^ like she say-dude....theys' folks that want to be a part of this melee n' get scared away from all the attitudes!!?...WTF...let'em in why don't cha!!

I should talk, eh? The, "I'll rip ya a new one when the buzz ain't satisfied" kinna guy that we bees!

S'rsly, new folks that post and don't lurk need some scrutinizing eyes and ears from the peanut gallery we all become boredstrated with....keeps the revenue a-flowin' for the man downunder........

Thnaks for the uplift-I have put a lot of time in here and though some see me as only a trollish element, I have been able to percolate the collective consciousness more often that not-my impact crater is after all, visible to the naked eye from the International Space Station!! Cheers!

In reply to this comment by Playinwithfire:
Choggie,
I havent been here long, signed up in Sept I think, at the request of a friend (Enoch) primarily because a project we worked on together was on the sift, and Im fairly certain I have wore out my video posting welcome on facebook lol this was a good outlet for me. Ive been more active for the past few months for much the same reasons. I generally keep my nose in my music and try to MYOB know what I mean? lol I do watch the docs and things particularly if they are recommended to me, but as a rule prefer not to comment or get into the melee of opinions people seem compelled to share. Theres some good members here, and theres some well... Douchebags here too. Myself I prefer to ignore the douchebaggery and post what I like, sift or no (mostly no lol)
I enjoy sharing with the few who enjoy the same things I do, but stay away from the drama, lifes to short to worry about people sitting in their underwear distributing opinions. Dont let it ruin the things you enjoy about the sift. Now I dont know the things surrounding your exit and return, havent been here long enough, but I do enjoy the things you post, and have appreciated the support you've shown towards the random crap I post lol. I recognize very few names as I surf around in here, but yours is one of them, if I see "choggie" I always have a peek at it and show it some love one little vote drop in a bucket, but lol its all we got.
If you have fun here in certain respects, dont just give up and fade away. I betcha more than a few would miss ya here. Hey Im just a noob so what do I know right?


In reply to this comment by choggie:
Julie, i don;t know how long you've been here at VS but I noticed your comment on the TED talk with Temple Grandin (I saw her presentation and downloaded the film....i loved it..Claire Danes ripped her part a new one)

Part of my legacy here on the site involves a very popular user who bailed when it was voted to allow me back-I am not positive that the reason for his departure was my return, but they guy was pretty adamant about not letting me back, as were some others....he and another user's bullshit were one of the reasons for my leaving as I did (breaking all the rules in the FAQ's in about 10 minutes)-The user in question, Kronosposiden it was told me by another user after the fact, that he has Asburger's....which explained a lot as to his focus on some crap I considered inconsequential at the time-Consequentially, there is some unspoken animosity towards me for this, and my manner here, which appears trollish to the untrained eye-All this to say that after coming back, i had found that the old guard of artistic, expressive, and energetic talent of the place which used to be a tight core, has been replaced by shut-in, insect, douchebags (mostly males who have never been kissed) and I simply can;t keep up with the onslaught-a barrage of crap, foreign to my sensibilities....I am gonna slink away from the place I fear, like so many others have.....cheers and sorry that I am unable to mark this message "private"...the only power that was not returned to me after my resurrection.

I don't think it's boring, but it does have some flaws. Along with the pets/minions getting stuck and the having to click on EEEEEVERYTHING, the enemy hitboxes are small as shit in relation to their body size, so most of the time you want to attack them with a melee weapon, you just run up next to them and hang out while they slap you across the face. The only way around this is to either be very patient with smacking things/constantly use spells and specials that don't require aiming, or play as the vanquisher (tits). Holding shift to stand in place while I actually shoot at shit is the only way to keep from getting annoyed by running around in circles because some of the enemies do sudden movements (goblinhounds, lizard dudes, etc) or just have smaller bodies (pigmies, drake things, etc). Other than those, the game's pretty great. Just stock up on potions and identify scrolls (or get the identify spell if you want, you really only need two offensive spells for yourself, one offensive and one heal all spell for the pet, and two slots reserved for health potions, one for mana potions. Good game.

The dog running through the melee is having more fun than the people.

"So, let me get this straight.. You wake up, you're tired because you're halfway through your sleep cycle, so instead of a melee weapon where you can see what you'll be swinging at, you instead grab a gun? Yeah, have fun shooting a loved one."

No, you identify the person first in either case. It's easier to shoot someone while tired than it is to get involved in a melee. You're more likely to win in other words. You can id someone within seconds of waking up, but only sleep will give you the alertness needed to fight a brawl.

"It doesn't matter if they bring a friend, the first thing you SHOULD be doing when you hear people in your house is calling the cops (hey look, that statement wasn't actually irrelevant after all!)."

Yes, that is the first thing you do if you aren't armed. If you are armed, you arm yourself, then you call the cops and hide.

The reason it wasn't relevant is because the police will take enough time to arrive that you may very well be dead by the time they get there.

"The only time you should be engaging them anyway is if they come after you."

Yes. And if they come after you, they are most likely to win, provided you don't have a gun. If you do, the odds are about 50/50 or better in your favor.

"And saner people realise that they'll be breaking into the house and getting the jump on you, hmm? So..What the fuck good does it do you then? Neither the bat OR the gun is any use because you're now either dead, or locked in a closet. Oh, and if they continue to search after that's happened, they get to steal your gun. yay."

Except as a matter of fact, break-ins do occur when the owner has a firearm, and when the owner is not expecting it, and even though the break in itself was a surprise, it's almost always the firearm toting homeowner that wins. Your hypothetical scenario logically supports your conclusion, but it is not representative of reality.

"Strength in combat is usually not a deciding factor, if you're not as strong as some, pick a lighter bat. You don't need to be sleeping beside a 32 oz. home run machine, a 24-26 ounce metal softball bat is less then 2 pounds and longer then a knife."

No seriously, how much experience do you have fighting with a baseball bat vs someone with a knife?

I contend that
A) A knife, even a short one is much more dangerous than a baseball bat (getting hit with a bat is painful and can break bones, but being stabbed is much worse).
B) Even a short knife has a longer reach than a baseball bat (because of the thrusting motion with arm vs swing motion).

The above isn't to invite discussion on what people should arm themselves with, it's to demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

"He brings friends, you're probably SOL in the first place, but seriously.. "

If he brings friends you can easily bring them down if you're armed with a gun and they aren't, they will be the people who are SOL. If they are armed with guns (which is very rare), then you are much better off armed yourself.

"do you think that no burglars can be stopped without a gun? I'm genuinely curious now, because if the answer is yes, then what do you think they do in..say..Canada?"

I do think burglars can be stopped without a gun. It's just that keeping guns legal helps you a lot more than it helps them. As for Canada, I believe guns are legal there. As for what they do in any given place where it is not legal to own a firearm, for the most part they deal with whatever the perps want to do with them and then file a police report after the fact. Sometimes letting the police deal with it is the correct state of affairs (robbery), and sometimes barring citizens to the means of self defense is a terribly unjust state of affairs (rape, murder).

"a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise."
..so, how exactly do you draw and fire a gun if you've been taken by surprise? a "decent" any one of those would have a weapon pointed at you, and have your arms either up, or somewhere away from where a concealed weapon could be. And you call my logic flawed.

Your logic is perfect. If it were true that muggings worked like that, then a concealed weapon would do you no good.

Your facts however, are wrong.

Like your previous example, you constructed a hypothetical scenario, then force it to work out like you want it to, rather than looking at what actually happens in reality.

This is the typical (real) case: someone carrying a (concealed) firearm is mugged or otherwise held up while doing something else (so as a matter of course, they were taken by surprise). The usual result of this scenario is the perpetrator running away, rarely being shot, rarer still winning a confrontation. On the other hand, if you are not armed and the perpetrator wants more than your money, then all you can do is file a police report afterward, assuming he has no interest in killing you.

P.S. My last post wasn't meant to be laughed at. Neither is this one.

@Lowen: Long comment trying to be funny is long...and really not funny.

So, let me get this straight.. You wake up, you're tired because you're halfway through your sleep cycle, so instead of a melee weapon where you can see what you'll be swinging at, you instead grab a gun? Yeah, have fun shooting a loved one.

It doesn't matter if they bring a friend, the first thing you SHOULD be doing when you hear people in your house is calling the cops (hey look, that statement wasn't actually irrelevant after all!). The only time you should be engaging them anyway is if they come after you.

And saner people realise that they'll be breaking into the house and getting the jump on you, hmm? So..What the fuck good does it do you then? Neither the bat OR the gun is any use because you're now either dead, or locked in a closet. Oh, and if they continue to search after that's happened, they get to steal your gun. yay.

Strength in combat is usually not a deciding factor, if you're not as strong as some, pick a lighter bat. You don't need to be sleeping beside a 32 oz. home run machine, a 24-26 ounce metal softball bat is less then 2 pounds and longer then a knife.

He brings friends, you're probably SOL in the first place, but seriously.. do you think that no burglars can be stopped without a gun? I'm genuinely curious now, because if the answer is yes, then what do you think they do in..say..Canada?

"a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise."

..so, how exactly do you draw and fire a gun if you've been taken by surprise? a "decent" any one of those would have a weapon pointed at you, and have your arms either up, or somewhere away from where a concealed weapon could be. And you call my logic flawed.

The idea that banning guns to make the country safer is NOT laughable when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms and doesn't have guerilla forces as part of a rebellion. The reason those people exist is basically to "Fight the Man" and last time I checked, the U.S.A. doesn't exactly have that problem.

Hi Shepppard! Thanks for completely ignoring the factual basis of my post. Here it is for you AGAIN, stated more simply for you:

1: Firearms have been smuggled into prisons. They can be smuggled into a country. If they are illegal then by definition the only private citizens that can get their hands on them are criminals.

(hurp hurp, it's the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" bit.)

2: Weapons are assembled in the middle of nowhere (jungle camps, Pakistani villages, etc) and do not require extremely specialized machinery to make. Even if they could not be manufactured openly, and even if they could not be smuggled in, criminals would still have no trouble manufacturing firearms and ammunition. To put a stop to this, you'd have to ban or regulate a lot of tools and materials that have many constructive uses.

This is why it's vital that private citizens retain the right to carry firearms. Because you can't stop them from getting them.

Private citizens require firearms to make sure they can defend themselves against criminals? Seriously? you don't think people carry guns when they break into peoples houses? That's just naive.

Where did you get the idea that most break-ins are committed by people packing heat? I don't doubt it happens that some do have guns, but from all the break-in cases I've heard, the usual burlger/rapist is armed with something that's less obviously a weapon (and not as expensive as a gun), like a heavy pipe, wrench, or a knife.

If you're that worried that someone's gonna break into your house, sleep next to a bat. If neither side has a gun, it's basically which ever one has the bigger melee weapon wins, and last time I checked, if you're breaking into someones house, you don't take a claymore, They draw a knife, you pick up the bat. Problem solved.

Well, I guess we'll all have to yield to your vast experience and/or research in the field of "home defense melee combat".

1: Failing that, saner people will realize that someone breaking into your house is going to have the advantage of surprise and will probably be stronger than you (as an expert in this field I'm surprised you didn't mention strength as a deciding factor in melee combat). Making you SOL.

It's much less of a problem if you have a gun though. You might be terrible at baseball bat fencing after being woken up midway through your sleep cycle and fighting someone on nocturnal sleep cycle, but that is less of an issue with a gun, nor do guns care how strong you are.

2. If he brings friends, then you're almost certainly SOL.

A gun solves the issue of being outnumbered nicely, since fights end sooner it's less likely you'll end up fighting two people at the same instant, and makes you more or less immune to being immobilized by one while the other attacks (because you can kill them before they get that close).

Last but not least this has nothing to do with someone "breaking into our house". The chances of someone being a victim of any kind of robbery are very low, and in any case it's not robbery that's the problem.

This has to do with your personal safety wherever you are. If there was a way to tell a burglar from a rapist or murderer, I'd be all for letting them take whatever they want and letting the police sort things out, or not. Even if I don't get my stuff back, it's not worth killing someone over. Unfortunately, the only way to tell ahead of time is let them rape or murder you.

In addition to all the other terrible flaws with your "baseball bat" idea, it's utterly useless when you're anywhere other than at home or home base. Last I checked, people also get mugged, and you'll get funny looks carrying a baseball bat around, in addition to it being completely ineffective against a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise.

Again, this has nothing to do with my personal worries. The chances that any of this happens to anyone are very low, but should it happen you're completely utterly fucked without a gun.

I contend that passing a law forbidding private citizens from carrying firearms leads to situations where one person can kill many, with the many helpless. This is unconscionable.

oh, and as for your "Extra lols", Really? Do you think that the secret service doesn't care that there's loaded firearms at a rally for the president?
are you THAT naive? your country has a bit of a track record for assassinations and attempted assassinations. If there's ANY person carrying a weapon at a rally, you can bet your ass they're being watched like a hawk.

Yeah, except if you read the article you'd know the secret service wasn't worried because
A) the rallies took place well away from where the president was and they of course had that area secured (no firearms are allowed in a federal venue). As for our track record for assassinations, I can't recall one that had the assassin carrying openly while loudly demonstrating. Assassins like to keep a low profile, but I guess you wouldn't know that since you majored in "home defense melee combat" and not "underhanded techniques of murder for hire".

"There's a reason that the police force was invented, and contrary to common belief, no, it was not to go around tazing people."

Not relevant, even if true.

The police can't protect you unless they're aware that you're in danger, and they're near enough to help. Those two facts mean there would have be many, many more police to make them an effective means of self defense. As it is, they are not an effective means for the defense of your person.

Fun fact: retired police officers and military love carrying and owning firearms. I wonder why?

Really, your post shows that you're about as in touch with reality as the right wing idiots that watch fox news.

No, more people do NOT need to do more things like this.

There's a reason that the police force was invented, and contrary to common belief, no, it was not to go around tazing people.

The idea that banning guns to make the country safer is NOT laughable when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms and doesn't have guerilla forces as part of a rebellion. The reason those people exist is basically to "Fight the Man" and last time I checked, the U.S.A. doesn't exactly have that problem.

Private citizens require firearms to make sure they can defend themselves against criminals?
Seriously? you don't think people carry guns when they break into peoples houses? That's just naive. If you're that worried that someone's gonna break into your house, sleep next to a bat. If neither side has a gun, it's basically which ever one has the bigger melee weapon wins, and last time I checked, if you're breaking into someones house, you don't take a claymore, They draw a knife, you pick up the bat. Problem solved.

oh, and as for your "Extra lols", Really? Do you think that the secret service doesn't care that there's loaded firearms at a rally for the president? are you THAT naive? your country has a bit of a track record for assassinations and attempted assassinations. If there's ANY person carrying a weapon at a rally, you can bet your ass they're being watched like a hawk.

>> ^Lowen:
Awesome, more people need to do things like this. People are clearly conditioned by movies and the news to an irrational fear of private citizens with firearms, and if people don't exercise their rights in this way, we will lose the second amendment.
The idea that you can make people safer by banning guns is laughable when guns are assembled in rebel camps in the middle of jungles, mountain towns in Pakistan, and sometimes even smuggled into prisons.
Private citizens require firearms to defend themselves from criminals - without them, even a criminal carrying a knife, nonlethal weapon, or using nothing but his body can render someone helpless. This is far more common than deaths from school shootings, psychos who snap, etc. Again, it's the news at work, playing the story that is unusual and making you afraid of something rare.
I solute the protesters that carry firearms to these events - I hope it continues without incident. If so, it'll make the newscasters look retarded for running this series of "OMG ASSAULT RIFLES AT A PRESIDENTIAL PROTESTS! WTFBBQ!". Maybe then some of you video sifters will come around to the idea that the 2nd amendment is one that protects individual rights, just like all the others, and not a bizzaro provision needed, less we force the national guard to arm itself with nerf guns.
Also, for extra lols at you idiots saying this was alarming the secret service/president, here's what the secret service had to play:
"U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, 'Of course not.' "
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/ind
ex.html#cnnSTCText

I always felt it loses speed in versus mode when on fire, and it's not so negligible, speed is everything when you have to melee.

So far they have anounced these new additions to the game: 3 or 4 new melee-only weapons, fire proof zombies, 1 new special infected aka the charger (charges survivors and stuns them), 1 new type of witch that walks around instead of sitting still, and one more black character than before (thank fuck its a black girl), and the same exact small number of levels except played during the daytime. \\

This "game" sounds pathetic. If it was an expansion it would be amazing. You could choose from 8 survivors, and see how the small number of new creatures would play out in the old levels. Basically, as an expansion, possibly best thing of it's kind ever, and as a game possibly pure crap. Let's watch them try their damndest not to fuck it up. Not that I won't buy it for sure anyways. Damn you Valve, you oh so perfect entity, you.

Not Shown: The dozens of times he landed just next to a survivor without quite pouncing them, before getting meleed to death

There are some people here that don't seem to understand: the cops HAVE to do something about that guy. The CAN NOT just let a guy run around naked. Yeah, blame our prudish society, but don't blame the cops. They were more than generous offering to let an obviously intoxicated man walk away if he simply put his clothes back on.

HOWEVER, these were the most incompetent cops I've seen in quite a while. When the guy threw away his clothes the second time, it should have been insta-cuffs and gone, with two of them hauling him away and a third carrying his effects. This 15 minute melee was absolutely ridiculous, and the completely ineffective use of the taser just made it that much worse.

The reason these guys are working music festivals instead of patrolling our cities is pretty clear here.

We halo players were too busy in the double xp hopper and enjoying our new maps. 3v3v3 melee is more fun and important than getting teabagged!

I just played the thing. All the servers were a wee bit laggy for my taste.

And I don't know how exactly you're suppose to aim with the arrow. I really cannot predict where it would land...

And yes, there are melee problems.

Overall, I tried it. And I uninstalled it the next day.

I have two questions:

1) How are they fixing the melee problems in Source? It's always had melee problems in multiplayer.

2) A freaking flamberge! How cool is that?