Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DSumner
43Supporter, I'm not trying to be rude, but lately, it seems all you want to do is chime in with snarky comments, and jibes at SJG. While I too wish they'd either update, or reprint the rules, I do tire of you doing nothing but bad mouthing the game designers, and editors of ADQ. You constantly belittle them, call them idiots, and say how wrong every decision they made is just flat out wrong, yet here you are. If you dislike what they've done, then why continue to post here?
|
First off, the obvious: _CW_ is a SJG Property. Going to, say, Catalyst Game
Labs's site and raising these points would be futile, no? This is where the
CW players are; so I must necessarily come here.
Oh, and related to the fact that this is a SJG property -- see end of post.
Now, the rest of the story:
I've tried to be polite with them; I've tried to work within their system.
Doing so has brought me naught save frustration and heartache.
As it has for all of you -- whether or not you realize it.
I have tried the "loyal opposition" approach. I tried, with others, to provide
additions and corrections which actually improved the game, as opposed to
generation of innumerable "Mr. Fixits" and/or "Oops Pages". No good came of
it.
So, now, I still Oppose -- but any sense of loyalty I may have felt is long
gone. Granted, I will keep my remarks within the confines of the Forum's
strictures on Civil Discourse -- but Toeing the Party Line just ain't happenin'.
As to liking and disliking:
There are certain of the game's editors and designers I do approve of:
Haring, Ladyman, and others. Were they, or their works, mentioned more
often, you would see positive remarks from me.
However, what keeps turning up is references to the Downward Spiral, the
days when, due to problems external (the USSS) and internal (I have it on
good authority that when one CW/ADQ editor was kicked to the curb, in his
desk was found some six months' worth of unopened correspondance...), the
game was allowed to sit idle -- or worse, be actively damaged (may the
members of RMADA spend eternity duelling _MacArthur_s in _Thresher_s).
You speak of Negative Times, you will see Negative Replies.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DSumner
I come here to a blow off some steam, have some fun, and discuss a game I enjoy, not to listen to how wonderful everything would have been if only they'd done things they way you wanted it done. While I'll be the first to admit, there were several questionable decisions made, and the game isn't "perfect", it is playable. I'm sure they actually put some thought into the reality vs. playability when they designed the game, and in many cases, playability won out.
|
It's funny you should mention this -- the issue of "realism vs. playability as
mutually-exclusive terms". Therein lies a major part of the problem -- the two
*aren't* necessarily exclusive.
An example: When a solid moving object hits a solid stationary object, the
moving object bounces off at an angle equal to that which it impacted (Ex.:
an object hitting at a 30-degree angle will bounce off at a 30-degree angle);
the angles will appear as mirror-images of one another.
That one sentence answers *every* question anyone will ever ask about
objects in CW running into other objects -- cars hitting walls, grenades
being "pinballed" around corners, and so on. Simple, straightforward, yet also
accurate. (Issues of the "squishiness" of objects need only be expressed as
adding to, or subtracting from, the angle in question.)
Another example: The Ramplate Debate. The problem here is that the original
writing of the ramplate damage rules means the rammer inflicts not 2x damage
on the target, but *4x* (ex.: 50 pts. of collision. Rammer takes 25; target
100; 100 / 25 = 4). How to fix this? The "simple" solution would be to remove
either the 2x damage to the target, or the 1/2 damage to the rammer. What
did we get? Having to add *and* subtract *every* time there's a ram; and
the additions and subtractions vary with every ram inflicted. If the idea of a
rules fix is to "keep it simple, stupid", how does adding two complete sets of
arithmetic problems count as "simple"?
*That* is the sort of thing I've been railing against -- the constant requests
for "simplicate, and add lightness" being responded to with even more
complication.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DSumner
Unless you plan on putting out a "superior" product anytime in the future, save the petty comments, and stick to actually discussing the game.
|
OK, here's the hard part: This is, taken for all in all, SJG's forum. Last I
checked they had some pretty harsh terms imposed for folks doing the
following:
-- Advertising Other Folks', Including One's Own, Products;
-- Advocating In Any Way Whatever End-Running Copyright Laws.
Now, I'll go on the record and say I wouldn't do the second one even if it
were allowed here, because doing so would kill whatever market there may
still be for _CW_; and because I write stuff myself, and so have some
respect for copyright.
So, that said: I might have my own game, or I might not. Whichever is the
case, I won't be mentioning it here.
As to discussing the game: I am -- the game is not just The Rules; it is also
the People Behind The Rules. The _CW_ rules did not simply spring into
existence fully-formed -- Someone wrote them, and Someone tested them.
Thus, the People are fair game for discussion, as much as the Rules they
created.
And as noted earlier, if the People who wrote the Rules did so in such a poor
way as to send the game "circling the drain", then Like It or Not, that's also
fair game.
If this is bothersome to you, then I Apologize.
But I will be hanged if I will sit here and *not* call those responsible on their
mistakes.