|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malkai Inos
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
533
   |
Posted - 2013.07.08 00:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:Sorry about the alt posting again. For the record, Jeb is me. I'm not sure why the setting keeps changing. Sorry for any confusion. What is your definition of op?
|
Malkai Inos
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
538
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 00:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Please excuse my insolence but i have to ask what part specifically constitues the the difinition of the term OP? You dance around quite a lot in this thread i have a hard time condensing the actual definition you propose out of it.
What are the specific qualities of an an item that is is OP? |
Malkai Inos
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
538
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 01:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:Malkai Inos wrote:Please excuse my insolence but i have to ask what part specifically constitues the the difinition of the term OP? You dance around quite a lot in this thread i have a hard time condensing the actual definition you propose out of it. What are the specific qualities of an an item that is is OP? Well I do summarize it in the thread. here's the short description. OP = Overpowered, thus more desireable, thus more people use it, thus it hurts diversity. OP=hurts diversity by being too desirable. Hold on. An overpowered item is overpowered? That's a tautology. OP is the term i'm looking for, it cannot be part of its own definition. |
Malkai Inos
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
538
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 02:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:Ok, read the rest of the sentence please. It's not a tautology, I was merely defining the acronym OP for clarity. Is that OK? I might have judged too quick there, mea culpa.
So i take it this is the proposed definition:
"More desireable, thus more people use it, thus it hurts diversity."
Let me know if this is incorrect while i think about it. |
Malkai Inos
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
541
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 02:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:Malkai Inos wrote:Buster Friently wrote:Ok, read the rest of the sentence please. It's not a tautology, I was merely defining the acronym OP for clarity. Is that OK? I might have judged too quick there, mea culpa. So i take it this is the proposed definition: "More desireable, thus more people use it, thus it hurts diversity." Let me know if this is incorrect while i think about it. That's the basic idea yeah, that if something is desirable enough that it's squeezing out diversity, then it's OP. This, I take to be a non-subjective, i.e objective, measure of OP. For the record, even though light and medium suits have a total of 12 weapon types available to them, the AR is responsible for 2/3 of all kills from that group of 12. (according to my collected data) To me, that's a weapon being so desirable that it's squeezing out diversity. So to put it in abstract terms: If X is beeing used more widely than others, that is always due to it beeing more desireable than others. Since something that is more desireable than others is OP, it follows that X is OP.
I can't seem to fit the "squeezing out diversity" part into this bit in a logically sound manner. Maybe you can help me with this.
Now, the underlined part is what i find interesting as, if i translated your definition so far correctly, one has to assume this to be true in order for your definition to be valid. Is that so?
I'll withhold further comments until we clarified this so i don't argue against a strawman.
|
|
|
| |
|