You fail to fail fail
fail
An ineffective sniper is better than a dead one, since dead snipers reappear in half the time that retreating snipers require. The wounded also take up armour/healthkits, and when there’s a shortage, they will wait. Especially when a burning person enters the spawn: each time the fire inflicts its damage, the victim may grab another whole healthkit, which offers more than twice the damage recovery that the fire infliced.
Not to mention the time a sniper spends dodging rockets or engulfed in flames. This is time that would have been spent shooting your teammates. If the sniper were attacked by something that kills quickly, for example another sniper, he would continue fighting until the other sniper hits him, instead of dancing around.
A similar TF example to get the point across why hassling is better than exterminating:* You see an SG in the enemy spawn? Leave it and go get the flag. You could get a point for killing it, or you could let the enemy’s resources remain invested where they are of less use.
There’s the real-world equivalent as well. In modern war, it is argued that injuring your enemies is more effective than killing them. A wounded man on a battlefield requires the attention of medical personnel, and transportation from the zone of engagement, which occupies more human resources and modes of transportation than the raggedy leftovers of some overkill-explosion.
If the war is total war, or a war of attrition, then a thousand wounded men in hospitals is preferable to a thousand corpses, since they will continue being a strain on the enemy’s resources.
If you’re still not convinced that wounding is better than killing, the pyro does a stellar murderjob when he gets onto the enemy battlements. Napalm is able to block the spawnward route of escape, keeping the enemies where they are vulnerable.
If you’ve ever played in the same server as a good sniper, you would understand. And that’s only the furthermore reason; you forgot to read the previous paragraph. In a world without snipers, he still gives D a much easier time by playing between bases, lighting up each enemy O. He also lessens the presence of enemy D by hassling them as well.
I’ve been called a hero by defending teammates, and annoying by enemies.
That’s how you tell whether or not you’re using the class effectively.
The difference between the real world and video games is that someone who is wounded in the real world is, in most situations, not capable of doing any harm to anyone, whereas it’s easy to run around with 4 HP in a video game and still get kills.
Can’t deny that most wounded players will play conservatively unless they are forced to banzai charge.
True, Chrillen, though habitual snipers tend to prefer a better K/D ratio more than any other group.
And the advantage of weakened attackers remains obvious, since they die sooner against D. I’d rather face 10 heavies a minute who have 10hp… than 1 heavy a minute with 100hp. The 10 will get killed, while that 1 might get through.
Even then, they are able to kill themselves with grenades. And insta respawn with full health and ammo.
So? Grenade suicides are counterproductive and being close enough to be killed by them means you’re either a pyro or an idiot.
Pyro’s are idiots. In TFC.
Well, they’re idiots in tf2 too. But that doesn’t matter.
Well, they even made character that suits an idiot.
they don’t, they’re not interested in being most helpful to their team
Lack of teamwork? Sounds like a good game.
[color=black]Inb4CaptureTheFlag
Sabotaging the enemy’s ability to fully cooperate, as a conscious game mechanic?
Indeed.
Idiot.
By this point I’m just enjoying your responses to stupid comments. You are at your best when incensed.
A good pub medic is more then just one heavy’s butt buddy.
(idk bout comp I don’t play it)
Edit: Crap the forum main page brought me a few pages behind and i got mass ninja’d.
MASSIVE NINJA! But TF2 is way better than TFC. TFC is just another stereotypical FPS.
yeah, now that it’s been imitated for 11 years by uncreative moneygrabbing software teams I can see how you’d think it’s uninspired
:facepalm:
obsolete shit is obsolete
obsolete, hmm? It has low demands, fewer polies, sure…
but software isn’t the kind of thing that becomes obsolete just with age. It’s still runnable bug-free on every successive Windows system out there, so it’s not being phased out like that.
Has Tetris for the first GameBoy become obsolete? More recent versions add prettier graphics, blocks shaped of 5 pieces, add rewards for special styles of stacking, introduce collapsing bricks, … but the original isn’t broken. It may in fact be preferable. It has all the desired game mechanics, and despite being around for a long time it’s not broken. Sure, your GameBoy’s screen is fading because it’s so old.
If you try to get a spoiled DS kid to play it, sure he’ll whine and call it obsolete, but if you were around to play that brick at the time, you may still hold it in equal regard.
Now granted, if we get that original version of Tetris and spruce it up with some slightly prettier aspects without changing a bunch of the gameplay, then we could call the first game obsolete in comparison. But if the concept gets mangled in every attempted upgrade, you know the original’s still valid.
Though you may say “I like how every level is a little slower”, or “I like how it tells you the next piece”, or “I like the feeling of accomplishment that comes from unlocking extra pieces”…
other people may not. It makes the game easier, dumbs it down for the DS crowd, adds some aspects while removing some as well.
I can’t see why you’d oppose the validity of an archaic preference, on the basis of chronology.