TF2 Random Critical Hits: A Fair and Balanced Discussion
669 replies, posted
Honestly I have to say that ASIC (if he's not a troll) is the worst argumentor I've ever seen. I've actually seen people who reply with "no u" have better argumentative skills than him.
can you prove "u" is directed at me????
u
that is up to debate. I've seen more new players use spy/sniper to take down strong targets since ubers are far too scarce on matches to truly show their wrecking potential to said new players. if there were more incentives for new players to show the potential of ubers vs sentries (yes, even more) you wouldn't have to deal with 5 random dudes switching to spy to deal with one mini and one enemy sniper.
You forgot the gem can you prove why i said that?
I feel like by far the most annoying point made was the idea that random crits are a necessity for game balance in order to break stalemates. Like, that is literally, word for word, why the Kritzkrieg was made, not even mentioning it being one of the very first weapons added. That's why it charges faster than the stock Medi-gun, and that's why competitive teams run Kritz if they want to push for an advantage. Not even getting into how counter-productive that idea would be (the aforementioned "defensive team will have more random crits on average and will utilize them better because they usually have Engineers to bolster defense and buildings don't take crit damage").
the only stalemate a crit could ever break is a crocket vs a payload pushed by 3 heavies. and that isn't even a stalemate.
Let's have a little survey here:
Is it rational to believe someone's accusations against you, if they refuse to to provide evidence that the accusations are true?
If you think the answer to this question is Yes, then rate agree.
If you think the answer to this question is No, then rate disagree.
I like crits because they help me get kills. And killing is always good.
Rate something else if you are incapable of answering simple questions
You mean a rating exclusively for you?
You accused me of saying something out of maliciousness.
Should a person make accusations that are (nearly?) impossible to prove? Yes or no?
Hey nerd, while you're out here derailing and making posts unrelated to random crits you, still haven't answered my "why" about why ya think random crits shouldn't be added if they were not in the game
this entire thread is like watching a medical documentation of someone who's psychologically incapable of accepting any information that defy his opinions
I decided to remake the earlier survey, as the previous one had an issue with the voting method.
I have a little survey (Mk.II) for all you folks in this thread:
Is it rational to believe someone's accusations against you, if they refuse to to provide evidence that the accusations are true?
If you think the answer to this question is No, then rate disagree or dumb.
If you think the answer to this question is Yes, then rate it any other rating.
lol english is my second language i dont understand all these big boy fancy words youre typing
What kind of horse shit survey design is that?
Making the ratings so that the negative ones the post deserves end up in your favor, and everything else also help your cause??
You must think we're stupid or something, to fall for utter bull like that.
The problem with your "voting method" is that you're an idiot.
That is because in that hypothetical scenario my desires would be different from how they are now.
why?
Both the yes and no vote have negative ratings associated with them, so you can rate my post negative regardless of what your answer is.
....which are then counted as votes towards your ridiculous plot.
Let's flip a coin with your reasoning - heads i win; tails you lose...
we need designated critting streets
Why are people still even bothering to respond to ASIC is my big question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P40_kd-mS8
this thread
Sorry Metaru, but it seems that giving evidence has gone out of style.
No, not what you in the hypothetical scenario would think, what you think now.
i.e. if you can choose how tf2 would have started, would you choose for it to have started with or without random crits? From a neutral stance where TF2 doesn't exist, would you will it into existence with or without random crits?
Don't worry, I'll still explain it.
Well to correct my earlier post, it isn't entirely certain if it would be true.
Anyways, here is why it is possible:
People have desires, likes, dislikes, beliefs, and motivations. This is not just due to genetics, or due to their environment. It's both of them.
So if the environment was different in that scenario, then things influenced by it would also be different in that scenario.
But since it's unclear if the desire was (mostly) due to genetics or (mostly) due to the enviroment, we can't be entirely certain.
ASIC who... Taught you how to present arguments and rhetoric? I'm just curious where you are getting all this from.
Side note: to the people reading the thread, i apologize for going Gordon Ramsay with a bunch of these posts, but i just haven't seen a display this egregious in years.
Maybe he learned to argue from Climate Change deniers .
So what exactly are the reasons random crits are good? There's all this debate over argumentation or whatever, but I don't really see the point in that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.