Then why are there libertarian candidates in office right now?
I'll admit, it's lower offices, but you can't sit around expecting this government to reform the voting process...it works just fine for those in power. It's a catch 22...the only way through it is to work for both goals at the same time. As he says, if you keep voting for evil that's all you're going to get.
The libertarian platform includes ending the (corrupt, useless) drug war. So who cares what they are growing or not. Either way...do you honestly want to prevent the development of a major renewable source of energy simply because a couple more people might get to smoke a joint because of it? Does that *really* make sense to you?
The libertarian platform is competely thourough and possible, it's just very minimal. The reason it doesn't seem possible is because we are so used to the idea of a huge, monolithic government which permeates every single aspect of our lives that we can't possibly imagine what we might do if we had to think for ourselves once in a while...
And, conversely, you don't think a dying person has the right to try an experimental medication on themself and only themself because some government beaurocracy hasn't recieved enough money from the pharmaceutical company in question to make it worth their while to run trials on?
The foundation of libertarian philosophy is personal responsibility. Let people make their own choices. Do you honestly think that there would be no FDA-like entity in a libertarian world? You, even as you tout the value the FDA provides don't see a reason something like that would be created for people to be able to know what to trust and what not to? The only difference is that when such an organization becomes a worthless pile of shit that is working against the public interest rather than for it, there won't bebillions of dollars of taxpayer money to keep propping it up.
If wanting to have the freedom to make my own choices makes me a social misfit, and I think it does in this country of whiners and government ball-suckers, then so be it.
Yes, because if the state of our current leadership proves anything to us, it's that leadership abilities and "political experience" are what we need in a president.
"Political Experience" is better understood as "the ability to lie with a straight face" or, "the ability to take bribes and make it seem like you're just accepting campaign contributions". The idea of electing politicians based on their "political experience" in the US, at this moment in time, is like saying you want a prison run by a convict because they have "prison experience".
But then again, if you're not a libertarian (or advocate of another 3rd party) already you probably see nothing wrong with career politicians, taking bribes, approving spending on programs which will never do anything, and invading sovreign nations for no reason at all. That mound of garbage is what "political experience" has brought us. I say it's time to let taxpayers and citizens run the country rather than the elite and the good bullshitters.
As far as the l0pht, good for them. Being broke all the time sucks. If you can make money and still maintain a level of integrity...i.e. walk the line between the corporate world and the world where people have integrity, and keep both feet on the integrity side, then as far as I'm concerned you're doing pretty well. From what I knew @Stake was doing that (and charging some serious fees...good for them!)
The bad though is @Stake being bought by Smantec. That is *not* a good thing. As I said, @Stake seemed to have some itegrity and Symantec...well they have *some* integrity, but not as much as they probably should. I don't see why @Stake couldn't/shouldn't continue on it's own. I think there's a line where the decision is whether to cash in or to preserve the company, and I think they crossed it. @Stake seemed to be a somewhat unique company and it seems like that is going to be lost in this. I guess we'll see.
Why does everyone feel the need to go and revisit everything and tweak it and make it different? Anyone ever watched the Redux version of apocalypse now? It's not as good....it was one of the greatest movies of all time AS IS so leave it ALONE. The reasons for cutting scenes or doing things a certain way DO NOT MATTER. Are we going to start painting over Picassos because he ran out of green that day and he WOULD have made that part green if he only had the right paint? Who cares??? Art is a culmination of all the factors which go into making it. You made it, you put it out there. It's done. Leave it ALONE.
I am a Star Wars fan, but not hardcore in any sense of the word. I have never seen the 1997 redone versions, mostly because redoing that movie sounded like the most retarded thing I had ever heard of.
I didn't even know about the Cantina shootout thing until this post, but it might be one of the gayest moves a filmmaker has ever made. The thing is, it is NOT a "Star Wars Nerd" thing....it's a film thing. If what I have read here is true, that is a MAJOR change to a subtle but important incident in the movie. If people don't understand why that change makes a difference, then they don't understand the movie or the character of Han Solo. It's not about whether the movie agrees with all the times you've reenacted the scene with action figures in your bedroom, it's about a movie that was good because of the story it told and the characters it developed being hacked by a director who used to know what he was doing but has now fallen off into a pit of mediocrity.
I can't believe the other changes he made either. Fuck continuity...who CARES for chrissakes? Who would complain about the lack of coninuity? No one. Who would complain about fucking up a masterpiece? Apparently quite a few people. Isn't this movie being made for the audience to enjoy? Apparently not because now the artist is rehashing his work, to the displeasure of the fans, on some kind of ego trip that's supposed to make up for the fact that he will NEVER make a movie that good again.
What is it with people? You go out and make one of the better scifi movies ever made and then shit all over it when it's released to DVD to support continuity with movies that NO ONE thinks are as good as the originals. Dumb Dumb Dumb.
Sorry, this turned into something closely approximating nerd-rage, but it's about ART...and if it's one thing I hate to see it's artists who sell out and forget what they used to be about.
I am a reasonably good ET player...better than most I would say (and my record would show). Back when I was playing RTCW and that global stats server was up (theclq.com I think?), I was consistently in the top 100 players....not the greatest ever but not too shabby either.
The biggest difference I have found between myself and the players I am able to beat consistently is tactics. Every game has it's own tactics. You acn look at this on a grand scale: team tactics...which are AMAZINGLY important in a cooperative FPS, and on a smaller scale: individual tactics. Team tactics are important for obvious reasons...faking out the opponent, distracting them by attacking one point while someone sneaks in another way, working together, creating crossfire situations, controlling critical areas of the map, etc.
The individual tactics are important too though: people will run behind the only bush in an area if they are getting shot up...it's like that monty python skit on how not to be seen....you keep firing into the bush and they die. What someone said about making decisions plays into this: do you run away or keep firing if you're getting shot up? If you run behind a wall for a second will your opponent keep firing at nothing so you can run out and kill him when he reloads? Little things like this are what make the difference for me. Some of it is just using your head....people think there is no strategy in FPSes and that is simply not true....the strategy just has to be implemented very very quickly. The other part of this is practice though...on the Q3 engine being able to bunny hop backwards as you try to lay down covering fire if you are getting beat in a gunfight.
Knowing the maps is key too. People talk about exploits or bugs....but what is that? How do you define that? You need to know the maps implicitly and without thinking....can you bunnyhop down that hill? Where do you have to start from? Will you jump too far and damage yourself if you hit it wrong? Where are the good placed to hide? Where are the choke points on the map? Where are the good places to shoot from? Where do you want to be when the enemy does (insert game related action here)? How fast can you get places? How long will it take the enemy to get from one palce to another? The list goes on and on. These are the kinds of things most players don't think about. They would rather blame their lack of success on bugs or cheats or whatever rather than really trying to think about their tactics. The people who accuse me of cheating (I have never cheated in an online game in my entire life) are the ones who make the same dumb mistakes over and over again....the people who you kill the same way every time because you know where they are and how they will react.
The final part is definitely skill. I play trickjump maps to try and improve myself, but I am nowhere close to some people when it comes to being precise with movements. People just have amazing control with the mouse and stuff. Good aim is obviously key. The other part of it too, though, is knowing your strengths. If you can shoot distance well but aren't good at closup one on one, you provide cover fire while another teammate goes in close....stuff like that.
I know this sounds braggy, and it is, but I am humble enough to admit that there are players out there who would smoke me. Sometimes it does come down to skill BUT you can get much closer to the elite players by taking the game seriously and thinking about it. I don't mean stop having fun or be a dick, but don't just blunder around shooting whatever either. That's the thing: thinking and tactics are PART of the fun for me. I don't enjoy games where everyone just fucks around and doesn't try to play well. I have lost some of the best games I ever played: the team is practically psychicly connected and everyone is performing their role, but you just get beat. People think FPS is about point and shoot but that's only the
Not to dis Schumacher and ESPECIALLY not to dis WRC drivers, but a while ago they had a couple of stock car guys race against some of the rally drivers in rally cars on a spectator stage. The stock car guys did extremely well and, if I remember right, one of them even won. The rally drivers commented on just how skilled the stock car guys really were.
Sorry this is so nonspecific (I saw this a while ago), but the point is that the differences between pro drivers in different elite classes are not as great as you think. Sure it takes a special kind of driver to hurl a car through a blind corner in the middle of the night on a logging road that's about 2 feet wider than the car, but that doesn't mean that those drivers can automatically drive circles around one of the best F1 drivers ever. Car control is car control. There are specific demands in each class, but you can't put one class above another so easily. The skills that make a great rally driver are the same skills which make a great F1 driver.
RTCW was a great game and despite my extreme reluctance to move to it, enemry territory made some solid improvements.
People who are critisizing the game obviously never got that deep into the multiplayer. Forget the single player...who cares. The multiplayer was extremely good and allowed such a great opportunity for team based play as well as developing your individual skills....there is a lot of strategy on a group *and* individual basis in that game. Anyone who has ever played on a really great team against another really great team understands what the appeal of RTCW/ET are.
One of my favorite things is how different the aim is in that game compared to quake 3 and others. The "realistic" weapons have crippled my ability to play spacey FPSes, but that's okay....I had a lot of fun doing it. It really gives the game a different feel and different tactics to have the weapons work the way they do. The feel of the game is great and the progressive maps which ET has allowed are amazing.
I am amped that they are coming out with another one. I was actually worried that I wouldn't get to play another WWII/Cooperative/Machine Gun game once Doom III came out.
I could not possibly agree more. I honestly do not know what the authors of these Microsoft articles that are getting posted here lately are doing to their machines. It definitely sounds like a lot of these people don't know how to know their machines running well. Of course this stuff happens to novice users, but not THAT much, and it certainly shouldn't be happening to someone who feels qualified to write an article on the future of MS.
First of all, I have to point out that his suggestion that OS X is in general superior to windows is patently ridiculous. He should check out some of the *ridiculous* problems that are going on with Adobe products and that OS right now. Add to that the classic Mac problem of "it can enver have enough RAM" seems to be an ongoing thing. I have a friend who works as a designer and his productivity is seriously and significantly impacted by the fact that OS X just doesn't work all that well when you're doing more than running Office and surfing the web. You can say what you want about Windows security, you can highlight stability problems (although most of my boxes stay up for days with no errors or crashes), you can critisize all the many, many, many other flaws in Windows, but at the end of the day I can STILL fire up more applications than I could ever want to run at once on a computer with 256mb of RAM and switch between them with impressive speed and reliability. Windows works extremely well for running multiple heavy duty desktop applications at once. No other operating system with the level of ease of use that Windows provides does this. With OS X you open a couple apps and the thing is running out of memory and crashing before Windows even breaks a sweat.
He brings up a lot of good points in the article and I am not trying to say that his overall point is wrong, however I think there is another seious error in what he says. He talks about Mac and Open Source OSes ability to update quickly as a positive thing. This is probably one of the most negative aspects of open source and Mac for certain types of environments...
I work for a *LARGE* nonprofit company involved in the medical industry and more than a significant portion of my job is devoted to maintaining stability and continuity at the desktop level. When you're talking about centrally managing tens of thousands of nodes, nodes that may interact with medical devices or other critical processes, you are not looking for weekly updates or the ability to add new features on a daily basis. Now, there are serious issues with dealing with the way Microsoft updates their software too, but deploying weekly updates to 25 thousand computers or so, some of which are hooked up to medical equipment, without proper QA testing is not realistic or safe. QA testing fixes on a weekly basis is not realistic either.
I think there is an opportunity to improve upon the way that Microsoft releases patches, but to cite weekly updates as a reason why open source is better, especially when some of it's largest customers are concerned with stability and continuity, is missing the point. It's the classic IT fallacy of "newer is better", "more features are better". Remember also that I am only talking about problems with the machine itself and applications from weekly or monthly updates, I am not even going to mention the impact on non-technical users that adding new features willy-nilly would have.
Finally, I just need to tack on one more thing that is not covered in the article, but is still relevant. Microsoft provides features for centrally managing large networks that other vendors and open source are not even in the neighborhood of competing with. At work we do a fair amount to add on our own features to ease centralized management, but to take away some of the tools that Microsoft provides out of the box would simply be a disaster and make certain large networks completely unmanageable. Dealing with a few tens of thousands of Linux boxes used mostly by novice users would be a *frigging nightmare* right now and would require an obscene amount of resources....Mac is just a cruel joke in this arena....not even worth mentioning.
Again, I am not a Microsoft apologist. I run OpenBSD on my gateway at home...I love open source and I think that it does certain things 1000x better than Windows. However, I do not think that the article takes all the relevant factors and business driven situations into acccount. All these anti-
Listen, normally I'm all about trashing windows for it's security. We all know what's wrong with it, no need to go into it again.
I also agree that the amount of reinstalls required is kinda ridiculous. Windows installations on a working PC run by a computer guy to deteriorate over time. I think this could be fixed by simplifying the registry somewhat.
However, this dude is blaming windows for things he should know better than to do. You went on the internet without a firewall? Why would you do that? What, exactly, did you expect to have happen? In XP you can enable the default firewall with a few clicks, so this issue has pretty much been fixed. Is it really productive to write a whiny article about an issue that Microsoft has already addressed, when there are so many more important security issues with the OS?
The other issue is, what OS is going to be secure upon reinstall??? I mean, you can trash windows for needing frequent reinstalls, but you can't blame it for being insecure upon installation. With OpenBSD I can do an FTP install of the latest release, which requires a large download, or with windows I can install from CD and install the latest SP, which requires a large download. Either way I'm going to be online with an insecure system...unless I have a brain and run a firewall, of course. Even if you have the latest release of your OS somewhere, chances are good that you're going to have to go online to download a few patches.
As far as the registry cleaner...I downloaded one of those too. I spent 3 seconds searching USENET and found an excellent one for free the first time. Do your homework = save yourself a headache.
The amount of reinstalls is ridiculous, no denying that. Simplification of the registry would absolutely be nice. However, the registry serves a purpose. Sure there are other ways of doing it, but it's obvious from the tone of the article that the author has never supported windows in an enterprise environment. There are more than a few times where the registry system has come in handy. With the amount of crappy software vendors writing crappy software that doesnt conform to any standard, I am overwhelmingly glad to have a more or less standardized place to store configuration information. As much as I hate to say it, Microsoft also does a great job updating the registry with information about their own installed products, which makes deploying apps which depend on those products far far FAR easier.
God...I can't beleive I'm even about to say this...but the author should also check out System restore, since he's oviously not that windows saavy. As much as I hate this feature, it does seem to work reasonably well in some cases. There are more advanced tools for backing up the registry as well. Rolling back a windows system is a reality and there are more than a few novice users who I support who have saved themselves this way.
I dunno...I mean the idea that you should have to reinstall so often is valid, and the idea that Windows should be more secure by default is more than valid, but this experience just seems like a really weak case for me. The idea that someone is going to avoid right clicking rather than reinstalling or put fucking VMWARE, of all things, on a system that is trashed to the point of not being able to right click just doesn't say much to me in terms of their qualification to write a technical article. I see the point the author is trying to make, but since XP has a firewall that is insanely simple to enable, I really don't see the point of whining about this.
The other thing is that, somehow, some way, I manage to avoid the problems he is talking about. I do the same kind of fiddling and BSing around, but somehow I have never had my right mouse button stop working or have a browser stop working despite reinstalls. If you're going to mess with the computer, have your shit together, have a firewall (or the latest service pack) on CD, and stop doing whatever you did to screw t
"in the hope that perhaps Microsoft had released some sort of public beta"
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Public beta...who does he think he's kidding, exactly? Try "...I w45 w4r3z|n my 4zz 0ff wh3|\|...". I bet he's probably also running the "Public Betas" of Photoshop and Illustrator and Final Cut Pro. Oh man...that's too funny.
From experience, and from watching friends, these are the only two viable ways to solve your problem...these may seem funny, but neither of them is a joke...
1.) Find similarly socially retarded people. Plenty of these types will flourish in ultra-geek environments that are exceptionally socially accepting. He'll find a smelly unkept girl to be happy with and smelly unkempt friends to chill with.
Excellent point about the sound. I no longer play with speakers though because headphones are so much better. It's almost like cheating you can hear so much better. I wait behind walls and listen for people coming all the time...very very very good tactic if you want to be the best of the best.
Well, since this reply is complete and utter nonsense, I wouldn't suggest listeing to it. Who would mod this up? It's total nonsense. Anyone who has played a game and paid attention to their ping for more than 5 seconds can tell you this is wrong.
You're wrong buddy. The original reply was on point. There are not nearly as many glitches and all that as you think. There are also very few players using scripts of any kind. I watch people in limbo all the time and have never seen anyone use any kid of script like you say. You are just a whining noob.
People aer just very very good and practice a lot. Noobs who wine and call unfair and cheating and all that are just that: noobs.
LMAO at "dominated by people using cheats". I'm sure some people here (although not too many judging by the player base of ET) know that as the cry of frustrated noobs everywhere. Nothing is funnier than aimbot accusations...I've never even DOWNLOADED one much less actually tried one, and yet the noobs persist. I love trying to goad noobs into making the accusation after you start getting "BS" and "no way...ONE SHOT?!?!?" after every time you kill them. Aaaaahahahahahaha!
Rule 1 if you want to learn to be a good player: nobody is cheating. If you play on servers with punkbuster enabled (ET, RTCW, Q3, etc.) then the likelyhood of people actually cheating is not that high. And if they are? Don't say anything unless more experienced players do first. There is nothing that paints you as a noob not worthy of help faster than dopey accusations against people who are just plain better than you. Even if they ARE cheating...look at it as an opportunity to fight against a VERY difficult opponent. Hone your skills: I have beaten people who were later revealed to have been using aimbots before, it's a matter of identifying weaknesses and modifying your game. If they can hit you at a distance, don't let them shoot you from a distance...etc.
There are almost always some servers that will have noobs welcome or something like that in the name. Look for those. Play hard, PAY ATTENTION when in limbo, and watch others closely. RTFM for the love of god! I cannot stress how important this is. I can't tell you how many people in RTCW or ET are Soldiers with a sub machine gun when they could be a field ops, medic, or engineer...which means they get the same weapon but have other capabilities that can help the team. So read up on the features of whatever game you are playing then use those features to your advantage. Team based games like RTCW or ET can be good because you can take a "supporting" role for a while as you hone your skills. Give out tons of ammo or med packs...be HELPFUL rather than whoring for a high score...it won't work until you get better anyway.
EXPLORE THE MAPS ALONE. Find an empty server or start a server on your computer and look around the map. People are constantly bitching about not knowing the map and stuff. Just explore it on your own...run through the objectives if it's that type of game, and elarn where the hiding spots and stuff are. I don't claim to always do this with a new map, but if the map is big or hard or wierd, take a run by yourself so you can have time to look around. Where is there health, armor, or ammo....what objectives are there if it's that type of game and how do you destroy them? In ET there are some palces where you would THINK that you need dynomite, but dynomite won't even work...and other places where you have to plant the dynomite in a different spot than seems obvious. Learn the maps quirks before playing it.
PING IS IMPORTANT, but don't whine. Try to find servers where you have a low ping...usually 100 or less. Watch out for players with a 15 or 30 ping even if you're under 100. It DOES make a difference...people say that's BS, but that's because they are not good players. A couple of ms makes a difference when you are trying to shoot someone in the head from halfway across the map. I used to play RTCW on a server that I had 170 ping on every day. It's possible, but it's harder. You have to learn how much to lead people based on your ping. If there's one server, that's fine. But muscle memory is key, so playing on one server with a 20 ping, one with 100, and one with 200 regularly is going to confuse you. Some games like ET also don't react as well to a high ping as a game like RTCW. Don't whine about the conditions of the server though...just find another one. As you get better you'll come to know what you can whine aboutand what you can't.
THINKING is key to these games. I noticed recently that a LOT of people will keep shooting at you after you run behind a wall. Sure there are times when you need to keep someo
Any other time and these pathetic acts of desperation by Bush would make him unelectable. Everybody knows that these goals are completely unachievable given the nudgetary restrictions, but the dumbmasses...err...the American public is just going to lap this up like they lapped up the prescription drugs and the illegal alien amnesty. 100% bullshit, opression of minorities, and pandering to big business. We can only hope that the race is close enough that Bush will peak too early and the useless sack of shit that the dems put up there can move in.
I won't be voting for either one of them.
Film is not going the way of the dinosaur...you guys always have to take it to a level. The creative market still has a use for film, and I know plenty of people for whom digital is not yet good enough...
Slashdot Mirror
Then why are there libertarian candidates in office right now? I'll admit, it's lower offices, but you can't sit around expecting this government to reform the voting process...it works just fine for those in power. It's a catch 22...the only way through it is to work for both goals at the same time. As he says, if you keep voting for evil that's all you're going to get.
The libertarian platform includes ending the (corrupt, useless) drug war. So who cares what they are growing or not. Either way...do you honestly want to prevent the development of a major renewable source of energy simply because a couple more people might get to smoke a joint because of it? Does that *really* make sense to you?
The libertarian platform is competely thourough and possible, it's just very minimal. The reason it doesn't seem possible is because we are so used to the idea of a huge, monolithic government which permeates every single aspect of our lives that we can't possibly imagine what we might do if we had to think for ourselves once in a while...
And, conversely, you don't think a dying person has the right to try an experimental medication on themself and only themself because some government beaurocracy hasn't recieved enough money from the pharmaceutical company in question to make it worth their while to run trials on?
The foundation of libertarian philosophy is personal responsibility. Let people make their own choices. Do you honestly think that there would be no FDA-like entity in a libertarian world? You, even as you tout the value the FDA provides don't see a reason something like that would be created for people to be able to know what to trust and what not to? The only difference is that when such an organization becomes a worthless pile of shit that is working against the public interest rather than for it, there won't bebillions of dollars of taxpayer money to keep propping it up.
If wanting to have the freedom to make my own choices makes me a social misfit, and I think it does in this country of whiners and government ball-suckers, then so be it.
Yes, because if the state of our current leadership proves anything to us, it's that leadership abilities and "political experience" are what we need in a president.
"Political Experience" is better understood as "the ability to lie with a straight face" or, "the ability to take bribes and make it seem like you're just accepting campaign contributions". The idea of electing politicians based on their "political experience" in the US, at this moment in time, is like saying you want a prison run by a convict because they have "prison experience".
But then again, if you're not a libertarian (or advocate of another 3rd party) already you probably see nothing wrong with career politicians, taking bribes, approving spending on programs which will never do anything, and invading sovreign nations for no reason at all. That mound of garbage is what "political experience" has brought us. I say it's time to let taxpayers and citizens run the country rather than the elite and the good bullshitters.
As far as the l0pht, good for them. Being broke all the time sucks. If you can make money and still maintain a level of integrity...i.e. walk the line between the corporate world and the world where people have integrity, and keep both feet on the integrity side, then as far as I'm concerned you're doing pretty well. From what I knew @Stake was doing that (and charging some serious fees...good for them!)
The bad though is @Stake being bought by Smantec. That is *not* a good thing. As I said, @Stake seemed to have some itegrity and Symantec...well they have *some* integrity, but not as much as they probably should. I don't see why @Stake couldn't/shouldn't continue on it's own. I think there's a line where the decision is whether to cash in or to preserve the company, and I think they crossed it. @Stake seemed to be a somewhat unique company and it seems like that is going to be lost in this. I guess we'll see.
I am a Star Wars fan, but not hardcore in any sense of the word. I have never seen the 1997 redone versions, mostly because redoing that movie sounded like the most retarded thing I had ever heard of.
I didn't even know about the Cantina shootout thing until this post, but it might be one of the gayest moves a filmmaker has ever made. The thing is, it is NOT a "Star Wars Nerd" thing....it's a film thing. If what I have read here is true, that is a MAJOR change to a subtle but important incident in the movie. If people don't understand why that change makes a difference, then they don't understand the movie or the character of Han Solo. It's not about whether the movie agrees with all the times you've reenacted the scene with action figures in your bedroom, it's about a movie that was good because of the story it told and the characters it developed being hacked by a director who used to know what he was doing but has now fallen off into a pit of mediocrity.
I can't believe the other changes he made either. Fuck continuity...who CARES for chrissakes? Who would complain about the lack of coninuity? No one. Who would complain about fucking up a masterpiece? Apparently quite a few people. Isn't this movie being made for the audience to enjoy? Apparently not because now the artist is rehashing his work, to the displeasure of the fans, on some kind of ego trip that's supposed to make up for the fact that he will NEVER make a movie that good again.
What is it with people? You go out and make one of the better scifi movies ever made and then shit all over it when it's released to DVD to support continuity with movies that NO ONE thinks are as good as the originals. Dumb Dumb Dumb.
Sorry, this turned into something closely approximating nerd-rage, but it's about ART...and if it's one thing I hate to see it's artists who sell out and forget what they used to be about.
I can only speak from my own experience...
I am a reasonably good ET player...better than most I would say (and my record would show). Back when I was playing RTCW and that global stats server was up (theclq.com I think?), I was consistently in the top 100 players....not the greatest ever but not too shabby either.
The biggest difference I have found between myself and the players I am able to beat consistently is tactics. Every game has it's own tactics. You acn look at this on a grand scale: team tactics...which are AMAZINGLY important in a cooperative FPS, and on a smaller scale: individual tactics. Team tactics are important for obvious reasons...faking out the opponent, distracting them by attacking one point while someone sneaks in another way, working together, creating crossfire situations, controlling critical areas of the map, etc.
The individual tactics are important too though: people will run behind the only bush in an area if they are getting shot up...it's like that monty python skit on how not to be seen....you keep firing into the bush and they die. What someone said about making decisions plays into this: do you run away or keep firing if you're getting shot up? If you run behind a wall for a second will your opponent keep firing at nothing so you can run out and kill him when he reloads? Little things like this are what make the difference for me. Some of it is just using your head....people think there is no strategy in FPSes and that is simply not true....the strategy just has to be implemented very very quickly. The other part of this is practice though...on the Q3 engine being able to bunny hop backwards as you try to lay down covering fire if you are getting beat in a gunfight.
Knowing the maps is key too. People talk about exploits or bugs....but what is that? How do you define that? You need to know the maps implicitly and without thinking....can you bunnyhop down that hill? Where do you have to start from? Will you jump too far and damage yourself if you hit it wrong? Where are the good placed to hide? Where are the choke points on the map? Where are the good places to shoot from? Where do you want to be when the enemy does (insert game related action here)? How fast can you get places? How long will it take the enemy to get from one palce to another? The list goes on and on. These are the kinds of things most players don't think about. They would rather blame their lack of success on bugs or cheats or whatever rather than really trying to think about their tactics. The people who accuse me of cheating (I have never cheated in an online game in my entire life) are the ones who make the same dumb mistakes over and over again....the people who you kill the same way every time because you know where they are and how they will react.
The final part is definitely skill. I play trickjump maps to try and improve myself, but I am nowhere close to some people when it comes to being precise with movements. People just have amazing control with the mouse and stuff. Good aim is obviously key. The other part of it too, though, is knowing your strengths. If you can shoot distance well but aren't good at closup one on one, you provide cover fire while another teammate goes in close....stuff like that.
I know this sounds braggy, and it is, but I am humble enough to admit that there are players out there who would smoke me. Sometimes it does come down to skill BUT you can get much closer to the elite players by taking the game seriously and thinking about it. I don't mean stop having fun or be a dick, but don't just blunder around shooting whatever either. That's the thing: thinking and tactics are PART of the fun for me. I don't enjoy games where everyone just fucks around and doesn't try to play well. I have lost some of the best games I ever played: the team is practically psychicly connected and everyone is performing their role, but you just get beat. People think FPS is about point and shoot but that's only the
Not to dis Schumacher and ESPECIALLY not to dis WRC drivers, but a while ago they had a couple of stock car guys race against some of the rally drivers in rally cars on a spectator stage. The stock car guys did extremely well and, if I remember right, one of them even won. The rally drivers commented on just how skilled the stock car guys really were.
Sorry this is so nonspecific (I saw this a while ago), but the point is that the differences between pro drivers in different elite classes are not as great as you think. Sure it takes a special kind of driver to hurl a car through a blind corner in the middle of the night on a logging road that's about 2 feet wider than the car, but that doesn't mean that those drivers can automatically drive circles around one of the best F1 drivers ever. Car control is car control. There are specific demands in each class, but you can't put one class above another so easily. The skills that make a great rally driver are the same skills which make a great F1 driver.
RTCW was a great game and despite my extreme reluctance to move to it, enemry territory made some solid improvements.
People who are critisizing the game obviously never got that deep into the multiplayer. Forget the single player...who cares. The multiplayer was extremely good and allowed such a great opportunity for team based play as well as developing your individual skills....there is a lot of strategy on a group *and* individual basis in that game. Anyone who has ever played on a really great team against another really great team understands what the appeal of RTCW/ET are.
One of my favorite things is how different the aim is in that game compared to quake 3 and others. The "realistic" weapons have crippled my ability to play spacey FPSes, but that's okay....I had a lot of fun doing it. It really gives the game a different feel and different tactics to have the weapons work the way they do. The feel of the game is great and the progressive maps which ET has allowed are amazing.
I am amped that they are coming out with another one. I was actually worried that I wouldn't get to play another WWII/Cooperative/Machine Gun game once Doom III came out.
I could not possibly agree more. I honestly do not know what the authors of these Microsoft articles that are getting posted here lately are doing to their machines. It definitely sounds like a lot of these people don't know how to know their machines running well. Of course this stuff happens to novice users, but not THAT much, and it certainly shouldn't be happening to someone who feels qualified to write an article on the future of MS.
First of all, I have to point out that his suggestion that OS X is in general superior to windows is patently ridiculous. He should check out some of the *ridiculous* problems that are going on with Adobe products and that OS right now. Add to that the classic Mac problem of "it can enver have enough RAM" seems to be an ongoing thing. I have a friend who works as a designer and his productivity is seriously and significantly impacted by the fact that OS X just doesn't work all that well when you're doing more than running Office and surfing the web. You can say what you want about Windows security, you can highlight stability problems (although most of my boxes stay up for days with no errors or crashes), you can critisize all the many, many, many other flaws in Windows, but at the end of the day I can STILL fire up more applications than I could ever want to run at once on a computer with 256mb of RAM and switch between them with impressive speed and reliability. Windows works extremely well for running multiple heavy duty desktop applications at once. No other operating system with the level of ease of use that Windows provides does this. With OS X you open a couple apps and the thing is running out of memory and crashing before Windows even breaks a sweat.
He brings up a lot of good points in the article and I am not trying to say that his overall point is wrong, however I think there is another seious error in what he says. He talks about Mac and Open Source OSes ability to update quickly as a positive thing. This is probably one of the most negative aspects of open source and Mac for certain types of environments...
I work for a *LARGE* nonprofit company involved in the medical industry and more than a significant portion of my job is devoted to maintaining stability and continuity at the desktop level. When you're talking about centrally managing tens of thousands of nodes, nodes that may interact with medical devices or other critical processes, you are not looking for weekly updates or the ability to add new features on a daily basis. Now, there are serious issues with dealing with the way Microsoft updates their software too, but deploying weekly updates to 25 thousand computers or so, some of which are hooked up to medical equipment, without proper QA testing is not realistic or safe. QA testing fixes on a weekly basis is not realistic either.
I think there is an opportunity to improve upon the way that Microsoft releases patches, but to cite weekly updates as a reason why open source is better, especially when some of it's largest customers are concerned with stability and continuity, is missing the point. It's the classic IT fallacy of "newer is better", "more features are better". Remember also that I am only talking about problems with the machine itself and applications from weekly or monthly updates, I am not even going to mention the impact on non-technical users that adding new features willy-nilly would have.
Finally, I just need to tack on one more thing that is not covered in the article, but is still relevant. Microsoft provides features for centrally managing large networks that other vendors and open source are not even in the neighborhood of competing with. At work we do a fair amount to add on our own features to ease centralized management, but to take away some of the tools that Microsoft provides out of the box would simply be a disaster and make certain large networks completely unmanageable. Dealing with a few tens of thousands of Linux boxes used mostly by novice users would be a *frigging nightmare* right now and would require an obscene amount of resources....Mac is just a cruel joke in this arena....not even worth mentioning.
Again, I am not a Microsoft apologist. I run OpenBSD on my gateway at home...I love open source and I think that it does certain things 1000x better than Windows. However, I do not think that the article takes all the relevant factors and business driven situations into acccount. All these anti-
"And if you're on a wireless LAN?" Then you should be running a router that runs a firewall anyway.
Listen, normally I'm all about trashing windows for it's security. We all know what's wrong with it, no need to go into it again.
I also agree that the amount of reinstalls required is kinda ridiculous. Windows installations on a working PC run by a computer guy to deteriorate over time. I think this could be fixed by simplifying the registry somewhat.
However, this dude is blaming windows for things he should know better than to do. You went on the internet without a firewall? Why would you do that? What, exactly, did you expect to have happen? In XP you can enable the default firewall with a few clicks, so this issue has pretty much been fixed. Is it really productive to write a whiny article about an issue that Microsoft has already addressed, when there are so many more important security issues with the OS?
The other issue is, what OS is going to be secure upon reinstall??? I mean, you can trash windows for needing frequent reinstalls, but you can't blame it for being insecure upon installation. With OpenBSD I can do an FTP install of the latest release, which requires a large download, or with windows I can install from CD and install the latest SP, which requires a large download. Either way I'm going to be online with an insecure system...unless I have a brain and run a firewall, of course. Even if you have the latest release of your OS somewhere, chances are good that you're going to have to go online to download a few patches.
As far as the registry cleaner...I downloaded one of those too. I spent 3 seconds searching USENET and found an excellent one for free the first time. Do your homework = save yourself a headache.
The amount of reinstalls is ridiculous, no denying that. Simplification of the registry would absolutely be nice. However, the registry serves a purpose. Sure there are other ways of doing it, but it's obvious from the tone of the article that the author has never supported windows in an enterprise environment. There are more than a few times where the registry system has come in handy. With the amount of crappy software vendors writing crappy software that doesnt conform to any standard, I am overwhelmingly glad to have a more or less standardized place to store configuration information. As much as I hate to say it, Microsoft also does a great job updating the registry with information about their own installed products, which makes deploying apps which depend on those products far far FAR easier.
God...I can't beleive I'm even about to say this...but the author should also check out System restore, since he's oviously not that windows saavy. As much as I hate this feature, it does seem to work reasonably well in some cases. There are more advanced tools for backing up the registry as well. Rolling back a windows system is a reality and there are more than a few novice users who I support who have saved themselves this way.
I dunno...I mean the idea that you should have to reinstall so often is valid, and the idea that Windows should be more secure by default is more than valid, but this experience just seems like a really weak case for me. The idea that someone is going to avoid right clicking rather than reinstalling or put fucking VMWARE, of all things, on a system that is trashed to the point of not being able to right click just doesn't say much to me in terms of their qualification to write a technical article. I see the point the author is trying to make, but since XP has a firewall that is insanely simple to enable, I really don't see the point of whining about this.
The other thing is that, somehow, some way, I manage to avoid the problems he is talking about. I do the same kind of fiddling and BSing around, but somehow I have never had my right mouse button stop working or have a browser stop working despite reinstalls. If you're going to mess with the computer, have your shit together, have a firewall (or the latest service pack) on CD, and stop doing whatever you did to screw t
"in the hope that perhaps Microsoft had released some sort of public beta"
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Public beta...who does he think he's kidding, exactly? Try "...I w45 w4r3z|n my 4zz 0ff wh3|\|...". I bet he's probably also running the "Public Betas" of Photoshop and Illustrator and Final Cut Pro. Oh man...that's too funny.
Oh. My. God. Haha
1.) Find similarly socially retarded people. Plenty of these types will flourish in ultra-geek environments that are exceptionally socially accepting. He'll find a smelly unkept girl to be happy with and smelly unkempt friends to chill with.
2.) Liquor and weed.
Like I said...not joking...dead serious.
Excellent point about the sound. I no longer play with speakers though because headphones are so much better. It's almost like cheating you can hear so much better. I wait behind walls and listen for people coming all the time...very very very good tactic if you want to be the best of the best.
LOL especially at needle nose your monitor at work...
Well, since this reply is complete and utter nonsense, I wouldn't suggest listeing to it. Who would mod this up? It's total nonsense. Anyone who has played a game and paid attention to their ping for more than 5 seconds can tell you this is wrong.
You're wrong buddy. The original reply was on point. There are not nearly as many glitches and all that as you think. There are also very few players using scripts of any kind. I watch people in limbo all the time and have never seen anyone use any kid of script like you say. You are just a whining noob. People aer just very very good and practice a lot. Noobs who wine and call unfair and cheating and all that are just that: noobs.
Rule 1 if you want to learn to be a good player: nobody is cheating. If you play on servers with punkbuster enabled (ET, RTCW, Q3, etc.) then the likelyhood of people actually cheating is not that high. And if they are? Don't say anything unless more experienced players do first. There is nothing that paints you as a noob not worthy of help faster than dopey accusations against people who are just plain better than you. Even if they ARE cheating...look at it as an opportunity to fight against a VERY difficult opponent. Hone your skills: I have beaten people who were later revealed to have been using aimbots before, it's a matter of identifying weaknesses and modifying your game. If they can hit you at a distance, don't let them shoot you from a distance...etc.
There are almost always some servers that will have noobs welcome or something like that in the name. Look for those. Play hard, PAY ATTENTION when in limbo, and watch others closely. RTFM for the love of god! I cannot stress how important this is. I can't tell you how many people in RTCW or ET are Soldiers with a sub machine gun when they could be a field ops, medic, or engineer...which means they get the same weapon but have other capabilities that can help the team. So read up on the features of whatever game you are playing then use those features to your advantage. Team based games like RTCW or ET can be good because you can take a "supporting" role for a while as you hone your skills. Give out tons of ammo or med packs...be HELPFUL rather than whoring for a high score...it won't work until you get better anyway.
EXPLORE THE MAPS ALONE. Find an empty server or start a server on your computer and look around the map. People are constantly bitching about not knowing the map and stuff. Just explore it on your own...run through the objectives if it's that type of game, and elarn where the hiding spots and stuff are. I don't claim to always do this with a new map, but if the map is big or hard or wierd, take a run by yourself so you can have time to look around. Where is there health, armor, or ammo....what objectives are there if it's that type of game and how do you destroy them? In ET there are some palces where you would THINK that you need dynomite, but dynomite won't even work...and other places where you have to plant the dynomite in a different spot than seems obvious. Learn the maps quirks before playing it.
PING IS IMPORTANT, but don't whine. Try to find servers where you have a low ping...usually 100 or less. Watch out for players with a 15 or 30 ping even if you're under 100. It DOES make a difference...people say that's BS, but that's because they are not good players. A couple of ms makes a difference when you are trying to shoot someone in the head from halfway across the map. I used to play RTCW on a server that I had 170 ping on every day. It's possible, but it's harder. You have to learn how much to lead people based on your ping. If there's one server, that's fine. But muscle memory is key, so playing on one server with a 20 ping, one with 100, and one with 200 regularly is going to confuse you. Some games like ET also don't react as well to a high ping as a game like RTCW. Don't whine about the conditions of the server though...just find another one. As you get better you'll come to know what you can whine aboutand what you can't.
THINKING is key to these games. I noticed recently that a LOT of people will keep shooting at you after you run behind a wall. Sure there are times when you need to keep someo
budgetary...okay...budgetary. F-the preview button!
Any other time and these pathetic acts of desperation by Bush would make him unelectable. Everybody knows that these goals are completely unachievable given the nudgetary restrictions, but the dumbmasses...err...the American public is just going to lap this up like they lapped up the prescription drugs and the illegal alien amnesty. 100% bullshit, opression of minorities, and pandering to big business. We can only hope that the race is close enough that Bush will peak too early and the useless sack of shit that the dems put up there can move in. I won't be voting for either one of them.
Film is not going the way of the dinosaur...you guys always have to take it to a level. The creative market still has a use for film, and I know plenty of people for whom digital is not yet good enough...
That's not a troll, that's just goooood drunken posting!