[QUOTE=SuicidalFaget;52972450]The fact that you think random instakills are okay in an fps.
And ofcourse, opinions can never be wrong, can they?[/QUOTE]
Why do you consider random instakills bad?
If something is wrong, it isn't a matter of opinions, but a matter of facts.
[QUOTE=Contra132;52972629]@ people using MOBAS and RTSes as an example of why RNG is okay
those are not first person shooters
no dominant first person shooter on the market has a form of RNG as egregious as random crits. random bullet spread and such is common, but even in CSGO spread and recoil can be controlled by skilled players and add to the game's skill ceiling. there is no skill inherent in random crits.
RNG in mobas and RPGS make sense because not only are they a genre staple, but there are many ways to manipulate it in those titles. ie spells that grant a higher chance of dealing critical damage or techniques that make abilities more likely to miss you.[/QUOTE]
That's precisely my entire point that I'm making this whole time. Randomness is good if it's under player control. This spans all genres, it's not exclusive to RTS or MOBA, and random crits can be made to work that way.
[QUOTE=Brokkhouse;52972613]Not even TF2? What are you doing here?[/QUOTE]
Basically the stuff there boils down to an appeal to absurdity. It's "silly" to die to RNG related effects.
Also, the revolver can not instant kill a full health medic.
im just here praying to santa that he would shoo asics away along with his opinion
[vid]https://i.imgur.com/IVhf7Yz.mp4[/vid]
Engine crashes are good for some things.
Why would someone allow this to be made.
I've said this before, but isn't it telling that no other popular multiplayer FPS out there (even older ones that defined the genre) has random crits, and they became popular and praised despite lacking that feature?
Or, to turn the question around, does anyone actually feel like random crits played an important part in TF2's popularity? Or was it the nine totally different and well-designed (well...mostly) classes, the wonderful artstyle, the goofy animations and characters, the fine-tuned FPS gameplay mechanics and maps, the emphasis on objectives and teamwork instead of just blind deathmatching etc. Would TF2 from a parallel universe in which Valve decided not to include random crits be any less popular? Would it be any less accessible to new players or increase the peformance gaps between veterans and newbies?
I really don't think so. I'd say that random crits were an experiment (yes, I know there's a developer commentary on how it's supposed to affect the flow of the game and break stalemates, yadda yadda; not all of TF2's early design decisions were canonically and undisputably awesome, though) - an experiment that, in the long run, proved to be more controversial and questionable than what it actually brings to the game. More regularly a source of frustration and perceived injustice than a source of psychological highs. I'd say, and most long-term players would likely agree with me, that TF2 became popular [I]despite[/I] random crits and not in part because of them. It's a feature that the vast majority of players tolerate (including myself) because of how fun the rest of the game is, and don't feel like endlessly arguing about online, but very few people actually like to the point that it actually makes or breaks TF2 for them.
I still claim that most of the people with realy dogged pro-crit stances like ASIC are (whether aware of it or subconsciously) in support of them primarily because they feel like being against them is somehow overthinking and scrutinizing the 'fun, casual aspect of TF2' too much. That people who dislike crits are whining tryhards, people that take the game too seriously and want to suck the casual fun out of it somehow. That TF2's casual, jolly attitude in pubs is under constant attack by this minority and the status quo must be defended at all costs, even hated and controversial design decisions like random crits. They're more against people who are against crits that they are in favor of crits.
Ironically, I dare say that people who really deeply want random crits to stay are an even smaller minority and the great majority of TF2 players on pubs would play the game religiously whether it had random crits or not. So it's not like it's a case of the 10% of anti-crit whiners vs. the overwhelming majority of all other players that express their love and support for random crits by playing on Valve servers, it's more like a case of a minority of mostly dedicated and experienced players that see the issue of it vs. an even smaller minority of people that are more anti-anti-crit than pro-crit, while the majority of the playerbase plays on and would not care about random crits whether they existed or not. They simply play the game as they really like it and aren't bothered by crits enough to demand their removal, but the choice of playing on random crit-enabled servers was pretty much made for them by Valve.
[QUOTE=Contra132;52972629]@ people using MOBAS and RTSes as an example of why RNG is okay
those are not first person shooters
no dominant first person shooter on the market has a form of RNG as egregious as random crits. random bullet spread and such is common, but even in CSGO spread and recoil can be controlled by skilled players and add to the game's skill ceiling. there is no skill inherent in random crits.
RNG in mobas and RPGS make sense because not only are they a genre staple, but there are many ways to manipulate it in those titles. ie spells that grant a higher chance of dealing critical damage or techniques that make abilities more likely to miss you.
the closest thing TF2 has to this kind of manipulation is the Kritzkrieg and the variety of weapons that allow you to earn crits through certain actions. but these crits are not [i]random[/i] crits, and function just as well without the existence of random crits.
other games in entirely different genres doing it does not make it suitable or appropriate for TF2. and if TF2 is to be seen as an eSport, aspects like random crits that diminish the importance of individual player skill and can turn the tides of a game in a single unlucky roll cannot be tolerated. there's a reason every competitive TF2 format ever disables random crits.
@ "random crits are fun! I like getting kills I don't deserve!"
I'm not going to sugarcoat this. You're bad at the game. You're actually bad at the game and you should take no joy or pride in kills that you haven't earned.
@ "how can opinions be bad?"
There's obviously no objective measure of opinion and whathaveyou, but people typically view opinions from those of lesser skill and experience as...lesser. Whose opinion is more valuable: a professional player or some guy who just installed the game 5 minutes ago?
In this case, the vast majority of people in this thread have experience that massively outweighs your own. The fact that of the 20-something people taking part in this debate through direct comments and ratings, only [B]two people[/B] are arguing in favor of random crits should say something to you. Your opinion is unpopular, and while that alone is not indicative of its validity, it could very well mean that it's coming from a place of ignorance or inexperience.
@ "contra didn't you tell us to stop debating them? aren't you being a hypocrite?"
don't worry, that's all I had to say. from this post onward I'm simply going to pretend that pro-random crit people do not exist, and find something better to do with my time. I'm thinking of [url=https://diethood.com/one-pot-spaghetti-sausage-sauce-recipe/]cooking this spaghetti recipe[/url]. wish me luck.[/QUOTE]
So why shouldn't I take joy in kills that I haven't earned? Also, why does that indicate I am bad at TF2?
PS:
I hope someone randomly crits in your spaghetti. :v:
[QUOTE=Stric_Matic;52972664]Ironically, I dare say that people who really deeply want random crits to stay are an even smaller minority and the great majority of TF2 players on pubs would play the game religiously whether it had random crits or not. So it's not like it's a case of the 10% of anti-crit whiners vs. the overwhelming majority of all other players that express their love and support for random crits by playing on Valve servers, it's more like a case of a minority of mostly dedicated and experienced players that see the issue of it vs. an even smaller minority of people that are more anti-anti-crit than pro-crit, while the majority of the playerbase plays on and would not care about random crits whether they existed or not. They simply play the game as they really like it and aren't bothered by crits enough to demand their removal, but the choice of playing on random crit-enabled servers was pretty much made for them by Valve.[/QUOTE]
I flipped my opinion on randomness in competitive games similar to how I flipped my opinion on VR - I don't believe anymore that VR is bad because some prototypes made people puke or because the freedom of movement wasn't great, same as I don't believe anymore that randomness is bad because it's frustrating to die to random crits in TF2. They are both really cool concepts that are super easy to misunderstand and completely rob oneself of the pleasure of seeing them at their best. I'm not trying to be edgy and different or whatever you're insinuating.
[QUOTE=SlickBlade;52972653][vid]https://i.imgur.com/IVhf7Yz.mp4[/vid]
Engine crashes are good for some things.
Why would someone allow this to be made.[/QUOTE]
MaxofS2D?
is the health on kill upgrade worth it
[QUOTE=Stric_Matic;52972664]I've said this before, but isn't it telling that no other popular multiplayer FPS out there (even older ones that defined the genre) has random crits, and they became popular and praised despite lacking that feature?
Or, to turn the question around, does anyone actually feel like random crits played an important part in TF2's popularity? Or was it the nine totally different and well-designed (well...mostly) classes, the wonderful artstyle, the goofy animations and characters, the fine-tuned FPS gameplay mechanics and maps, the emphasis on objectives and teamwork instead of just blind deathmatching etc. Would TF2 from a parallel universe in which Valve decided not to include random crits be any less popular? Would it be any less accessible to new players or increase the peformance gaps between veterans and newbies?
I really don't think so. I'd say that random crits were an experiment (yes, I know there's a developer commentary on how it's supposed to affect the flow of the game and break stalemates, yadda yadda; not all of TF2's early design decisions were canonically and undisputably awesome, though) - an experiment that, in the long run, proved to be more controversial and questionable than what it actually brings to the game. More regularly a source of frustration and perceived injustice than a source of psychological highs. I'd say, and most long-term players would likely agree with me, that TF2 became popular [I]despite[/I] random crits and not in part because of them. It's a feature that the vast majority of players tolerate (including myself) because of how fun the rest of the game is, and don't feel like endlessly arguing about online, but very few people actually like to the point that it actually makes or breaks TF2 for them.
I still claim that most of the people with realy dogged pro-crit stances like ASIC are (whether aware of it or subconsciously) in support of them primarily because they feel like being against them is somehow overthinking and scrutinizing the 'fun, casual aspect of TF2' too much. That people who dislike crits are whining tryhards, people that take the game too seriously and want to suck the casual fun out of it somehow. That TF2's casual, jolly attitude in pubs is under constant attack by this minority and the status quo must be defended at all costs, even hated and controversial design decisions like random crits. They're more against people who are against crits that they are in favor of crits.
Ironically, I dare say that people who really deeply want random crits to stay are an even smaller minority and the great majority of TF2 players on pubs would play the game religiously whether it had random crits or not. So it's not like it's a case of the 10% of anti-crit whiners vs. the overwhelming majority of all other players that express their love and support for random crits by playing on Valve servers, it's more like a case of a minority of mostly dedicated and experienced players that see the issue of it vs. an even smaller minority of people that are more anti-anti-crit than pro-crit, while the majority of the playerbase plays on and would not care about random crits whether they existed or not. They simply play the game as they really like it and aren't bothered by crits enough to demand their removal, but the choice of playing on random crit-enabled servers was pretty much made for them by Valve.[/QUOTE]
That's not why I don't want random crits removed. I don't see crits as something that is harmful to competitiveness.
[QUOTE=agrastiOs;52972507]You seem to be more and more sure that comp is coming in Smissmas. Weren't you thinking that comp will not come in Smissmas?[/QUOTE]
This is the first time I have been pessimistic for about 3 years that an Update wont contain what I hope for. I dont strictly believe it wont comp, I just have a gut feeling. I really hope the tf team will prove me wrong though
Im just says it for the meme really
[QUOTE=Drury;52972541]Well other than the obvious mobas and card games, you have RTS games like offworld trading company, tooth and tail, company of heroes 2, all very RNG-heavy yet played competitively. Starcraft 2 has random starting locations.
On the other hand, the Worms games are actually surprisingly deterministic, I can't think of any weapons with RNG in them (maybe the way cluster bombs scatter?), most games have both random and pre-made maps, but there's practically no comp scene because they're casual games built around uncertainty. EDIT: I guess there's the wind, which doesn't affect all weapons and can be disabled entirely.
oh and then there's this
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdfRQjb5o9k[/media][/QUOTE]
Fair points, however I shouldve been more exact; Shooters. Shooters where RNG plays a big role and it is well in there.
Overwatch? Only RNG is spread and that is barely affecting gameplay and extremely minimal.
CS:GO? Same - and as far as my knowledge goes the spread has definite patterns, so there isnt any RNG in the first place.
I could go on, RNG doesnt work in Shooters.
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972554]So what am I "refusing" to understand?
How can you be sure that you aren't actually the one who is refusing to understand?
[/QUOTE]
You know I usually just lurk but your absolute dense-ness is making even a spectator numb
people have been explaining the same thing to u for 5 pages yet almost every response you give is "why is THAT so?" like a 4th grad kid doing the thing where you ask "why" after every question to get out of a discussion or to just be a big annoying ball of nerves - so yes you are the one that doesnt wanna understand anything and just continue asking why over and over again
at this point even I am convinced you are just trolling
[QUOTE=ScrimmyBingus;52972748]You know I usually just lurk but your absolute dense-ness is making even a spectator numb
people have been explaining the same thing to u for 5 pages yet almost every response you give is "why is THAT so?" like a 4th grad kid doing the thing where you ask "why" after every question to get out of a discussion or to just be a big annoying ball of nerves - so yes you are the one that doesnt wanna understand anything and just continue asking why over and over again
at this point even I am convinced you are just trolling[/QUOTE]
Can you back up these accusations?
Why am I being "dense"?
Are you really saying that asking someone "why?" in a debate is a bad thing? Also, understanding something is not the same as agreeing with it.
I'm fairly certain that "why?" is not the only response I have made to people's arguments.
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972782]Can you back up these accusations?
Why am I being "dense"?
Are you really saying that asking someone "why?" in a debate is a bad thing? Also, understanding something is not the same as agreeing with it.
I'm fairly certain that "why?" is not the only response I have made to people's arguments.[/QUOTE]
[I]breathes in[/I]
[QUOTE=ASIC;52970150]So, whats the basic issue you have here? That there is no way you could react to prevent dying when up close?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972092]I understand what they are saying, but what they are saying is wrong.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972298]So what's the issue with death by RNG?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972368]The thing about crits in TF2 is that the reasoning for any arguments against (or for) them ultimately boil down to: "I (Don't) like them".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972429]I almost forgot to ask you, what's bad about my opinion on crits?
Also, how can an opinion be bad?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972554]So what am I "refusing" to understand?
How can you be sure that you aren't actually the one who is refusing to understand?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972636]Why do you consider random instakills bad?
If something is wrong, it isn't a matter of opinions, but a matter of facts.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972668]So why shouldn't I take joy in kills that I haven't earned? Also, why does that indicate I am bad at TF2?[/QUOTE]
[I]Breathes out[/I]
Yes. These quotes have been selectively picked from the last two pages, and there were other things in between. Still, I think there's a theme here.
Whether or not we should have random crits depends on what you want out of the game.
Do you want it to be entirely skill based? Akin to chess, how well you do entirely depends on your skill. You need to learn, adapt, predict, and strategize better than your opponent to win. If you didn't win, that's on you.
I associate chess with competitions, tournaments, focus, and tests of skill. It's great for those, but it's not for everyone.
Do you want it to be more of a casual pub game where winning isn't so important? This is most board games and Dungeons & Dragons. Skills and abilities are still important, but there will always be an element of random chance to performance. On a bad roll, it's not the fault of you or the enemy: just random chance. Though, if it's too random, it's not interesting at all.
When I think of most tabletop games and DnD, I associate them with group activities, social events, and casual encounters. Generally, they're more accessible and appealing to everyone.
Random crits have no place in a competitive environment. In a casual environment, I believe they help make casual casual.
[QUOTE=ScrimmyBingus;52972748]You know I usually just lurk but your absolute dense-ness is making even a spectator numb
people have been explaining the same thing to u for 5 pages yet almost every response you give is "why is THAT so?" like a 4th grad kid doing the thing where you ask "why" after every question to get out of a discussion or to just be a big annoying ball of nerves - so yes you are the one that doesnt wanna understand anything and just continue asking why over and over again
at this point even I am convinced you are just trolling[/QUOTE]
Another thing is that this is basically attacking my character as much as it is responding to my arguments.
While someones character does mean they may be more or less likely to make good arguments, their character does not in itself mean that any specific argument they made is good or bad.
The thing about arguing for an unpopular opinion is that it may appear to be the same as trolling.
Edit:
Huh, automerge fail.
[QUOTE=Fluury;52972737]This is the first time I have been pessimistic for about 3 years that an Update wont contain what I hope for. I dont strictly believe it wont comp, I just have a gut feeling. I really hope the tf team will prove me wrong though
Im just says it for the meme really
Fair points, however I shouldve been more exact; Shooters. Shooters where RNG plays a big role and it is well in there.[/QUOTE]
There is actually random spread in CS:GO. There was none in 1.6. What you're talking about isn't the spread being insignificant, but there being a possibility of accounting for it.
PvP shooters aren't traditionally made with RNG mechanics, but the same goes for invisible disguising frenchmen that put knives in people's backs. Doesn't mean neither can work. I mean there was a time when RTS had no RNG either, now it's rare not to have it because we've learned how to make it work. Well, Blizzard did in Warcraft 3, to be precise.
[quote=Robin Walker]It's skill affecting luck. You can't control the Gaussian distribution of fire when you pull the trigger, but skill is involved in centering that Gaussian distribution on an opponent's head. The idea that there shouldn't be any luck in an FPS is silly.
We created Team Fortress 2's critical-hit system so that critical-hit chances increase over time based on performance. There's the skill. If you're a good player, you'll always have a higher chance of hitting criticals than novices. On top of that, there's the flat-out fact that crit chance is determined when you fire, right? You can miss crits.[/quote]
The idea is good, the execution not so much. You can never reliably know how much damage you did exactly in the last 20 seconds or what your approximate crit chance is, and it's never over 12% with guns so it's a completely pointless mechanic as you can never bet on scoring a crit. There's no way to work with it, or to try and predict it. It's just something that instakills people every now and then regardless of what anyone does. But he was on the right track with the "skill affecting luck" thing. That's exactly what we need. We already know it can work in PvP.
So, as I see from this discussion, some people are fine with random crits. But would anyone be MAD if they removed random crits? And if so, why? I'm curious.
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972802]Another thing is that this is basically attacking my character as much as it is responding to my arguments.
While someones character does mean they may be more or less likely to make good arguments, their character does not in itself mean that any specific argument they made is good or bad.
The thing about arguing for an unpopular opinion is that it may appear to be the same as trolling.
Edit:
Huh, automerge fail.[/QUOTE]
sorry if you feel attacked but this stopped being an unpopular opinion as you seem to avoid any sense whatsoever given the constant whys, another user collected them all too - you are dense because people are telling you the same thing over and over again yet you seem to ignore statements
so let me make it as simple as possible to understand why people dislike crits
in tf2 people value skill and when they encounter someone their tactical decisions and/or skill should be the deciding factor to their victory - not their luck. so when people get instantly killed by a randomcrit heavy across the map that heavy didnt outplay them via tactics or skill, the only way he killed you is because he got lucky
if you prefer crits and feel like they game is more casual, it makes the game more unpredictable and fun, that is fine, but if you try to shove it down someone's throat that crits apparently have a place in competitive you are objectively wrong
imagine a CS:GO tournament where people randomly get selected to receive AWPs so it becomes "fun" - same deal with randomcrits
if you still do not understand why randomcrits are viewed as a bad thing by players that arent interested in 24/7 jailbreak minecraft_a4 servers then you refuse to understand, and that seems to be the case, so agree to disagree and please move on because this is getting tiring
i think im having a stroke
[QUOTE=Purple Gecko;52972836]i think im having a stroke[/QUOTE]
Then go call a hospital.
Was it ever said how old (at least approximately) are the TF2 classes?
The only definite age I can remember is the Scout's: in the description of his "Track Terrorizer" item, he is stated to be 23 years old; therefore, he was born in 1945 (1968 minus 23).
As for the others, all I can guess is that the oldest mercenary is perhaps the Soldier.
[QUOTE=agrastiOs;52972828]So, as I see from this discussion, some people are fine with random crits. But would anyone be MAD if they removed random crits? And if so, why? I'm curious.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be mad, but I wouldn't really like it.
I don't really know why though.
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972925]I wouldn't be mad, but I wouldn't really like it.
I don't really know why though.[/QUOTE]
Then why discuss it if you apperantly wouldn't care much about it? It'd improve the game for a lot of people with no negative feedback if they did get disabled, almost nobody would miss those
[QUOTE=ASIC;52972925]I wouldn't be mad, but I wouldn't really like it.
I don't really know why though.[/QUOTE]
oh okay
good thing [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1586131&p=52967376&viewfull=1#post52967376"]I called it out[/URL] ages ago then.
[QUOTE=Cpt.MEEM;52972984]Then why discuss it if you apperantly wouldn't care much about it? It'd improve the game for a lot of people with no negative feedback if they did get disabled, almost nobody would miss those[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between not caring and not being genuinely angry about it.
You don't have to get angry about something to dislike it.
[QUOTE=Torterra;52972696]is the health on kill upgrade worth it[/QUOTE]
it's fairly effective.
however if you're confident in your abilities and don't expose yourself to obvious instant-deaths, you can enjoy an extra 800$ to spend on other things. A good dispenser or the map medkits are plenty enough to survive in MvM. (not to mention there'll probably be a medic cause meta). You'll both become a better player and inflict more damage if you don't rely on HoK though.
[QUOTE=Hell-met;52973065]it's fairly effective.
however if you're confident in your abilities and don't expose yourself to obvious instant-deaths, you can enjoy an extra 800$ to spend on other things. A good dispenser or the map medkits are plenty enough to survive in MvM. (not to mention there'll probably be a medic cause meta). You'll both become a better player and inflict more damage if you don't rely on HoK though.[/QUOTE]
HoK is kind of [i]the[/i] upgrade for classes that naturally are away from the typical healing sources. Sniper and Spy being the most prominent outliers. The value of HoK scales with how much maximum hp a class has and how many kills they can expect to be netting in an instance. A Sniper with a meager 125 max hp can operate just fine with a single HoK upgrade since an explosive headshot can easily net him more kills than his maximum health can be healed by. Meanwhile a Spy is more likely to be getting singular important kills at a time unless going for sap/stab sprees (which can leave him vulnerable throughout), so a couple health on kill can save him in instances where his Dead Ringer is not yet recharged. Contrast with the likes of Heavy and Soldier who have a lot more health to work with but are more liable to be in a near-constant state of being healed if the team has a medic.
Remember that there used to be a time where Medic was actively discouraged from team compositions and it wasn't until Two Cities gave him the projectile shield and revive that retroactively makes earlier "difficult" missions significantly easier. Sames goes for the Rocket Specialist tree that improved Soldier's general performance overall. If your team feels confident without a medic, there's nothing discouraging you from having a couple HoK tics active to offset the lack of steady healing -- the tradeoff instead is that you'd have an additional DPS player which in itself can reduce the amount of damage that you'll need to worry coming your way if bots die that much faster.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
