DaC throws down the gauntlet

[Darkkender]

The type of Turn-Based combat that is used by the Fallout games is considered Archaic in the Game Development community. Other than your little corner of the world which might equal 1% of the market share there is no demand for that form of combat system.

FYI Civ 4 does use Isometric view however you can rotate the map as it is 3D technology. Also for a Turn Based Strategy game your Isometric view and Turn based technology fit like a glove.

However you've got your platform that because it is good for another Genre of game it is still good for Fallout. Pull your heads out of your asses.

You want 2D Isometric, in the gaming world we call that 2.5D or fake 3D. The usage of actual 3D in a CRPG evolved out of consumer demand and the desire of game developer's to do more with there world. If you look at the progression of CRPG's from the point in time when the Fallout games were released to current. You will see that they didn't just leap from 2.5D Fallout to 3D KOTOR. They got that way progressively through the games they had inbetween Fallout and KOTOR.

Your Turn-based technology also advanced to match your environment. Your right KOTOR does have a Pause function and yes it has realtime elements. However KOTOR is also Turnbased as it allows you to choose your combat actions each round by having a Queue, and you can also change your actions on the fly as you would with the Fallout games.

But since the Hard core Fallout fans live in a world of pre-year 2000 technology gaming nothing I or anybody else might say about turn-based combat as it was not being a viable technology for a CRPG falls on little kids ears. You know the ears the ones where kids place there hands over there ears and go "LALALALALALA!".

People have pointed out very good point over the months and years of why Turn-based is not viable, and like a predictable little child the hardcore idiots here say give us a good reason. The only thing you Sander and your lot of Fucking Morons of friends in this community want to hear is "Yes, the game how you want it will be made." It doesn't matter if the game costs more to develop than it will make in the current market.

 

[Per]

In the CURRENT MARKET ALL games must be SHOOTARS

so don't expect anyone to buy ESTABLISHED HARDCORE CRPG IP and not turn it into SHOOTAR!

 

[MrBumble]

Let's clarify your bullshit : KOTOR sucked big hairy donkey balls, Oblivion sucked giant frozen mammouth balls. We here as a fan community want a game that doesn't suck huge ( insert big animal name here ) balls, we don't want a Fallout rape fest, we don't give a fuck about the mainstream gamers since we are part of a fallout fansite ( these are not the ign boards in case you didn't notice it ), we don't give a fuck about the demand either for the same reason ( plus if Bethesda bought the license, we, as fans, have the right to expect a real Fallout, see ? ) so cut the bullshit to yourself and let us daydream, thanks.

 

[Brother None]

The type of Turn-Based combat that is used by the Fallout games is considered Archaic in the Game Development community. Other than your little corner of the world which might equal 1% of the market share there is no demand for that form of combat system.

Oh, that explains why every TB game flops and every RT game is a success.

OHWAITTHAT'SNOTTRUE.

However you've got your platform that because it is good for another Genre of game it is still good for Fallout. Pull your heads out of your asses.

Because cRPG is typically one of those genres of which turn-based combat is anemic?

You want 2D Isometric

I...don't think anyone except you has mentioned a 2D engine so far. So, uhm...huh?

If you look at the progression of CRPG's

Sometimes I think there's a correlation between people who enjoy linear games and the belief that there is some kind of mythical linear "progression" in gaming technology and mechanics.

Newsflash: no, there isn't.

But since the Hard core Fallout fans live in a world of pre-year 2000 technology gaming

...Because the choice to used TB or RT, isometric or first-person depends on the advancement of technology? You think the guys that made Fallout were wringing their hands crying that they didn't have the technology to make a RT-FP game?

The technology argument is insurmountable bullshit. Please stop using it.

People have pointed out very good point over the months and years of why Turn-based is not viable

Really? Where are they?

 

[Continuum]

You want 2D Isometric

You know what I want?

Everyone knows that all "modern" games are powered by 3D. Fallout 3 also will get this kind of graphics engine. The question is: isometric or FPP.

 

[Mutateman]

The type of Turn-Based combat that is used by the Fallout games is considered Archaic in the Game Development community. Other than your little corner of the world which might equal 1% of the market share there is no demand for that form of combat system.

Yeah, right. It may not be Fallout Turn-based combat, but the two most successful jRPG franchises, Dragon Quest (Warrior) and Final Fantasy have... get this... TURN BASED COMBAT!

FYI Civ 4 does use Isometric view however you can rotate the map as it is 3D technology. Also for a Turn Based Strategy game your Isometric view and Turn based technology fit like a glove.

Wait... did you not just say that Turn-Based was considered Archaic? Yet here is a popular, well selling game that is... Turn-Based!? Oh, I see, only because it is'3D.'

However you've got your platform that because it is good for another Genre of game it is still good for Fallout. Pull your heads out of your asses.

What? Turn-Based in a Strategy game is okay, but Turn-Based in an RPG is NOT!? Can I have some of the crap that you're smoking, please? PNP (That's Pen and Paper) RPGs were TURN-BASED. Let me repeat that for you... PNP RPGs were TURN-BASED.

You want 2D Isometric, in the gaming world we call that 2.5D or fake 3D. The usage of actual 3D in a CRPG evolved out of consumer demand and the desire of game developer's to do more with there world.

No, it didn't. Many, many, many posters before me (most of them of much higher intelligence level than I) have stated this time and time again: 3D perspective has been used in cRPGs going back to the 1980's! It is NOT some grand, new 'next-gen' invention. And 'actual' 3D, as you put it, has been around since the late 80's, early 90's.

As for the desire of game developer's to do more with 'there' world... They don't seem to do much. Lots of 'pretty' environments to walk around, but no substance.

If you look at the progression of CRPG's from the point in time when the Fallout games were released to current. You will see that they didn't just leap from 2.5D Fallout to 3D KOTOR. They got that way progressively through the games they had inbetween Fallout and KOTOR.

As I stated earlier, there were 3D games before Fallout. Isometric was chosen so, get this, 'the game developer's could do more with their world.'

Your Turn-based technology also advanced to match your environment. Your right KOTOR does have a Pause function and yes it has realtime elements. However KOTOR is also Turnbased as it allows you to choose your combat actions each round by having a Queue, and you can also change your actions on the fly as you would with the Fallout games.

That's not turn-based, though. Turn-Based is real simple: You take a turn, they take a turn. In 'Realtime with Pause' you choose your actions, unpause, and all actions occur simultaneously. That is not turn-based.

But since the Hard core Fallout fans live in a world of pre-year 2000 technology gaming nothing I or anybody else might say about turn-based combat as it was not being a viable technology for a CRPG falls on little kids ears.

I live in a world of 2007 technology, thank you. You should leave 1999 and join me here.

You know the ears the ones where kids place there hands over there ears and go "LALALALALALA!".

That's fun! Did you think of that all by yourself?

People have pointed out very good point over the months and years of why Turn-based is not viable

No, they have repeated the same BS garbage that you have. '3D is the future! Realtime is the future! Turn-Based won't sell!' It's all crap, spouted off by ignorant people.

, and like a predictable little child the hardcore idiots here say give us a good reason. The only thing you Sander and your lot of Fucking Morons of friends in this community want to hear is "Yes, the game how you want it will be made."

Umm... You're the one coming onto a Fallout Fan site and demanding that the Fans conform to your ideals of what a Fallout game should be.

It doesn't matter if the game costs more to develop than it will make in the current market.

Yes, so true. Someone tell Square Soft to stop making Final Fantasy games, because they will never make any money in the current market with TURN-BASED combat.

Tell the makers of Civilization 4 that ISOMETRIC, TURN-BASED combat games won't sell in the current market. They should start making 3D, 1st Person Shooters and call them RPGs in order to survive!



Oh, and please come back with your retarded 'it's a different genre' argument, again, because I need more entertainment.

 

[Sander]

The type of Turn-Based combat that is used by the Fallout games is considered Archaic in the Game Development community. Other than your little corner of the world which might equal 1% of the market share there is no demand for that form of combat system.

*PROVE IT*!
That's what this *entire* thread is about. That there is no demand for that combat system is a myth that has no facts or arguments backing it at all. And you fail to provide them as well.
Did you even read this thread?

FYI Civ 4 does use Isometric view however you can rotate the map as it is 3D technology. Also for a Turn Based Strategy game your Isometric view and Turn based technology fit like a glove.

Yeah, it uses 3d technology. Which is a bad thing, how, exactly? The interface is still built around the isometric view, and the combat system does indeed.
So of course there isn't any demand for isometric and turn-based combat! No one wants to play Civ 4!!!

However you've got your platform that because it is good for another Genre of game it is still good for Fallout. Pull your heads out of your asses.

...
The design of Fallout hinges on SPECIAL, which hinges on turn-based combat and isometric view. The turn-based combat stems from the PNP basis as well. Hence there is a very good reason to keep the turn-based combat.
Also, this has nothing to do with genre comparisons. The status quo in the Fallout series is turn-based combat, *you* are the one who wants to change it. And you said that isometric view and turn-based combat aren't marketable, to which I quoted a direct coutnerexample which you then ignore with 'diffeerent genre!'
Sorry pal, but first person shooters are also a different genre from RPGs.

Your argument is actually the 'head-up-ass' one, considering the fact that you are saying 'everything must be real-time' for RPGs, without backing arguments, without even the slightest hint of facts even.

You want 2D Isometric, in the gaming world we call that 2.5D or fake 3D. The usage of actual 3D in a CRPG evolved out of consumer demand and the desire of game developer's to do more with there world. If you look at the progression of CRPG's from the point in time when the Fallout games were released to current. You will see that they didn't just leap from 2.5D Fallout to 3D KOTOR. They got that way progressively through the games they had inbetween Fallout and KOTOR.

Yes, they are slowly returning to the origin, which is a first-person view in the early 80s.
OMG EVOLUSHON IS GOING BACK!!!
Also note that evolution does not equate improvement. Evolution for the sake of evolution is ridiculous.

Your Turn-based technology also advanced to match your environment. Your right KOTOR does have a Pause function and yes it has realtime elements. However KOTOR is also Turnbased as it allows you to choose your combat actions each round by having a Queue, and you can also change your actions on the fly as you would with the Fallout games.

You cannot change your actions on the fly in Fallout games.

Other than, read the fucking link I gave you. It explains in detail how a real-time with pause system isn't a turn-based system at all.
Here's the link again for your sake:

http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=21

But since the Hard core Fallout fans live in a world of pre-year 2000 technology gaming nothing I or anybody else might say about turn-based combat as it was not being a viable technology for a CRPG falls on little kids ears. You know the ears the ones where kids place there hands over there ears and go "LALALALALALA!".

Strike one for trolling.
Fuck it, the next person who does stuff like this gets banned.

People have pointed out very good point over the months and years of why Turn-based is not viable, and like a predictable little child the hardcore idiots here say give us a good reason. The only thing you Sander and your lot of Fucking Morons of friends in this community want to hear is "Yes, the game how you want it will be made." It doesn't matter if the game costs more to develop than it will make in the current market.

*sigh*
Bullshit. We have not heard a single *argument* as to why turn-based combat is not viable. All we've heard is 'NO ONE WANTS IT!!!' from people like you, which is actually a statement and not an argument at all.
So give us a good argument as to why turn-based combat isn't viable, or shut the fuck up.

Also, we're a Fallout fansite, is it so strange that we like the mechanics Fallout had?

 

[taxacaria]

The type of Turn-Based combat that is used by the Fallout games is considered Archaic in the Game Development community. Other than your little corner of the world which might equal 1% of the market share there is no demand for that form of combat system.

The only thing you Sander and your lot of Fucking Morons of friends in this community want to hear is

"Yes People have pointed out very good point over the months and years of why Turn-based is not viable, and like a predictable little child the hardcore idiots , the game how you want it will be made."

It doesn't matter if the game costs more to develop than it will make in the current market.

Why should we accept a game that doesn't match our needs?
Remember - we have to pay for it. You can't force people to buy things they don't want.
And it's customer's right to say what kind of stuff is desired.
There are a lot of real time combat flopping games - the market is more than full of this genre.
Fact is that with real time combat additional action elements from shooters find their way in many games and are destroying the RPG nature. That kind of all-in-one-games were produced to get a bigger audience by the price of flatness and poor focus. They are called mainstream games. Do you think Fallout is a mainstream game? Have a look at UFO-XCOM to see what happens when combat system is changed in a series. Flop, flop, flop.
Some xbox kiddies won't like turnbased combat, but that's no proof at all for your opinion, that turn based combat has no market chance. Next will be the demand for a multiplayer option, which I missed in your post. Thank you.

 

[RPG of the year!!]

The type of Turn-Based combat that is used by the Fallout games is considered Archaic in the Game Development community.

Look out, skippy! Here comes a clue! Duck!

Realtime combat predates turnbased combat of any type. But I don't doubt that you're right - considering the state of the gaming industry, I'm quite sure the majority of the development community is ignorant enough of the history of its own medium to mistake any TB system for being more archaic than RT.

Thank the Lord they've got legions of parrots like you, ready and willing to echo their munchkin revisionist history that "RT ACTION = OMG WAY OF TEH FUTURE ITZ TEH EVOLUSHUN OF GAEMING $$$!!! EVERYTHING ELSE = OLDD WTF KNOBODDY BUYZ OLD!!! LOLOLOLMUDCRABSBESTWRITING2006!!".

Fallout, with realtime combat? Scoff scoff! Stop living in the stoneage, Grampa, this isn't 1961 anymore.

 

[Bunkermensch]

hey Darkkender why are you complaining about our wishes how the sequel of our favourite game series should should be like?

Thats senseless. We don't go to Lego Star Wars boards and tell them their game should be turnbased, full of cut bloody limbs and in in a darker scenery.

So don't tell Fallout Fans how their game should be like! Just because Fallout fanatics know best how Fallout3 should be!

 

[Brother None]

Realtime combat predates turnbased combat of any type.

No ur rong coz pong had pause and rtwp = tb lol pwned

 

[aries369]

In the grander scheme of things, Sander are correct.

RT combat predates TB combat. I remember playing arcade games on boat trips and in
diners when I was younger. It was mostly Space Invaders you got to play at that time.
It was indeed very fun to play --- .

And the combat was Real Time. It had to be since the little space ships were shooting at you at the same you were shooting back at them.

Today, this game would be called an FPS I guess. A shooter game --- simply because
you had to shoot the space ships in in RT.

The strategy games evolved (imo) from the board games of say RISK or Stratego. You each took your turn, and when you were finished, other players got their turns.

That's why, imo, CIV still is able to use turnbased combat, where in each round,
each player does his or her thing, then
the round finishes.

The RPG genre for the computer evolved from the D&D genre (correct me I'm wrong here) with it board games. And board games uses
turn-based combat. This was then ported
over when the first (D&D) crpgs were released. [TES always have had RT combat, so far as I can tell from the info, I've read
on varius internet sites].

Then the makers of Fallout decided to make Fallout. And staying true to tradition, they created Fallout 1+2 with its TB combat and its
SPECIAL system and its isometric view.

And with its vast open-ended-ness, the abililty for the player's character to do anything he or she likes in the game, to wander aimlessly around in a wasteland after a nuclear disaster.
Trying to find hope in this shattered world,
trying to survive trough dialoque, and by doing quests and missions for other characters in the game.

Making new friends through your actions in the game, which also meant making some pretty hard choices, which had consequences. Meaning that you couldn't do whatever you liked in Fallout --- you had to choose your actions carefully. Actions that either meant survival or death in this god-forsaking wasteland called Fallout.

To me, this IS Fallout, as Fallout for me, doesn't hinge on either the isometric view,
the TB combat or the SPECIAL system.

It hinges on the story, the actions, the consequences and the ability to explore
a vast open ended world in an desert wasteland.

And that's why I don't care much for Bethsoft developing this game, Fallout 3, as I doubt they will be able to make game based on a stong story, character interaction and game filled with interesting choicefilled dialoque as well.

 

[Brother None]

In the grander scheme of things, Sander are correct.

HE ARE?!

The RPG genre for the computer evolved from the D&D genre (correct me I'm wrong here) with it board games. And board games uses turn-based combat.

You're right in that they came from there.

You're wrong in that they're board games. They do not use a board, hence they're not board games. They use a pen and a piece of paper, hence they are pen and paper games.

TES always have had RT combat, so far as I can tell from the info, I've read on varius internet sites.

But TES Arena, fans like Rosh nonwithstanding and the great classic that it is, was not designed, at its core, as a cRPG, and really should be seen as one of the archfathers of hack-n-slash, not cRPG.

Thanks for the exposè, tho'

 

[Darkkender]

Actually I'm a fallout fan I also realize the industry has changed those were the points I was trying to make no matter how weakly.

The KOTOR series is not Realtime with pause if you ever spent the time to break apart the game those of you in this community would know this. It has the appearance of realtime however it interanlly is still turnbased you are limited to one combat action per turn and if your quick enough you can go into inventory and slap a medpack. Now a realtime game wouldn't limit your actions within a turn and you could slap 20 medpacks without limitation.

I'm also a large fan of the CRPG genre and I do not favor in anyway shape or form FPS. Also 3D does not mean FPP just because majority of 3D games are made with FPP doesn't mean it's the only way.

I never once said everything must be Realtime or FPS for a Fallout3. Infact I'm with everymember of this community on the anti-FPS fallout for a fallout 3. I have focused on KOTOR as it is probably the best example of a modern game environment that would give the player the closest feel for a modern Fallout game without breaking to far from what made fallout good. The KOTOR games are nearly as linear as Fallout is, that is to say there is a progressive storyline that does require you at a certain stage to complete the mission, however your allowed freedom to go to different areas again.

@ Sander directly, ban me if you like that is your choice as an Admin. However that action is as much like the attitude that I pointed out as any I've ever seen. The majority of you immediately jump and scream "Troll" anytime somebody begins to speak out. I have found occasion to speak out despite the fact that my words fall on deaf ears.

The design of Fallout hinges on SPECIAL, which hinges on turn-based combat and isometric view. The turn-based combat stems from the PNP basis as well. Hence there is a very good reason to keep the turn-based combat.

What part of SPECIAL requires an Isometric view? None of it. What part of turn-based requires Isometric? None of it. Isometric view is a perspective mode not a direct correlation to the combat system in anyway.

 

[Morbus]

The KOTOR series is not Realtime with pause if you ever spent the time to break apart the game those of you in this community would know this. It has the appearance of realtime however it interanlly is still turnbased you are limited to one combat action per turn and if your quick enough you can go into inventory and slap a medpack. Now a realtime game wouldn't limit your actions within a turn and you could slap 20 medpacks without limitation.

Much like BG was and stuff. I like that style, but you have to agree it's not PURE turn based combat... Neither in game-play matters, nor in game-mechanic matters. It's based on turn, not turn based (if you get what i mean xD)

@ Sander directly, ban me if you like that is your choice as an Admin. However that action is as much like the attitude that I pointed out as any I've ever seen. The majority of you immediately jump and scream "Troll" anytime somebody begins to speak out. I have found occasion to speak out despite the fact that my words fall on deaf ears.

In this particullar last post, and out of its context, i don't see any chances for you to get banned, as I don't see any particular reasons...

2C

 

[Brother None]

The KOTOR series is not Realtime with pause if you ever spent the time to break apart the game those of you in this community would know this.

Please read the article Sander linked to several time. Until you read that and understand what TB is there is no point in continuing this line of thinking.

Also 3D does not mean FPP just because majority of 3D games are made with FPP doesn't mean it's the only way.

right, that's why nobody has claimed 3D=fp. In fact, Sander claimed the opposite.

Do you often claim someone said something he didn't say to then refute it? It's not very productive, y'know.

@ Sander directly, ban me if you like that is your choice as an Admin. However that action is as much like the attitude that I pointed out as any I've ever seen. The majority of you immediately jump and scream "Troll" anytime somebody begins to speak out. I have found occasion to speak out despite the fact that my words fall on deaf ears.

Oh, really? So this: But since the Hard core Fallout fans live in a world of pre-year 2000 technology gaming nothing I or anybody else might say about turn-based combat as it was not being a viable technology for a CRPG falls on little kids ears. You know the ears the ones where kids place there hands over there ears and go "LALALALALALA!". was an informed opinion? Or would you call it trolling?

You're free to express your opinion, unless your opinion is "you're all idiots" or "this community is a bunch of crybabies". Then you're slightly less free.

Don't try pulling the "Hah, that proves you ban indiscriminately" card on us. We don't like banning people, and we consider every ban carefully. We do not give extra leniency just to prove other people wrong.

What part of SPECIAL requires an Isometric view? None of it.

Try all of it. SPECIAL's combat and perk system (y'know, Action Boy? Bonus Movement?) have been built with TB in mind and this is reflected in the game. You can not take aimed shots in a paused mode, making extra progression in gun skills useless. The balance of percentages and combat items hinges on the strategic value of said weapons in combat. Certain perks inherently need TB.

Sure, you can adapt. But that's the whole rub, isn't it, you can't really run RT combat on SPECIAL's rulebase as it is.

What part of turn-based requires Isometric? None of it.

Really? So you think a turn-based first-person game, in which you have to spend part of your turn to, say, look behind walls or simply turning around to get a view of the battlefield, works perfectly well?

Right.

Isometric view is a perspective mode not a direct correlation to the combat system in anyway.

Direct? No. A relation? Yes.

 

[taxacaria]

The majority of you immediately jump and scream "Troll" anytime somebody begins to speak out. I have found occasion to speak out despite the fact that my words fall on deaf ears.

...and like a predictable little child the hardcore idiots here say give us a good reason. The only thing you Sander and your lot of Fucking Morons of friends in this community...

If you call the community members 'hardcore idiots' and 'fucking morons' you must not be surprised to be called a troll.

@Kharn
maybe Arena wasn't a real RPG(what is a real RPG?) - but it wasn't pure hack&slash
it has a great stats and skills system
and it requires more intelligence than 'RPG' Oblivion :

remember riddles like

'from the beginning of eternity
to the end of time and space
from the beginning of every end
to the end of every place'

solution :

Spoiler

'e'

 

[Brother None]

maybe Arena wasn't a real RPG(what is a real RPG?) - but it wasn't pure hack&slash

The thing with Arena was that it's *intent* was hack 'n slash, not RPG, and no matter how many RPG elements they pasted on it, some of which were great both in concept and execution, the heart of it still was a hack 'n slash.

 

[taxacaria]

The thing with Arena was that it's *intent* was hack 'n slash, not RPG, and no matter how many RPG elements they pasted on it, some of which were great both in concept and execution, the heart of it still was a hack 'n slash.

Agreed. (after a while)
There are lots of RPGs which are rPGs.

 

[Darkkender]

In response to reading the article Linked to me Twice I read it the first time it was linked to me. I also know that the KOTOR series is not a RT with Pause. However I will also agree with Morbus it is not the same turn based used in Fallout. Also Fallouts Perk/Trait system in conjunction with SPECIAL and skills is almost a direct mirror for D20's Feats/Skills/Attributes system as far as functionality in a turnbased combat. Your Feats like Rapid Shot and Multiattack provide a rough equivalency to similiar Perks/Traits that enable a fallout character to shoot faster and more often.

I can understand how people at first look call the KOTOR series a RT with pause or even a Phased-Based(WeGo) system. However I offer this to the argument that KOTOR is more of a Realtime turnbased or RTTB w/pause. The reason is that it has aspects of both turnbased and realtime with pause. If you let the combat run in autopilot then it is Realtime in perpective however if you are actively involved in your combat you will find that you can assign a combat action the immediately jump into your inventory and slap a medpack, however the game limits you to one medpack per turn and even flashes you a message window to this effect. This very action is turnbased and limits what you can do in a given turn.

My only argument along the lines about turn-based as it was in the original Fallout and the type of Turnbased found in the Kotor series which despite the way of thinking based on that article is not Realtime with pause.

right, that's why nobody has claimed 3D=fp. In fact, Sander claimed the opposite.

Do you often claim someone said something he didn't say to then refute it? It's not very productive, y'know.

I also don't quote everybody who has replied to me or posts a comment in relation to the discussed topic. I do however start a new paragraph with a new idea. That particular response had been in relation to what Continuum had posted above.

You're free to express your opinion, unless your opinion is "you're all idiots" or "this community is a bunch of crybabies". Then you're slightly less free.

I took this approach as this seems to be an escepted norm among the forum members here to immediately jump in and start insulting people who post when they object or speak in opposition. Even in this thread prior to my posting the hostile responses given to other posters is right out of the gate without pause. I read Sanders first post in this thread and I knew that any opinion I contribute in a calm rational matter is going to be met with insults. So by the time I finished writing my post I was feeling heated and inflamitory and didn't care who took offense as that is the approach taken by forum members here. If I'm wrong and Sander didn't call Aries an idiot twice and tell him he was full of bullshit then I will stand corrected.

However my point stands is this Admin's and Moderator's set the exceptable norm within a forum if an Admin is going to call somebody an idiot then it welcomes people to come off as "Trolls" and treat others in kind.

So I ask this instead do I need to rack up 100 posts before I'm entitled to the right to respond to a post in the same manner as is accepted as standard here?