|
Post by ViolentMessiah on Jan 15, 2005 9:27:11 GMT -5
i imagine that the "WE DO NOT CONDONE GUN VIOLENCE" thing is just a disclaimer, if thats the case then its perfectly understandable.
i was warned by Pyro in another thread that i could be kicked out for saying things that dont even come close to the type of shit you guys are saying here.
i dont get it. it seems like some of you guys are trying to define what Gun Kata is and isnt for everyone else. i agree with alot of the things you guys have said but when you started talking about the no gun violence thing it sounding like preaching.
|
|
|
Post by JenGe on Jan 15, 2005 12:14:14 GMT -5
i was warned by Pyro in another thread that i could be kicked out for saying things that dont even come close to the type of shit you guys are saying here. Only I get to kick people out but so far I am enjoying the debate so for now everyone gets to stay.
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Jan 15, 2005 14:06:43 GMT -5
millions and millions of years ago... there was a time where rymel and esben and i were developing a true gun kata system before we all left. either due to our progress or because of our... well i dont really now, we got a page or so of posts talking about how people werent going to participate in our discussions because of how we talked about gun kata being used in real world applications way way in the future.
-thus, we decided that we should at least cater to the wills of people who require disclaimers to feel safe. "we do not condone gun violence" is our way of saying that if you decide to use the stuff we come up with and talk about for whatever, the ball is in your court not ours. not that we should even have to comment on that but we did.
EDIT: also we dont have any problem with people believing that gun kata is whatever it is for them. if we come off strong about people's opinions its because what we are trying to do here is something that is entirely independent from any movie-esque views and ideas of gun kata altogether. the movie for is all well and good, for a movie, but its not even remotely similar to something that has even slight prototypical applications for anything in real life whether it be real combat or simulation airsoft or paintball or lasertag whatever.
-in short, though i believe it may already be too late for that, you can come in to express whatever you please, just know that we have a little more specific agenda for creation of OUR... stuff.
-i totally just lost my train of thought cuz aquateenhungerforce is on.
|
|
|
Post by GunFu on Jan 15, 2005 18:06:34 GMT -5
EDIT: also we dont have any problem with people believing that gun kata is whatever it is for them. if we come off strong about people's opinions its because what we are trying to do here is something that is entirely independent from any movie-esque views and ideas of gun kata altogether. the movie for is all well and good, for a movie, but its not even remotely similar to something that has even slight prototypical applications for anything in real life whether it be real combat or simulation airsoft or paintball or lasertag whatever. Have you checked out shop.store.yahoo.com/spytechagency/books-combat-shooting.html , might be useful if you are doing Gun Kata as a real style.
|
|
|
Post by Achilles on Jan 15, 2005 18:12:30 GMT -5
some interesting stuff there, thanks for the link.
|
|
|
Post by Achilles on Jan 15, 2005 18:14:08 GMT -5
mmmmmmmmm aquateenhungerforce...
|
|
|
Post by ViolentMessiah on Jan 15, 2005 19:52:54 GMT -5
-in short, though i believe it may already be too late for that, you can come in to express whatever you please, just know that we have a little more specific agenda for creation of OUR... stuff. if i understand you correctly, what you're saying is that you want a Gun Kata developed according to your own specific interpretation of what Gun Kata should be. in other words, you wanna create Trustkill Gun Kata. if thats the case, there's nothing wrong with that, however it sounds like you want people's input only when it conforms to what will eventually be YOUR...stuff. correct me if i'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by XShadowX on Jan 15, 2005 20:09:54 GMT -5
"EDIT: also we dont have any problem with people believing that gun kata is whatever it is for them. if we come off strong about people's opinions its because what we are trying to do here is something that is entirely independent from any movie-esque views and ideas of gun kata altogether. the movie for is all well and good, for a movie, but its not even remotely similar to something that has even slight prototypical applications for anything in real life whether it be real combat or simulation airsoft or paintball or lasertag whateve"
I respect wanting to be totally inovative, I agree that whatever ends up being made will definantly have a unique twist added to it by the developement team here.
However having said that I don't think people give the Director who came up with the Gun Kata concept much credit. Now Mr Wimmer admitted that he had made this all up for the film, anyone who can't accept that will ultimately be a detriment to the process.
However he also said that he had done extensive work and could only show small pieces of it due to time constraints. I would imagine that while the official word is that he tinkered with it for the film, he also may have had a lot more technical information then we do.
I don't think ALL of the katas in the movie are simply ineffective ideas, but I did see some things that were quite impractical for a combat situation.
I think at the end of the day, we should all pool our ideas together to form some kind of semblance of structure. I don't think we should aim to copy the movie that could be dangerous, however some of the katas made have the potential to be effective.
Personally I have spent the better part of the day trying to compile information on Bullet Trajectory. I will continue to study this data and continue to work with the 3-D model program I have been using to try to "simulate an encounter".
I am not sure if it will be sucessful or not, but I am willing to put forth a good amount of effort to contribute to the team as much as I possibly can. We seem to have a lot of bright minds working here, I think together we can come up with what we are looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Rymel on Jan 17, 2005 2:16:21 GMT -5
to answer one man's questions first... i imagine that the "WE DO NOT CONDONE GUN VIOLENCE" thing is just a disclaimer, if thats the case then its perfectly understandable. i was warned by Pyro in another thread that i could be kicked out for saying things that dont even come close to the type of shit you guys are saying here. i dont get it. it seems like some of you guys are trying to define what Gun Kata is and isnt for everyone else. i agree with alot of the things you guys have said but when you started talking about the no gun violence thing it sounding like preaching. for me it's not just a disclaimer, it's personal belief. just because you have the power doesn't mean you get to abuse it. call it whatever you want but that's thread belief, take it or leave it. i mean really, if you can't tell the difference between violence and disciplined training i don't know what to tell you. if i understand you correctly, what you're saying is that you want a Gun Kata developed according to your own specific interpretation of what Gun Kata should be. in other words, you wanna create Trustkill Gun Kata. if thats the case, there's nothing wrong with that, however it sounds like you want people's input only when it conforms to what will eventually be YOUR...stuff. correct me if i'm wrong. i hope you read the threads before you came to that conclusion, because that's what we've been doing all along. if you make your own up, kudos to you. but this is ours. i don't know how you couldn'tve have seen that by now, but it is. that also goes for not taking other people's input. didn't you read everything? we're not taking certain input, particularly people trying to make it like the movie, which if you're a logical human being, you've noticed it CAN'T happen. but if you want to attempt it anyway, go for it. just not in this thread, because it's not for that purpose. THAT is why we don't listen to some people. and god damn if i have to be redundant again 2 days in a row...
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Jan 17, 2005 2:28:17 GMT -5
i dont want to hear about this issue any more, PLEASE. its already hindering production and we've only been back for like... what? two fucking days?
-this isnt a debate over whose input will be taken or anything, its a medium with which we should compile ideas for a very specific design of realistic gun combat. thus, if you are looking for anything at all like the movie's gun kata, you are probably better off starting a new topic or checking out one of the tons of other ones people are doing. that is not what we are attemping to create. NOW, if you do have anything to add to our realistic gun combat discussion, we will gladly hear you out.
-please please please dont make rymel or i go over this stuff again. now... on with the show.
|
|
|
Post by Achilles on Jan 17, 2005 2:48:58 GMT -5
what is your opinion on stance work?
|
|
|
Post by Rymel on Jan 17, 2005 3:12:41 GMT -5
> I respect wanting to be totally inovative, I agree that whatever ends up being made will >definantly have a unique twist added to it by the developement team here.
added to what? the original movie kata? ain't addin nothin cuz we're not using it. i don't understand how nobody's seeing that...
> However having said that I don't think people give the Director who came up with the Gun >Kata concept much credit. Now Mr Wimmer admitted that he had made this all up for the film, >anyone who can't accept that will ultimately be a detriment to the process.
there's a separate thread for the greatness of wimmer. take that part over there. and while you're praising wimmer keep in mind he's horrified at the prospect of someone making a real gun-based martial art, and he himself knows his gun kata (that's a form for those of you who don't know, not a STYLE) is fake, he said it himself. it just LOOKS like it works. which it does, to an extent, but only that much. the concepts are pretty solid though and that's why we like it. and wtf isn't this covered in one of the 25+ pages?
detriment my ass, you can't be a detriment to something you're not trying to improve on. and that would be the 'real gun kata'.
> However he also said that he had done extensive work and could only show small pieces of >it due to time constraints. I would imagine that while the official word is that he >tinkered with it for the film, he also may have had a lot more technical information then >we do.
he might, but you forget that in the end it's just a hollywood film. nothing battle tested, but a lot of common sense. so...why is it we can't do that ourselves? are you incapable of doing so? by posting here, i believe you're not. so why are you letting all that hold you back?
> I don't think ALL of the katas in the movie are simply ineffective ideas, but I did see >some things that were quite impractical for a combat situation.
dude, ONE kata was shown in that movie. over and over and over again. it's also why i find it hard to believe he has so much not shown, especially when ultraviolet's gonna be wushu-based. totally debunks EQ's cleric base. not that there's anything wrong with variation, it's just such an enormous jump from stability to airborne that it could go wrong oh so easily.
> I think at the end of the day, we should all pool our ideas together to form some kind of >semblance of structure. I don't think we should aim to copy the movie that could be >dangerous, however some of the katas made have the potential to be effective.
we should, but that doesn't mean it's that easy. and given what you've just said up there...forgive me if i find it a little hard to believe you're not trying to emulate the movie. i'll also take the time to repeat that there was only one kata. but yea, some of it did have potential. it was just too fragmented at times to link up into a coherent kata.
> Personally I have spent the better part of the day trying to compile information on Bullet >Trajectory. I will continue to study this data and continue to work with the 3-D model >program I have been using to try to "simulate an encounter".
aaargh, not this again. see: what the hell happened? thread on what i have to say about trajectories. honestly i don't even see a point in 3Ding scenarios. combat is all improvised anyway. but if we had real information on common impact points, then that's different. a bullet's trajectory doesn't tell us much in terms of practicality in my opinion. but i could be wrong.
> I am not sure if it will be sucessful or not, but I am willing to put forth a good amount >of effort to contribute to the team as much as I possibly can. We seem to have a lot of >bright minds working here, I think together we can come up with what we are looking for.
i'd like to see you prove me wrong with your 3D modelling. lemme know. and im me again sometime, i happened to be on a friend's motorola sidekick when you imed me that time. later.
|
|
|
Post by XShadowX on Jan 17, 2005 9:52:36 GMT -5
"added to what? the original movie kata? ain't addin nothin cuz we're not using it. i don't understand how nobody's seeing that..."
I believe a lot of people are seeing it, as I never recall having said we would use it. I think in the end you just like to hear yourself talk Rymel.
"there's a separate thread for the greatness of wimmer. take that part over there. and while you're praising wimmer keep in mind he's horrified at the prospect of someone making a real gun-based martial art, and he himself knows his gun kata (that's a form for those of you who don't know, not a STYLE) is fake, he said it himself. it just LOOKS like it works. which it does, to an extent, but only that much. the concepts are pretty solid though and that's why we like it. and wtf isn't this covered in one of the 25+ pages?"
I don't know what greatness of Wimmer your talking about, or why your wasting time directing me there. My post wasn't made to glorify Wimmer. on the note of why isn't this covered in one of the 25+ pages? I am going to assume that you are attempting some kind of wit through sarcasm: Unfortuanatly you fall short of the mark since your entire interpretation of my post was way off the mark.
"detriment my ass, you can't be a detriment to something you're not trying to improve on. and that would be the 'real gun kata'."
This comment is truely based in ignorance, if I weren't trying to help your cause, then I wouldn't be replying back here and trying to contact you.
Don't read so much into a few comments about the director, and mistake it for me wanting to emulate the movie.
"we should, but that doesn't mean it's that easy. and given what you've just said up there...forgive me if i find it a little hard to believe you're not trying to emulate the movie. i'll also take the time to repeat that there was only one kata. but yea, some of it did have potential. it was just too fragmented at times to link up into a coherent kata."
I am not at all trying to emulate the movie, I said there may be a few things to pick up from it. But if it is discovered that nothing at all can be gleaned from the movie then so be it, that doesn't bother me in the least.
"aaargh, not this again. see: what the hell happened? thread on what i have to say about trajectories. honestly i don't even see a point in 3Ding scenarios. combat is all improvised anyway. but if we had real information on common impact points, then that's different. a bullet's trajectory doesn't tell us much in terms of practicality in my opinion. but i could be wrong."
You need to know basic Trajectory if your going to be doing this seriously at all. The point in 3-Ding scenarios is giving the practitioner, an idea of what he/she is going to be learning. Your right combat is a lot of improvisation, but designing things in 3-D is the easiest way of sharing technique information on the internet.
"i'd like to see you prove me wrong with your 3D modelling. lemme know. and im me again sometime, i happened to be on a friend's motorola sidekick when you imed me that time. later."
I would like you to know, that it isn't about proving you wrong. What it is about is contributing something to the cause, I will certainly IM you again at the next opporotunity.
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Jan 17, 2005 16:41:42 GMT -5
what is your opinion on stance work? what about stance work are we talking here? are you submitting stance work like... as a starting point? or you just want to know how important i think it will be? im not sure, so ill just try to answer broadly. -stance work... hmmm... i think it is as important as it is arbitrary at this point. depending on our progress, the initial stances that get developed could very well decide the amount of targets a user is prepared to dispatch, etc, but i believe we need to start more basically than that. we have already started the discussions about how many strikes are used with a handgun, which have been suddenly derailed. (personally, id like to see more discussion based around THAT post instead of the ones above ::fucking hint hint: after and during the identifying and developing of the melee uses of the pistol, we should probably do some thinking about stance work. mostly after the melee stuff is finished is where we should really put noses to the grindstone on it since it will help decide how many bullets we will be out of the way of, or how many opponents we will be ready to dispatch, etc. -so thats what i think about stancework right now.... basically.
|
|
|
Post by XShadowX on Jan 17, 2005 17:36:37 GMT -5
"(personally, id like to see more discussion based around THAT post instead of the ones above ::fucking hint hint"
Well you know what you should do then trustkill? you should start talking about things, and stop dragging out some petty squabble with me like Rymel has been doing of late.
You can roll your little virtual eyes all you want, and think it makes you look smart. But in the end all you are really doing is delaying your own progress.
That's fine though, because I don't really intend to return after this post. You all take it whichever direction you think is best, I won't say a thing from here on out.
|
|
|
Post by pyro on Jan 17, 2005 17:42:12 GMT -5
i. i was warned by Pyro in another thread that i could be kicked out for saying things that dont even come close to the type of shit you guys are saying here. if what there saying in here is in defense, its not classified as flaming/trolling. also, this is there thread, these guys are trying to do something constructive, this is where they have a right to lay down the law. i was trying warn you in the other thread because of your status of a new member, your posting replies were leading up to flamming and troll status. just didnt want to see a flame war start over nothing rymel- about as much as i can provide to this thread about gun katta would be just to monitor for trolls. i enjoy reading your guy's messages because of how much thought and effort is going in to them. bumrush- the best way to get win a debate is not to insult your oppenent personally, not only does that make you look like a 13 yro first time web user, but a lame troll that everyone gets to make fun of easier. yes rymel was a little fierce, but he has to be to weed out people who dont read the entire thread.
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Jan 17, 2005 18:30:24 GMT -5
*clicks his teeth together*
|
|
|
Post by TrustKill on Jan 17, 2005 18:41:34 GMT -5
"(personally, id like to see more discussion based around THAT post instead of the ones above ::fucking hint hint" Well you know what you should do then trustkill? you should start talking about things, and stop dragging out some petty squabble with me like Rymel has been doing of late. You can roll your little virtual eyes all you want, and think it makes you look smart. But in the end all you are really doing is delaying your own progress. That's fine though, because I don't really intend to return after this post. You all take it whichever direction you think is best, I won't say a thing from here on out. -what are you even talking about? you know what? i dont even care. up until now i was pretty well set on defending your ass, or at least trying to work it out from both sides. i dont see why you have to start this shit here now, especially after my last post was an attempt to bring things back online (minus a little friendly elbowing in the process). if you are so sternly against rymel and i, then you can fucking leave and take your bad attitude with you. -jesus, im so tired of typing posts like this so soon out of the gate you have no idea, and the last thing i need is you trying to naysay everything or say that all we are doing is hindering our own progress. whatever. add something constructive or go to hell, at this point it doesnt matter to me.
|
|
|
Post by bumrush on Jan 18, 2005 0:11:41 GMT -5
pyro- actually i wasn't the one that started throwing insults. I did so in defense of myself after this post:
"because i refuse to be held responsible for someone else's fucking stupidity, that's why. if that's all you're interested in get the hell out of my forum. you came to the wrong place for that. martial arts are not an excuse for violence. wait a minute what the fuck i have to tell you WHY? get the fuck outta here ya mook! "
and you even go on to say "if what there saying in here is in defense, its not classified as flaming/trolling."
Hmm, lets take a deep breathe next time and remeber to stay focused before you 'try' to tell someone how to debate.
And if your curious as to why I defended my original response that prompted the above quotation just read the rest of the replies. Anyways, the situation is all worked out, i'm fine with the outcome. I really have no idea why you brought it up. Other then that my words were so effective and straight to the point, you simply could not stand for it. In that case, im flattered.
|
|
|
Post by Rymel on Jan 18, 2005 3:22:11 GMT -5
i was going to say something, but since this is obviously not getting anywhere, and both sides are yelling at the other to PRODUCE something (in which neither has in the past 3 days and the flamer side hasn't even really contributed yet), i'm going to stop the whole thing here.
shadow you can stay here if you want, i already said you're welcome to. bumrush too. but i'm instating the house rule that if you say you want to participate, do so. there better not be any lurking if you say you can contribute, that's all i'm sayin.
if you're gonna develop a martial art show some respect by not secretly stealing every bit that comes up. and if i see any more flaming i'm going to have to take more measures. i didn't wanna make house rules, but if i have to, this is a start.
clean slate, let's start anew. so far we've got me, trustkill, achilles, and possibly bumrush and shadow. let's see where this goes.
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Jan 18, 2005 9:07:48 GMT -5
Nicely done there Rymel, saves me from having to go Cleric on someone.
|
|
|
Post by Achilles on Jan 18, 2005 11:03:02 GMT -5
hmmmm back to those handstrikes.
|
|
|
Post by Rymel on Jan 18, 2005 20:17:23 GMT -5
i propose this be our first group project - melee combat and associated stancework. i know all the fresh blood wants to develop the ranged combat portion of the art (which, i should ask - it's close quarters ranged combat...is there a name for this? can you think of one? it's not really 'ranged'..), but since it's agreed stancework is important and essential, the melee needs to be developed first. some would disagree but if you develop firing portions first with the stancework and implement the melee second, it's not going to piece together correctly without serious modification. at least the way i'm picturing it. so here's my contribution for starters - hand strikes - i see 7 hand strikes available, with an elbow strike totalling 8 available strikes (i could be wrong here). there's knife hand (top of hand), karate chop/hammer fist (pistol whip), palm strike, back hand, hook, uppercut, straight fist and elbow strike. the hook and uppercut i only see available if you rotated/spun the gun slightly on your trigger finger so that the butt of the gun juts out in front of the bottom fingers. i let the pinky trail behind the grip but that's cuz i haven't figured out a better way to do this yet. but yea this allows for a really powerful hook or uppercut, since rotating the gun into this position lines it up with the palm and forearm, extending the reach and striking point. any fans of leveraged weapons or the kukhri/ghurka knife probably know what i mean. the straight punch should only be used as a feint hit or distraction since it seems to me you'd be more likely to injure your wrist if you did a full power strike. unless maybe tendon srengthening can prevent that, but i don't know. stancework is paramount in most all martial arts to my knowledge, and i don't see how this would be any different. in traditional arts, stancework begins with empty hands, which helps increase power and stability, then it moves onto weaponry. by then the stancework is ingrained into muscle memory, as well as optimal power transfer between the body parts. it shouldn't really change much between theirs and ours, the only difference is our empty hands hold guns . but yea the same principles should apply here. i mean the only thing changing between gun melee combat and close quarters firing is less specific accuracy and recoil. correct me if i'm wrong but that seems to be about all to me. body and arm positioning is also important, but it's the same as stancework basically. so how's this for a start?
|
|
|
Post by pyro on Jan 24, 2005 17:55:21 GMT -5
bumrush- since we're starting fresh in this thread, im not going to futher explain why this IS rymel's thread on gunkatta and his good reason to get mad. id be fine to be proven wrong, by you providing constructive posts here. But if you choose to post like a troll, wolf and i will certainly have the pleasure to kill you like one
everyone else- dont let me hold up the show...
|
|
|
Post by Rymel on Jan 24, 2005 18:14:07 GMT -5
i think the thread is dead. which is fine if that's how they want it, it's not my loss ;D
post up if you want otherwise though...
|
|
|
Post by Witcher Wolf on Jan 25, 2005 5:47:42 GMT -5
I have a feeling in some cases it's the 'too many chefs' syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by Rymel on Jan 25, 2005 16:18:09 GMT -5
in which case i wouldn't mind another tribe of gun kata developers ;D
|
|
|
Post by bumrush on Jan 25, 2005 16:24:20 GMT -5
pyro your just as guilty of 'trolling', you haven't provided anything constructive here either. yea your going to "kill me like a troll", whatever the hell that means, hypocrite.
my first post caused a little bit of an arguement, but that has been resolved. i can see why a lot of people aren't posting here. its because they introduce an idea, it gets shot down violently, then people like you come in here telling them you'd "take pleasure in killing them". Yea.. real friendly atmosphere guys.
|
|
|
Post by Rymel on Jan 25, 2005 18:49:06 GMT -5
HEY BUDDY. which part of 'resolved' do you seem to misunderstand? quit pickin fights and drop it already.
|
|
DemonEyedGunman
Resistance Member
I see with the eyes of a hunter, no one can escape. I'm a devil of a gunman, for you it is too late.
Posts: 16
|
Post by DemonEyedGunman on Feb 6, 2005 19:49:57 GMT -5
Hey Guys. I have extensively read the gun kata threads and although it seems that recently people cannot drop old things so that constructive work can be done, generally I like where you guys are going with this. I read in one of the threads that you guys are looking for serious people to help out, preferably with either martial arts background or handgun training(if combative training, then all the better.) I would love to help you guys out. I have an extensive martial arts background and military training. I don't believe that this forum is dead and I certainly don't believe that you guys want it to be. My suggestion is that you guys just drop all hostilities now so that constructive work can be done. Those who want to leave should, those who actually want to help this move forward should stay and help out. I don't want to recieve any flaming for this post, trust me, I know that this sounds easier said than done. However, I think that people should get over their differences now. Divided we fall, United we stand. So how about it guys? Would it be alright with you if I joined the team? Let me know.
|
|