didn't really have "Tiers" of units like WC3 does...which is why it (starcraft) is my favorite of the blizzard games, but no one in my LAN group plays it, and I spit upon random internet games, so it's mostly WC3 and TA for me. =P
As for TA's unit types count, yeah, it's really really high. *thinks* Counting sea units, I think there's something like 40-50 unit types per side. Some more differentiated than others--but it's the subtle differences that'll make or break battles, after all.
I'm admittedly not very great a SC, but I like to think I'm pretty good at WC3 (although I stopped playing online about a year ago when I got fed up with memorized build orders and a half-second mis-click costing the game if the other guy hero-rushes.)
I also admit to liking SC much better than WC3 for the mobile warfare, but as a primarily protoss player I was completely unimpressed by their utter lack of any decent fast-attack units (where my standard for "fast" is fighters and gunships in TA)
With regard to big TA maps and rushes: Knowledgable use of the commander enables one to hold off 99% of first-five-minute rushes, regardless of how coordinated, unless another team is also using their commander.
With regard to stealth/sniping--I take it you've never seen the expansions with cloakable/radar jamming units.
As for missile kbots, snore. Easy strategy to defeat--and I play a strong air superiority style mosts of the time--it's just all about strategic use of nukes, diversions, and ground attacks to cover for the final strikes, rather than the one-decisive-battle that I see often in WC3/SC.
As for mass tactics being hard to defend except with mass tactics, I sumbit (re, your kbot missile approach) that I need use NO tactics to defend if I recon properly, just sit the damn kbots where I want defended and leave them alone. Freeing me up to do other things since your mass attack leaves you wide open somewhere else if I have mobility to exploit it.
Which is what I really dislike about WC3/SC--there are very few powerful, fast units available for any price, which makes mobile warfare nigh impossible.
I think the reason why SC/WC3 are more popular than TA stems largely from two things: 1. bigger developer--that means more popular from the outset, more strategy guides online, and mundane players are more competitive from the outset. 2. complexity--TA takes more time to learn the intricacies than WC3/SC. There is no "unit hierarchy", for one example: You can safely not use basic units in SC/WC3 once you get better ones, but you ignore the level1 units in TA at your peril, even when you're playing the expansion and have tier three units available.
As for there being no difference between a good player and a great player in TA, I hope (with apropo humility) that I never get the opportunity to play you at TA, for your sake. Neither of your desciribed tactics (mass kbot rush or early commander rush) would get you very far with me. =)
Eh, I live in Bellefonte these days, so it's either drive or go to a shitty bar. Champs wings are best precisely because they are NOT suspect in size, and I generally don't get shit-faced at bars--one, it's too expensive, two, I have a fraternity house I'm an alum of for that, and three, Champs is a damn good place to go and get a plate of wings and a beer or two and watch monday night football.
I disagree totally. I play in a group of serious gamers, and we play WC3 and TA every damn time we get together (once a month or so). There is not, and has never been, the single optimal strategy for TA like there is for WC3--and we use our own build orders for that, and so do many folks on battle.net, last I played there. =) I maintain WC3 is about speedy mouse clicks than tactics, and TA is more about tactics than speedy mouse clicks--I view Blizzard RTS games as more action than anything else, and that has its place, certainly, but TA is more of a "serious" wargame for us, in that it has far more depth, especially on the larger maps with eight players or so.
I'm concerned that you had problems micro-managing TA--I find it easier than warcraft/starcraft, personally, due to the larger permitted groups, auto-group-joining, and orders-on-build (although WC3 has many of those features already, thank god) I've never had a latency problem either. Maybe it was just your machine?
There are far more variables than that to consider--rapidity of fire, armor, weapon type. TA plays more like "real" combat--the differences between units are more subtle, but they exist to be exploited by a sound tactician.
You sound like you played TA single-player maybe five times and got sick of it, and you're a Blizzard junkie. I've played warcraft, starcraft, and TA for hundreds of hours each, and I'd like to think that makes me more qualified to give an opinion on TA--did you play it much at all?
As for strategic elements vs. tactical elements...I view strategy = handling logistics and unit production, tactics = handling unit engagements, when and where and how to fight.
Point 1: I'm always offended by false statements. Point 2: Your assumptions are your own to hold, I suppose. But how can someone have an attitude and be unaware of it? It doesn't seem possible. Point 3: It is, of course, very easy to claim I'm "predictable" after the fact. I submit you had no idea I was going to accuse you of incest until the third time you read the sentence, after looking up the multi-syllable words. Point 4: "Who'd a thunk it?" "Go back to the cotton fields BOY." Fits the definition of a typical redneck thought perfectly.
Oh, and to head off your next lame statement, it's impossible to stereotype rednecks, because the definition is equivalent to the "sterotype". By calling you a redneck, I'm saying you've chosen to be uneducated and ignorant, even provincial. You made that choice, you weren't born to it, and the very definition of redneck behavior is "uneducated, ignorant, and provincial."
Did you ever play against a human opponent? Preferably one who liked the game and knew what s/he was doing?
I ask because I'm a viciously good TA player and I don't think I've EVER seen a successful "mass rush" without thought behind it--as in scouting, diversionary attacks, and multiple fronts.
Sure the AI sucked. But for pure strategy/tactics, it's much better.
And as for Starcraft/Warcraft, I have yet to see a successful player who doesn't use a pre-memorized (And usually researched online) build order for the first five-ten minutes of the game at least. There is no strategy there, just speed.
Personally, I like TA and AoEII for the same reason--the early rush is hard but doable, there's no "build order" that's going to get you units fast enough to make a difference, and you actually have to think about your attacks.
I like TA better because it rewards truly long-term planning. In Warcraft/Starcraft, you knew you had to keep your units at the unit limit, or you were going to get just plain outnumbered--but if you hit the limit, you couldn't (by definition!) be outnumbered. In addition, you had to balance your resource collection units against your combat units, which is really artificially limiting with the small unit counts you were allowed. AoEII has this problem to a lesser extent, since a 200-unit (max) barrier is harder to hit than a 75-90 unit max.
But TA has a 500-unit max. And if you're playing a skilled opponent, you never had time to reach it, and you never knew exactly how your numbers compared to the enemies without scouting, feinting, and being very careful. THAT'S the depth I like.
Your mileage may vary, but TA was a great game in terms of raw strategy and helping take the mundane details off the hands of the player (allowing for actual sweeping strategies instead of incessant tactical clickfests).
Secret to State College and Pittsburgh bars and liquor stores. Grow a beard, be polite, and buy more expensive alcohol, and you will NEVER be carded. (what kind of 20-yr-old would buy $30/750ml alcohol for himself, after all?)
Ah, the times this dodge saved me. Sure, I drank less, but it was better stuff.
Right, because you can tell someone's skin color through the internet. Isn't my grammar and spelling too good for an uneducated "nigger?"
Go back to seventh grade, and quit fuckin' your redneck sister. And thank you, for adding to the vast body of evidence that racists are intellectually stunted.
Not really, it'd spiral further out, centrifigal force and all.
And hell, if I met you, I'd sneak up on you and hit you in the back of the head, too. Preferably with a shovel or something, just in case stupidity really is contagious.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you do anything but troll? Seriously.
Anyway, of course a Knoppix (or ANY OTHER HARDWARE TEST DISC) is going to be limited to the hardware it supports. It's just common sense--before you choose a hardware test methodology, make sure that methodology supports all the hardware on your machine.
Knoppix does pretty well in that regard, since it has never failed to detect a piece of hardware for me personally--ymmv, of course. It's also a bit weak for graphics diagnostics, as it can't really exercise the 3d functions of newer cards IIRC.
As far as I can determine, it's the social aspects that make it less appealing as we age: I rarely game solo anymore, but playing games with my fiancee is fun. Playing games at LAN parties still rocks my world, and playing games at a LAN party where the median age is 34 and everyone is showered, shaved, and a productive member of society is more fun than any college-age blast.
But I can't play long single-player games anymore. Final Fantasy-style stuff with long+good stories being the notable exceptions.
Really odd--I've got a P3 733, 512MB ram, and a Radeon 9500 Pro and Halo is just beautiful for me (for values of beautiful equal to ~20fps) at 1024x768x32.
Your car analogy is flawed--the average driver has to go through a minimum of a driver's ed. course in high school, pass a written test, practice with an experienced driver for a length of time (varies by state), take a test from a state employee, and be licensed.
THEN we still don't trust them for a while (higher insurance rates ages 16-25, higher insurance rates until you have three accident-free years with a car (at least from my company)).
Using a computer requires you to sit down and turn it on. No licenses, no training, no tests. I no more expect Joe Average to be able to use a computer error-free than I'd expect a completely untrained 16-yr-old to drive well.
Admittedly, I don't use Xinerama, but I have a 19" and a 17" that behave properly under X. It's really quite simple if you're at all comfortable with mucking with text config files, you just set up two different configurations for your two monitors, then X does what you'd expect it to do (or at least what I'd expect it to do). Advantages of this configuration include the two monitors set to different resolutions at the same color depth, your panel stays on your main monitor and doesn't split between the two, and maximizing windows maximizes them to the current monitor, not both (so no gaps in the display because the window's stretched all over the bloody place). Best of all, no dead zones X thinks is there but can't display.
Example XF86Config stuff follows, obviously change the details to match your hardware and resolution prefs:
Section "Monitor"
Identifier "Monitor0"
VendorName "Optiquest"
ModelName "V95"
HorizSync 30.0 - 85.0
VertRefresh 50.0 - 160.0
Option "dpms"
EndSection
Section "Monitor"
Identifier "Monitor1"
VendorName "Panasonic"
ModelName "P17"
HorizSync 30.0 - 86.0
VertRefresh 50.0 - 160.0
Option "dpms"
EndSection
Section "Device"
Identifier "Videocard0"
Driver "mga"
VendorName "Matrox"
BoardName "Millennium G450"
VideoRam 32768
BusID "PCI:1:0:0"
Screen 0
EndSection
Section "Device"
Identifier "Videocard1"
Driver "mga"
VendorName "Matrox"
BoardName "Millennium G450"
VideoRam 32768
BusID "PCI:1:0:0"
Screen 1
EndSection
Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Device "Videocard0"
Monitor "Monitor0"
DefaultDepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1600x1200"
EndSubSection
EndSection
Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen1"
Device "Videocard1"
Monitor "Monitor1"
DefaultDepth 24
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
Modes "1280x1024"
EndSubSection
EndSection
Ironically, there are Linux binaries that work pretty damn well on the UT2k3 disc, and probably on the UT2k4 discs as well. =P
A quarter per as of 2003, so $5 gets you 20 anymore, but still worth every penny.
He does what he can, of course, but the thing he usually falls to is one mage+we and one mage+blizzard, so half his peons get killed trying to get to the burrows. Then the mages just stay out of range and pound the base from the outside in, while the footmen and we keep the burrows+tower occupied.
The funny thing about those languages where they only had words for 1, 2, and many is that anthroplogists would usually notice that even with no system of expressing numbers, people would look at their herd of sheep (or whatever) and know if one was missing, or how many were missing. The concepts seem to be more or less hard-wired even when no language structure supports them.
*I* don't get successfully rushed--but my roomie has some serious problems holding off mage+mage+footmen rushes with orcs. Granted, I generally counterattack immediately (I was a PoM person for the archer/hunts bonus aura myself, but with latest balance patches I dunno if she's a viable first hero anymore) but by then the damage is usually done, regardless if I tp to his base to help (which tends to set the game back by five-ten minutes) or attack the enemy base (which takes time).
Actually, most of my WC3 experience is 2v2 (my roommate and I bought it for each other for christmas back in college. =P) Even in 2v2, we found that you either had a perfectly optimized first five minutes or you were dead, esp. against certain enemy combinations (2 humans both archmage rushing, for example, is frickin' HARD to beat even with NE/Orc as we played).
This discussion is getting out of hand--perhaps we'd best chalk it up to "personal preference" and find other things to do with our time? =)
...because Bo Jackson is "vintage", apparently.
Seriously, is "vintage" the right word to use for something that was more or less 15 years ago? Jeez.
Admittedly, I was speaking more of WC3 than anything else--StarCraft didn't really have "Tiers" of units like WC3 does...which is why it (starcraft) is my favorite of the blizzard games, but no one in my LAN group plays it, and I spit upon random internet games, so it's mostly WC3 and TA for me. =P
As for TA's unit types count, yeah, it's really really high. *thinks* Counting sea units, I think there's something like 40-50 unit types per side. Some more differentiated than others--but it's the subtle differences that'll make or break battles, after all.
I'm admittedly not very great a SC, but I like to think I'm pretty good at WC3 (although I stopped playing online about a year ago when I got fed up with memorized build orders and a half-second mis-click costing the game if the other guy hero-rushes.)
I also admit to liking SC much better than WC3 for the mobile warfare, but as a primarily protoss player I was completely unimpressed by their utter lack of any decent fast-attack units (where my standard for "fast" is fighters and gunships in TA)
With regard to big TA maps and rushes: Knowledgable use of the commander enables one to hold off 99% of first-five-minute rushes, regardless of how coordinated, unless another team is also using their commander.
With regard to stealth/sniping--I take it you've never seen the expansions with cloakable/radar jamming units.
As for missile kbots, snore. Easy strategy to defeat--and I play a strong air superiority style mosts of the time--it's just all about strategic use of nukes, diversions, and ground attacks to cover for the final strikes, rather than the one-decisive-battle that I see often in WC3/SC.
As for mass tactics being hard to defend except with mass tactics, I sumbit (re, your kbot missile approach) that I need use NO tactics to defend if I recon properly, just sit the damn kbots where I want defended and leave them alone. Freeing me up to do other things since your mass attack leaves you wide open somewhere else if I have mobility to exploit it.
Which is what I really dislike about WC3/SC--there are very few powerful, fast units available for any price, which makes mobile warfare nigh impossible.
I think the reason why SC/WC3 are more popular than TA stems largely from two things:
1. bigger developer--that means more popular from the outset, more strategy guides online, and mundane players are more competitive from the outset.
2. complexity--TA takes more time to learn the intricacies than WC3/SC. There is no "unit hierarchy", for one example: You can safely not use basic units in SC/WC3 once you get better ones, but you ignore the level1 units in TA at your peril, even when you're playing the expansion and have tier three units available.
As for there being no difference between a good player and a great player in TA, I hope (with apropo humility) that I never get the opportunity to play you at TA, for your sake. Neither of your desciribed tactics (mass kbot rush or early commander rush) would get you very far with me. =)
Eh, I live in Bellefonte these days, so it's either drive or go to a shitty bar. Champs wings are best precisely because they are NOT suspect in size, and I generally don't get shit-faced at bars--one, it's too expensive, two, I have a fraternity house I'm an alum of for that, and three, Champs is a damn good place to go and get a plate of wings and a beer or two and watch monday night football.
Yeah, except that SportsCafe wings suck. Champs all the way for that.
I disagree totally. I play in a group of serious gamers, and we play WC3 and TA every damn time we get together (once a month or so). There is not, and has never been, the single optimal strategy for TA like there is for WC3--and we use our own build orders for that, and so do many folks on battle.net, last I played there. =) I maintain WC3 is about speedy mouse clicks than tactics, and TA is more about tactics than speedy mouse clicks--I view Blizzard RTS games as more action than anything else, and that has its place, certainly, but TA is more of a "serious" wargame for us, in that it has far more depth, especially on the larger maps with eight players or so.
I'm concerned that you had problems micro-managing TA--I find it easier than warcraft/starcraft, personally, due to the larger permitted groups, auto-group-joining, and orders-on-build (although WC3 has many of those features already, thank god)
I've never had a latency problem either. Maybe it was just your machine?
There are far more variables than that to consider--rapidity of fire, armor, weapon type. TA plays more like "real" combat--the differences between units are more subtle, but they exist to be exploited by a sound tactician.
You sound like you played TA single-player maybe five times and got sick of it, and you're a Blizzard junkie. I've played warcraft, starcraft, and TA for hundreds of hours each, and I'd like to think that makes me more qualified to give an opinion on TA--did you play it much at all?
As for strategic elements vs. tactical elements...I view strategy = handling logistics and unit production, tactics = handling unit engagements, when and where and how to fight.
Who are YOU kidding? I'VE been trolling YOU, you ignorant fuck. =P
Yeah, but I only go to SportsCafe for the cheap cheeseburgers. =P
Point 1: I'm always offended by false statements.
Point 2: Your assumptions are your own to hold, I suppose. But how can someone have an attitude and be unaware of it? It doesn't seem possible.
Point 3: It is, of course, very easy to claim I'm "predictable" after the fact. I submit you had no idea I was going to accuse you of incest until the third time you read the sentence, after looking up the multi-syllable words.
Point 4: "Who'd a thunk it?" "Go back to the cotton fields BOY." Fits the definition of a typical redneck thought perfectly.
Oh, and to head off your next lame statement, it's impossible to stereotype rednecks, because the definition is equivalent to the "sterotype".
By calling you a redneck, I'm saying you've chosen to be uneducated and ignorant, even provincial. You made that choice, you weren't born to it, and the very definition of redneck behavior is "uneducated, ignorant, and provincial."
Did you ever play against a human opponent? Preferably one who liked the game and knew what s/he was doing?
I ask because I'm a viciously good TA player and I don't think I've EVER seen a successful "mass rush" without thought behind it--as in scouting, diversionary attacks, and multiple fronts.
Sure the AI sucked. But for pure strategy/tactics, it's much better.
And as for Starcraft/Warcraft, I have yet to see a successful player who doesn't use a pre-memorized (And usually researched online) build order for the first five-ten minutes of the game at least. There is no strategy there, just speed.
Personally, I like TA and AoEII for the same reason--the early rush is hard but doable, there's no "build order" that's going to get you units fast enough to make a difference, and you actually have to think about your attacks.
I like TA better because it rewards truly long-term planning. In Warcraft/Starcraft, you knew you had to keep your units at the unit limit, or you were going to get just plain outnumbered--but if you hit the limit, you couldn't (by definition!) be outnumbered.
In addition, you had to balance your resource collection units against your combat units, which is really artificially limiting with the small unit counts you were allowed.
AoEII has this problem to a lesser extent, since a 200-unit (max) barrier is harder to hit than a 75-90 unit max.
But TA has a 500-unit max. And if you're playing a skilled opponent, you never had time to reach it, and you never knew exactly how your numbers compared to the enemies without scouting, feinting, and being very careful. THAT'S the depth I like.
Your mileage may vary, but TA was a great game in terms of raw strategy and helping take the mundane details off the hands of the player (allowing for actual sweeping strategies instead of incessant tactical clickfests).
Secret to State College and Pittsburgh bars and liquor stores. Grow a beard, be polite, and buy more expensive alcohol, and you will NEVER be carded. (what kind of 20-yr-old would buy $30/750ml alcohol for himself, after all?)
Ah, the times this dodge saved me. Sure, I drank less, but it was better stuff.
Right, because you can tell someone's skin color through the internet. Isn't my grammar and spelling too good for an uneducated "nigger?"
Go back to seventh grade, and quit fuckin' your redneck sister. And thank you, for adding to the vast body of evidence that racists are intellectually stunted.
Not really, it'd spiral further out, centrifigal force and all.
And hell, if I met you, I'd sneak up on you and hit you in the back of the head, too. Preferably with a shovel or something, just in case stupidity really is contagious.