0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Musashi put it best, let us discuss these controversial topics, we're not muslims here on Cutstuff, after all.
Quote from: "MusashiAA"Now now, boys.I'm left here to imply that JC defines classes without little to no disadvantages or limitations at all, for the sake of making all classes "usable in all scenarios".I don't agree with this at all. To give one example: a melee-centered, close range class shouldn't be given a projectile attack because of its limitations being made more evident in a long range fight or when fighting against a class with a long range weapon. Instead, it should be given the ability to cut down the range or resist the long range fight or momentarily dodge or block attacks. Eliminating the disadvantages to what you would call a class eliminates the essence of classes being role-centered (<<<<THIS IS A FACT), and instead gives a class two or three wildly different abilities, which just makes a class imbalanced or undefinable, and defeats the purpose of letting players fill in the limitations with their own wit, or to mantain classes within the boundaries of its role.I agree with you on this point, because there are classes in Justified that fight like this. For example, Slashman where he has no projectile attacks but has lots of mobility options to make up for it. However Class Based Modification fails to accomplish this goal effectively mostly due to the extreme gimmicks players are forced to adhere to. For example, Needleman has no way of getting close to another player since his mobility is terrible and does not have enough armour to shrug off direct hits. His abilities and attacks are only useful at point blank range and terrible at even mid range combat. Let's not forget that Class Based Modification's version doesn't even properly portray Needleman but instead more so portrays TF2 Heavy.This is what CBM struggles with, that's truth.So now we have a more clear differentiation between both mods: CBM sees role limitations as a tolerable (may I add sometimes purposeful) factor, while JC...doesn't?Justified Classes does take roles into consideration but not in a way that it would hinder the classes' ability to perform in situations.But JC does hinder a class' potentiality in some cases because of the boss form commandment. To give one example, JC Hardman. Another, JC Napalmman. Another one, JC Crashman. These classes give up control or abilities for the sake of source fidelity, which hinders the experience and difficults balance.EDIT: My input here is that this attempt at ironing the limitations, as if they were a bad thing, just results in giving players a less fluctuating online experience, in the sense of a lack of difficulty when facing other players and the abilities to overcome it with strategy. I guess I would call this "handholding"?Your perspective on my idea is misconceived, I am simply saying that classes that aren't given the compulsory tools or don't have a good balance in abilities to make a role or gimmick work then there are many instances where classes are put in an unfair situation. What Justified Classes is doing is not "handholding" but giving each class a mostly if not equal opportunity to shine in their own individual way. Putting the class in an unfair situation will not make a challenge but instead make a frustrating experience for the player. Especially when one player is putting out double the effort using a disadvantaged class against someone using a class that exploits the map or counters the user's class. CBM classes weren't designed to be or to have hard counters by design in most cases. The cases where it does happen, it's either on purpose or a straight up design flaw: we will not know this for sure until it is released to the public. When applied online and massively, what the devteam may consider as balanced sometimes does not stand, and this is why testing is not just a closed door occurance: when people play an online game, this is considered as mass testing that may or may not end up opening the road to new changes.To be blunt, I think you're overreacting to general disadvantage situations because of very specific scenarios in which limitations are made more obvious. I look at these kind of "unfair matchups" with the solution of class change: you are not fixated into using only one class...not to say that this serves as an excuse for actual imbalance issues, and generally the CBM devteam doesn't try to resort to this kind of arguments. I think it's unfair to say CBM hasn't done anything to view and resolve certain matchups, and it's not like it's a piece of cake with over 40 classes and an absurd amount of possible matchups.This is why I used the term "handholding" when refering to this exagerated point of view JC has over disadvantages. It's ok to not be able to fight off enemies you can't handle easily, and if it's technically impossible for you to fight these enemies as one class, try another, and we'll look into this as a potential issue.
Now now, boys.I'm left here to imply that JC defines classes without little to no disadvantages or limitations at all, for the sake of making all classes "usable in all scenarios".I don't agree with this at all. To give one example: a melee-centered, close range class shouldn't be given a projectile attack because of its limitations being made more evident in a long range fight or when fighting against a class with a long range weapon. Instead, it should be given the ability to cut down the range or resist the long range fight or momentarily dodge or block attacks. Eliminating the disadvantages to what you would call a class eliminates the essence of classes being role-centered (<<<<THIS IS A FACT), and instead gives a class two or three wildly different abilities, which just makes a class imbalanced or undefinable, and defeats the purpose of letting players fill in the limitations with their own wit, or to mantain classes within the boundaries of its role.I agree with you on this point, because there are classes in Justified that fight like this. For example, Slashman where he has no projectile attacks but has lots of mobility options to make up for it. However Class Based Modification fails to accomplish this goal effectively mostly due to the extreme gimmicks players are forced to adhere to. For example, Needleman has no way of getting close to another player since his mobility is terrible and does not have enough armour to shrug off direct hits. His abilities and attacks are only useful at point blank range and terrible at even mid range combat. Let's not forget that Class Based Modification's version doesn't even properly portray Needleman but instead more so portrays TF2 Heavy.This is what CBM struggles with, that's truth.So now we have a more clear differentiation between both mods: CBM sees role limitations as a tolerable (may I add sometimes purposeful) factor, while JC...doesn't?Justified Classes does take roles into consideration but not in a way that it would hinder the classes' ability to perform in situations.But JC does hinder a class' potentiality in some cases because of the boss form commandment. To give one example, JC Hardman. Another, JC Napalmman. Another one, JC Crashman. These classes give up control or abilities for the sake of source fidelity, which hinders the experience and difficults balance.EDIT: My input here is that this attempt at ironing the limitations, as if they were a bad thing, just results in giving players a less fluctuating online experience, in the sense of a lack of difficulty when facing other players and the abilities to overcome it with strategy. I guess I would call this "handholding"?Your perspective on my idea is misconceived, I am simply saying that classes that aren't given the compulsory tools or don't have a good balance in abilities to make a role or gimmick work then there are many instances where classes are put in an unfair situation. What Justified Classes is doing is not "handholding" but giving each class a mostly if not equal opportunity to shine in their own individual way. Putting the class in an unfair situation will not make a challenge but instead make a frustrating experience for the player. Especially when one player is putting out double the effort using a disadvantaged class against someone using a class that exploits the map or counters the user's class. CBM classes weren't designed to be or to have hard counters by design in most cases. The cases where it does happen, it's either on purpose or a straight up design flaw: we will not know this for sure until it is released to the public. When applied online and massively, what the devteam may consider as balanced sometimes does not stand, and this is why testing is not just a closed door occurance: when people play an online game, this is considered as mass testing that may or may not end up opening the road to new changes.To be blunt, I think you're overreacting to general disadvantage situations because of very specific scenarios in which limitations are made more obvious. I look at these kind of "unfair matchups" with the solution of class change: you are not fixated into using only one class...not to say that this serves as an excuse for actual imbalance issues, and generally the CBM devteam doesn't try to resort to this kind of arguments. I think it's unfair to say CBM hasn't done anything to view and resolve certain matchups, and it's not like it's a piece of cake with over 40 classes and an absurd amount of possible matchups.This is why I used the term "handholding" when refering to this exagerated point of view JC has over disadvantages. It's ok to not be able to fight off enemies you can't handle easily, and if it's technically impossible for you to fight these enemies as one class, try another, and we'll look into this as a potential issue.
Quote from: "Clayton"Quote from: "MusashiAA"Now now, boys.I'm left here to imply that JC defines classes without little to no disadvantages or limitations at all, for the sake of making all classes "usable in all scenarios".I don't agree with this at all. To give one example: a melee-centered, close range class shouldn't be given a projectile attack because of its limitations being made more evident in a long range fight or when fighting against a class with a long range weapon. Instead, it should be given the ability to cut down the range or resist the long range fight or momentarily dodge or block attacks. Eliminating the disadvantages to what you would call a class eliminates the essence of classes being role-centered (<<<<THIS IS A FACT), and instead gives a class two or three wildly different abilities, which just makes a class imbalanced or undefinable, and defeats the purpose of letting players fill in the limitations with their own wit, or to mantain classes within the boundaries of its role.I agree with you on this point, because there are classes in Justified that fight like this. For example, Slashman where he has no projectile attacks but has lots of mobility options to make up for it. However Class Based Modification fails to accomplish this goal effectively mostly due to the extreme gimmicks players are forced to adhere to. For example, Needleman has no way of getting close to another player since his mobility is terrible and does not have enough armour to shrug off direct hits. His abilities and attacks are only useful at point blank range and terrible at even mid range combat. Let's not forget that Class Based Modification's version doesn't even properly portray Needleman but instead more so portrays TF2 Heavy.This is what CBM struggles with, that's truth.So now we have a more clear differentiation between both mods: CBM sees role limitations as a tolerable (may I add sometimes purposeful) factor, while JC...doesn't?Justified Classes does take roles into consideration but not in a way that it would hinder the classes' ability to perform in situations.But JC does hinder a class' potentiality in some cases because of the boss form commandment. To give one example, JC Hardman. Another, JC Napalmman. Another one, JC Crashman. These classes give up control or abilities for the sake of source fidelity, which hinders the experience and difficults balance."These classes give up control or abilities for the sake of source fidelity, which hinders the experience and difficult balance." How so? Any possible scenarios or examples that can be given to demonstrate this point?EDIT: My input here is that this attempt at ironing the limitations, as if they were a bad thing, just results in giving players a less fluctuating online experience, in the sense of a lack of difficulty when facing other players and the abilities to overcome it with strategy. I guess I would call this "handholding"?Your perspective on my idea is misconceived, I am simply saying that classes that aren't given the compulsory tools or don't have a good balance in abilities to make a role or gimmick work then there are many instances where classes are put in an unfair situation. What Justified Classes is doing is not "handholding" but giving each class a mostly if not equal opportunity to shine in their own individual way. Putting the class in an unfair situation will not make a challenge but instead make a frustrating experience for the player. Especially when one player is putting out double the effort using a disadvantaged class against someone using a class that exploits the map or counters the user's class. CBM classes weren't designed to be or to have hard counters by design in most cases. The cases where it does happen, it's either on purpose or a straight up design flaw: we will not know this for sure until it is released to the public. When applied online and massively, what the devteam may consider as balanced sometimes does not stand, and this is why testing is not just a closed door occurance: when people play an online game, this is considered as mass testing that may or may not end up opening the road to new changes.To be blunt, I think you're overreacting to general disadvantage situations because of very specific scenarios in which limitations are made more obvious. I look at these kind of "unfair matchups" with the solution of class change: you are not fixated into using only one class...not to say that this serves as an excuse for actual imbalance issues, and generally the CBM devteam doesn't try to resort to this kind of arguments. I think it's unfair to say CBM hasn't done anything to view and resolve certain matchups, and it's not like it's a piece of cake with over 40 classes and an absurd amount of possible matchups.Tomahawkman and Punk have not recieved any sort of nerfing in the past three versions. They are by far the most try-hard classes to go to if a player desperately wants to win. And I'm sorry, but I don't think it's really possible to let a class like Magmaman get past the beta testing stages; everything about Magmaman is so overpowered. His non-charged shots can easily win him games due to how rapid fire they are and when fully charged you are guaranteed to kill at least one person no matter how bad you are (even if you use a keyboard). I'd say that this perspective is causing more hurt for the players when they are forced to play with imbalanced classes for an X amount of time.This is why I used the term "handholding" when refering to this exagerated point of view JC has over disadvantages. It's ok to not be able to fight off enemies you can't handle easily, and if it's technically impossible for you to fight these enemies as one class, try another, and we'll look into this as a potential issue.I consider classes that people rely on to win as "handholding", and there are many examples of classes like these in Class Based Modification (such as Magmaman, Galaxyman, Diveman, Magnetman, Tomahawkman, Skullman, Flashman, etc.). A player really shouldn't be forced to switch classes just because they are put in an unfair situation. However sometimes it can't even be helped when one person is using a perfect class with no counters.
Quote from: "MusashiAA"Now now, boys.I'm left here to imply that JC defines classes without little to no disadvantages or limitations at all, for the sake of making all classes "usable in all scenarios".I don't agree with this at all. To give one example: a melee-centered, close range class shouldn't be given a projectile attack because of its limitations being made more evident in a long range fight or when fighting against a class with a long range weapon. Instead, it should be given the ability to cut down the range or resist the long range fight or momentarily dodge or block attacks. Eliminating the disadvantages to what you would call a class eliminates the essence of classes being role-centered (<<<<THIS IS A FACT), and instead gives a class two or three wildly different abilities, which just makes a class imbalanced or undefinable, and defeats the purpose of letting players fill in the limitations with their own wit, or to mantain classes within the boundaries of its role.I agree with you on this point, because there are classes in Justified that fight like this. For example, Slashman where he has no projectile attacks but has lots of mobility options to make up for it. However Class Based Modification fails to accomplish this goal effectively mostly due to the extreme gimmicks players are forced to adhere to. For example, Needleman has no way of getting close to another player since his mobility is terrible and does not have enough armour to shrug off direct hits. His abilities and attacks are only useful at point blank range and terrible at even mid range combat. Let's not forget that Class Based Modification's version doesn't even properly portray Needleman but instead more so portrays TF2 Heavy.This is what CBM struggles with, that's truth.So now we have a more clear differentiation between both mods: CBM sees role limitations as a tolerable (may I add sometimes purposeful) factor, while JC...doesn't?Justified Classes does take roles into consideration but not in a way that it would hinder the classes' ability to perform in situations.But JC does hinder a class' potentiality in some cases because of the boss form commandment. To give one example, JC Hardman. Another, JC Napalmman. Another one, JC Crashman. These classes give up control or abilities for the sake of source fidelity, which hinders the experience and difficults balance."These classes give up control or abilities for the sake of source fidelity, which hinders the experience and difficult balance." How so? Any possible scenarios or examples that can be given to demonstrate this point?EDIT: My input here is that this attempt at ironing the limitations, as if they were a bad thing, just results in giving players a less fluctuating online experience, in the sense of a lack of difficulty when facing other players and the abilities to overcome it with strategy. I guess I would call this "handholding"?Your perspective on my idea is misconceived, I am simply saying that classes that aren't given the compulsory tools or don't have a good balance in abilities to make a role or gimmick work then there are many instances where classes are put in an unfair situation. What Justified Classes is doing is not "handholding" but giving each class a mostly if not equal opportunity to shine in their own individual way. Putting the class in an unfair situation will not make a challenge but instead make a frustrating experience for the player. Especially when one player is putting out double the effort using a disadvantaged class against someone using a class that exploits the map or counters the user's class. CBM classes weren't designed to be or to have hard counters by design in most cases. The cases where it does happen, it's either on purpose or a straight up design flaw: we will not know this for sure until it is released to the public. When applied online and massively, what the devteam may consider as balanced sometimes does not stand, and this is why testing is not just a closed door occurance: when people play an online game, this is considered as mass testing that may or may not end up opening the road to new changes.To be blunt, I think you're overreacting to general disadvantage situations because of very specific scenarios in which limitations are made more obvious. I look at these kind of "unfair matchups" with the solution of class change: you are not fixated into using only one class...not to say that this serves as an excuse for actual imbalance issues, and generally the CBM devteam doesn't try to resort to this kind of arguments. I think it's unfair to say CBM hasn't done anything to view and resolve certain matchups, and it's not like it's a piece of cake with over 40 classes and an absurd amount of possible matchups.Tomahawkman and Punk have not recieved any sort of nerfing in the past three versions. They are by far the most try-hard classes to go to if a player desperately wants to win. And I'm sorry, but I don't think it's really possible to let a class like Magmaman get past the beta testing stages; everything about Magmaman is so overpowered. His non-charged shots can easily win him games due to how rapid fire they are and when fully charged you are guaranteed to kill at least one person no matter how bad you are (even if you use a keyboard). I'd say that this perspective is causing more hurt for the players when they are forced to play with imbalanced classes for an X amount of time.This is why I used the term "handholding" when refering to this exagerated point of view JC has over disadvantages. It's ok to not be able to fight off enemies you can't handle easily, and if it's technically impossible for you to fight these enemies as one class, try another, and we'll look into this as a potential issue.I consider classes that people rely on to win as "handholding", and there are many examples of classes like these in Class Based Modification (such as Magmaman, Galaxyman, Diveman, Magnetman, Tomahawkman, Skullman, Flashman, etc.). A player really shouldn't be forced to switch classes just because they are put in an unfair situation. However sometimes it can't even be helped when one person is using a perfect class with no counters.
Now now, boys.I'm left here to imply that JC defines classes without little to no disadvantages or limitations at all, for the sake of making all classes "usable in all scenarios".I don't agree with this at all. To give one example: a melee-centered, close range class shouldn't be given a projectile attack because of its limitations being made more evident in a long range fight or when fighting against a class with a long range weapon. Instead, it should be given the ability to cut down the range or resist the long range fight or momentarily dodge or block attacks. Eliminating the disadvantages to what you would call a class eliminates the essence of classes being role-centered (<<<<THIS IS A FACT), and instead gives a class two or three wildly different abilities, which just makes a class imbalanced or undefinable, and defeats the purpose of letting players fill in the limitations with their own wit, or to mantain classes within the boundaries of its role.I agree with you on this point, because there are classes in Justified that fight like this. For example, Slashman where he has no projectile attacks but has lots of mobility options to make up for it. However Class Based Modification fails to accomplish this goal effectively mostly due to the extreme gimmicks players are forced to adhere to. For example, Needleman has no way of getting close to another player since his mobility is terrible and does not have enough armour to shrug off direct hits. His abilities and attacks are only useful at point blank range and terrible at even mid range combat. Let's not forget that Class Based Modification's version doesn't even properly portray Needleman but instead more so portrays TF2 Heavy.This is what CBM struggles with, that's truth.So now we have a more clear differentiation between both mods: CBM sees role limitations as a tolerable (may I add sometimes purposeful) factor, while JC...doesn't?Justified Classes does take roles into consideration but not in a way that it would hinder the classes' ability to perform in situations.But JC does hinder a class' potentiality in some cases because of the boss form commandment. To give one example, JC Hardman. Another, JC Napalmman. Another one, JC Crashman. These classes give up control or abilities for the sake of source fidelity, which hinders the experience and difficults balance."These classes give up control or abilities for the sake of source fidelity, which hinders the experience and difficult balance." How so? Any possible scenarios or examples that can be given to demonstrate this point?EDIT: My input here is that this attempt at ironing the limitations, as if they were a bad thing, just results in giving players a less fluctuating online experience, in the sense of a lack of difficulty when facing other players and the abilities to overcome it with strategy. I guess I would call this "handholding"?Your perspective on my idea is misconceived, I am simply saying that classes that aren't given the compulsory tools or don't have a good balance in abilities to make a role or gimmick work then there are many instances where classes are put in an unfair situation. What Justified Classes is doing is not "handholding" but giving each class a mostly if not equal opportunity to shine in their own individual way. Putting the class in an unfair situation will not make a challenge but instead make a frustrating experience for the player. Especially when one player is putting out double the effort using a disadvantaged class against someone using a class that exploits the map or counters the user's class. CBM classes weren't designed to be or to have hard counters by design in most cases. The cases where it does happen, it's either on purpose or a straight up design flaw: we will not know this for sure until it is released to the public. When applied online and massively, what the devteam may consider as balanced sometimes does not stand, and this is why testing is not just a closed door occurance: when people play an online game, this is considered as mass testing that may or may not end up opening the road to new changes.To be blunt, I think you're overreacting to general disadvantage situations because of very specific scenarios in which limitations are made more obvious. I look at these kind of "unfair matchups" with the solution of class change: you are not fixated into using only one class...not to say that this serves as an excuse for actual imbalance issues, and generally the CBM devteam doesn't try to resort to this kind of arguments. I think it's unfair to say CBM hasn't done anything to view and resolve certain matchups, and it's not like it's a piece of cake with over 40 classes and an absurd amount of possible matchups.Tomahawkman and Punk have not recieved any sort of nerfing in the past three versions. They are by far the most try-hard classes to go to if a player desperately wants to win. And I'm sorry, but I don't think it's really possible to let a class like Magmaman get past the beta testing stages; everything about Magmaman is so overpowered. His non-charged shots can easily win him games due to how rapid fire they are and when fully charged you are guaranteed to kill at least one person no matter how bad you are (even if you use a keyboard). I'd say that this perspective is causing more hurt for the players when they are forced to play with imbalanced classes for an X amount of time.This is why I used the term "handholding" when refering to this exagerated point of view JC has over disadvantages. It's ok to not be able to fight off enemies you can't handle easily, and if it's technically impossible for you to fight these enemies as one class, try another, and we'll look into this as a potential issue.I consider classes that people rely on to win as "handholding", and there are many examples of classes like these in Class Based Modification (such as Magmaman, Galaxyman, Diveman, Magnetman, Tomahawkman, Skullman, Flashman, etc.). A player really shouldn't be forced to switch classes just because they are put in an unfair situation. However sometimes it can't even be helped when one person is using a perfect class with no counters.
Sooo... what's the deal with getting over the conflict and simply call an agreement on a final classes mod?That would for instance, benefit of Justified's top notch graphics and high-quality canon ressources, + the most successful 2D-NES to FPS game classes convertion,and get the devotion of the CBM team regarding balance, improved classes uniqueness & smoothness, (and eventually vanilla-scaled damage values but that's subjective).
There were proposals about KY classes and YD classes merging once. I don't think the devs really talked about merging. Either way, I like having two different design philosophies going into classes. If you had asked me which version of classes was better before the recent patches, I would have said CBM without a doubt. The MM9 classes feel really sloppy though and I think they're stumbling to come up with useful designs for Magmaman right now. Meanwhile, JC is buggy at times but I think they'll be able to explore more interesting designs once that dev team becomes more experienced with programming and testing.I remember playing JC when it first came out and thought it was incredibly slow-paced for me, while CBM would always have 1-2 broken classes that were ripe for abuse, such as Magmaman. I can't say which is better overall, but in my head I imagine CBM being better for DM and CTF, where the action is fast and you need to get kills quickly, while JC would be more suited for TLMS/LMS, where there's no health and the lower damage-per-second of all the classes means you can't simply bumrush the other team, resulting in (slightly) more interesting gameplay.I don't think you really played the most recent version enough. We buffed nearly every class so that games don't last half as long. And I'm guessing you use Airman in Class Based Modification DM because I certainly got that from what you said. Seriously, Class Based Modification DM? All you have to do to win is just use a spammy class like Airman, Napalmman, Magmaman, Tomahawkman, etc.Oh, and one more thing. I know you can't control what your dev team does, Fyone, but if you could please instruct all the members of your team to stop shilling for JC in the CBM servers, that'd be greeeeeat. A couple of weeks ago I saw Fr3ak come into a TLMS server to talk about JC while this past week has been filled with random people entering the servers and talking about why CBM is so bad. I don't think they were all devs, but it's starting to annoy the crap out of me. If they could please place their opinions on this topic instead of the servers, I'd greatly appreciate it.We're not going to "instruct" devteam members to behave on servers, if they want to cause a fuss in a server that's their problem not ours.
CBM (the mod formerly known as YD Classes) has a design philosophy that revolves around taking the robot master's weapons and exaggerating their strengths and weaknesses to create a class that's quite good in one respect, but struggles in others. This method allows the classes to stray from their original RM's design in the interest of squeezing out more fun. However, this exaggerated power structure results in a fast paced, frantic style that in turn breeds many classes with one-hit kills, unavoidable damage, powerful lockdown skills, and other absurd attacks designed to highlight their strengths to the point where Hardman relies more on his Hard Jet to pull himself out of trouble than his large health pool being able to withstand it and the game begins to devolve into "how do I kill everyone before they can kill me" (Gravity Man, Elec Man, Galaxy Man, Magma Man) or "how do I block/evade the bullshit for long enough to be the last man standing" (Skull Man, Wood Man, Gyro Man, Gravity Man)Class Based Modification doesn't exaggerate the strengths of robot masters, they make most classes have high damage input and low armor (with the exception of Magmaman, Tomahawkman and Punk). From what I'm reading here, Class Based Modification's selling point is the ability to use powerful classes and win games.Justified (the mod formerly known as KY Classes), however, focuses on staying true to the robot master's classic tool kit, balancing around normalizing those strengths and weaknesses as opposed to exaggerating them. This results in an environment where scoring a frag relies more on critical thinking and pressing what few advantages each class's kit can provide as opposed to finding the attack that can rip apart Hardman in less than a second and spamming it down a narrow hallway. While such an approach provides an environment where most of the classes feel relatively on par with each other, some of the satisfaction factor of obtaining the aforementioned advantages is taken away, making the classes feel weak. In addition, power disparities in the classes end up amplified by the lack thereof, and classes with any sort of reliable or semi-reliable damage (Slash Man, Plant Man, Oil Man, Gemini Man, Magic Man) find themselves at a huge advantage, while classes with potentially high but inconsistent payoffs (Wood Man, Pirate Man, Skull Man, Burner Man) are painful to play as the team seems to value potential over practicality when determining the numbers.I take it that you think classes such as Woodman, Pirateman, Skullman and Burnerman deal damage in a difficult manor while Slashman, Plantman, Oilman and Geminiman deal easy damage. Woodman is a shield class that gets complete invincibility. The shield attack also inflicts 1/4 of hp with a direct hit. Yes he is slow but his armour and invincibility balances it out. You could really view Woodman as a class that uses a role, where the shield acts like an aiming period for the player to get a good angle and hit on the opponent(s). If the shot is difficult to attempt the player can simple use the altfire to cover his/her escape. This is a prime example of a class gimmick that works. Pirate Man has manipulable Flash Bombs which he can change direction to trap his/her opponents. The altfire can be used as an escape or a finisher. Really it comes down to learning the class and its capabilities in combat, and the amount of uses each move has. Class Based Modication's classes are a lot less intuitive in this sense.Which approach is better? I personally don't feel there is a right choice or a wrong one. CBM's classes feel immediately satisfying to play and stay true to vanilla's rapid pace (provided you live long enough to utilize them), while JC's classes provide a slower, more tactical and well thought-out game (most of the time). Which one I prefer really depends on what I'm in the mood for at the time. However, I do agree that both of them are flawed in their own ways based on their respective strategies.I find this statement wrong in a few senses. Personally I think Vanilla falls more in the middle of Class Based Modification and Justified Classes where it strays from the original canon games more than Justified Classes but not as much as Class Based Modification. Vanilla is able to keep a rapid pace since it follows a completely different gameplay style than Class mods where all players are given a near identical circumstance and fight off by picking up weapons and utilizing them the best way they can. Class Based Modification tries too hard to replicate such a philosophy (which is impossible to do since it is a class-centric mod) and I feel this is what ruins the mod the most.
CBM's classes feel immediately satisfying to play and stay true to vanilla's rapid pace (provided you live long enough to utilize them)literally looking through every single class in both mods, and I'm finding equally as many "i kill u no counterplay huehuehue" classes in each.stop making shit up. while JC's classes provide a slower, more tactical and well thought-out game (most of the time). When every class has 2 megabuster variants, you bet your ass you have a more tactical game.For the absolute worst reason possible.
Quote from: "xColdxFusionx"CBM's classes feel immediately satisfying to play and stay true to vanilla's rapid pace (provided you live long enough to utilize them)literally looking through every single class in both mods, and I'm finding equally as many "i kill u no counterplay huehuehue" classes in each.Any examples to name for Justified? It would be much appreciated.stop making shit up.while JC's classes provide a slower, more tactical and well thought-out game (most of the time). When every class has 2 megabuster variants, you bet your ass you have a more tactical game.Any classes in particular that share this quality? As far as I know there isn't one class in the Justified Classes mod that have 2 Mega Buster variants in any of their weapons.For the absolute worst reason possible.I'd also like to point out when a dev maniacally defends their game and bashes the competition, you need to rethink who you support.First of all, Justified is simply a little mod out of a mod of doom, I wouldn't care less about what people think in the end. However I will debunk any kind of false statements or vague claims that people have about Justified Classes. If the opposing party does not wish to do the same that's up to them.
CBM's classes feel immediately satisfying to play and stay true to vanilla's rapid pace (provided you live long enough to utilize them)literally looking through every single class in both mods, and I'm finding equally as many "i kill u no counterplay huehuehue" classes in each.Any examples to name for Justified? It would be much appreciated.stop making shit up.while JC's classes provide a slower, more tactical and well thought-out game (most of the time). When every class has 2 megabuster variants, you bet your ass you have a more tactical game.Any classes in particular that share this quality? As far as I know there isn't one class in the Justified Classes mod that have 2 Mega Buster variants in any of their weapons.For the absolute worst reason possible.
Yeah I mean both class mods are ok. Unlike those fuckin Jews
Two entirely different mods for two entirely different groups of people.You're literally comparing solitaire to minesweeper.
Lot's of words that I don't need to show that I'm quoting you.
If you like Class Based Modification better than Justified Classes with no reasoning but "I just think it feels better" or "JC is extremely bland" than I have absolutely nothing to follow up with since there is no changing such ignorant mindsets.
