(06-05-2010, 06:44 AM)Kool Kat Wrote:

(06-05-2010, 06:10 AM)glint Wrote: Whilst bearing in mind your comments KK, I think anyone who has paid money to buy the game is entitled to their opinion on the game?

Absolutely. Every CS player has an opinion? I'm entitled to mine... just like you are entitled to yours?

Yes, but it seems a problem that,after reading your opinions, my opinions attract such a defensive stance immediately from you? I'm just trying to balance the debate.

(06-05-2010, 06:10 AM)glint Wrote: Obviously Matrix Forum is the place to do that in their' eyes.
For various reasons, many members don't contribute to the Blitz CS Forum, as it is, it's a bit unrealistic to think they'll bother to on the Matrix Forum?

Maybe? IMO, players who are interested in providing their input and suggestions for improving CS... should keep an "eye" on other players' proposed game changes... and make sure that Jason & Co. have input from Blitzers... and other CS players too.

I personally think Matrix will decide what will be done and altered regarding the game from a 'business efficiency aspect' regardless of what players of the game desire?

(06-05-2010, 06:10 AM)glint Wrote: Equally, whilst appreciating the Blitz heritage, it's a bit elitist to think we have the right to make ourselves the defining group on what happens to JTCS.

I never stated that Blitzers should be the defining group on what happens to JTCS... but we do have a right to be heard... and our input considered... just like any other group of players - correct?

Read the previous statement!

(06-05-2010, 06:10 AM)glint Wrote: Just my opinion. Personally, I have been playing this game since it originally came out, I've accepted the changes, updates along the road and got on with it and adapted accordingly. Many others have more gaming experience than I have and I bow to that, hoping they make the right decisions for the game.

That may be fine for you Peter... but for me, if I see areas that I believe could be improved in CS... I'm going to (at least) make my suggestions and input known to Jason & Co. It does not guarantee any of my suggestions will be acted upon... but at least I can say I did what I thought was best to improve CS? :chin: And like a big boy... if my suggestions are not acted upon... I have to accept that... and move on. But at least... I tried. I think the worst thing that could happen would be some "less then optimal improvement" introduced in a future CS update... and it was implimented because players did not voice an earlier objection to the idea? We are living with some of those "less then optimal decisions" in the current CS version?

Remember, all this work is done on a voluntary basis? How much timedo they have available to keep everybody happy. A problem (bug) I reported doesn't seem to have been addressed, if it isn't in the next patch, I'll still be playing the game.

(06-05-2010, 06:10 AM)glint Wrote: At the end of the day whose to say one's feelings on what should be in the game is any more important than someone else who spent their shillings on the game? Even more important, I honestly think your comments are setting up a 'them vs us' mind set ? That's not an attack by the way, just trying to balance the debate.

I don't think anyone is prioritizing their feelings over others? My comments are my own... as well as my opinions. I posted mainly for awareness... and that all CS players should be able to voice their suggestions for proposed game improvements - Blitzers and others too.

Yeah, but your post read as if you were trying to rally 'Blitzers' against the 'others' ?

(06-05-2010, 06:10 AM)glint Wrote: Like chuck said, just have fun with the tools you are handed, don't screw yourself up over a game so much?

Actually, I "smile" quite often. In fact, I'm generally a rather optimistic person. And I enjoy playing CS... thank you very much!

(06-05-2010, 08:07 AM)Scud Wrote: Personally I love the fact that, if I have an idea (which is rare) I can email it to Jason or post it here AND HE"LL RESPOND!! Try that with Microsoft.

Also, although I stop short of calling it elitist, what's wrong with being a proud member of the Blitz? The trick is persuading the matrix guys into becoming proud members of the Blitz as well.

My old club once openly challenged the Blitzers to a tournament and no one here accepted the challenge, but that's because my old club really was elite. :smoke:

Sad to see my old club die. Hate to see it happen here, but it could. New members are integral, so by all means, talk us up at Matrix and keep it friendly!

Dave

(06-05-2010, 05:23 PM)lgsptlnd Wrote: I'm a some time poster on TheBlitz and recently got into that discussion on TheMatrixBoard regarding improving the AI. I personally played vs. AI for the same reason I snapped up one of the first computer chess games that came out. The challenge of beating "the machine". It was very difficult for the average guy to out-analyze "the machine" in a computer chess match. Sadly, it didn't take long to realize that there were too many variables in CS to expect a similar level of competition from the AI. A flank attack out of the woods against rear line artillery apparently doesn't register like knight to queen four.

But I continue to play the AI for a number of reasons. As mentioned in the TheMatrix responses...it's quick for one.

And over the years, I've noticed the amount of discussion on TheBlitz regarding cheating, with additions to the new version to reduce or combat it. Well, the AI doesn't comprehend cheating...which means I don't have to contend with that crap.

So as far as changes to the game go...yes, it'd be nice to have a stronger AI for those who play it but no, not at the expense of the overall integrity of the game.

Still gamin. Love your site. Thanks for all your work.

(06-05-2010, 05:23 PM)lgsptlnd Wrote: I'm a some time poster on TheBlitz and recently got into that discussion on TheMatrixBoard regarding improving the AI. I personally played vs. AI for the same reason I snapped up one of the first computer chess games that came out. The challenge of beating "the machine". It was very difficult for the average guy to out-analyze "the machine" in a computer chess match. Sadly, it didn't take long to realize that there were too many variables in CS to expect a similar level of competition from the AI. A flank attack out of the woods against rear line artillery apparently doesn't register like knight to queen four.

(06-05-2010, 05:23 PM)lgsptlnd Wrote: But I continue to play the AI for a number of reasons. As mentioned in the TheMatrix responses...it's quick for one.

(06-05-2010, 05:23 PM)lgsptlnd Wrote: And over the years, I've noticed the amount of discussion on TheBlitz regarding cheating, with additions to the new version to reduce or combat it. Well, the AI doesn't comprehend cheating...which means I don't have to contend with that crap.

(06-05-2010, 05:23 PM)lgsptlnd Wrote: So as far as changes to the game go...yes, it'd be nice to have a stronger AI for those who play it but no, not at the expense of the overall integrity of the game.

Quote:I'm a some time poster on TheBlitz...

(06-06-2010, 03:59 AM)Scud Wrote:

Quote:I'm a some time poster on TheBlitz...

Still, you're missing out on what is the real beauty of the game by not participating against live opponents.

Lastly, I'd love to see you post more often. We need more guys talking it up and sharing opinions.

Thanks,
Dave