• TF2 Random Critical Hits: A Fair and Balanced Discussion
    669 replies, posted
Because your sordid straw grasping has been debunked several times already in this thread, which you proceeded to ignore and blunder on as if you were correct. Your pro-crit points have been rendered null for YEARS in debate, yet you are the ONLY one who fails to realize that. This is a fantastic example of my earlier post about how you scream fallacy and make no actual argument, whilst at the same time completely misunderstanding logical reasoning and failing it laughably. But please, continue googling fallacies and trying to look intellectual, it's really quite entertaining. There's no need to appeal to mockery when your struggling provides ample entertainment on it's own.
You claim that "people like ASIC think any points that disagree with his are irrelevant, just because they disagree". That is just your assumption. I am interacting with various people who disagree with me. I am not simply replying "You disagree therefore you are wrong" to everything. If you had in mind the various accusations directed towards me. I do not believe them, because I have seen no evidence that they are correct. That next bit is an appeal to authority. What is the issue with questioning authority? You say that I should learn new information, but you keep refusing to answer questions. You claim that I hold opinions to the same value as facts. So what has happened to all the times I have given evidence to prove what I say?
You cannot simply dismiss evidence because you dont find it valid, or it does match up with your theories. That's not how it works. Clearly nobody has taught you reasoning. You don't get to do that, unless you're claiming to be a subject matter expert, and are doing so on professional judgment. Are you?
Look, this thread shouldn't be 13 pages. Nor should there even be a legitimate argument FOR random critical hits. They are, without a doubt, a flawed implementation of a system that makes no sense to begin with. Critical hits have always been a hard stop to a balanced metagame, as they outright deny Skill vs Skill scenarios from existing. If you really need an example of why, its the equivalent of playing Rock, Paper, Scissors. You and a friend play, and first round is Scissors vs Rock. You lose the first game. Not a problem, plenty of people have comeback from a 0-1. Next round, you go paper, and your friend just fucking punches you in the face. Not only is that unfair, but the player is being punished for just playing the game. Just like there's no way to predict a Soldier firing a crit rocket, there's no way of predicting that your friend is gonna sucker-punch you in the face. There is no counter play to an unpredictable action. Take for instance another competitive game with critical hits, Pokemon. You got a cool Squirtle, and you're fighting Brock, and he sends out a Geodude. 99 out of 100 times, you should beat that Geodude. Even if Geodude was able to attack, it wouldn't deal enough damage to make you faint. This time however, Geodude hits you with a crit Rock Throw, and Squirtle faints. How is a player supposed to predict that? Apply that same principle to TF2. Full health Scout chasing down a 30HP Demoman. 99 of out 100 times, you should be able to kill the Demoman. But this time, the Demoman gets a crit pipe, and you're dead. It's not a matter of skill, you would have lived that pipe if it wasn't a crit, and could have killed that Demoman. Seriously. Random Critical Hits are without a doubt, the worst thing in this game. Just that fundamental principle of Critical Hits being unpredictable should be warrant enough to remove them. Then you compound that on top of: critical hit chances are determined on damage dealt (invisible statistics are fucking stupid in ANY game that involves PvP combat), critical hits are more useful on some classes compared to others, and so much more. Random Critical Hits have no place in this game, not as a form of balance, and not as a form of "spicing" up the game. There is never going to be an argument for Random Critical Hits in TF2, let alone any PvP based game. They have been proven, time after time, that they are unfair and most importantly, unfun.
What about during most combat situations where players are close to eachother? You might be able to see projectile crits but you wouldnt be able to dodge and hitscan weapons has no visual indicators of incoming crit until it already happened. And crits dont have fall off so even if you back off to safe distance you can still get killed by them. You can only say that skill counters random crits to some extent.
Congratulations on having no argument, again. Leave your opinion at the door. But I know this won't go anywhere since you can't seem to understand why competitive modes run nocrit and have run nocrit for ten years.
I hate to be the "gaiz pls ur making mum cry!!! STOP!!" person but I really, genuinely don't get why any of you are even dignifying ASIC with a response or looking at this thread anymore. At this point you should all be entirely too aware that he isn't going to make a valid argument any time soon and is either hopeless beyond belief or incredibly dedicated to this idiot facade. There hasn't been actual meaningful responses in the past 13 pages.
Is directing insults and accusations at a person a good way to convince them of what you are saying?
Logic and reason certainly haven't worked.
whats the point of teaching a rock about what is unfair and what is fair anyway might as well call it stupid
Pay attention to the context of what I said. You quoted your earlier post saying that In this case I was actually asked for my opinion. I was asked why I want crits to remain in the game, so I explained why. My motivations and desires are not the same as my arguments.
Your motivations and desires are not.... Hwhat in tarnation....
ASIC, I'll say this as genuine as I possibly can: You have literally not said or done anything of worth for this discussion, everything you said has been proven wrong multiple times, you're too stubborn and/or just flat out stupid to bother giving in, and FP would be better off with you banned, at least until you learn how to actually contribute to discussion. Now, before you rate my post with the box like you do every other post you disagree with, and type up some short nonsense about how you've definitely been trying to have fruitful discussion and woe is me, civility has failed once again because I said something negative about you directly, let this thought enter your brain: discussions aren't meant to be won, and even if they were, you've lost the same discussion in this thread at least 13 times, if not more, to people who have done the research, have statistics with context to back that research up, and can dismantle any argument you've brought up with ease. Nobody is arguing for random crits except you. The very few posts in the thread from people who may have were just saying that they enjoyed them - which is fine, they're allowed to, but none of them engaged in the discussion, because they know as well as you do that this discussion goes nowhere. You're the only one here, you're becoming the laughing stock of this forum, and the time has come to either throw in the towel or hope that Garry bans everybody else that's posted in this thread besides you, because everybody will remember how little you actually contribute to discussions, how little you actually try to defend your arguments, and how little your opinion holds any weight in any context, because you're more interested in telling people they're wrong (without explaining why) than you are in reaching a reasonable conclusion for a discussion.
I'm going to paraphrase a post of mine from a while back: Convincing people of stuff is to some degree based on emotion. If you accuse someone of something, the default case is that they probably won't believe you. Some people are emotionally unstable, and are overly sensitive to criticism. Some people will believe you if they adore you or look up to you. Insulting people, or repeating your accusation is not likely to help. One thing to note is that detailed accusations are easier to discuss, compared to broad or vague ones. As an example: "you are always an arsehole at the office parties" is going to be much harder to discuss than "Last friday you hurt Tom a bit. You were rude to him when you told him to shut up about how his mom just died". The first example insults the other guy, and is rather vague. The second example gives a specific issue, and is not as aggressive. Now, here is my reasoning as to why I do not believe your accusations: I am accused of various things. To the best of my knowledge I have not done those things. The searches I have done have not shown the accusations to be true. So to further assess what they said, I asked them for evidence. However, they refuse to provide any evidence to back up their accusations. In closing: So I decide not to believe the accusations, since there is no evidence that the accusations are true.
Ah yes, the good old " Well i don't think that's true, therefore your evidence is invalid " Unfortunately, that is not how objective reality works. It doesn't matter what the "best of your knowledge" is, unless you are an expert or representing the opinions of a survey of experts... You are just relying on subjective interpretation, which is a joke, and not nearly credible for as hard as you're fighting this. This is *basic* stuff here. You are not a teacher or didact, and quite frankly are in the wrong place to be spewing your misunderstood view of logical reasoning. @Hezzy surely you see what this thread has turned into. it is no longer about tf2, instead it has been warped into ASIC's personal fallacy forum. Please, for everyone's sake consider closing it, and evaluating the mental state of the offending users.
Oh christ, please don't even suggest that. Stop reading if you don't want to. If the conversation isn't here, it's in the general chat. And I'm pretty sure no one wants that, like, no one.
You have not provided any sort of proof or citations for (almost?) all of your accusations. The evidence can't be invalid, because no evidence was presented in the first place. I talk about your accusations, because you keep making them. You people are the ones who want to make them in here, so I talk about them in here. I mean @riorio actually made a thread to make fun of me in, but he still posts here. (although I'm not sure if that thread was closed, so this might not be relevant).
If the responsible users were banned, this wouldn't be an issue. It's possible to discuss crits without 12 pages of questions and fallacy after deluded fallacy. That was what this thread was created to contain. Hence the biohazard symbol?
I'm just going to point out that:
Aappeal to tradition is itself a fallacy, except I've also posed reasoning for said tradition and have corroborated with other 'experts' who also share similar reasoning. Get your shitty and shallow 'gotcha' momemt out of here if you won't acknowledge the real meat of the argument
please don't @people for this thread. it's offending
The reason I brought up beginners luck was to explain why bad players would sometimes win against better opponents. I didn't say anything about whether matching a good player against a bad player is alright or not. What you are bringing up could be explained as the difference between the fairness of the game('s rules), and the fairness of the match up between the teams/players. Here is an analogy to try to explain what I mean. Suppose we have a 100 meter race on a straight track. The 2 racers each run the track separately, and see who gets the better time. The rules aren't biased towards either player. If the race was 100 meters for the first player and 50 for the second, the game would be unfair. If we put me vs a professional sprinter on that track the match up would be unfair. Pitting a superior player vs a bad player is not fair, but the rules are still fair.
This is the most useless thread I've ever seen. a dozen pages of the same opinion repeated over and over again. The entire "crits don't belong in tf2 because they're random and can drastically swing a battle" argument is hot horseshit. there are plenty of strategy / skill based games which still use luck as a factor. even going as far down as Dungeons & Dragons, you have to roll for your attack, which is totally luck-based. people still have fun in these games because it adds a random factor, and because they don't get sour over something outside of their control going bad.. sure, you might have the better weapons but what if this rando enemy gets a lucky headshot? better be prepared for everything. being able to adapt to your gameplay environment on a whim is a huge part of tf2 anyway. as for whether or not it belongs in comp, who gives a shit. they don't think it's fair, so whatever. they can do whatever they want on their private servers only like 20% of tf2's playerbase is even interested in comp anyway. the only type of crit that even annoys me is crockets, and that's just because I think soldier is a boring and easy class anyway.
There's is a very big difference between a game designed around literal dicerolls and a first person shooter. We had this discussion in the last thread -- no one gives a shit if it works in dota2 or poker or rock paper scissors, this is tf2; talk about tf2.
You mean you've had 2 whole threads of this drivel!? You wanna talk about exclusively TF2? No comparing it to other games who have used the system successfully? Ok. Obviously it works in TF2 because it has for 10 years and only now have people begun to complain about it because 'muh balance'. If you refuse to look at other games as examples of the system working successfully it does nothing but show your total unconditional intolerance of the idea.
People have complained about random crits far longer than "only now", the random crit chance getting adjusted and nocrit console command both came to be because of people's complaints about them
Tr first thread was more of ASIC hijacking mus than anything else, several times at that. Also the loathing of crits is literally as old as the game itself. NoCRIT wasn't a developer-sanctioned and approved setting until February 2008.
If you aren't going to bother reading any other posts in the thread, at least be subtle about it. It's pretty clear, as the """arguments""" you've presented have been as deconstructed in this thread as ASIC's.
I asked that because the original post said that "Random crits are bad because the team with the better skill should win and random crits ruins the competition" which you replied by saying "Better team shouldnt always win", and I assumed that you thought having random crits is fine because less skilled players can still win. After that you said random crits are fine in a fair team, and then you brought up beginner's luck again. Im not saying beginner's luck is wrong, im saying it doesnt help validate the "Better team shouldnt always win" thing, because along with my point against beginner's luck and few more, in a competitive environment no one would give two farts if their opponent is less skilled or not and everyone would play with their best abilities. Using your toddler and Usain Bolt analogy, putting them both in a race would be very unfair but I could expect the toddler to win the race if I believe that the better shouldnt always win. It could happen but its so unlikely to happen it might as well be near impossible, hence "the better skilled should always win". When a less skilled player 1 shot kills a skilled player with a random crit, even when the better player werent caught off guard or could predict the lower skilled player's actions, its not punishing the skilled player for not being careful, and it doesnt reward the less skilled player for preforming actions that the skilled player didnt expect. No one benefits from random crits.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.