interview: pitchford

[Obsidan]

U R GH37

[McDeth]

New player models will add over 66% more polygons

And they'll STILL look like shit.....

[Unregistered]

Edited by [user="469"] @ [time="1014239395"]

they just want to suck as much money out of CS players as they can

as narby once said, "Thanks for stating the obvious."



You DO realize that Gearbox is a company, and that companies exist to make money right? You dont honestly think that everything should be exactly as you want it, AND handed to you without any effort from you, do you? I dont know, maybe your post was a joke and you were just being sarcastic. We can only hope...

And they'll STILL look like shit.....

as opposed to what? Show me an example of better quality models that can still keep framerates reasonable on the same machines that can currently run CS. Otherwise, your opinion is as empty and worthless as it looks.

[LuftWaffle]

Rotten... Jesus Christ you're ignorant, the LAW is an anti-tank round... IT DOES NOT HAVE A HIGH-EXPLOSIVE WARHEAD.



That is the entire POINT of the LAW.. to be used against armored targets. Maybe you should have read my comments, I explained this earlier... since you obviously can't be bothered to go all the way up to look, I'll quote myself for you..

Obviously my question was the best, and it's also obvious that he tried to dodge it. Anti-Tank weapons do not work on infantry. The blast is concentrated on a miniscule point, and pushed through.. if you were hit with a LAW, it would either fly straight through you (since it is expecting tough armor to set off it's charge), or it would explode, and send a white-hot, cylindrical piece of molten metal through your body and out the other side... killing you, perhaps, but not doing any harm whatsoever to anyone near you. And if it misses everyone, but hits within a few feet? No damage done to anyone... they might feel the concussion wave.

Next time think before you talk.

[EmBeR]

after consulting with several of my military friends ( my self included) we have made up our minds that the LAW is not the optimum choice for a rocket powered grenade to be put into the cs:CZ mod. It would have to be the AT-4 which .......(Rottencrotch )" It is a wax safety seal right? You know what, we better check with Randy again and make sure that the LAW they are putting into CS has the correct type of seal on the front that holds in the good stuff." haharharharhrarar! that shit was funny !....is a light weight cardboard and fiberglass launcher( seriously it's a real weapon! ) has a cardboard tip on the front! NOW that single use weapon is what CZ should have!



Compliments of Charlie Co.



yours truly, E.

[tritus]

Rottencrotch wrote..

counter-strike still pwnz

I can't believe more people aren't excited about zoo tycoon. What is wrong with humanity when a zoo simulator can't beat out a violent game like Counter-Strike?

[Unregistered]

Edited by [user="469"] @ [time="1014245202"]

oh my dear uncal flut, you have stabbed your cold pointy steel words deep into my heart and i will be forever scarred, but aside from that, I want to counter-quote you (OMG A NEW FPS!)

or it would explode

Yes I know you are saying its not a high-explosive warhead. I wasnt suggesting that it is. Ok so, someone please, i want to see an official link or something somewhere, other than mere CS players' comments, that firing a LAW rocket so that it hits in the general vicinity, within 10 feet, of a swat team for example, that it would not at least cause a fair amount of damage. Thats all I ask. Yes I will completely admit to having no fuckin knowlege whatsoever about weapons. But ill be damned if a rocket like a LAW that can disable a freakin tank, cant at least cause a bit of damage to a few guys if it hits near them.



EmBeR: thank you for your enthusiasm. I hope you dont think that I, or anyone, is suggesting that the LAW is the "optimum choice for a rocket powered grenade" but I think that for a game that allows such things as reloading clips without wasting bullets and running backwards just as fast as forwards, that the difference between a LAW and an AT-4 is allowable.



Sure, maybe there are better choices for reality's sake. But in the end it simply comes down to fun with a considerable amount of reality. Is this still Gooseman's baby or has it grown up and married Gearbox? Who gets to decide not simply, what is most realistic for CS, but rather, what is best for CS in the grand balance of realism and fun. I am willing to bet that the general majority of players will not find it annoying that this weapon may not act extremely accurate to it's real-world counterpart.



I know Goose wanted to make a game that was fun for HIM, and he did just that, and it happend to wind up being fun for all of us as well (not counting the cheating issues as of late). Since CS has grown so popular, it is naturally starting to have to evolve according to what the players want. I think that is what Gearbox is ultimatly trying to do. Here we are seeing the conflict between people hate intentional non-realism, and people who just dont really mind that the LAW isnt intended for anti-personnel.



It's extremely important in a community like this to be able to voice your opinions, ideas, and suggestions about the game in order to help it evolve but I beleive your battle is a losing one, if you are hoping to get the LAW replaced with another similar weapon. Maybe it will be changed. But I honestly believe that the Gearbox team has likely debated quite a bit up to this point about whether the LAW is the way to go or not.



I think its also likely that they could wait to see how the weapon fits once the game is released to the hordes, and then make changes accordingly. If this is the case, then it is pointless to raise a fuss now before the game is even out, other than to simply flaunt a knowlege of weapons by pointing out innaccuracies. But Im the last one to accuse anyone of doing that, knowing how defensive people get about that.



So out of all of this, the point of mine I want you to get is, wait till you play it. This is what Gearbox has been telling us all along. Just WAIT till you play it before you make these judgements. If it turns out to be truly detrimental to the game, I am confident it will get taken care of.



--edit-- loooo @ tritus

[LuftWaffle]

Uhh Rotten, your lack of knowledge is apparent. Think of it this way - The LAW being used as a high-explosive anti-personnel weapon could be compared to having a watergun that fires 5.56mm rounds. It's totally out of place, it doesn't have realistic effectiveness for what it REALLY IS (a watergun), and it could easily be replaced with something that would be more appropriate.



I don't understand why you are asking for proof, but if you want some, check this article which I have linked to numerous times in the past.



Some interesting notes:

Prior to the fielding of the AT-4 the M-72 Light Anti-tank Weapon (LAW) was the Army's primary shoulder-fired, man-portable, light anti-tank rocket.

Light Anti-tank. The shaped-charge warhead is designed SPECIFICALLY to force ALL of the force of the explosion through a single point, penetrating up to 1 foot of armor. Think about what will happen if it hits a person... all of that force will be directed through the person's body, in a stream of molten metal. And these rockets were not designed to be wasted... They may only detonate if what they hit pushes back hard enough (is solid). This is a common feature of anti-armor weapons. For instance, anti-armor land mines will only detonate if 300+ pounds of force is sitting on top of them. Why waste all of the explosive on a soft target?

Although the M72-series LAW is mainly used as an antiarmor weapon, it may be used with limited success against secondary targets such as gun emplacements, pillboxes, buildings, or light vehicles.

Notice, these are all objects which can be damaged by a shaped-charge warhead.



A better anti-personnel weapon would be a grenade launcher of some kind, perhaps an m204 attachment to the m4a1 assault rifle.. but, this is not a weapon that you'd see real counter-terrorist agencies using, outside of launching gas munitions.

[pinchet]

flat i loef u ! ! !

[jskraperz]

i want those speakers i miss rottens boooks thanks for reviving them cause htey are theascoocle!

qsp



~latin suave~

[inValid]]

I think the most important thing that the Gearbox team consentrats on is keeping the game simple... Adding a bunch of new weapons such as the LAW (rocket luancher) and the "molotov" (beer with a rag in it)might seem a nice feature at first but, i dont think turning CS:CZ into a "action half-life" moch would be a very smart idia, unless you want to see CS become "gay". =\



Msg. By AnTi-HeRo (custom-strike2k.cjb.net)

^

Clan -|- AE (soon to change)

[Crinity]

Ok, at the risk of the Lufwrath, I'd just like counter your anti-LAW statements on the grounds that you might be taking the LAW specs just a little to literally. Just because the descriptions of secondary targets do not include human beings does not mean that they will not be effective against them. A LAW rocket detonates on impact with a hard object, piercing the armor, EXPLODES and hopefully DESTROYS given tank, pillbox, building etc. Firing a LAW rocket at (or near) your feet will kill you, despite your protests, because it will explode when it hits the ground. It may not have the sheer shredding power or radius of something like an RPG, but you will most definitely be dead. I don't believe a weapon has been invented that can take out light-armored anything and leave any nearby humans intact.



As someone else pointed out here, Terrorists will use whatever weaponry they can employ, and LAW rockets can be used to damage human targets if that's all you can find.



From another perspective, imagine the uproar if a genuine anti-personell rocket launcher had been used - screw HE type damage (as the LAW currently deals out), people would be taking out entire opposing squads, and we WOULD end up with CS Quake. What would you rather have? With that in mind, the LAW rocket makes perfect sense in terms of play balance and the spirit of CS. Fun #1, Realism #2 - that's how CS got this far.

[Goo5ey]

i agree with Crinity & Rotten - even if the LAW isn't really affective on personnel in reallife(tm) Gearbox should be allowed to exercise their creative license to attribute a HE type damage model to it. It would definitely be preferable to a situation where one shot would kill 3 to 5 enemies...



But then I imagine the LAW to as a HE that travels in a straight line, so rather than thinking of it as a rocket launcher (which provokes cries of "arrgh, no! quake! quake! hisss!) it's just a more accurate long range HE :-D ...i hope

[LuftWaffle]

I'm not saying that it should be replaced with a rocket launcher that WOULD kill lots of people..



I'm saying that it is totally out of place. Rocket launchers in a game about counter-terrorism are out of place. My perfect situation wouldn't be one where we had a HE-warhead rocket launcher which would kill dozens of people... I would prefer a game without any rocket launchers AT ALL.



I mean, why don't we have Abrams tanks in CS? Because they wouldn't fit the theme. Where do you draw the line? Uhm well I would draw the line exactly where counter-terrorist operators draw the line, and not allow rocket launchers in the game.



You can either keep them in and make the gameplay sort-of work, while sacrificing any trace of realism, or you can have realism and have the LAW do no damage unless it hits an actual person.

[Unregistered]

who knows, maybe it will be fun