194 réponses à ce sujet

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote... If the game were changed to let the elites have their way, ultimately those would be the only people who could play the game.

Funny, and here I was thinking people were able to play the game before numerous buffs to the best classes in the game.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 05:49 .

[Gordo Schumway]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote... If the game were changed to let the elites have their way, ultimately those would be the only people who could play the game.

Funny, and here I thought people were able to play the game before numerous buffs to the best classes in the game.  

Evidently, Bioware looks at the numbers and doesn't listen to the elites, huh?

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote... If the game were changed to let the elites have their way, ultimately those would be the only people who could play the game.

Funny, and here I thought people were able to play the game before numerous buffs to the best classes in the game.  

Evidently, Bioware looks at the numbers and doesn't listen to the elites, huh?

Senseless non-sequitur much?

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 05:59 .

[Gordo Schumway]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote... If the game were changed to let the elites have their way, ultimately those would be the only people who could play the game.

Funny, and here I thought people were able to play the game before numerous buffs to the best classes in the game.  

Evidently, Bioware looks at the numbers and doesn't listen to the elites, huh?

Senseless non-sequitor much?

If you could explain exactly why that is a "non-sequitor" (sic), I would be more than happy to hear it.

Modifié par Gordo Schumway, 11 juin 2012 - 05:59 .

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote...
If you could explain exactly why that is a "non-sequitor" (sic), I would be more than happy to hear it.

It means your comment lacks meaning relative to what preceded it.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 06:01 .

[Gordo Schumway]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...
If you could explain exactly why that is a "non-sequitor" (sic), I would be more than happy to hear it.

It means your comment lacks meaning relative to what preceded it.

I know what the term means, I don't see how exaclty applies to the comment I made. I read your post as a sarcastic remark. If that is the case, then it does make sense. Bioware decided not to listen to the elites who constantly call for nerfs and looked at their numbers and buffed them instead. If it was meant in earnest, then I still don't see how my comment was a non-sequitur--it was direclty commenting on the post you made.

[WVShearer]

 I think they should just make it a Shotgun class weapon.  That would eliminate the double buff TC gives it.  But that is probably just because I run around screaming 'Carnage!' whenever I use it.  It feels like a long range Carnage shot from ME1.

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote...
I know what the term means, I don't see how exaclty applies to the comment I made. I read your post as a sarcastic remark. If that is the case, then it does make sense.

  I believe that you think that.

Bioware decided not to listen to the elites who constantly call for nerfs and looked at their numbers and buffed them instead. If it was meant in earnest, then I still don't see how my comment was a non-sequitur--it was direclty commenting on the post you made.

Uhm, no it wasn't.  Nevermind that it doesn't actually address the issue I pointed out in your argument (e.g. that the game has pretty obviously been playable since the demo, even something absurd and extreme that isn't actually being asked for like actually removing the Krysae from the game entirely would clearly not make the game unplayable for "everyone but the elite")... it doesn't even serve as a particularly sensible statement on its own.  For one, there's nothing "evident" about your claim.

First off, Bioware clearly has reacted to community feedback before, not to mention that they nerfed a variety of things such as the Falcon and Carnifex (as well as buffed many things that people complained about too).  Additionally, it's likely that many of the effective changes to the metagame were unintentional on Bioware's part. 

For example, the part where they nerfed Singularity's detonate function seems like it was probably a result of shortsighted design rather than them determining through magical numbers that Singularity's detonate function was overpowered (because let's face it, we know that the numbers wouldn't show that).  Indeed it looks like they intended to buff it, what with the radius and damage increase and such.  However, the increased singularity duration actually made it even more impractical than it was before.

The reality is that having access to datamining does not in fact magically give one the expertise to interpet said data, come up with optimal solutions to perceived problems, or even understand all of the ramifications of their own suggested changes.

At best, your statement is simply flaunting a misguided assumption.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 06:36 .

[eldrjth]

kr3g wrote...

Soon will be new balance changes, and i remember devs said they will look into it.
Now, i don't really like this gun, but i hope they will not nerf it too much.
IMHO - damage should be the same, but instead reduce clip capacity from 3 to 1. Thats perfect solution, don't you think?

Or you guys have something else in mind?

thats terrible. try using it with the single shot (and reload afterwards) and post your score. prob be 2nd last on the scoreboard. infact you can do that and Ill beat you handedly with just a carnifex. GT: gewrf

Modifié par eldrjth, 11 juin 2012 - 06:27 .

[Siliboy]

Gordo Schumway wrote...

How about we just leave it for the time being. How exactly has it hurt your fun or enjoyment of the game yet?

Had a reaper gold with friends, used Krysae X on an infi, had 190k and the rest were around 60k each. They didn't say it but I'm sure they found the game boring, although they did ask in middle of the match if it was silver. And not just them, I found it very cheap and boring. This was the second time I've used the gun, first time was when rebellion just came out. Didn't have to bother properly aiming the gun.

[Gordo Schumway]

M4v3r1ck2 wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...

M4v3r1ck2 wrote...

@Gordo -- I normally would say to let it ride, but I like playing a melee character even on Gold, so I have to be close and personal with the enemy, as in I shake hands with phantoms, banshees, brutes, primes and pyros all the time. By the time I can get to the group in a map like Goddess or Jade, the Krysae snipers have finished them all off. So then it's scout the next spawn spot and run to it (even Adrenaline 3 doesn't get me there fast enough), and maybe get in one nice heavy melee only to have it killed by... the Krysae sniper. I'm not the only one saying this; many players I know express the same sense of frustration.

If many players express this same sense of frustration, as you claim, why don't you create a party with them? Then you can headbutt enemies all you want. You are essentially arguing that because the sniper exists, you can't play the game you want to play. But aren't you essentially saying that those players who use and enjoy this gun shouldn't be able to play the game they want to play? It seems a bit hypocritical to me.

You're taking what I wrote out of context. 

First, I don't mind snipers, and I would never ask a person not to be one in any mission.  People gravitate to the gameplay they enjoy.  I like playing with an excellent sniper. Many people do. But an excellent sniper with the Black Widow is not the same as a sniper with the Krysae. My issue isn't with snipers; my issue is with the gun itself.


Second, I'm responding to what you said about the Krysae and other people's gameplay.  I didn't hear many complaints from other players when snipers used the Black Widow, but now I hear complaints about players with the Krysae.  Correlation doesn't always mean causation, but in this case I think it might.

Thirdly, hypocritical implies I'm saying one thing and doing another.  My only point is that it's tiring to play with snipers carrying the AoE damage of the Krysae.  I'd be a hypocrite if I used the Krysae myself, which I don't, so I don't know where your interpreting what I say as being hypocritical.

In the end, it seems to me that the Krysae is dumbing down the sniper skills.  I know excellent snipers, and they work hard to get those headshots. If Bioware wants to give the player base a more powerful sniper gun, this gun shouldn't be an *easy version* of something such as the Black Widow; since it does more damage, I'd imagine it might be even more difficult to master.  I'd hazard a guess that very few people will say the Krysae is as difficult to use as the Black Widow.

I and others have asked people who use the Krysae to be aware of what is happening so as to complement teamwork.  Some chuckle and say, *It's funny to troll people's kills.*  I just shrug and know I can sit back and drink my coffee while they do their Krysaeing and then move on.  This is only a game after all.  And to be fair, I'm not saying that 100% of people who use the Krysae are not good snipers, nor does what I say apply to the entire player base.  I'm only stating a few concerns I do have about the gun.

I get that you don't have a problem with snipers in general. When I said "the sniper," I meant specifically the Krysae. Sorry, I could have made that more clear.

What I was referring to as hypocritical is your complaint that the players using the Krysae and stealing your kills do not allow you to play the way you want (melee). It is hypocritical to want to change the way they want to play (with the Krysae at the level it is at) while at the same time complaining that you can't play the way you want.

The Krysae probably does lead to a "dumbing down" of the sniper skills, as you claim. It doesn't take much to aim it, that's for sure. But if that's the way they want to play, so what? As long as it doesn't hurt the way you want to play (which is what you claim, and I do believe you). But as I point out, you could always create a pvt. match without them, thereby eliminating the problem gun entirely.

Finally, I totally agree that people should be aware of what you are trying to do and not steal your kills or intentially attempt to screw up your playstyle, but people were complaining about kill stealing (see the throw ability) long before the Krysae.

Anyway, my ultilmate point seems to be pretty close to yours--everybody should be allowed to play the way that is the most fun for them. Cheers.

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote...
What I was referring to as hypocritical is your complaint that the players using the Krysae and stealing your kills do not allow you to play the way you want (melee). It is hypocritical to want to change the way they want to play (with the Krysae at the level it is at) while at the same time complaining that you can't play the way you want.

  There's actually nothing hypocritical about the statements you just attributed to him at all (I haven't bothered to read M4v3r1ck2's actual posts).  Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have, and frankly the values expressed in the statements you listed are not contradictory and thus do not establish hypocrisy.

Consider the following statement, using the same sentential form as the argument you just gave to establish M4v3r1ck2's alleged hypocrisy.   "It is hypocritical to want to change the freedom of people to make a choice (such as beating you to death with a wrench) while at the same time complaining that you can't make a choice you want to make (going on living in peace)."  See the problem with that "reasoning" yet? 

Gordo Schumway wrote...
The Krysae probably does lead to a "dumbing down" of the sniper skills, as you claim. It doesn't take much
to aim it, that's for sure. But if that's the way they want to play, so what? As long as it doesn't hurt the way you want to play (which is what you claim, and I do believe you). But as I point out, you could always create a pvt. match without them, thereby eliminating the problem gun entirely.

  What if...
-Part of the way he wants to play involves being able to play with a group of strangers at a moment's notice?  Reasons could include introducing greater variety to the experience or being able to play by one's own schedule.
-Part of the way he wants to play involves having to make meaningful build optimization choices (a central aspect of the fun equation for much of the RPG genre)?  Reasons could include... enjoying core gameplay aspects of RPGs.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 07:15 .

[Gordo Schumway]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...
What I was referring to as hypocritical is your complaint that the players using the Krysae and stealing your kills do not allow you to play the way you want (melee). It is hypocritical to want to change the way they want to play (with the Krysae at the level it is at) while at the same time complaining that you can't play the way you want.

  There's actually nothing hypocritical about the statements you just attributed to him at all (I haven't bothered to read M4v3r1ck2's actual posts).  Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have, and frankly the values expressed in the statements you listed are not contradictory and thus do not establish hypocrisy.

Consider the following statement, using the same sentential form as the argument you just gave to establish M4v3r1ck2's alleged hypocrisy.   "It is hypocritical to want to change the freedom of people to make a choice (such as beating you to death with a wrench) while at the same time complaining that you can't make a choice you want to make (going on living in peace)."  See the problem with that "reasoning" yet? 

To use the same analogy you used, he would be claiming that "I should be able to beat you to death the way I want, but you shouldn't be able to beat somebody to death the way you want. " or to use the classic example of a hypocrisy "do as I say, not as I do" What he was saying is that he should be able to the play the game the way he wants, at the same time he was arguing that others should not be able to play as they want. Do YOU see it yet?

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote...
"I should be able to beat you to death the way I want, but you shouldn't be able to beat somebody to death the way you want."

  This isn't actually hypocritical, because it refers to two dissimilar actions.  For example, he could say that it's okay to beat people with wrenches but not with spoons, because that's just cruel. 

And while one could argue that there are all kinds of problems with such an assertion, hypocrisy wouldn't be one of them. 

In order for the statements you attribute to M4v3r1ck2 to be hypocritical, he would have to have, say, actually expressed a belief that it was wrong to interfere with anyone else's desired playstyle for the sake of his own desired playstyle.

Incidentally, would it be correct to say that you have expressed such a belief?  In fact, not only that, but the belief that even doing so indirectly such as via complaining on a forum is wrong?  If so, what does it make you when you've been opposing numerous people pursuing their own version of fun all throughout this very thread?

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 07:41 .

[defleshing]

careful spoons hurt like hell.....lol

[Gordo Schumway]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...
"I should be able to beat you to death the way I want, but you shouldn't be able to beat somebody to death the way you want."

  This isn't actually hypocritical, because it refers to two dissimilar actions.

The actions are the same--the expressed desire of wanting to beat someone to death in a particular manner. It is the methods of the actions that might differ (with a pipe or a wrench or whatever). The methods where not what I called hypocritical. My point still stands.

I no longer feel like arguing logical and ethical fallacies with you. (Aptly enough, I have been editing essays for an online summer course precisely about rhetorical strategies all day and evening and am frankly tired of it). Have a good evening.

Modifié par Gordo Schumway, 11 juin 2012 - 07:29 .

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote...
The actions are the same--the desire of wanting to beat someone to death in a particular manner. It is the methods of the actions that might differ (with a pipe or a wrench or whatever).

  If the methods differ, the actions are not the same.  This is really not complicated.  The belief that it's okay for Professor Plum (or whoever the character is in Clue) to do it in the Lounge with the Pipe but not with the Candlestick is not hypocritical.  What would by hypocritical would be claiming to hold that belief while not actually holding it.  This can be established by showing them expressing a belief which actually contradicts that one.

Short version:  I don't think that word means what you think it means.

(Aptly enough, I have been editing essays for an online summer
course precisely about rhetorical strategies all day and evening and am
frankly tired of it).

  Funny thing about that, rhetorical strategies often actually encourage the use of fallacies, because fallacies are often persuasive to common audiences.  For example, juries are known to be suckers for the conjunction fallacy (...because most people are suckers for the conjunction fallacy).

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[Big Yeti Cane]

Why do the majority of people who have an opinion on nerfing the Krysae not yet possess a Krysae X?
To be able to rate the weapon properly, shouldn't you try and experience the final version? Lol, wow.
Trolls Feeding Trolls comes on right after Shorties Watchin Shorties, CST (mark your calender).

[nicethugbert]

I enjoy the gun just the way it is. I play this game for fun and the gun does not interfere with my fun no matter who uses it or how often.

[Gordo Schumway]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...
The actions are the same--the desire of wanting to beat someone to death in a particular manner. It is the methods of the actions that might differ (with a pipe or a wrench or whatever).

  If the methods differ, the actions are not the same.  This is really not complicated.  The belief that it's okay for Professor Plum (or whoever the character is in Clue) to do it in the Lounge with the Pipe but not with the Candlestick is not hypocritical.  What would by hypocritical would be claiming to hold that belief while not actually holding it.  This can be established by showing them expressing a belief which actually contradicts that one.

Short version:  I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Let's try this one more time; he expressed a desire to kill an enemy in a particular manner he wanted; at the same time he expressed a desire to not allow others to kill an enemy in a particular manner they wanted. The hypocrisy is not in the specific method used to kill, but in the stated desire to be able to do it the way one wants.

Short version: I think you do understand perfectly well what the issue is and what the word means (at least I hope you do; it isn't a particularly difficult concept), but you don't like to be wrong so you will continue to post, demean me, and look for percieved logical flaws just so you don't "lose." The topic didn't even concern you in the first place.

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote...
Let's try this one more time; he expressed a desire to kill an enemy in a particular manner he wanted; at the same time he expressed a desire to not allow others to kill an enemy in a particular manner they wanted.

You're saying that it's hypocritical to have desires that conflict with the desires of others, and it's just not.  It's not even an example of Special Pleading (e.g. "what's okay for me is not okay for you.")

The hypocrisy is not in the specific method used to kill, but in the
stated desire to be able to do it the way one wants.

  Except that's not a pretense of a virtue or belief that he doesn't actually hold.  That's just saying that their style of play interferes with his style of play and he doesn't like it.

Gordo Schumway wrote...
Short version: I think you do understand perfectly well what the issue is and what the word means

I do.  Hell I even gave copy/pasted the definition but you disagreed with it.  Maybe the dictionary is just trying to make you look bad too.  <_<

Hypocrisy is, and I quote, a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.  You have not actually established that the person you are accusing of hypocrisy has expressed any such pretense.  

The topic didn't even concern you in the first place.

  You're right, it didn't.  You were attacking another poster with nonsensical BS accusations, and I don't approve of that and felt obliged to point out why said accusations are untrue.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 08:17 .

[Gordo Schumway]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...
Let's try this one more time; he expressed a desire to kill an enemy in a particular manner he wanted; at the same time he expressed a desire to not allow others to kill an enemy in a particular manner they wanted. The hypocrisy is not in the specific method used to kill, but in the stated desire to be able to do it the way one wants.

  You're saying that it's hypocritical to place one's desires before the desires of others, and it's just not.   It's not even an example of Special Pleading (e.g. "what's okay for me is not okay for you.")

Gordo Schumway wrote...
Short version: I think you do understand perfectly well what the issue is and what the word means

I do.  Hell I even gave copy/pasted the definition but you disagreed with it.  Maybe the dictionary is just trying to make you look bad too.  <_<

Hypocrisy is, and I quote, a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.  You have not actually established that the person you are accusing of hypocrisy has expressed any such pretense. 

Godless, you don't get it, thought you did there. Sorry, I have enough students, I don't need another one that I don't get paid for. Peace. Enjoy the game.

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote...
Godless, you don't get it, thought you did there.

I find this amusing since most of my last post was just quoting the dictionary definition of the word at you repeatedly.  Apparently that's what convinced you that I didn't know what the word meant? 

Sorry, I have enough students, I don't need another one that I don't get paid for. Peace. Enjoy the game.

Perhaps they didn't teach you in rhetoric how weak of an argument appeals to authority are (if you aren't outright making up your claims in that department).  Not once in this discussion have you actually addressed the core point:  That hypocrisy is about claiming to hold a belief, principle, or virtue that you don't actually hold.  You have yet to actually identify what said belief, principle, or virtue is for Maverick2.

All you've done is repeat the exact same claim over and over again.... that it's hypocritical for him to have desires that conflict with the desires of others.  It simply isn't... even if those desires are the exact same thing and even if they had the exact same methodology.  For example, "I'd like to steal all the things in the world, and I wouldn't like anyone else to steal from me" is not hypocritical.  Heck it's not even a moral statement (which would be something like "I should steal all the things in the world, but others shouldn't."  Which would be an example of the Special Pleading fallacy).

What WOULD be hypocritical would be if he maintained a pretense of having a desire that he doesn't actually have.  That is what hypocrisy means.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocritical

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 08:54 .

[Tre.will]

There's actually nothing hypocritical about the statements you just
attributed to him at all (I haven't bothered to read M4v3r1ck2's actual
posts).  Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or
religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have,
and frankly the values expressed in the statements you listed are not
contradictory and thus do not establish hypocrisy.

The statements were hypocritical in every sense of the word.  No amount of forced eloquent explanation will change that.

_______

Now, my reason for posting in this thread, again.

Every player pays THEIR money to play this game.  Thus, they are entitled to play this game however they damn well please.  That is a fact.  That cannot be disputed.  That will never change.  If a player wants to use the Krysae X in every game he plays and top the scoreboard, guess what?  His $60 says he can.  When a player goes into a lobby they can check the other players loadouts.  If they see a player using the Krysae, and they have a problem with it, they can leave the lobby and choose another lobby that is more favorable to them.  It really is THAT easy.  I play this game for fun.  It's PvE.  It's us versus them.  If 3 players on my team want to use the Krysae.  More power to them.  I'm still going to play the way I play.  NO player should be arrogant to the point of believing every other player should play like them.  If 5,000 players love the Krysae how it is and enjoy using it, why should 100 players who think the weapon is OP, decide the effectiveness or lackthereof, of the Krysae.

In the end, it is Bioware who decides what weapon is or isn't OP'd in THEIR game.  Even though there is no such thing as an OP'd weapon in a PvE game, in my opinion.

Modifié par Tre.will, 11 juin 2012 - 08:55 .