|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Oswald Rehnquist
Abandoned Privilege
General Tso's Alliance
329
   |
Posted - 2013.10.22 06:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
8213 wrote:
Look at it from both sides, objectively, without selfishness. You can actually learn a lot on this forum, not just about the game but humans in general...
Just popping in the thread but lol on multiple levels
But mostly due to the fact that it reminded me of this scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hh3I4zJZMQ
Edit:
"This isn't a movie this is reality, there's a difference" |
Oswald Rehnquist
Abandoned Privilege
General Tso's Alliance
329
|
Posted - 2013.10.22 06:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
8213 wrote:
See that big long post you quoted that I wrote? see the part about choice? see the part that Scout is choice? No you probably missed it, because like a lot of people on this board you skimmed through and decided to respond to one part of the post and ignore the rest, because it contradicted whatever it was that you wanted to say...
In this case, the part I wrote about Scouts being hard and that they were a choice. the fact that you respond with a post that is giving me choice, I'll assume you didn't read the post.
So what would you choose?
An Gallente Assault with Brick and Damge Stacks, 800 HP with an AR
or
An Amarr Sentinel with with damage mods and shields, 800 HP with an AR
I have missed the majority of the thread but from this page alone, your constructs are all screwed up
what prevents me from using that excuse on anything UP or OP? Why should have flaylocks been nerfed? Or the HMG for that matter? Or Vehicles? Why was the laser rifle buffed back up again?
Could I not just use the excuse that the other tasks were hard / easy mode?
What separates OP/UP imbalances from your arbitrary acceptability of hard/easy mode?
I'd love to hear the answer to this one |
Oswald Rehnquist
Abandoned Privilege
General Tso's Alliance
329
|
Posted - 2013.10.22 17:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
I took the liberty of pulling out the fluff and applying the material to the original questions, but since they were not really addressed in any concise manner, well go through a set of inferences with your paragraphs.
The irony is that you reiterated the same problem I had with your previous posts
8213 wrote:
The term UP doesn't apply to Scouts, because Shotty has a nice list of really good players that obviously prove that Scouts aren't the case for being UP.
So, Scouts are hard mode. Always were.
But with your definitions / logic if I was able to kill a flaylock user when the flaylock was "OP", it wasn't really OP because he can be killed, thus countered. We were able to snipe them, we could spray and pray from 40m and win, use tanks against them, and or flank them. And in reverse if someone can play a scout well it really isn't UP because it has the ability to kill. That is the basis of what your saying. Also Shotty's list is just overall kill count, the ratios do not compare at all to the other frames. Just throwing this out there because this was the source of my confusion in regards to your thinking.
Oswald Rehnquist wrote:
What separates OP/UP imbalances from your arbitrary acceptability of hard/easy mode?
There are two parts to this, OP/UP and Hard/Easy. I left the initial definition of OP/UP to you, and this is what you said
8213 wrote:
OP- means it has no counters or balance against it. NOT something very effective but still with counters.
UP- means it can't be used in the game towards a positive outcome. NOT something people can still win matches with.
To begin with, your definition of OP and UP is flawed, in reality it has to do with outliers in performance and just that because there can be OP/UP weapons/items in games that are entirely Co-op (thus there is no countering or fighting each other, think mass effect 3 multiplayer). Now in regards to scouts, CCP has acknowledged it as an under performing outlier in performance, that they did not scale well despite the increase sp sinking when compared to other functions, essentially that the ceiling is low, also by Shotty's list scout ratios are much lower than other other function. By definition this makes scouts under powered.
Next is Hard/Easy, and this was really all you said
8213 wrote:
SHOOTER BALANCE IS IMPOSSIBLE, no game has ever done it. No game can ever do it. Eventually things are in the game that are hard. Some are easy. You choose what you want to do, mostly for the sake of bragging rights.
So by this logic your definition of hard/easy mode in a solidified UP or OP status. In a game that has monthly updates, solidified status is not an issue, you can't think of more non combat roles scouts could be organized towards? Or a different meta game that scouts can perform in? Essentially your reasons against it doesn't hold up reasons for buffing scouts in the slightest. And going in reverse couldn't we have keep the exploit mechanic and call it medium mode by your logic? (I for one am glad is gone but that isn't the point of this discussion though)
These questions weren't answered
Oswald Rehnquist wrote:
Why should have flaylocks been nerfed? Or the HMG for that matter? Or Vehicles? Why was the laser rifle buffed back up again? Could I not just use the excuse that the other tasks were hard / easy mode?
Also Mass drivers went there a debuff/buff cycle, but why when we can just slap a hard or easy label and be done with it as you are incline to do with scouts.
|
Oswald Rehnquist
Abandoned Privilege
General Tso's Alliance
331
|
Posted - 2013.10.22 22:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Fortunately for you I actually address the foundation of your arguments, unfortunately for me you completely ignore mine, just want to point that out
8213 wrote:
1. You didn't prove that Scouts were UP, by my definition, and anyone's definition. You HAVE proven that they can be less effective. Less effective is not the same thing as UP. By the measuring standards in this game (WP and ISK Profit aka- make money, f*ck b*tches) Scouts have proven that they are capable of doing this well as other dropsuit setups. How ever they achieve that success is up to them.
A) My definition holds up, yours does not, which I actually explain why, you can provide reasons why mine does not hold if you disagree.
B) You counter point was literally "no no no", saying it isn't true doesn't make it so.
C) I actually did not prove anything because neither I nor you have the raw data. CCP who actually owns all the data has confirmed and admitted to scouts under performing
8213 wrote:
2. Eventually, the balancing will have to stop, because achieving it is impossible(especially in a game like DUST where you strive to obtain and advantage). Eventually things have to be categorized as Easy/Medium/Hard if you want to compare them respectively to each other. Trying to give scouts equality (move them the to the Medium/Easy mode category) but keeping DUST the same overall format (Make money, f*ck b*tches) will only end in failure. Something has to stay in hard mode. Scouts seem to be that poor redheaded step-child because of the landscape of the game.
The game is not even near being done, and the scouts are hardly even fleshed out, we don't even have all the variants yet you think the breaks should be applied? Your only motive for putting any brakes on changes is to prevent the scout from growing as a whole, there really is no rational thought behind it when the game is still early in its infancy.
8213
3. I made a nice chart using a fine graphics programs. Basically, all the content in the game should (or come comes close to trying) break down on the chart as far as difficulty. If it's all the way to the left, its UP, if its all the way to the right its OP. Scouts are in the 2.5%. They are close to UP, but still lands on the chart of of how effective and difficult it is to use. [url=http://t.co/5dkAXNeWA2 wrote:BooYa![/url]
This actually made me smile, because this shows that you don't know anything about statistics, and your are arguing with someone who's career evolves around stats.
http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algtrig/ATS2/NormalLesson.htm
This one should help you out too,
Hard mode would be on the lower end of 1 standard deviation to about 1.5 standard deviations from what is normal.
Anything that goes past 1.5 standard deviations, let alone past 2 standard deviations is beyond broken and unusable, While neither of us have the raw data, I don't think scouts are THAT broken be be ranked as 2 standard deviations down as what you have shown in the graph, which also bring up the point that don't think you really even know the significance of the chart you have displayed, because it entirely shuts your own points down. Based on your graph, the scout populations is literally less than 5% on that chart. If we were to turn this into sniper rifles, that is like a sniper rifle that does 100 damage and another that does 5 damage........
I'll leave you on that thought |
|
|
| |
|