Actually, it certainly DOES mean he doesn't like it, and his refusal to accede to the labels forced their hand on the issue. Why else would he have constantly refused to license FairPlay, which would have at least brought Apple in money and put them in the same boat they are now? (In respect to "other people being able to sell music that will work on iPods, but be willing to give the labels more influence on pricing.") By having their own gameplan and not yielding to the label's pressure, they forced their hand.
As well, not only did Jobs pay DRM-free music lip service, but they became the first to sell the music from a major label, and even worked with them (one supposes) to normalize the price, too.
No "concession" was made here; Apple was the driving force. If they decided to openly license FairPlay, wouldn't the labels have jumped at the chance, and probably been willing to give Apple much more competitive pricing to do so?
Beeeeecaaauuuse... it existed for more than two years as a music player and easy digital music library converter before the storefront came about--and any DRM considerations to be allowed to sell any music through it at all? Because it also became a truly easy way to manage radio streaming and podcasts and a host of other free content through the same interface that you enjoy the rest of your music?
Both horrible software AND people, no doubt! It's the essence of that thing they were forced to deal with until they did it so well that they forced the labels to stop!
Excepting, of course, the robust OS, the user interface, the clean entire package, the quick and seamless merging of multimedia and communications services, the stability, the partnership with cell providers rather than slavery to...
Actually, it took Apple taking the reins first before the labels knew what was what, and developing a healthy service to go with their massively popular devices to be a threat to them, thereby forcing their hands.
Without that, do we honestly think the labels would have dropped their ever-wanting-more-draconian DRM stance?
Perhaps you can point out just how the iPod/iTunes is a monopoly, how Apple has acted like a monopolist, how they have exerted their influence against others in illegal fashion, how they've built up a strictly anti-competitive environment to protect their own interests...? I'm thinking you'll probably fall short; most especially of the comparative qualities you can check off on Microsoft's side.
And right there you've identified why they "think [you] watch television on [your] computer". They do not, in fact, believe that everyone watches TV on their computers. They just know that most people won't buy a $300-$400 box just to receive TV shows from a single service when they can generally get the same TV shows on cable/broadcast.
Haven't they been worredly obsessing over TiVo and other DVR's for years, which cost upwards of that much, along with a monthly service fee, "just to record shows using a single service while they ARE getting the same TV shows on cable/broadcast?" It's part of the same process; changing the way people watch TV. iTunes and media extender boxes are just working in a different way towards a similar objective, and if they thought about it... has a much more generous revenue stream towards the television producers.
BTW, I wonder if along with Zucker's bitching about money, he forgot to factor in pretty much ALL revenue The Office makes him, which was effectively saved and given a resurgence due to iTunes interest. And the splashover effect it had on Earl and other shows, and Heroes and BSG being there and available to the right kind of audience... I'm sure he must have, right?
Yes, but see... it evolved PAST that stage, so it's hard to see why it should regress.;)
I don't mind if folks want to monetize things--even on the PC end--but paying for "online play" access at ALL? Puh-lease. Gamescore is pointless (and before anyone bitches, whatever will hit PSN's Home will be equally pointless, as is any other multi-game "rating" system), and after experiencing automatic online chat on PC more and more, I've come to realize I don't really WANT it except when you already know everyone and are working together. (And it's not like TS and Vent haven't been around for ages.) All you really need is reasonably robust friend-matching and message-sending.
If Microsoft wanted to charge for a whole passle of cool, extra features, I'd have no real issue, but since you need Gold membership "to play online at all..." Fuck it. (Meanwhile, it will bemuse me how many people compare the 360 so favorably to the cost of a gaming PC or a PS3, and completely ignore the fact that they'll be spending a good $250 more over the console's lifespan to do one of the main things they know ahead of time they want to do.)
While "inspired by," it seems to be in a very stylized sense, and pull a bit of the timeframe and lines and clothing... rather than the overall art style. I would not, for instance, match The Incredibles to him. You could more easily say that TF2 morphed the art direction of The Incredibles WITH Leyendecker.
I don't know why the "Games for Windows" label would make anyone associate it with "Vista-only." It's simply the label EVERY new PC game carriers (excepting the few cross-platform card- and puzzle-type games, I suppose). The only "Vista or bust!" games were Microsoft-published ones that they were using to encourage a few more people to make the switch now. (Just Halo 2 and Shadowrun, I believe. Yay-rah.)
DX10 is the more compelling reason to switch, but I'm hoping to see some of the devs make good on their "bringing DX10 features to people with DX10 hardware even on XP," as some promised. I'd like to get the extra features/performance out of my video card without taking the almost-universal performance hit that still seems to be the case for moving to Vista now.
Software stores have almost completely given up on PC games. Gamestop is a good example of this. What used to be a PC store has turned into 2 wire racks of PC games.
Not really. Compare the "PC games" section to any other individual console, excluding the used games (since you can't have that for PC), and you'll actually notice it of respectable size--especially since the games are packed in tighter. PC gamers tend to know what they want and don't need flashy "wall advertising," and don't have a used section they want to draw your eyes to, so they can sit in a compact area. They also don't have peripheral sections, which makes the console sections mentally larger, but doesn't actually mean anything for game sales. This doesn't mean they've "given up on PC games" any more than you can say they've "given up" on XXX-individual-console-of-equivalent-size.
Heck, if you want to compare area and concentration, you can say they "don't care as much about selling new games" (completely untrue) because they've devoted a lot of space to used game trading (being the only real store brokers), DVD and other media sales, and assorted merchandising. They just figured out more ways to organize the store to take the biggest advantage of the space they have, and draw your eyes to what they want you to see.
Regardless, the "Games for Windows" push is as pointless as nVidia's or ATi's "way it's meant to be/played best" marketing silliness; pointless labels that mean effectively nothing. MS could push Live if they wanted to offer a good service and real 360 connectivity, but they really don't (same reason they don't want kb/m usage on the 360 even now); they just hope to catch a few people unawares and trickle in a bit more revenue. Live for Windows isn't a "service..." it's a completely mismanaged joke.
PC Gamers will always be PC gamers, and they've--in fact--gotten a lot larger over the years. (You can't have umpteen million people playing WoW without market expansion.) MMO's pull in sizable revenue that doesn't get tracked, either, so it's not an "abandonment" of the platform, but an evolutionary change of the market. Microsoft, however, doesn't need to do anything to maintain or foster it... they are simply the default. 97% of people use Windows PC's, so when you game on your PC's... you're basically using Windows, DirectX lock-ins or not.
But Team Fortress 2 this is not. It's Team Fortress 1.3.
But the thing is... this is actually good. What other game has delivered the type of gameplay of Team Fortress SINCE TFC? I have never found a replacement game that fit the mold. Certainly I loved seeing games develop out of that kind of class-based, teamwork gameplay--from Tribes to 2142--but there hasn't been another game that's delivered Team Fortress.
Frankly, polishing things up and removing the exploits was all they NEEDED to do. But in this case we also have more modes, more maps, and tight, polished gameplay. Hopefully that will continue and we'll just get... well... more. They have room to experiment later on, too. But for now, I'm just glad that I can come home. ^_^
With the scout's double jump mid air switch direction maneuver there isn't any splash.. the scout is also so fast they can run right past the slow missle from a rocket.. the demo doesn't even have a chance since you have to hit them dead on with a nade, gl with that... the only choice for a soldier is aiming at his own feet thus taking a lot of splash himself, or stickies for a demo.
Soldier can splash the floor, wall, ceiling... Just a bit of predictive trajectory and you'll usually take the scout out in one if he's close enough to do real damage to you. And yes, you'll take some damage yourself, but then the scout will be dead, and you'll be free to walk to a resupply point.;) Demos have a much harder time of it, of course, but they still have enough health to walk back to a defended area most of the time (since turrets tear scouts to shreds unless they are given 10-20 seconds of not being attacked to try hitting them from a tight vantage), and the closer a scout gets the easier it is TO get a straight hit and pop them in one. (Even if you have to get a bit lucky.) And let's not forget if you have a demo who's paying attention, if he gives himself enough space, he can switch off to his sticky bomb and create areas the scout CANNOT approach him from. Not to mention even their more meager splash damage does real damage to a scout.;-)
Usually, it comes down to who's the better player. I've seen some dizzying scouts, but I see plenty of adept players who can respond. Giving scouts a meager point-firing weapon essentially turns them as useless as they were previously in comparison to other classes. They'd have to ditch most of their maneuverability to get ANY range damage on. Hell, I think most of them would just go perma-bat at that point. Heh...
they aren't "too" strong is my point.. their sticky bombs are fine.. it takes 2 to kill a scout, 3 to kill a medic, 4 to kill a pyro and 5+to kill a heavy, but you can group up to 8 so no biggie, if you hit someone with a nade while it is in the air it is like a rocket blast/splash.. but if it is on the ground and goes off it is really nerfed.. hardly any splash or damage.. i've seen snipers stand next to 3 nades going off at their feet and live.. wtf?
Perhaps they need a bit more centerpoint damage so if you're close enough anyway they'll be forced to MOVE at the very least, but overall demos are very strong. Giving them notably more splash damage basically rewards careless mortar fire into areas where they're just trying to do ANYTHING risk-free, makes them always be a huge distraction, and lets them rout positions too easily. They become more of an ultimate OFFENDER at that point, which is not supposed to be the concept. Too strong and versatile; you would just have a few people guarding the demos, who would then just learn the trajectories that would let them rout almost any well-defended position with ease, as they no longer have to be accurate... just get close enough to splash away.
...and if you mean just give them a 10-20 damage buff, you're not talking much anyway, so it would hardly matter. It sounds more like you're saying they should get full "direct hit" damage at the center of impact, though, and scale down to half damage at the very edge.
It's an adjustable thing, but I think they fit the role better right now the way it is, and would start to morph out of it the more you add to their primary fire in all forms without taking away anything else. The grenades could stand to jostle people a bit more, though, so there's at least more effect from sucking up part of the blast, if not more perminant damage. A bit of the old conc-swaying coming back might be fun.;-)
Well i only meant another couple of seconds (you can't ap as uber anyway), esp with the slowness of the heavies while firing, right now everyone hides for 5 seconds and it's over.
Yeah, me too... I liked the cool factor of those handset-cradles, though! Where is it, where is it...? Ah, here it is!
Hell of an upgrade when I went to the Avatex 2400 (could only find the 1200 BAUD model of this design in a good pic), though. I just about wet myself at how FAST the BBSes flew by!
http://brockerhoff.net/bb/viewtopic.php?p=2191#2191
Both on the technical front (as to why the 1.1.1 update might be messing things up for the unlockers), and the legal front. Mostly technical, which is what makes it more interesting. ^_^ The legal stuff has been bandied about enough already.
I don't really see where an unrestricted amount of enhancing and modifications is allowable before there would be any warranty nullification. It seems to me that if computer OEM's can put a "warranty void of broken" sticker on your case--which they've been doing since practically forever--and have that be completely legal, then issues arising specifically from official patches to unofficially-modified firmware would qualify as well. It seems like this falls loosely under Apple's "accidental" clause to their warranty agreement, and while it may be arguable in a court of law, it does not on its face appear to be notably spurious or completely wrong/illegal. This is not a matter that really goes to their quality or workmanship, but a technical software matter that arose from unofficial modifications.
It seems like that kind of repair would fall closer to the "service contract" end that Magnuson-Moss mentions, but does not cover.
As in people who just had technical issues with the update and ended up with the iBrick? Yes, unfortunately--as I said--there will be some innocents caught in the crossfire. It is not policy or any stated agenda to do so, however, and I'm not sure how widespread the issue is. Chances are they'll eventually be taken care of (and even the SIM-unlocking iBricks will be recoverable, too), but there's fallout to be expected, and if--as I rather expect--the number of people who had this result accidentally are in the vast minority of people who had this result FROM a SIM-unlock and just say they didn't... It's wrong of Apple to turn people away, but I think this is going to more come down to experiences with individual employees than corporate policy.
For the rest of the software-adding community, to my knowledge they haven't been bricked (at least no more than anyone who made no system adjustments), but rather lose their programs from system data overwriting (but not the data itself), and can recover themselves quite quickly. (They may just have to wait a little before all the added functionality from the patches are also properly hacked to operate with their older alterations.)
Lots of issues, however, can crop up from using unregistered and unsupported software, especially if you're replacing chunks of the system software. (As you are to do any SIM-unlock I know of.) They're under no obligation to service your machine if it's not using their supported firmware, so you first have to change it back.
I agree (and mentioned in another post) that there are some hardware-only services that would be wrong of them to refuse out of hand (like case malformations, screen popping out, etc.) since there's no way any firmware would be causing the problem, but I don't know of any of those cases, and chances are they would be few and far between. (And possibly the service refusal could be the result of an overzealous employee rather than company policy.) Other issues which COULD still be hardware-related, like screen errors or speaker issues, could ALSO be coming from firmware alterations and other possible software bugs, so they're within their rights to refuse service until your phone is in their default approved state. (And while it'd be trivial for them to make the change, it would also be a tacit approval of SIM-unlocking, which would get back to their exclusivity partners and cause bad blood.)
Basically, though, if you're knowledgeable enough to modify your unit to unlock it, you should also know to restore it to factory defaults before getting it serviced at any authorized dealer.
They'll likely be rolled in eventually (at least the large, valid apps), but Apple's iPhone strategy has been to aim from the opposite end of the typical smartphone business professional, and instead create general consumer interest, as it's a much larger market. If that pays off, future updates will roll up everyone else (excepting those who refuse to leave their physical keyboards); they're just not getting the initial nod.
Still an anomaly in a world where "computer" basically means "Windows," and "Mac" amounts to "why the hell would you get that?" or "won't I be unable to see my pictures?" and similarly misguided fears, with image improvements only in the last couple years.
2 shots from a scout's gun should kill a 175hp demo or 200 hp soldier..
Come now, "two shots can kill a demo or soldier" if you're getting a point-blank ambush on them; preferably shooting them up the backside of their head. It can't do nearly that damage if they're at any real engagement distance or in the middle of doing speedy maneuvers to try to not also get killed in one shot. (And the soldier's splash damage at that range can usually take them out.) This is about the only thing that turns scouts fun and USEFUL, as they trivialized before.
Demos, meanwhile, are pretty strong, and keeping their splash damage under control is a way of keeping them from getting TOO strong and having their blind-fire/indirect-fire be too weighted. Why give them huge damage in each and every circumstance they could possibly be hitting with? Rewarding "lucky tags" also just seems like a bad idea, which is what shooting down stairwells and around corners and across boards into hallways indirectly really would be with their splash damage.
Ubercharge could last longer, but I've seen it used amazingly well as it is, and it seems like one of those abilities that could easily get overbalanced and over-depended. For right now, I think it's pretty good, but it's also easy to tweak, so we'll see where it goes after a few months of EVERYONE playing.
The game seems to be pretty damn solid right now, but we'll see what happens after it's really put through the paces.
Slower tends to make things more tactical. And grenade-spamming (and the stupid-as-shit concs) were what drove me away from Team Fortress to begin with.
TF2 is glorious. (Though at some point it will no doubt lose its' luster. But it's going strong for now.)
Wild Arms was indeed pre-FFVII, and the first RPG I got on the PS1, purchased in advance pretty much FOR FFVII, but obtained enough in advance to play Wild Arms first. But Wild Arms, while good, certainly wasn't a system mover. (Xenogears came well after FFVII.)
Vandal Hearts also came before VII, but was more of a tactical RPG, so really the only other "classic JRPG" of consequence to hit the PS1 before VII was Suikoden.
It would definitely be wrong of them to assume anyone with "brick-like issues" right now got it as a result of unofficial system modifications, but I'm not sure how widespread "automatic refusal without even looking at it" is. But it's undenyable that even ONE story that hits the web would make the rounds.
I'm pretty sure, however, that they can tell who's modified their system for various unlocking purposes pretty easily, at which point they are within their rights to refuse warranty service. I'd rather they have more of a "restore your system to factory defaults automatically and go from there," but the first occurrence of a "wink-and-nod" service of a knowingly SIM-unlocked system as part of their store's customer service would ALSO make these same blog rounds... and rather irk their exclusive partners.
So while there will be some innocents caught in the crossfire, we all know what their "official stance" has to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it certainly DOES mean he doesn't like it, and his refusal to accede to the labels forced their hand on the issue. Why else would he have constantly refused to license FairPlay, which would have at least brought Apple in money and put them in the same boat they are now? (In respect to "other people being able to sell music that will work on iPods, but be willing to give the labels more influence on pricing.") By having their own gameplan and not yielding to the label's pressure, they forced their hand.
As well, not only did Jobs pay DRM-free music lip service, but they became the first to sell the music from a major label, and even worked with them (one supposes) to normalize the price, too.
No "concession" was made here; Apple was the driving force. If they decided to openly license FairPlay, wouldn't the labels have jumped at the chance, and probably been willing to give Apple much more competitive pricing to do so?
Beeeeecaaauuuse... it existed for more than two years as a music player and easy digital music library converter before the storefront came about--and any DRM considerations to be allowed to sell any music through it at all? Because it also became a truly easy way to manage radio streaming and podcasts and a host of other free content through the same interface that you enjoy the rest of your music?
Both horrible software AND people, no doubt! It's the essence of that thing they were forced to deal with until they did it so well that they forced the labels to stop!
Excepting, of course, the robust OS, the user interface, the clean entire package, the quick and seamless merging of multimedia and communications services, the stability, the partnership with cell providers rather than slavery to...
Actually, it took Apple taking the reins first before the labels knew what was what, and developing a healthy service to go with their massively popular devices to be a threat to them, thereby forcing their hands.
Without that, do we honestly think the labels would have dropped their ever-wanting-more-draconian DRM stance?
Chii...
Perhaps you can point out just how the iPod/iTunes is a monopoly, how Apple has acted like a monopolist, how they have exerted their influence against others in illegal fashion, how they've built up a strictly anti-competitive environment to protect their own interests...? I'm thinking you'll probably fall short; most especially of the comparative qualities you can check off on Microsoft's side.
"No different," my protruded, festering anus.
And right there you've identified why they "think [you] watch television on [your] computer". They do not, in fact, believe that everyone watches TV on their computers. They just know that most people won't buy a $300-$400 box just to receive TV shows from a single service when they can generally get the same TV shows on cable/broadcast.
Haven't they been worredly obsessing over TiVo and other DVR's for years, which cost upwards of that much, along with a monthly service fee, "just to record shows using a single service while they ARE getting the same TV shows on cable/broadcast?" It's part of the same process; changing the way people watch TV. iTunes and media extender boxes are just working in a different way towards a similar objective, and if they thought about it... has a much more generous revenue stream towards the television producers.
BTW, I wonder if along with Zucker's bitching about money, he forgot to factor in pretty much ALL revenue The Office makes him, which was effectively saved and given a resurgence due to iTunes interest. And the splashover effect it had on Earl and other shows, and Heroes and BSG being there and available to the right kind of audience... I'm sure he must have, right?
Yes, but see... it evolved PAST that stage, so it's hard to see why it should regress. ;)
I don't mind if folks want to monetize things--even on the PC end--but paying for "online play" access at ALL? Puh-lease. Gamescore is pointless (and before anyone bitches, whatever will hit PSN's Home will be equally pointless, as is any other multi-game "rating" system), and after experiencing automatic online chat on PC more and more, I've come to realize I don't really WANT it except when you already know everyone and are working together. (And it's not like TS and Vent haven't been around for ages.) All you really need is reasonably robust friend-matching and message-sending.
If Microsoft wanted to charge for a whole passle of cool, extra features, I'd have no real issue, but since you need Gold membership "to play online at all..." Fuck it. (Meanwhile, it will bemuse me how many people compare the 360 so favorably to the cost of a gaming PC or a PS3, and completely ignore the fact that they'll be spending a good $250 more over the console's lifespan to do one of the main things they know ahead of time they want to do.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Leyendecker
http://images.google.com/images?q=leyendecker
While "inspired by," it seems to be in a very stylized sense, and pull a bit of the timeframe and lines and clothing... rather than the overall art style. I would not, for instance, match The Incredibles to him. You could more easily say that TF2 morphed the art direction of The Incredibles WITH Leyendecker.
I don't know why the "Games for Windows" label would make anyone associate it with "Vista-only." It's simply the label EVERY new PC game carriers (excepting the few cross-platform card- and puzzle-type games, I suppose). The only "Vista or bust!" games were Microsoft-published ones that they were using to encourage a few more people to make the switch now. (Just Halo 2 and Shadowrun, I believe. Yay-rah.)
DX10 is the more compelling reason to switch, but I'm hoping to see some of the devs make good on their "bringing DX10 features to people with DX10 hardware even on XP," as some promised. I'd like to get the extra features/performance out of my video card without taking the almost-universal performance hit that still seems to be the case for moving to Vista now.
Software stores have almost completely given up on PC games. Gamestop is a good example of this. What used to be a PC store has turned into 2 wire racks of PC games.
Not really. Compare the "PC games" section to any other individual console, excluding the used games (since you can't have that for PC), and you'll actually notice it of respectable size--especially since the games are packed in tighter. PC gamers tend to know what they want and don't need flashy "wall advertising," and don't have a used section they want to draw your eyes to, so they can sit in a compact area. They also don't have peripheral sections, which makes the console sections mentally larger, but doesn't actually mean anything for game sales. This doesn't mean they've "given up on PC games" any more than you can say they've "given up" on XXX-individual-console-of-equivalent-size.
Heck, if you want to compare area and concentration, you can say they "don't care as much about selling new games" (completely untrue) because they've devoted a lot of space to used game trading (being the only real store brokers), DVD and other media sales, and assorted merchandising. They just figured out more ways to organize the store to take the biggest advantage of the space they have, and draw your eyes to what they want you to see.
Regardless, the "Games for Windows" push is as pointless as nVidia's or ATi's "way it's meant to be/played best" marketing silliness; pointless labels that mean effectively nothing. MS could push Live if they wanted to offer a good service and real 360 connectivity, but they really don't (same reason they don't want kb/m usage on the 360 even now); they just hope to catch a few people unawares and trickle in a bit more revenue. Live for Windows isn't a "service..." it's a completely mismanaged joke.
PC Gamers will always be PC gamers, and they've--in fact--gotten a lot larger over the years. (You can't have umpteen million people playing WoW without market expansion.) MMO's pull in sizable revenue that doesn't get tracked, either, so it's not an "abandonment" of the platform, but an evolutionary change of the market. Microsoft, however, doesn't need to do anything to maintain or foster it... they are simply the default. 97% of people use Windows PC's, so when you game on your PC's... you're basically using Windows, DirectX lock-ins or not.
They don't need to try. Hence their not trying.
But Team Fortress 2 this is not. It's Team Fortress 1.3.
But the thing is... this is actually good. What other game has delivered the type of gameplay of Team Fortress SINCE TFC? I have never found a replacement game that fit the mold. Certainly I loved seeing games develop out of that kind of class-based, teamwork gameplay--from Tribes to 2142--but there hasn't been another game that's delivered Team Fortress.
Frankly, polishing things up and removing the exploits was all they NEEDED to do. But in this case we also have more modes, more maps, and tight, polished gameplay. Hopefully that will continue and we'll just get... well... more. They have room to experiment later on, too. But for now, I'm just glad that I can come home. ^_^
With the scout's double jump mid air switch direction maneuver there isn't any splash.. the scout is also so fast they can run right past the slow missle from a rocket.. the demo doesn't even have a chance since you have to hit them dead on with a nade, gl with that... the only choice for a soldier is aiming at his own feet thus taking a lot of splash himself, or stickies for a demo.
;) Demos have a much harder time of it, of course, but they still have enough health to walk back to a defended area most of the time (since turrets tear scouts to shreds unless they are given 10-20 seconds of not being attacked to try hitting them from a tight vantage), and the closer a scout gets the easier it is TO get a straight hit and pop them in one. (Even if you have to get a bit lucky.) And let's not forget if you have a demo who's paying attention, if he gives himself enough space, he can switch off to his sticky bomb and create areas the scout CANNOT approach him from. Not to mention even their more meager splash damage does real damage to a scout. ;-)
...and if you mean just give them a 10-20 damage buff, you're not talking much anyway, so it would hardly matter. It sounds more like you're saying they should get full "direct hit" damage at the center of impact, though, and scale down to half damage at the very edge.
;-)
Soldier can splash the floor, wall, ceiling... Just a bit of predictive trajectory and you'll usually take the scout out in one if he's close enough to do real damage to you. And yes, you'll take some damage yourself, but then the scout will be dead, and you'll be free to walk to a resupply point.
Usually, it comes down to who's the better player. I've seen some dizzying scouts, but I see plenty of adept players who can respond. Giving scouts a meager point-firing weapon essentially turns them as useless as they were previously in comparison to other classes. They'd have to ditch most of their maneuverability to get ANY range damage on. Hell, I think most of them would just go perma-bat at that point. Heh...
they aren't "too" strong is my point.. their sticky bombs are fine.. it takes 2 to kill a scout, 3 to kill a medic, 4 to kill a pyro and 5+to kill a heavy, but you can group up to 8 so no biggie, if you hit someone with a nade while it is in the air it is like a rocket blast/splash.. but if it is on the ground and goes off it is really nerfed.. hardly any splash or damage.. i've seen snipers stand next to 3 nades going off at their feet and live.. wtf?
Perhaps they need a bit more centerpoint damage so if you're close enough anyway they'll be forced to MOVE at the very least, but overall demos are very strong. Giving them notably more splash damage basically rewards careless mortar fire into areas where they're just trying to do ANYTHING risk-free, makes them always be a huge distraction, and lets them rout positions too easily. They become more of an ultimate OFFENDER at that point, which is not supposed to be the concept. Too strong and versatile; you would just have a few people guarding the demos, who would then just learn the trajectories that would let them rout almost any well-defended position with ease, as they no longer have to be accurate... just get close enough to splash away.
It's an adjustable thing, but I think they fit the role better right now the way it is, and would start to morph out of it the more you add to their primary fire in all forms without taking away anything else. The grenades could stand to jostle people a bit more, though, so there's at least more effect from sucking up part of the blast, if not more perminant damage. A bit of the old conc-swaying coming back might be fun.
Well i only meant another couple of seconds (you can't ap as uber anyway), esp with the slowness of the heavies while firing, right now everyone hides for 5 seconds and it's over.
Personally, I find heavies to be the o
Yeah, me too... I liked the cool factor of those handset-cradles, though! Where is it, where is it...? Ah, here it is!
Hell of an upgrade when I went to the Avatex 2400 (could only find the 1200 BAUD model of this design in a good pic), though. I just about wet myself at how FAST the BBSes flew by!
http://brockerhoff.net/bb/viewtopic.php?p=2191#2191 Both on the technical front (as to why the 1.1.1 update might be messing things up for the unlockers), and the legal front. Mostly technical, which is what makes it more interesting. ^_^ The legal stuff has been bandied about enough already.
I don't really see where an unrestricted amount of enhancing and modifications is allowable before there would be any warranty nullification. It seems to me that if computer OEM's can put a "warranty void of broken" sticker on your case--which they've been doing since practically forever--and have that be completely legal, then issues arising specifically from official patches to unofficially-modified firmware would qualify as well. It seems like this falls loosely under Apple's "accidental" clause to their warranty agreement, and while it may be arguable in a court of law, it does not on its face appear to be notably spurious or completely wrong/illegal. This is not a matter that really goes to their quality or workmanship, but a technical software matter that arose from unofficial modifications. It seems like that kind of repair would fall closer to the "service contract" end that Magnuson-Moss mentions, but does not cover.
As in people who just had technical issues with the update and ended up with the iBrick? Yes, unfortunately--as I said--there will be some innocents caught in the crossfire. It is not policy or any stated agenda to do so, however, and I'm not sure how widespread the issue is. Chances are they'll eventually be taken care of (and even the SIM-unlocking iBricks will be recoverable, too), but there's fallout to be expected, and if--as I rather expect--the number of people who had this result accidentally are in the vast minority of people who had this result FROM a SIM-unlock and just say they didn't... It's wrong of Apple to turn people away, but I think this is going to more come down to experiences with individual employees than corporate policy.
For the rest of the software-adding community, to my knowledge they haven't been bricked (at least no more than anyone who made no system adjustments), but rather lose their programs from system data overwriting (but not the data itself), and can recover themselves quite quickly. (They may just have to wait a little before all the added functionality from the patches are also properly hacked to operate with their older alterations.)
Lots of issues, however, can crop up from using unregistered and unsupported software, especially if you're replacing chunks of the system software. (As you are to do any SIM-unlock I know of.) They're under no obligation to service your machine if it's not using their supported firmware, so you first have to change it back.
I agree (and mentioned in another post) that there are some hardware-only services that would be wrong of them to refuse out of hand (like case malformations, screen popping out, etc.) since there's no way any firmware would be causing the problem, but I don't know of any of those cases, and chances are they would be few and far between. (And possibly the service refusal could be the result of an overzealous employee rather than company policy.) Other issues which COULD still be hardware-related, like screen errors or speaker issues, could ALSO be coming from firmware alterations and other possible software bugs, so they're within their rights to refuse service until your phone is in their default approved state. (And while it'd be trivial for them to make the change, it would also be a tacit approval of SIM-unlocking, which would get back to their exclusivity partners and cause bad blood.)
Basically, though, if you're knowledgeable enough to modify your unit to unlock it, you should also know to restore it to factory defaults before getting it serviced at any authorized dealer.
They'll likely be rolled in eventually (at least the large, valid apps), but Apple's iPhone strategy has been to aim from the opposite end of the typical smartphone business professional, and instead create general consumer interest, as it's a much larger market. If that pays off, future updates will roll up everyone else (excepting those who refuse to leave their physical keyboards); they're just not getting the initial nod.
Ah, ok. I guess it takes all types. ;-)
Still an anomaly in a world where "computer" basically means "Windows," and "Mac" amounts to "why the hell would you get that?" or "won't I be unable to see my pictures?" and similarly misguided fears, with image improvements only in the last couple years.
2 shots from a scout's gun should kill a 175hp demo or 200 hp soldier..
Come now, "two shots can kill a demo or soldier" if you're getting a point-blank ambush on them; preferably shooting them up the backside of their head. It can't do nearly that damage if they're at any real engagement distance or in the middle of doing speedy maneuvers to try to not also get killed in one shot. (And the soldier's splash damage at that range can usually take them out.) This is about the only thing that turns scouts fun and USEFUL, as they trivialized before.
Demos, meanwhile, are pretty strong, and keeping their splash damage under control is a way of keeping them from getting TOO strong and having their blind-fire/indirect-fire be too weighted. Why give them huge damage in each and every circumstance they could possibly be hitting with? Rewarding "lucky tags" also just seems like a bad idea, which is what shooting down stairwells and around corners and across boards into hallways indirectly really would be with their splash damage.
Ubercharge could last longer, but I've seen it used amazingly well as it is, and it seems like one of those abilities that could easily get overbalanced and over-depended. For right now, I think it's pretty good, but it's also easy to tweak, so we'll see where it goes after a few months of EVERYONE playing.
The game seems to be pretty damn solid right now, but we'll see what happens after it's really put through the paces.
If you did not cut your teeth on 300 BAUD, you did not truly live!
Slower tends to make things more tactical. And grenade-spamming (and the stupid-as-shit concs) were what drove me away from Team Fortress to begin with.
TF2 is glorious. (Though at some point it will no doubt lose its' luster. But it's going strong for now.)
Wild Arms was indeed pre-FFVII, and the first RPG I got on the PS1, purchased in advance pretty much FOR FFVII, but obtained enough in advance to play Wild Arms first. But Wild Arms, while good, certainly wasn't a system mover. (Xenogears came well after FFVII.)
Vandal Hearts also came before VII, but was more of a tactical RPG, so really the only other "classic JRPG" of consequence to hit the PS1 before VII was Suikoden.
It would definitely be wrong of them to assume anyone with "brick-like issues" right now got it as a result of unofficial system modifications, but I'm not sure how widespread "automatic refusal without even looking at it" is. But it's undenyable that even ONE story that hits the web would make the rounds.
I'm pretty sure, however, that they can tell who's modified their system for various unlocking purposes pretty easily, at which point they are within their rights to refuse warranty service. I'd rather they have more of a "restore your system to factory defaults automatically and go from there," but the first occurrence of a "wink-and-nod" service of a knowingly SIM-unlocked system as part of their store's customer service would ALSO make these same blog rounds... and rather irk their exclusive partners.
So while there will be some innocents caught in the crossfire, we all know what their "official stance" has to be.