TF2 Random Critical Hits: A Fair and Balanced Discussion
669 replies, posted
Fittingly enough, Chess960 is also equal for both sides (apart from White's start advantages, which is also the case in regular Chess) as the positions are mirrored. So it's not like this random Chess just crits a piece from the board now and then.
I never honestly cared for the whole "that changes his role, so it must go" nonsense. More so when the biggest role changer in the game, Demo Knight is still in the game, as well as showcases that Valve is willing to change roles regardless of what people think.
It's nothing more then an argument used to keep people from being forced out of their "safe zone". A Place where people are familiar with and want things to stay and nothing more. In this case the Ambassador made the spy more viable in a more competent in higher level of play and it made them uncomfortable. The worst thing it did was tramped a bit into sniper territory, but even then both classes are still pick classes so it didn't really change his role. I've heard a few competitive players stated that it and the dead ringer gave the spy more of a boxer player style in the game, but that wasn't caused by the Ambassador alone, but when it was paired up with the dead ringer as well before the JI update.
and in all honest, in order for a game to continue on and not get stale you're going to need to introduce new things into the game that change things up. Some of which are going to make people feel a bit uncomfortable.
I think I was asking for his reasoning in specific.
Anyways I probably forgot about the discussion you mentioned, I should probably go find it and respond.
I can't really speak about flaws in my arguments without examples of what you are thinking of.
If my posts bring up a topic other than TF2, then the other thing probably being used as a comparison or similar (Whether or not I brought it up).
It also could be related to the whole accusation and insult tossing that has been going on for most of the thread.
If what you said is true, then what I said here would be Hypocritical or ironic:
However that doesn't mean what I said there is true or false.
I am not sure why you said I brought up dota a lot.
I only mentioned dota like once in this thread, and I wasn't the one to bring it up. Well, at least according to the search function: https://forum.facepunch.com/search/?thread=732471&user=238427&type=Reply&q=dota
(Nitpick: The term is actually pseduorandom distrobution)
The crit mechanic in TF2 is pretty similar to Dota 2's PRND. The chance to crit increases on doing damage (not attacks), the notable difference is really that the chance doesn't decrease on getting a crit.
One thing to note about PRD, is that doesn't make stuff like crazy backtrack streak impossible. It lowers the chance of them.
Yes, you need to be playing a hero with those abilities, or buy an item to get them.
Your gibusvision type example can happen in dota 2 as well. IIRC the real source of it is stuff like evasion and bashes more so than crits.
It is not that likely of an occurrence in either case.
Spirit Breaker is built around that bash though, it's fundamentally what makes him even worth picking because otherwise he is really, really, really bad. Soldier is good even without random crits.
You do realize you can technically predict what your opponent does right? It's called 'reading' your opponent. All you do is either anticipate what your opponent is going to do or you act first to see whether or not your opponent does what you wanted. Soldiers usually need to get used to calling out their opponent since it helps them with getting air shots and dealing with Scouts. Your opponent can do the same thing as well. That's why its fair.
Yes because usually skill is obtained by training, practicing, experimenting, studying and anything that requires a good amount of effort that allows you to obtain it. It shouldn't be given by luck nor should it be easy access. And when I mean that, I am saying that the game should not make it easier for you to take care of an situation than what you are already able to do. Because if the game is going to randomly decide whether or not you instantly win a situation, it reduces the skill involved with your action.
sometimes i look at asic's long posts and i ended up never completely understand what hes trying to convey
I usually give up half way through.
Yes, if someone gains an advantage after the game starts due to skill, it is fair. Not knowing exactly what your opponent is going to do is fair as well.
You are both given the same tools and always can implement them the same exact way assuming neither of you have flaw.
Now here's the key difference, in both scenarios, gaining advantage due to skill and not being able to predict your opponent, if ANY advantage is gained through that, it is earned through their own ability and their own ability alone. Not by a random roll of the dice that is completely out of the hands of the characters.
I brought up map balance to disarm any argument in that direction as I assumed you would sidetrack, as you are constantly doing.
You're smarter than this dude, I know you see the flaws in your own argument.
How? The game does not tell you what you did wrong
I am absolutely fucking BAFFLED that someone could be making TF2 design arguments, and ask this question. This is ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL TO TF2'S DESIGN. The game gives you every bit of information you need, the game shows you where you died, who killed you, who helped them kill you, what exactly they used to kill you, the surrounding map area around where you died, the freeze cam, the killfeed, the spectator mode after you die, they were mechanics that exist SPECIFICALLY TO SHOW YOU WHAT YOU DID WRONG.
Are you trying to tell me that when you die in TF2, you don't think "Well, it's obvious judging by where their team was when I died that I was overextending, I'll avoid that in the future"? You think "Well, I died, who knows why, let's have another go"? If you genuinely don't understand how people know what they did wrong when they die in TF2, then I think I understand perfectly well why you don't see a problem with crits in TF2. It sounds like, in your mind, EVERY death is random. When you die, you legitimately do not understand that you died due to a mistake you made. When you get headshotted, you don't think "Ah, I need to avoid that sightline", when you get stabbed, you don't think "Ah, I need to work on my situational awareness", when you get flanked by a scout you don't think "Ah, I need to keep a better eye on our backline". When you die to anything, you just assume that there was nothing you could have done to prevent it and learn nothing from that death.
"If you consider it to be unfair/unbalanced because they could not have escaped death by performing better, then consider that there are other cases where you can die without making mistakes or being able to do anything better
If you genuinely believe this, then you simply don't know how to improve at this game.
To someone who fundamentally doesn't understand how to improve at a video game, sure, random crits will seem just as random as any other death. But we should not be balancing around lowest common denominator players.
What you are talking about right now, is how randomness is out of the hands of the players.
The definition you gave didn't mention anything about requiring player's to be in control.
So why does that aspect of randomness make the game biased (and unfair)?
Since you mentioned it, where do I go on sidetracks? If you are not willing to discuss this, then you should not bring it up.
Players being in control of crucial mechanics in the game is kind of assumed.
Not all randomness is equal, depending on how it affects the game, it can be perfectly fine or completely gamebreaking. Random crits are one of those gamebreaking things.
Why would that be assumed? It is a related thing, but isn't it separate?
Yes, not all randomness is the same. What sense are you thinking of when you refer to random crits as game breaking? The game impact of them?
I don't see the point in doing that. It is just complaining and it doesn't prove there is anything wrong with asking questions.
I'm pretty sure he's picked for his global charge, due to ganking potential.
I thought he's built around stuns, not really greater bash in specific (although you have to level it up to deal damage with the other abilities).
You could replace or remove his 3rd ability (and as long as you kept the stun and damage on his other abilities) and he wouldn't be as bad you are saying.
Making his 3rd ability a guaranteed stun would probably be a terrible idea though.
prove that it doesn't prove it
You can technically predict random things and so can your opponent.
So isn't that fair as well?
Why does the degree of effort make it non biased or fair?
Obviously if a game makes things easier, it reduces the skill necessary. Is that necessarily bad? And how does that thing relate to fairness?
I think this was his rant:
>Also, holy fuck, stop asking questions. Just stop. Remove the question mark key from your keyboard. You answer everything- even shit that doesn't need answers or doesn't want them- with questions, questions, and more questions. Contribute something of your own to the discussion or shut the fuck up.
He starts off by ordering me to stop asking questions. The reason for this is, that according to him, I answer everything with questions. He does not provide evidence for this claim.
He then tells me to contribute to discussions or to "shut the fuck up".
However asking questions can add stuff to the discussion. For instance: asking someone about a problem they had not thought of.
He doesn't outright say that questions are bad, or why. The last bit could possibly be taken as saying that questions are bad because they do not add to the discussion.
Questions are bad when they are loaded or otherwise avoid making statements.
All you've done by asking so many questions is to reaffirm the notion that you don't understand anything going on and want people to spell things out for you. Yet these are questions long answered so instead it shows that you aren't paying attention and a failure to retain information presented to you.
You aren't Socrates. You lack the rhetorical skills to use questions as a tool to spark new lines of thinking and instead you ask yourself in circles, demand evidence that you conveniently ignore, and demand people provide proof for things that are self evident.
I never claimed to be Socrates, and I never claimed to be performing the socratic method:
What evidence do you have to back these accusations up?
For now here, is my rebuttal:
Accusations made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
asic be acting like in a legal court here even though its just an argument about random crits
If people do not want me to ask them to prove their accusations, then they should not make accusations.
No one's accusing you of anything. We're making an observation of your behavior and boy do you look stupid.
i accuse you of being a bad poster with no long term goals other than stirring shit up like a pest.
the evidence is scattered all over the subforum, your honor
ASIC it's clear at this point that you aren't going to change your mind, so stop pretending that you're open to debate on this topic and just...just stop, dude. You've based your entire identity and presence on the TF2 subforum around random crits to a really unhealthy degree, and if we were on Oldpunch still, you'd have been banned a hundred times over by now. As it stands, this thread has 20 pages worth of you making it where people cannot fucking stand you.
Let it die, dude. You're never going to win this one. Take the L, move on, find a different way to contribute on the subforums. If all you do is lose arguments, respond to everything with questions (which you fucking do, don't even pretend for a goddamn second that isn't your MO), and generally just go out of your way to look like a stubborn dick, you aren't going to have a good time here. In fact, I'd be highly surprised if you're actually enjoying yourself...unless you're trolling. In fact, I'm pretty sure the only reason you'd be enjoying yourself at this point is if you are.
Change your profile background to something cool that reflects...I don't know, anything about your absurd fixation on the random crit argument. A favorite character, or something that looks pretty. Take part in the other threads and don't start every post with "Why?" or "Can you prove that?". Nobody would have a problem with you if you just stopped stirring up shit, repeatedly reviving this awful thread and the arguments within.
I'm still not convinced ASIC isn't some fucking master troll out to one day post some hours long epic youtube compilation of him consistently posting the stuff he does with us taking the bait every time to /r/tf2 or something
A statement can be an observation and an accusation.
It is not only one or only the other thing.
Saying that someone has done something bad is an accusation.
A statement based on what one has seen or experienced is an observation. Observations are not always true, for a bunch of reasons.
A lot of statements could be considered observations. The statement "I do not like pain" is an observation. The statement "I like ice cream" is an observation.
Observation is sometimes thought to have the same meaning (a synonym) as statement.
Here is an example of something that is an accusation and a observation:
Saying that someone has done something bad because you saw them do it.
So my point is that:
People have made statements that I have done something bad, therefore they are accusing me of things.
I am not the stupid one here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLmD_WVY-E
You try to use words thinking they'll make you sound smart but you can't distinguish the difference between a statement, an opinion, an observation, and an accusation. All of which could be easily remedied by using a goddamn dictionary.
You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself because you stubbornly refuse to accept that you are so far out of your depth that you've contradicted your original stance on several occasions, indirectly admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and don't care about balance, and incessantly attempt to distract people with semantics bullshit and daring people to call moderators on you (and then brazenly ignoring Hezzy when he does show up).
To your credit, you're not as insufferable as the literal children that populate TF2's Steam Powered User Discussion board, but that's an incredibly low bar to surpass.
Interesting video, but none of this is new to me.
Anyways, once again, let us think about stuff related to what the video says starting at around the "4:20" point. The video mentions how one should be open to what other people have to say (to evaluate one's self). So consider that I have offered to hear many of you out, multiple times. I ask you to show me the evidence for what you say.
There is a counter point to this:
Not everything people say is worth listening to. If you believe everything you are told, you will believe contradictory things. You must sort through the things that are useless.
So I will tell you something I have told you many times before: a sane person will not believe someone's accusations, if they refuse to provide evidence.
When I offer to hear out what you have to say, you refuse to provide evidence. This is not a question of the hypothetical evidence having disappeared. All of my posts are recorded here. It is not a question of the people lacking the time, given that they have accused me of things for a month on end.
I simply have no reason to believe the accusations presented against me.
So in closing, to misquote the Bible:
"Oh teacher, teach thyself."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.