Leonebluen

Obviously people will still play hunters, but will they play hunters as much? Definitely not.

Dangit Merc, why can't you let me have nothinnnn.

The server being good isn't a compelling argument for not changing it. It can still be better.

I feel like this server could use some affirmative action policies to help diversify its admin pool. Unrelated, I'd like to mention that I have Native American ancestry.

While I still prefer a straight nerf, I'd be okay with the diminishing returns idea if it came with an additional reduction in points for pouncing incapped survivors. 25 damage on an incapped survivor is worth much less than 25 damage on an upright survivor in my opinion.

I can already tell you that if you straight nerfed hunter points, I know at least one person would at least play them significantly less - me.

Jerkoff, in my opinion that's an argument for nerfing the hunter. Just as you said on the last page, "they have to have the points to make it worthwhile." You're basically affirming that hunters get more points than their other SI counterparts for less team-contribution... How is that fair? If you're saying it's necessary to balance the classes, doesn't that balancing discourage team play?

They *could* say that, but they'd be making a silly comment given my entire argument. Surely class mechanics affects your gameplay, but it's a singular component to how much you do for your team. Surely you need to be good at class mechanics to help your team, but being good at a class doesn't guarantee you're helping your team. It's a pre-requisite, not a guarantee, of good play. Jackie, did you even read my post? You still have not given me an objective reason why 25 damage from a hunter should be worth more than 25 damage from a charger. Sure, they're good at dealing out a lot of damage fast, but does that mean their damage should be worth more points? Absolutely not. It's not fair that one player can incapacitate someone for 5 seconds with a charger, do more than 25 damage, and still get less points than a hunter. The current system is NOT rewarding good team-play, it's rewarding good hunter-play, and that's just silly. You basically contend that because hunters are a dps class, their damage should be worth more points - I ask you *why* is that fair? Why can we not give points based on team-utility? It seems far more fair to give a fixed number of points per point of damage across every class, along with a boost to classes like chargers/smokers/jockeys based on how long they hold someone.

This debate is between fundamentally different perceptions about the role of points on our L4D2 server. On one side, the anti-hunter group contends that points should be awarded based on how much a player helps the team (via damage, incaps, slows, whatever). On the other hand, the pro-hunter group is defending hunters based on the fact that they're a high skill class. In my opinion, I believe that the anti-hunter group has a FAR stronger argument here. So what if hunters take a lot of skill? I don't care how "good" you are unless it translates to winning the game. The only metric we should be looking at here is who does more for their team, and in this perspective hunters are CLEARLY overpowered on our server. For example, say you 25 damage pounce someone - you get 12 points. Great. On the other hand, lets say you 25 damage smoke someone. Not only do you reverse their progress, you also halt their momentum for FAR longer and help your team. Or say you land a 25 damage charge which also knocks two people down. Obviously a 25 damage smoke/charge does more for your team a 25 damage pounce, and yet the charger/smoker get far less points for their effort. Now, here is where you come and say "but hunters take more skill" - but so what? This is a TEAM game and points should measure how much you're contributing to your TEAM, not how much skill you have playing one particular class. Moreover, I'd contend that, in fact, giving hunters such high points destroys team play on our server. Simply put, it encourages skilled hunters to forsake the team-play which we supposedly care so much about in favor of a solo-tactic - rush a tank. I personally find the game much more engaging when there's solid and continuous 10v10 team play rather than easy-mode straight to tank wipes. Indeed, I frequently play hunters solely because they're a stupid easy way to ignore your team and win games with tanks. Basically, there's no objective reason that hunters should be given points just because they require skill. In my opinion, good play is about winning, not about talent with class mechanics.

Biggs did it nevermind.

Lame. Can you at least reset the server now...?

Just want to re-ask this question. Server has been down for hours.

Yeah the world is up. No plugins yet though.

It's crashed and needed a reset 3-4 times in the last 24 hours. Is is possible to get temporary powers to reset the server or something because it's annoying that I can never play...

I like the idea of having an "!unsp player amt" feature.

Shaft... I think you've had enough. I'm cutting you off.

I'd prefer Chicago, but I know Ohio is the default/tradition.

For an alternative logo idea, what about the outline of a CS player frag'ing a zombie? To me, it seems fitting. CS and L4D are the most popular games in this community, and the frag grenade is obviously relevant.

I also like the idea of having it at a hotel so that intoxication isn't a danger. I'd very much like to go but we'll see if I can get work off. Basically +1 Marvin's post.

I endorse this thread. And also endorse FF in chicago.

I use jockeys almost every campaign, if not every map. They have to be fragile; you can use them to put a survivor anywhere you want. If they had any more health you could spam heals and be 100% sure you'd get the survivor where you wanted.

I wish Foster and White would get healthy already. Thank God my matchups have been easy so far or I'd be screwed.

They kind of already are a reward for playing well, though. Killing infected gives points, points give fheals. *shrugs*

Actually that brings up a good question. I've been wondering how script tanks get assigned. I think they actually do go to the person with the highest points/dmg done in a round, but I'm not sure. On point though, your sensationalism is cute, but it ignores the fact that most of your comparisons are not equivalent to the issue at hand. We're talking about auto-suiciding spitters that have already had their chance to make a play, not auto-suiciding them before they can.

Personally, I oppose the diminishing returns option for the fullheal nerf. Here's why: although it sounds nice, the truth is that this type of nerf disproportionately affects different maps. For example, it would do nothing to the survivors on short maps, and it would make the longest maps nearly impossible to complete. Sure, it would have its intended effects on the mid-length maps, but it wouldn't properly affect shorter and longer maps. I'd say a base nerf would be better overall, because it would make all the maps comparably more difficult, rather than leaving short maps easy and long-maps impossible.