Brady
Media Manager
Plz no flame.
|
Post by Brady on Mar 30, 2015 17:02:28 GMT
The fact that you can't associate unfair with sound whoring is the problem. Sound whoring provides a competitive advantage, yes? I define that to be unfair. #Done
/closethread
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 30, 2015 17:10:22 GMT
Welp, there is a reason why each these forums are dead. People who try to converse with different opinions can't happen because everyone is so set on their own viewpoint that in the end all threads degrade to crass opinions without thought of the other person's view point. Rip
It's way to hard to get to the fundamentals of this conversations when it keeps getting side tracked. Like honestly Brady, I don't understand how out of my post, you took sound whoring to be the most relevant topic to discuss. When I'm here questioning what rules mean and how the community should influence the rules you choose to side track the convo and discuss how sound whoring isn't unfair in your eyes.
It's just so silly.
|
|
Brady
Media Manager
Plz no flame.
|
Post by Brady on Mar 30, 2015 18:05:28 GMT
You know what's silly? Not being able to follow such a simple rule, and having to have this in-depth of a discussion about it.
|
|
|
Post by Luke on Mar 30, 2015 18:16:21 GMT
Both arguments bring up good points, this has been a great thread with insight on both sides. Understand that the threads will not ban or penalize people from "trolling" or "flamming" the threads. This is due to the fact that people should have the right to say what they want without having fear of being penalized. I remember way back when someone not being allowed to play in a match because of something they said on the forums.
Yes the CA community can be rough sometimes, but that does not make it a bad community. With about 18-20 teams wanting to play in competitive matches this shows that the community still wants to have good matches (no matter the rules). I can only simply ask please respect each other on the forums to the best of your ability, there is nothing wrong with heated discussions. BUT if we do want to see our community grow we should do our best to not directly attack another player for their skill or opinions.
SP: Please understand the rules are not finalized and will not be until the league starts. Right now the rule is no SP and from what I can tell the matches where people do not SP have a better competitive edge. I understand the difficulty with enforcing this rule, but when the time comes it will all come together. Have faith and as of now do your best to avoid SP and especially name tagging.
Thank you,
Luke "TheFray" Edge
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 30, 2015 20:40:48 GMT
Wasn't referring to anyone here as a troll. I definitely wasn't trying to ban people off this forum lol. Myb. Just frustrating how people are so narrow-minded and resent players that try to discuss about controversial topics in favor of the other side.
|
|
Brady
Media Manager
Plz no flame.
|
Post by Brady on Mar 30, 2015 21:03:40 GMT
"Narrow-minded" I can get narrow-minded if you want m8. But the clear lack of knowledge in "competitive aspects" of first-person shooters is very apparent here. Yes, both teams have equal opportunities to use "unfair" advantages (referring to certain shoulders) bc they play both sides of the map. I get that. Look at csgo for example. Pixel walking is banned in csgo(speaking of competitive). Both teams can do it when on whatever side of the map it is on. But to make things simple, its just banned, and they don't do it. Recently in a major, Fnatic used a new found pixel walk/boost in lan semifinal, valve reviewed it and probably would have made them replay the map, until Fnatic just forfeited the match. So, yes both teams have the equal opportunity to shoulder the same spots. That can't be argued. But why worry about that. Why not implement more skill into the game, instead of seeing who can hold the strongest shoulder where their opponent sees maybe 5 pixels of them. Man up and fight, show you're a better player regardless of where you sit on a map. And if you get picked that time, go back and get his ass the next time. Don't rely on a broken mechanic to make you feel like the better player. That's what competition is about. It's not like we're fighting for some big reward or anything. Can we please just drop this now.
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 30, 2015 21:11:29 GMT
I think my lack of competitive knowledge is irrelevant to the topic of sp. If you define skill as: "Manning up and fighting" then ok. But I would define skill as making decisions to maximize your chances of winning and sp will maximize my chances of winning. Now I have no clue what pixel walking in cs go is but the cs go community, I'm assuming, is much for developed and rules have had time to be tested and reworked. We're currently undergoing this process in CA concerning sp so dropping the discussion is definitely a step in the wrong direction toward the intended goal:
A rule that the community agrees with.
|
|
Brady
Media Manager
Plz no flame.
|
Post by Brady on Mar 30, 2015 21:20:37 GMT
Yo man this games been out since summer of 2k8. I think there's been time. Shoulder peeking has been here since day one, maybe not exploited until a couple seasons into wogl (thx islands and company). But everyone knows how it works, knows where you can do it, its not something that needs to be tested. It's been here, it's been banned before in league.
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 30, 2015 21:32:44 GMT
I'm not referring to time given to learn sp. Yes, everyone knows how to sp. I'm referring to the discussion of sp needs time. There have been seasons where sp wasn't banned (correct me if I'm wrong.). Also if you ban sp, how do you enforce it? How do you make the rule less subjective and the infringements less fuzzy?
Just because sp was banned before doesn't mean we should following blindly without discussing the reasons behind and the rules around no sp.
As of right now, I beleive that in order to report sp, you must fraps a video of a sp that reaches an extended period of time. From here the video is forwarded to a mod who then makes the judgment call if the sp was in fact done in an extended period of time. Doesn't this seem so subjective and biased?
** Was there was a heated discussion when sp was banned back in wogl s6? (when was the first time it was banned) How did the the staff answer the aforementioned questions? If the ban WAS successful, why was that?
Telling a new person that we can't do something that I find logical just because people didn't do it in the past, while a strong argument for you, makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by mone on Mar 30, 2015 22:15:09 GMT
I'm not surprised, another weak counter argument. My argument is that even with EQUAL SP OPPORTUNITIES, it's still UNFAIR. No one likes being wrong but that doesn't mean they can't admit it. We don't agree. This whole time you've expressed how shoulder peeking is fair because players have equal access to the same amount of right walls, I've stated otherwise. You're well aware that you're wrong so you've not only decided to admit that shoulder peeking isn't fair but you're also comparing irrelevant situations to my argument. I'll tell you why.
(Note: My argument is that it's unfair even when players can shoulder peek the SAME RIGHT WALLS) M16a3 and G36e are two different guns, therefore you can't compare this to my argument. One player using sound, while the other player doesn't are two different things, therefore you can't compare this to my argument. One player using hacks, while the other player doesn't are two different things, therefore you can't compare this to my argument.
If players and their opponents play the same spots on Alpha & Bravo EVERY single time, then shoulder peeking the same right handed walls will be fair. No one plays the same though, one may play a spot while the opponent shoulder peeks and when the teams change sides, the player who was being shoulder peeked is now shoulder peeking the SAME RIGHT WALL but the player shoulder peeking last half isn't playing the same spot as the player who was being shoulder peeked the half before. You assumed in your post that the player playing pizza knew that there was a player shoulder peeking green container but how would the player know that? He doesn't know. This situation will happen everywhere almost all the time. I say almost all the time because there will be situations when players do play alike, but this doesn't happen all the time. I've already given an example but I'll say it again in case you forgot.
Jackson shoulder peeks green container while John plays pizza box. John shoulder peeks green container while Jackson plays pizza box.
If this situation happened EVERY SINGLE time, then having access to the same amount of right walls will be fair. This doesn't happen all the time though, therefore having an equal amount of walls to shoulder peek doesn't make the playing field level or fair.
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 30, 2015 22:41:26 GMT
"You assumed in your post that the player playing pizza knew that there was a player shoulder peeking green container but how would the player know that?"
I believe this is a a good assumption because if playing green container is the dominant strategy on alpha then the player on bravo should know that and therefore avoid pizza. Furthermore yes someone may die once at pizza, but that doesn't mean that we have to ban sp because of one round. The person that died at pizza won't go back to pizza next round to get killed again. A player that has a "play style" to play pizza is just a person that is dumb and wants to die and we shouldn't make rules to accommodate players that can't learn when they die multiple times at pizza to green crate.
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 30, 2015 22:44:02 GMT
Over time, the optimal situations becomes this:
Jackson shoulders green. John DOESN"T play pizza. John shoulders green. Jackson also DOESN"T play pizza.
Since this example above is the dominant strategy, other examples shows that one or both players have chosen to play a weak strategy.
*I'm also assuming that all strong players will play the dominant strategy in order to increase their chances of winning."
|
|
|
Post by mone on Mar 30, 2015 23:34:22 GMT
Assumptions aren't facts though youngin'. The point isn't that the person playing pizza isn't going to go back to pizza again, the point is that it's unfair, even if it's for one round. Did you not read the bit where I said that this situation doesn't only happen at pizza, this will happen almost everywhere all the time. I've stressed this so many times, I'm well aware that shoulder peeking is the dominant strategy here but just because it is, doesn't make it fair. I've already stated why it isn't fair and your only counter argument to that is that a player will die from these unfair shoulder peeks and over time, will learn to not play these spots which has completely nothing to do with why you think shoulder peeking is fair, therefore making your counter argument very weak. Anything else you need me to enlighten you on young Padawan?
|
|
Solvite
Pug/Draft Staff
Posts: 41
Clan: Vernai
|
Post by Solvite on Mar 31, 2015 0:47:52 GMT
Fight like real men pussies. Shouldering is unfair, doesn't matter if everyone can do it. Poof stated in other words that it's hard to see someone in a shoulder. If you turn a corner quickly, you most likely won't see someone's fanny pack or nametag. Giving the situation, that could be the difference between a win and a loss in an actual game. It's unfair. I remember back in the day the game was almost to the point of who could shoulder the best... not who was actually more talented as a player. ONE player in a solid shoulderpeek could potentially stop an entire rush from occuring, and yes, I've seen it happen. When Bravo is trying to retake a site and there are 2-3 people sitting in shoulder peeks, it makes it nearly impossible to actually take the site. 9/10 times the player in the shoulder will win the fight. It doesn't matter if the other team has the same potential to shoulder the same walls, it's ultimately unfair in my opinion and should be eliminated from play, which brings me to my opening statement. Fight like real men pussies.
Cliffs:
-Fight like real men pussies. -It's not easy to see IF someone is shouldering, much less where they're shouldering. -If shouldering was allowed, the game would be less about skill and more about right walls. -One player in a strong shoulder could easily stop a full rush if in the right position, much less two. -Retakes are nearly impossible when players are shouldering. -Ultimately shoulderpeeking is unfair and should be eliminated from play. -Fight like real men pussies.
|
|
|
Post by dzhao on Mar 31, 2015 3:54:20 GMT
Mone. "I've already stated why it isn't fair and your only counter argument to that is that a player will die from these unfair shoulder peeks and over time, will learn to not play these spots which has completely nothing to do with why you think shoulder peeking is fair, therefore making your counter argument very weak."
"has completely nothing to do with why you think shoulder peeking is fair"
This is part of the reason why I think shouldering is fair. When Jackson and John learn to not play pizza this situation only exists for one round. I'm looking in the long run while you argue that if it's unfair for even one round it should be banned.
Cool does this make you right? If you think so. But Now you've identified our different view points and I understand (If my statement is wrong do correct me again). Cool I don't think there is much else worth discussing with you mone, unless you have other points to put forward. But interesting, if one thing is unfair for one round..... it should be banned.
Haha its funny because one succinct sentence is all that's needed to clear up confusion. Assuming that I am too proudful to accept your argument could have potentially stirred up the hornet's nest even more. So therefore I ask that you don't assume what I'm thinking as that is a bad way to go about a discussion. Just as a warning in the future if you happen to get into an argument with someone that is more slow understand than me.......
And Solvite I think you're view point is in line with mone. Both of you view this topic in the short run where as I believe that the more you play CA the more you realize where dominant strategies occur and how to work around them. Sometimes you can't work around them and I've accepted that.
I've decided to sacrifice fairness in the short run in return for having a rule that isn't fuzzy and subjective. Make sense? Furthermore when I refer to the longrun I'm assuming that the long run might take a long time (possible an infinite amount of time) (But that is only if CA has an infinite amount of knowledge to be learned) but I don't think the pain that people feel in a few games of CA or a few certain rounds is a deal breaker and forces the league to enact a fuzzy and subjective rules.
Is this what you're thinking or am I still wrong?
|
|