also mormegil acting as if it was his own idea (for all the people who didnt read the original post).. really a move that makes you giggle.
oh, and :IS2:
While I voted 'no', if TW puts it in, it won't be a deal breaker for me.
I'll still buy the game. I just won't play the gametype.
And in all probability I won't play Firerfight.
Sure I'll try it to see TW's interpretation of the game, but I doubt seriously I'll spend much time with it.
So, where is the S&D poll? :troll:
Thats the other gametype floating around these forums now.
Personally, I despise that gametype worse than DM. I had my fill of it before I quit playing CoD2. Boring.... With the larger maps of RO, it might be slightly more tactical that CoD (ie require more than one or two 'plans of attack/defense') , but not nearly as much as RO's default gametype. (As we've yet to play countdown, can't comment or compare the two at this point.)
Just want to see if there really is a "silent majority" rooting for FFA/DM.
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=49020why would we be here if we wanted cod gameplay?
I don't think it was pointless (otherwise, I wouldn't have made it). It was an experiment to see if Wahoo4 was right, and turns out to be evidence for him to "digress," as per his statement in the original thread. Instead, he's "moving the goal post" by now saying the majority isn't voting, because they're not registered on the forum.
Even the results are interesting, as 20% of the voters are in favor of DM (as of writing this post, 49 votes, 9 yays, 40 nays). I'm surprised it was that high.
Honestly, DM may seem like fun, until you realize it won't work unless the weapons are balanced, like what Knighted wants. That's not gonna happen. The closest I could see is something like squad deathmatch, where you have 4 or 8 squads of 4. That might be an interesting mutator.
For the record I voted "no" and have been against the DM/FFA idea from the start.
I just think this whole thread is an underhanded sucker-punch toward an argument that ended more than a week ago. An argument which ended with both sides conceding (what I thought was) peacefully.
You aren't going to get a silent majority vote here, that's the whole point of a "silent majority." The phrase itself is a poor debate tool and doesn't need testing or a poll to determine if it really exists.
Meanwhile you have people posting here in a thread that is basically a troll/flame-bait reply to someone else's suggestion. People who don't even realize they are potentially helping to damage that person's reputation. And the worst part is, this whole fiasco may have hurt the RO community's image because of how it treats people who don't agree with them. By mocking people with senseless polls about topics which were already raised and put to rest when they were relevant.