TF2 Random Critical Hits: A Fair and Balanced Discussion
669 replies, posted
Hezzy, this may as well be a second grade debate class.
As much as my contribution to this thread is coming too late and can't add anything worthwhile to what has already been said, you are one hell of a fucking moron
hey
hey nerd
answer my question
How can it be "heads i win; tails you lose."?
It's asking yes or no answer to one question.
It's not asking for a yes answer to one question, and a no answer to a separate question.
Are you guys just trying to evade the question?
I doubt he will, he's too busy showing his second grade debate prowess
i think this snippet from the jungle inferno sfm captures what it's like to stumble onto this thread after leaving it alone for 6 pages
https://youtu.be/YHf7e67T54Y?t=58
(up to and including Spy's reaction to cloak and get the hell out of there)
In that case of choosing how it would start, I would prefer for it to remain with random crits.
You could've expanded your argument instead of relying on your old argument.
First of all beginner's luck as an argument is bullshit since beginner's luck cannot be quantified while random crits can be, and for a beginner to win against a better skilled team without a handicap is for the skilled team to make mistakes which has nothing to do with the beginners' skill or the TF2's mechanics including random crits.
And you are assuming a fair game is where all the players are in equal skill which means that random crits fair, leading to both teams having equal chance of winning (even though i already made a counterarugment which you dint reply) and now you're saying that the team with the lower skill can win as well?
That doesnt make sense since if the teams are unfair the chance of random crits are unfair, but you're saying random crits are fair in this situation as well.
Plus I already replied to your argument, but you dint made any counterarguments so if you're telling me to remove parts of arguments I already replied to I'll assume you didnt read it or forgot about it.
Yes you did, that whole reply was "if you think random crits are flawed you have to prove it, and if you think random crits arent flawed you have to prove it".
You're asking for proof for your belief (which you say is impossible) and at the same time claiming that random crits aren't inherently flawed without any proof or.
You still didnt answer the question in the end because without any example of possible implementations your answer means nothing, and on top of that that's also some bullshit since you're saying that your baseless argument is impossible to counter. Thats just shoving your baseless opinion down everyone's throat rather than having a discussion.
And if you are still going to stick to this argument without any back up arguments you could've mentioned with that post, you should stop asking for evidence or prove their points every single time whenever someone makes an counterargument to you when you cant even follow your own rules.
to give into this I might just wanna remind people of why its so awfully difficult to argue with this man, it's because his entire """world view""" of tf2 or atleast videogames appears to be entirely different:
https://i.imgur.com/EyMlZN7.png
y'all arguing about the details when the man clearly has doubt in the single norm shooters are about or competition, whatever - it's like arguing about astronomy with someone that is a flat earther, it's an entirely different world view and while crits are of course a lot less "objective" than flat earth shit it's about the principle here
Just like we have a resident forum poster who plays TF2 for epic solo killstreaks instead of team gameplay we have someone here that clearly has doubt in that competitions or shooters should be about skill which of course explains why they are pro-crit
and given you will never convince someone's entire basis of a topic is wrong, all you can do is abandon ship, so go on
I did expand my argument a bit there, but it was not a very large expansion to it.
There are other reasons for "beginners luck".
To quote a Wikipedia article:
In a competitive game, a skilled player will expect certain actions to be taken by an opponent in a given situation and prepares his strategy using that prediction. This is especially true in card games, chess, etc. However, the beginner does not have the skill and will often not take the best action. The skilled player is caught off guard and cannot correctly predict or interpret his opponent's action and he loses a large part of his advantage.
It's not just limited to beginners luck, but something to consider about contests is: It isn't simply a number comparison, where the guy with the biggest number always wins.
You can try to rank skill by a number, but it's not a truly numerical thing.
The thing is that there are a lot of posts in this thread that I still need to respond too.
So I will look for your earlier post where you talk about that, I guess.
As a side question:
I have a strong "gut" feeling that English is not a native language for you. Am I correct?
Anyways, back on topic:
You are misunderstanding my post again.
No, I didn't ask him to prove what I said.
Let's look at the bit you don't seem to get.
When I say this here, I am not asking him to prove that all possible implementations of random crits are flawed. I am explaining why it would hard to prove that all possible implementations of random crits are flawed.
As a comparison:
Suppose I say "To golf on the moon would be really hard, you would have to build your own spaceship and spacesuit" to someone (lets call him John).
I am not telling John that he must do the hard task of building a spaceship and playing golf on the moon. I am telling John that to play golf on the moon would be really hard.
I am not ordering John around. I am explaining the issues of something to John.
Why doesn't my answer mean something? I explained the logic for the belief. I even explained why the second belief had a higher probability to be true.
I am not shoving my opinion down anyones throat, I gave my opinion because the person I was talking to had ASKED ME for it.
Here was his post:
Anywyays, since you asked. Here is a definitely flawless (in the game balance sense) implementation of random crits:
During stalemates or humiliation mode (meaning a tie), instead of the normal "both teams run around like crazy and can't attack", it will sometimes alternately enter a sort of sudden death mode.
In this all weapons gain a 70% chance to crit.
This implementation is flawless as it can't affect the actual outcome of the match, it only occurs in the after match period.
Replacing something that has been there since launch (post-game humiliation) with a crit-fest for both sides strikes kinda odd in my tastes. Like the chance to randomly obliterate anything in your crosshairs, blasting your enemies in a post-victory humiliation is pretty synonymous with what I associate with TF2.
There's no reason to get rid of that, since you like said, it has no effect on the outcome of the match since the match is already over.
Also, there's no point on going for zingers and sometimes having you answer multiple posts at once turns your entire post into a nightmare to follow (especially when you want to go all rhetorical and beat around the bush instead of addressing a question directly)
i'd be totally fine with that as the crits never occur during the match, hooray
There are some arguments in favor of random crits, for example it helps alleviate some of the pressure when the teams are unfairly stacked one way or another, if one team has more experienced players or have an absurd number of classes like soldier or heavy, a well-placed crit could give your team the breathing room it needs to hold the line.
Problem is, it's more likely one of the three heavies or soldiers is going to crit you than it is you critting them.
My main argument against random crits is that it just feels like something I shouldn't have to think about when playing TF2. The whole game is based around 9 classes battling it out, and the enjoyment of the game comes from learning each class' strength and weaknesses and then cooperating with your team to the best of your ability to complete the objective.
Random crits doesn't necessarily destroy all of that, but it undermines the part where you learn your characters strengths and weaknesses, because you can't use your knowledge to survive most fights . Even if you know as Heavy that it takes quite a bit to kill you with your 300 health, or as Medic you should be able to take 1 hit from something before you need to pop your über to get as much effect out of it as possible; one random crit will throw all that knowledge out the window.
A lot of this game is based around movement, and dodging, but you can't play as if every shot from your 12 opponents is going to be a crit.
It just makes the game boring. Like, most of the time, I feel bad when I kill someone with a random crit, especially if it's painfully obvious the guy I killed was new to the game.
There's been so many times where I'm on the losing team, I get headshot a few seconds after the round starts, and by the time I respawn my first encounter with the enemy I get greeted by a crit spam rocket. Spending most of the round respawning isn't fun, but if I deserve it because I wasn't good enough then that's fair. Random crits aren't fair, though.
I wasn't talking about post victory humiliation, I was talking about an alternate version of the stalemate humiliation mode.
I was only responding to one post there, I quoted those other 2 posts as a reference. My post there was split in 2 because the one I was responding to was also split in 2.
I try to only respond to multiple posts at once if they are saying the same thing, and are relatively short.
The issue you guys have in these arguments isn't coming from me.
The issue with your post here is that you are wildly over-extrapolating something from just one question. You went from "Why is it good for the higher skilled players to win?" to "He doesn't think (shooter) games are about competition".
These 2 things do not follow from each other, you are jumping to conclusions. What you said about my worldview is really just your assumption, it has nothing to truly support it.
It is like going from the question "Why is this specific law a good thing" to the conclusion "He believes we should not have any laws".
And still, the question I asked is something that nobody here has answered.
The better player doesn't always win*. So is this a bad thing, or is it something else?
*It is not like I just made this up, either. People talk about this.
Here is one example:
http://www.mentalgamecoaching.com/IMGCAArticles/Tennis/StopLosingToWeakerPlayers.html
Bad.
[/thread]
If the outcome of player interactions in TF2 was never at any point meant to be the result of "skill + luck", then why was luck in the game from the beginning?
Where has Valve said they don't want luck to be involved in the game, or that they ONLY want skill?
That blog post you keep bringing up doesn't prove it. It never mentioned randomness or crits at all, it only mentioned weapon balance. So how do we know they had crits in mind when they wrote that post?
Your seem to assuming they were also talking about crits, because they mentioned game imbalance. The thing is that this relies on another assumption, that the people/person writing the blog post thought of crits as unbalanced.
Why would adding the crit poll indicate that they want the game to head in the direction of no crits? If anything it indicates that they want to hear what the community has to say.
IIRC, don't a lot of anti-crit arguments also devolve into subjective enjoyment?
Why are those opinions on crits antithetical to the point TF2's core gameplay?
How do do know that they are the ones enforcing an opinion on everyone else? The majority of players seem to like random crits, so isn't really the people who don't want random crits trying to enforce their opinion?
Why are random crits unfair?
Yes, the game has more variety now than it has at launch. But why does that mean we should remove variety?
Furthermore, why does that mean don't we need random crits in specific?
How do you know that is every rational pro-random-crit argument in the history of TF2?
Also, if you were trying to back up what you said over here:
It doesn't actually succeed at proving what you say.
I'll note that this sentence is incoherent, if we take it as it is written.
So I'm going to assume that by "ASIC can be objectively disproven by making a logic table or two with all the if then statements" he really means:
"asic's arguments can be objectively disproven by writing making a list of all of his statements."
This post can't "objectively" disprove my arguments, as it relies on several subjective assumptions.
It fails to show that the arguments you listed are even mine.
You also fail to show that these are all of my arguments.
But people answered multiple times, what are you going on about? This is a competitive PvP game, the higher skilled player should always do better. The worse player, or, well team has still a chance to win if they get their shit together and not going 6 scouts bee lining into a medic heavy combo hoping for a miracle. Then they deserve to lose.
Why does the game being Competitive PvP mean that the more skilled player should always do better?
Note that saying someone is more likely to do better, isn't the same as saying someone is always going to do better.
Stuff like tennis or chess are competitive PvP games, but people don't always win against the lower skilled player there.
Sometimes dumb tactics do work, part of the reason for that is that they are unexpected.
Why should the player that connects 4 at Connect-Four win? Is that really good?
So you're clinging onto the "always" word? Ok. I don't know what that changes. Skill isn't a number that just adds up with hours played or whatever. And, of course the dude who aims better and has better gamesense should win, why wouldn't he? And again, that isn't just a "gamesense-o-meter" that goes up, it's situational. Not every player is good at every single little bit planning ahead. And that planning, gamesense and better aim of course is just thrown out the window when the guy who installed 20 minutes ago spews out a crocket on your medic from the other side of the map.
.....
"Why does the game being Competitive PvP mean that the more skilled player should always do better? "
"Why are random crits unfair"
Okay... I've got an idea. Hang on.
You have failed to disprove my arguments with your suppositions.
Please provide evidence for your questions.
Where is the evidence that valve has officially denied these claims?
How do you know these are even my arguments? Or all of them?
Your arguments rely on assumptions about my arguments, how can they be objectively true if they're just assumptions?
How can you prove that this was the point of my argumentation?
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/211556/7947c687-5fbc-468b-8284-cc5168a257db/brain.png
This seems to be misrepresenting my argument. The questions we asked are rather different.
My question is "why is it good for the higher skilled player to win?". You basically asked "Why is it good for the person who has won to win?".
The higher skilled player isn't always going to win, but the person who completes the victory conditions has already won.
Now if you are instead asking "why should the rules be as they are", then that is a different question.
It still is one that isn't exactly relevant to the one I asked.
Possibly relevant trivia:
(The normal version of) Connect 4 is not a fair game. The player who gets the first turn has a 100% chance to win if they play under optimum strategy, no matter how good the other player is.
I stopped reading right about here, to be honest
That's the same thing. The higher skilled player in a competitive game should win. He is the one better at the game, he is the one that wins because he is better. It's like the tripping mechanic from smash bros that was intended to make the game more casual; everyone fucking hated it including casual players because it was fucking stupid - you shouldnt punish people that invest effort into improving at the game by making them lose when they should clearly win
it's like the weather mechanic or the orb mechanic from Touhou Hisotensoku or Touhou ULiL which was random "weather" that would affect the battle; everyone fucking hated it, including casual players because it was random and not fun when the enemy wins in a competitive game by pure luck
Asking "why is it good that the better player wins" is a really stupid question to everyone but you which once again comes back to me saying your entire view of competitive games is so different to the usual one(ours) that a discussion is impossible, which is why everyone is fed up with this clown fiesta
And what is the significance of this?
If lurking in this thread taught me anything is that trying to enter into a rational discussion with you about any topic whatsoever is basically a waste of one's time and only the beginning of a long serie of asinine "rebuttal" questions on your part, so better luck next time, my friend
I have 2 points to make in response to all this.
First point, which is in regards to the accusations among the things I have quoted:
You guys can't actually prove those accusations.
One part of it is that I am innocent.
The other part of it is that most of you would not even try to prove your accusations, thus ruling out the possibility that you could prove them.
Second point, in regards to pretty much all of the things I have quoted here:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/238427/215f7ec8-7637-4fc4-9b24-7e972317ddb6/typicalbehaviorofautisticchildren.png
"prove my point" says man who continuously gets his point proven to him but can't be bothered to accept it so he continues to waste everyone's time by asking questions.
For my response to this, see the post right above yours.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.