Return of Reckoning

And?
Not seeing my post colliding with any of those rules?

Mez wrote:Why do am I going to get baited by your 6v6 brah when I am dominating you on forum pvp. I'm calling you bad over and over. But, I guess you can always say 6v6 brah to make your crying relevant.

Calling out victory in a retard contest doesn't mean anything here, ingame or in real life.

--------------------------------

Somehow the only guys who want to discuss in a civilized manner are those who are called out for trolling and **** talking by some self proclaimed forum heroes.

tomato wrote:Let me think, the attitude: "I died/lost to/against a certain skill/setup, I should look at my own mistakes and find a way to nullify/compete against it instead of crying on the forums for unjustified nerfs." stinks? Clearly, people who think this way should be permabanned.

Way better is of course: "I died to x, so I'm gonna make a thread on the forum demanding a nerf/mirror to x or even better it should be deleted. Because anything that beats me must obviously be gamebreaking op and you shouldn't expect from me to learn anything."

Another funny thing is you wanting to 1vs1 ppl, for example wingz.
Let's take a look, dps shaman vs swordmaster, you pin down e or q, whatever you need to strafe kite and it's gg (even retards can win this 1vs1). Sm will never reach a shaman alone, he can chase him through the whole map. Do you proof anything with that? No, even a retard could do that.

The best way to measure skill, is 6vs6, which the game is designed around, 1vs1 won't proof ****.
But since all of the forum warriors run from 6vs6, (there are more than 6 of you atm) and aren't even playing in a group most of the time, they are not really qualified to balance a groupplay based game. ("1vs1 me brah")

Can someone please get this guy some pepto for his verbal diarrhea.

tomato wrote:
The best way to measure skill, is 6vs6, which the game is designed around, 1vs1 won't proof ****.
But since all of the forum warriors run from 6vs6, (there are more than 6 of you atm) and aren't even playing in a group most of the time, they are not really qualified to balance a groupplay based game. ("1vs1 me brah")

I have a question.

6v6 measures skill. I think we all agree with that. So if Team A defeats Team B then clearly A was more skilled.

How does a 6v6 prove the viability of a class then? If Team A had a WL (with no-pounce-after-punt-nerf) and still won, what would that prove? Would it prove the WL was viable? Not viable? And if they lost, would it prove that WL was not viable? Wouldn't it just prove that B was more skilled than A?

Not looking into getting involved in a flame war tbh (got bored with them lately, go figure). Just pointing out that "we defeated you in a 6v6, therefore we are right" is not a valid argument (except when discussing the skill of certain players).

Cheers mate.

I believe the point they're aiming to make is that if they beat you in a 6v6, they prove themselves more skilled than you, therefore their opinions on the game are intrinsically backed by a greater understanding of it.

Of course, this is flawed; one person can be a weaker player than another, but still understand more of the game. It's the difference between a critic and an artist. But there's no real way to resolve these arguments. Both sides can argue until the cows come home about what is and what isn't, but it's very difficult, if not impossible, for one side to definitively prove that the other is wrong.

Frankly, I would infer just as much, if not more about class balance from class, ability and tactic usage statistics at higher levels of play than I would from the opinions of players on the forum.

As for the general back and forth going on here? Some people don't like the attitude that is shown on the forum by some of the better players, which can be quite patronizing. I'd rather things weren't this way, but I will freely admit that I don't wish to stand in the way of the opinions of the better players, and by so doing, weaken the value of the discussion. To an extent, it happens everywhere, and trying to stop it is mostly worse than going along with it.

It is not about who is better, when we, for example fight SW/WL setup with a pure meleesetup we want to show that the SW gets too much pressure to have an impact.
Sth you cant see on paper.

@Mursie, the only one shitposting are you.

@Penril, never said winning 6vs6 means you're right on balance.
I said the game should be balanced around 6vs6, and not by solo or bad players.

The thing I asked for 6vs6 isn't for balance, but to counter argue stupid "1vs1 me brah" and people acting like they're awesome in game and therefor superior but never give actual proof ingame.

Edit: And like nanji said, to show things you won't see/belive on paper.

Nanji wrote:The thing I asked for 6vs6 isn't for balance, but to counter argue stupid "1vs1 me brah" and people acting like they're awesome in game and therefor superior but never give actual proof ingame.

I understood that. But if the forum warriors you're PvPing against are weaker than you are and not able to play the class to its full potential, nothing is proven - regardless of whether you yourselves know that your statement is true against a team that is as competent as yours.

tomate wrote:The thing I asked for 6vs6 isn't for balance, but to counter argue stupid "1vs1 me brah" and people acting like they're awesome in game and therefor superior but never give actual proof ingame.

Fair enough. Nobody cares about the result of 1v1, indeed.

Azarael wrote:I believe the point they're aiming to make is that if they beat you in a 6v6, they prove themselves more skilled than you, therefore their opinions on the game are intrinsically backed by a greater understanding of it.

Of course, this is flawed; one person can be a weaker player than another, but still understand more of the game. It's the difference between a critic and an artist. But there's no real way to resolve these arguments. Both sides can argue until the cows come home about what is and what isn't, but it's very difficult, if not impossible, for one side to definitively prove that the other is wrong.

Frankly, I would infer just as much, if not more about class balance from class, ability and tactic usage statistics at higher levels of play than I would from the opinions of players on the forum.

As for the general back and forth going on here? Some people don't like the attitude that is shown on the forum by some of the better players, which can be quite patronizing. I'd rather things weren't this way, but I will freely admit that I don't wish to stand in the way of the opinions of the better players, and by so doing, weaken the value of the discussion. To an extent, it happens everywhere, and trying to stop it is mostly worse than going along with it.

To know the lead ability dev has this type of viewpoint should bring great confidence to the playerbase for the future of this game.

tomato wrote:@Mursie, the only one shitposting are you.

Easy trigger - I'm trying to help you. Nothing more miserable than a bad case of the shits.