Jump to content

MurderinClony

Member
  • Posts

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by MurderinClony

  1. I would cast my vote as a "No" as well, even if it is one time per round. My reasoning is similar to Shaq's. If a player gets pinned in the back due to his stupidity, and will probably die from it, it only encourages him to mess around if he has that "lifeline" still. Obviously if he doesn't have it he will return to his normal stupidity but you would be giving the survivors a little bit more "leeway" with straying from the team, a second chance for the survivor when it was the infected's only chance to capitalize on the one stupidity. I also kind of believe that you already have this sort of thing. You have a limited respawn amount, 3 per map, and it costs 30 points, plus a negative 25 points to overall score. If a player has enough points or is sent enough he can respawn, I think that is good enough. I like the respawn better than this idea, rather than giving a good player his own "respawn" at 10 points, its up to the team to return and actually help the person successfully respawn or send him points. But if it were to pass, here's an argument against it if its implemented. I understand its an unpin and that it will kill the infected on top of you, but if you are going to use this, chances are you are about to die or are in a spot where your team cannot readily get to you before you die. In this instance, more than 1 infected will be after you, and if you happen to get hit by the infected to begin with, its over. Even with your "lifeline" you would still have to be in "get-up" animation, and during this animation, the other infected waits and gets you before you can react. That being said, this "animation" only applies to 2 of the 4 pinning specials. Smokers and Jockeys are instant reactions upon being saved. If you do implement the knife anyways, I believe it should have a major drawback and should count as being defibbed meaning the survivors lose 25 game points for using it. Not only that it should give the infected some points, maybe the 10 the survivor used is a "bribe" for the infected to get off and the infected player gets that 10.
  2. As of Saturday May 13th, I have graduated from college with a Bachelors in Computer Science. After five years of insanity, lack of sleep, a small bank account, and many other issues that include a broken ankle, it is all over.

    1. Show previous comments  9 more
    2. turnbullTeRRoR

      turnbullTeRRoR

      You've now decended into the next level of hell! Make the best of it!

    3. MurderinClony

      MurderinClony

      Thanks guys, I'm actually updating my resume as I type this and am about to ship it out to a few friends of mine. Hopefully they can pass it along to the right people and get past some screening. xD

    4. Madvillain

      Madvillain

      Congratulations Clony!

  3. Nice! I've got RPG maker MV myself, got it a ways back. Has the game changed any? Or have you just ported it over? I know its not as simple as just ported over, theres a lot of trouble swapping from the VXAce to MV, especially the graphics and the smaller looking characters, so, well done.
  4. From what I have deduced, through comparing points before and after, is that BOT:<zombie> will not give you any points if killed, however a headshot still gives 1 extra point as well as a longshot giving an extra 0.5 points for a max of 1.5 points from killing a Bot infected. Killing a bot survivor also only gives you 2 points instead of 5 for a normal player. I believe that healing a bot or reviving a bot gives you only 1 point or 2 rather than 4 for a normal player. Currently, the display always reads as +0.00, which is just incorrect because you still receive the points. The only problem is that the display is currently broken or incorrect.
  5. Right, which is why I advised using thirdperson spectator, which keeps the camera pointed directly at the right person 100% of the time.
  6. Yes Elias, I know you do not have to use the full name. And in most situations, yes, hitting your bind to send a player the exact amount of points he/she asks for is better. I even still do it, more often than I do my @aim command. The main times I use my @aim command is when there is so much chaos going on that I do not have time to look in the chat and see if someone has asked for points or to even see who it is that is down and pass them points via chat. This is generally when I can't take my hands off the keys to type to send points specifically to that down person, when multiple are down and have asked for points. I usually point and click a few times hoping it's enough, and sometimes it is and I did it faster than my bind could have especially if more than 1 person asks for points at the same time.
  7. Do be careful though using it as a survivor trying to aim at a lone survivor so far ahead. I have no way of testing it but it may be possible to kick an infected in spawn mode, since you technically aimed at him. I would still suggest the spectator way. The same goes for if an infected is on the rusher, you could possibly kick the infected on top instead, so just be careful with it I suppose.
  8. There are plenty of scenarios where admins have a tough time doing their job since there are so many people talking at the same time trying to identify the person who is rushing or just leaving their team. Well I'd like to offer some advice on a small part of the commands that you use everyday. This particular little piece of the commands is the option to do "@aim." No doubt some of the admins have used the command "@infected" or "@survivors" and it works similar to them. First off, what is "@aim" to begin with? "@aim" is a parameter for any kind of command that requires a name be input such as !sp <name> <#>, !psay <name> <"message">, !kick <name> <reason>, etc. "@aim" is replaced by the name of whatever entity is in front of you and so when used in conjunction with a command like !sp it can be used instead of an actual name. An example command might look like this: !sp @aim 2 Lets pretend you were in a game with me and we are both survivors. If you were to point your crosshair at me, and type the command "!sp @aim 2" it would pop up that you had sent 2 points to Murderin Clony. This specific command can be used on any survivor so long as you aim at the survivor. The game does a quick determination of what is in front of your crosshair, or what entity is in front of it, which was "Murderin Clony". So it automatically replaced "@aim" with "Murderin Clony" effectively typing '!sp "Murderin Clony" 2'. You may think that this command might be absolutely useless in a fast paced server where everyone moves around and by the time you type "!sp @aim 2" the person has moved and it wont send points. And you are partially correct. Due to the nature of this command there is a huge range for error. Since everything in this game exists in a 3-D plane, if you are off by even just a smidge you will get "Invalid input" or "Invalid command" or something along the lines that it failed. However, by binding this action to a key, such as v, you can aim at a survivor and simultaneously press the v key, and viola, you are sending points to whoever you are aiming at without having to stop and type. How does this pertain to making admin's lives easier? Well, as I said earlier, this parameter, is able to be applied to any command where a name is needed. For example: the !kick command, or the newly introduced !tkick command I have heard about, would look like this "!kick @aim Rushing" You could quickly and effectively look at a survivor and immediately kick them for rushing without having to figure out what their name was. However, due to the nature of this command, if someone were to accidentally walk in front of your crosshair as soon as you push this button, they get kicked instead of the rusher. But not all is lost! Not just yet. If you hear there is a rusher on either side there are a few things you can do to avoid kicking the wrong person by accident while still using this command. Quickly enter spectate mode and find the person who is at the front rushing. Make sure you are in thirdperson camera mode. This camera mode locks your camera to the center of any survivor, meaning your camera is always aiming directly at the person regardless of how you spin your camera. Once you find the right person and get to thirdperson mode, promptly hit your bind and they are gone. No name finding involved and no accidental kicks. There is also an even faster way of finding the rusher when in spectate mode. Through a series of tests I conducted while on the infected side, and sometimes the spectator side, hitting the key that scopes in your sniper takes you to the person the furthest in the level. Hitting your zoom button after entering spectate mode should guarantee that you are now spectating the rusher, or rushers, and then after thirdperson camera is initiated, the bind can be pressed, and poof. Rusher is gone in a reasonable amount of time. This can also be done while on the infected side. If there is a rusher on the survivor team and you are on the infected, there is no need to swap to spectator. Just suicide or die as an infected and then you are in a spectator like mode until you spawn in again. The same logic can be applied. Find the rusher using your zoom key or through multiple swaps, initiate thirdperson camera, and hit your bind. Be careful to only use this if you feel you have long enough spawn timer to hit the bind before you spawn, which could cause trouble for the survivor you spawn inside of instead. I have tested this command using !sp @aim 2 while dead as a survivor and it works, about 75% of the time. Due to lag, the @aim can possibly miss a survivor even when in thirdperson camera, which is always aimed at the center of a survivor, because the hitbox of said survivor is actually in front of him, not where he looks like he is. To get around this, moving your camera to be in the same direction that the survivor is moving, as if he were running directly at you, insures that you are aiming at his hitbox directly, and the bind would then work 99% of the time, assuming he doesnt change directions as soon as you hit the bind, which would be the 1%. This may seem like a lot more work to you admins than it does me, but I would suggest that you give it a shot. Hearing there is a rusher, going to spectate, hitting your zoom key, hitting space once or twice to get into thirdperson, and then one last button to finish it off seems to be a lot better than having members whine that you aren't good enough at your volunteer job. And a note for members as well: yes, they are volunteer admins. Don't really know if it counts as a volunteer admins since they have to be accepted and even pay but you get the idea, they are admins because they want to spend their time helping you guys, not to be ridiculed when they are not fast enough. They aren't hired to be admins, it is not their job, they have to pay to do so, so cut them a bit of slack here. But this is not the point of this post, so, moving on. Anyways, as for the members' side of it, well I already explained that. Sending points via aiming at people might be faster for you, but I would make the amount of points you send minuscule as to not over-send points. Don't have a bind that sends them 15 points when they only need 1 or 2. I found that sending increments of 2 points minimizes my "wasted" extra points I sent out, cause more than likely, they wont send them back. TL:DR - the @aim parameter can replace the name portion of any command. When the command is used with @aim instead of a name, the name of whatever, or whoever, you are aiming at replaces the @aim.
  9. Hah. Too bad there is no photoshop involved. It was taken in-game and uploaded unedited.
  10. I do not want a "No offline raiding server," that would be a horrible idea for server popularity as well as other reasons. However, during a scheduled or planned war, offline raiding for the teams in play would be when it needs to be "No offline raiding." People who are not on either team obviously do not have to follow this rule. The rules we have for war now are fine, with a few tweaks in point values, except for the raiding anytime at any point. I am not suggesting that "No raiding" occurs at all times, I am merely suggesting the ban of offline raiding of the Enemies Base(s). And yes, I understand that 1 person from our team was actually present at the time but one person versus five or six is impossible, even with a good base, no ones character is a god, and with 4 guns pointed at him while he tried to stop the raiding, they will die like any person would. I was told about the old rules of rust and of how there might have been a maximum gap in players for raiding to be disabled, maybe something along those lines could work here, for the war only of course. Say if there is a gap of 3-4 players on each team, team 1 has 1 and team 2 has 5, raiding wouldn't be allowed, but if team 1 had 2 and team 2 had 5, then it could go down, something along those lines. As for the server outside of the war, everything goes, normal Rust rules, offline raiding, teaming and whatever else there is. Edit: And I would be fine with more Wars going on, like a bi-wipe thing, every 2 wipes or so we do a war instead, to mix it up, as long as something is changed. Thats totally fine with me to have more wars
  11. You want competition yet you offline raid? There is no competition in offline raiding. I will continue to play, but only when the next wipe happens and no war games are going on. Yes, we had a bad base, I get that. However, we had a good base design in reality. That stone staircase that you guys climbed to get to the top floor and then had free reign in our base was supposed to only be there for building. I had the bright idea and was like, "No, I like being able to go to the top of this wall really quick, lets keep it there," so we did. Because it was only for building, we didn't initially think about the furnace being broke into and someone using that to get on the top floor, so we hadn't finished the top floor just yet. If that staircase was not there, you guys would have needed more than just 2 or 3 C4. Either way it got broken into because of me, and I will take the blame for that one from my team. Here is my issue: I know in Rust that offline raiding is a part of the game, but I expected randoms to do so. What I didn't expect was to have our base raided by GC members while we were offline. Although I've only originally played on one or two game servers out of the masses that GC has, I've come to think of GC as a respectable community, which is why I stuck around and even tried Rust to begin with. I figured that our Rust server might be different, one where respectable warfare went on, which did not happen. I gave you guys more credit than should have been given, and I apologize for not completely understanding the raiding rule. Also, after talking with Leon last night, I've decided to wait until these war games are done. "Everyone offline raids, so I will too." Just because everyone does it, does not mean you have to, and if that is how these war games are going to be carried out, I will gladly pass on these war games. I cannot bring myself to do something so disrespectful to such a respectable community. And just like you said Turnbull you use all resources that you get, and so everything we had only made your base that much better. We are not only down in moral, we also have to start from scratch when you guys are so far ahead. Which by the time we get back up there, you will be even further ahead and our efforts will be useless, this is also assuming we make it back up there without you guys coming and knocking it back down before we get back up there, which is the best strategy to win a war: push hard while they are down, so I know that will happen. I liked the teams as they are, I wouldn't change them, but let me say that how you just described the teams make them sound horribly unfair. You have all the experienced people, while we have "good shots" and a "master gatherer." Having all the resources and not knowing what to do with them is worse than having some resources and knowing how to efficiently use them. I came into this thinking about the huge war at the end with both our teams trying to fight over bases with huge towers and rockets flying every which way while both team frantically try to either assault or defend a base, and I was pumped. But I guess that huge fun fest isn't going to be there after all.
  12. Welp, thats it for me, let me know when the new wipe comes around. I don't speak for everyone else but I concede on my side, boot me off the team coach.
  13. Kaya AD - Faith, Jeho, Clony, Kaya, and Jess were online
  14. Good times, hope we can have some large scale raids going at one point
  15. Sounds good to me, but I would need a constant refresher or list by my side to keep track of points xD
  16. It's been a decent amount of time since I've played last but I currently cannot. I've broken my ankle thanks to a dislocation while jumping on trampolines in a big trampoline arena. Sadly, I have to stay at another house than my own because of this. I just had surgery on it yesterday and I'm feeling like I got hit by a truck, but I figured I would pop in and say hello, see what has changed while I've been absent and will be so for a while. Have we got some new recruits during sale weekends? Or have we lost some for the same reason? xD
  17. I think you guys need to see some of the math behind the damage the hunter can do, forget points for now. This is going to state the obvious but putting things into perspective can sometimes help. The survivors have 100 health. A hunter can do, at max, an instant 25 damage to a survivor. Immediately the survivor has lost 1/4th of his health, just from the impact. When on top of a survivor, a hunter does 5 damage in very quick intervals, I believe it is every .5 seconds, leading to some heavy damage if left unchecked for more than a few seconds. Now lets put two parts together. The hunter hits a survivor for 25 damage and then immediately begins his normal attack leading to an almost instant 5 more damage, which is now 30 points of damage sustained in a very short amount of time. This is already close to 1/3rd the survivors health in 1 or 2 seconds. Forgetting about how many points that hunter just got, you yourself who just got pounced lost anywhere from 1/4th-1/3rd of your health in just a few seconds. In addition to this, you probably already have another hunter heading your way from the sky, at least on this server, which will do another 1/4th-1/3rd of your health before you even have a chance to swing or shoot. The amount of damage done by a hunter is greater than that of any infected, yes even the tank which is only a 24 damage punch or rock which is excluding the props he can throw, and can kill faster than any other infected aside from the witch. After just two pounces, be it chained or apart, the survivor can already be slow with the third pounce having a chance of incapacitating or guaranteeing he is slow. Regardless of how many points the hunter will earn, he is and always will be one of the most damaging non-tank infected there is, which will still make him one of the more valuable infected to have, able to knock down a survivor at 1/4th his health without a sound even being heard by the survivors. However, on the downside, the hunter has low health, compared to his infected counterparts, tieing for 3rd to last with the smoker. So, for as much as he can do, if spotted he is almost as good as dead because the survivors can either shoot his measly health down, just move out of the way, or if you feel ballsy enough, can even try and deadstop him. So unless Jackie will do anything to the actual damage a hunter outputs, which I hope he won't to keep it vanilla, having multiple hunters on the other team, regardless of points, is always going to pose a great threat, which can slow down the survivors and allow the other infected to gain points in his stead.
  18. Well I've been gone for a while to not have noticed a thread like this eh? Anyhow, here is my opinion. Personally, I do not care how many or how little points the hunter gets on the server, I'm still going to play him regardless. Its what I can do with the hunter, not how many points he gets. To me, its the thrill of landing a pounce from such a distance on a moving survivor. Immediately, I think to myself, yeah, I just predicted his movements enough to get that, which is usually followed by a cheer of some sort on my end, whether I vocalize it in the game or not. Sure I buy tanks when I get the points, but that goes for any infected I use. When I get enough to safely play tank, I use them, because the tank has one of the same features as a hunter. Prediction. You have to guess where a survivor is going to walk to in order to hit them with a rock, or guess their fake and throw it in the opposite direction. If I had to give my opinion, it would be what has already been said or stated many times. The initial pouncer on a moving or not recently hit survivor, would be higher than those that hit the survivor when it can't respond simply because of the high risk-high reward concept. And no, I didn't read the entire forum, only the first 2 or so pages, so I don't know where that argument has been taken.
  19. Deadlock has full control over his computer and his stream. How hard would it be to turn off hacks or assistance, and this is all hypothetical for I have no evidence that he does or doesn't but for the sake of this post and recent events I am pretending that he does, and play like a normal player for the duration of his stream? It wouldn't be hard at all. Actions are different when you know you are being watched as opposed to when you don't know you are being watched. When you know you are being watched, you will act according to what they want to see. When you do not know, or get careless and forget that someone is always watching and screw up, that evidence is more powerful than any other. Like I said before, the only way he could prove his innocence would be for an admin and or board member to physically go to deadlock's house, in person, meeting them face to face, give them a polygraph test, and even those are not hard to fake, and then search his computer. But like I also said before, this kind of event would have to be arranged, and Deadlock would know when they would come. How hard would it be for him to quickly remove all traces of evidence on his computer? I am simply playing the Devil's advocate here, stating the obvious, or what should be obvious, arguments.
  20. How did I get dragged into this, wait, are you saying crasx that I was banned recently? Or that time near the beginning of my playing here?
  21. The Deagle (magnum) in Left 4 Dead 2 is accurate when incapacitated, it has a the same spread as if you are standing still not incapacitated, or if not the same, close to it. Your guess is as good as mine as to why its just as accurate as when standing up as opposed to the double pistols when down, but my guess is due to low bullet count and how useless it would be on the ground if it was as inaccurate as the double pistol.
  22. Well then I'm too lazy to read this whole thing that you typed out, which was more effort than just copy-pasting an extra line or too. Deadlocks ban is being reviewed by admins, we cannot do anything more, the only thing this topic is going to do is to divide the community even more than it already is. Wait for his results. If he is deemed a cheater, then so be it, we cannot change that. Due to the nature of this event, there is no way for deadlock to give undeniable proof, not even having an actual board member or admin walk over to his house and thoroughly inspect his computer for anything "hack" related. This kind of thing would have to be set up and obviously by the time the board member or admin got there, all traces would be gone. No matter what is said here, the admin's decision is final. It is just like a miniature judicial system, and although the judicial system is not perfect, it works very well for what it is supposed to do. If you are given undeniable evidence or evidence that leads to only one outcome, and it points to him being guilty of whatever crime he committed, would you let it slide simply because he said he didn't do it? Even if his friends said he didn't do it but gave no evidence supporting their claim that he didn't? No. You would sentence him for his crime. This goes the same way on the other side, if he is not proven guilty, then he is innocent. Let the "jury" finish this.
  23. Ive had that happen a few times too, just either restart the game, or swap a channel or two. Its more than likely a bug, probably is since it is only two weeks after its release date.
×
×
  • Create New...