Splash Damage - You better not do this!

(H0RSE) #141

Right, mob rule then. Still, the question was, how many optional equally valid guns are needed to make this outrageous. Is handing out 10 exclusive guns with a pre-order fair game? A handful of extra abillities?

you’re crossing the line between “acceptable” and “practical.”

Kinda like how everyone swore guns were changed in ETQW patches, even in the face of SD saying no such changes occurred. Sorry, gamers are largely dumb superstitious clowns who’ll whip themselves into a frenzy and usually do so around a popular opinion rather than any actual fact. This thread is absolute evidence of that as a very simple concept is still being misunderstood due to preconcieved ideas and opinions.

When I was referring to the M60 in BC2, it was more based around common sense than popular opinion.

  • it had significantly higher damage than any other gun in its class
  • it had really low recoil when firing full auto
  • putting a 4x scope on it, you could practically snipe.

Damage charts (before patch) M60 is under “Medic” - http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/970/badcompany2pcdamagechar.png
Most used weapons chart - http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7933/weaponsandgadgetskills.png

It resulted in many players choosing Medic just to use that gun, totally ignoring their duties as a Medic and DICE eventually lowered the guns stats.

As far as this thread is concerned, I’ve never seen someone get so worked up over a pre-order weapon.

(BioSnark) #142

Then who is entitled to an opinion? A self elected elite? The developers? The competition community?

(DarkangelUK) #143

Sorry mate you’re hitting way wide of the mark there, but thanks for the insult… maybe I can repay the favor back some time… soon. As to the last sentence, you hit the nail on the head… you just hammered it into the wrong plank.

(tokamak) #144

That’s another point against including exclusive guns actually, it will be hard to tell whether it gives an advantage or not.

This was demonstrated once again in SC2. The forums were all up and about how overpowered the Terran race is until Blizzard posted a list of statistics that proved that Terran were actually incredibly balanced, impressively balanced even, with win ratios circling two decimals around the 50%.

Memes based on gutfeelings spread easily.

(BioSnark) #145

That’s also the case against having more than one gun, weapon customization, abilities and asymmetrical maps.

(tokamak) #146

At least those examples are accessible by all players. If only a small demographic of the playerbase gets to use a gun, there’s no way of telling whether it’s balanced or not.

(BioSnark) #147

But aren’t you arguing that the player base is not capable of accurately determining balance and that has to be done via developer gathered statistics? If that is the case then your current point is not relevant.

(SockDog) #148

I’m saying gamers are quick to latch onto and take an opinion as fact then fight tooth and nail (even in the face of clear evidence) to “prove” they’re right. This thread being an example of people failing and/or all out ignoring a very simple concept.

H0rse claimed that players were a good judge of balance and that Tok’s point was a non-issue because of how unnoticeable it was. I merely pointed out that a gamer can hold a very biased, narrow and incorrect opinion and that popularity of that opinion doesn’t make it any more valid.

I was insulting gamers in general and gave a specific example why, but by all means single yourself out, have a little tantrum and then throw in an insult of your own. You sure proved me wrong! :rolleyes:

I’ve not see Tok get worked up. He’s tried to explain his position multiple times as people have continually misinterpreted or dismissed what he was saying. The repetition isn’t for his benefit or a result of anger on his part, it’s an attempt and getting the point to sink in.

(BioSnark) #149

As I mentioned previously, I think some of your points are valid but I also think your side is blowing the issue out of proportion and doing so at the expense of market realities. In other words, I think you are also following the observation you made in your first line but doing so in the face of reality. And, as you noted, neither extreme can “prove” anything in the absence of evidence, as is the case here.

That was in reference to tokamak’s last point about assessing weapon balance. However, I must take issue with your last statement. Popularity does not make an opinion valid but it is a good indicator as to such, even with the effects of common knowledge or bandwagon psychology.

(SockDog) #150

Tok is talking about a theoretical situation, he’s not positioned himself otherwise. Everyone else is bringing reality into it to disprove him, a reality they themselves are actually unaware of and isn’t really all that relevant to the point being discussed.

I know but I felt it followed on so threw in a little continuation. :slight_smile: How is it a "good indicator? Many gamers are flat world thinkers, even in the face of irrefutable evidence they’ll insist the world is flat. That’s why they play and others make. We’re getting way off the mark though. The intention was to say that gamers (most) are not in the best position to judge balance from the position of a player, I saw this time and again in ETQW.

Tok’s point however is outside of this discussion so lets leave it there. Ultimately I agree that any availability of weapons or abilities which are exclusive to purchasing time limits, locations or packages and are not cosmetic changes are unfair. The degree to which is irrelevant as time and markets will expand until it does encroach on a majority’ acceptability.

(coolstory) #151

Wow such a small issue but what a long and pointless discussion. This if anything will only affect pub play, as there will be cvars to disable it in comp. play (maybe hopefully). And all this talk about balance…in a pub?

Serioulsy? Do people really care about balance in a pub which is supposed to be a place where people like to mess around?

(BioSnark) #152

the alternate option would be to avoid participation rather than adding to it, story.

He’s saying that any exclusive preorder items are unacceptable, regardless of balance, etc. That ignores the RPG and now even the FPS market realities. Horse is talking about balance and choice nullifying an advantage of the preorder exclusives. Can he know that? I don’t think you can place a value judgment on either Tokamak’s ignoring realities versus horse’s speculative realities.

My opinion is based on “The Wisdom of Crowds.” Note that there are obvious limitations listed under Criteria.

And yes, I agree with your and apples’s fears about what I would regard as a downward trend with this type of content.

(DarkangelUK) #153

[QUOTE=SockDog;244843]
I was insulting gamers in general and gave a specific example why, but by all means single yourself out, have a little tantrum and then throw in an insult of your own. You sure proved me wrong! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

You specifically used this thread as an example after claims of gamers being ‘dumb superstitious clowns’, where 3 or 4 of us have explained why we see no issue about this… you did the singling (quadraling?) out yourself m8. And since when was an analogy an insult… whose throwing tantrums now :rolleyes:

It’s Tok’s opinion that having that extra item gives an advantage, it’s mine that it doesn’t with reasoning given that any weapon with a stat equal or greater removes what ever advantage existed, are you saying this is simply not true? The other argument is that it’s filling a niche that’s no available to the stock crowd, be that as it may, where’s the advantage if there is a gun with equal or better stats? If a situation requires a high ROF, pre-order gun has 60BPM ROF but there’s a stock gun 62BPM ROF… where would having less be an advantage? If you’re bordering in the insignificances and shouting “but but it’s STILL an advantage”, be that a 0.00000001% advantage, i’d say the scope is so minute, in the grand scheme of things it’s absolutely worthless and so small you wouldn’t even know it existed… and just be going with ‘popular opinion’.

(tokamak) #154

They’re both important, but I already know a couple of examples off the top of my head where the mass perception of the game didn’t fit reality. The most recent one being SC2. The opinion of the playerbase needs to correspond to what reality shows before it can be taken seriously. If the playerbase says one particular thing in the game sucks, and then the statistics show that it’s being barely used indeed, then it deserves to be looked into.

However, with exclusive guns, there’s going to be only a part of the playerbase that can have a hands-on opinion on it. Everyone else can only give their indirect experience (IE being on the receiving end of it). So with exclusive items you’re severely limiting that ‘wisdom of the crowds’ you’re so fond of.

[QUOTE=coolstory;244856]Wow such a small issue but what a long and pointless discussion. This if anything will only affect pub play, as there will be cvars to disable it in comp. play (maybe hopefully). And all this talk about balance…in a pub?
[/QUOTE]

Richard Ham said that even pub play is open to people enabling all the weaponry. This is the one instance where I happily condone people making that gun available to everyone.

That’s nonsense, I named numerous examples where exclusive items were okay. What I said was that I am against exclusive advantages obtained outside the game, no matter how small.

Somewhere I feel that there’s an experiment being run here, to see how much we’re going to buy into this idea. Here I am, stating that I reject it outright. I hate it. And unlike DAUK likes to imply, everyone is free to have their own opinion on it. However, as it stands now, I foresee very sad times ahead with the attitude players have towards this. Activision is going to slap their foreheads wishing they thought of this earlier, mark my words, the next COD is going to be full of this.

(.Chris.) #155

[QUOTE=coolstory;244856]Wow such a small issue but what a long and pointless discussion. This if anything will only affect pub play, as there will be cvars to disable it in comp. play (maybe hopefully). And all this talk about balance…in a pub?

Serioulsy? Do people really care about balance in a pub which is supposed to be a place where people like to mess around?[/QUOTE]

Are you for real?

Why should public play be any less balanced than competition?

(tokamak) #156

Separating pub and comp is a moot point here, if the comp scene deems the exclusive options unfair and cvars it out of their league, then it’s fair to say that the gun isn’t balanced for pub play either (that’s not to say that everything comp does should be translated to pub as well).

(BioSnark) #157

[quote=tokamak;244867]They’re both important, but I already know a couple of examples off the top of my head where the mass perception of the game didn’t fit reality. The most recent one being SC2. The opinion of the playerbase needs to correspond to what reality shows before it can be taken seriously. If the playerbase says one particular thing in the game sucks, and then the statistics show that it’s being barely used indeed, then it deserves to be looked into.

However, with exclusive guns, there’s going to be only a part of the playerbase that can have a hands-on opinion on it. Everyone else can only give their indirect experience (IE being on the receiving end of it). So with exclusive items you’re severely limiting that ‘wisdom of the crowds’ you’re so fond of. [/quote]
I was not aware we were debating perception. It was my assumption, as I stated previously, that we were debating a game that would be ‘balanced’ upon release. I assumed you were discussing the same because you were just decrying the ability of the masses in several recent posts (including this one). My mistake, apparently. :rolleyes:

That’s nonsense, I named numerous examples where exclusive items were okay. What I said was that I am against exclusive advantages obtained outside the game, no matter how small.
I was referring to statistically unique (and, as I said, ‘balanced’) items, not mere cosmetic changes. Nobody is making an issue of cosmetics here. I had no intention of misrepresenting your position and don’t see that I did so.

(madoule) #158

sorry to bother y’all. but this might aid the discussion:
http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=75114

The DOOM Pack contains:
•Unique “Hellspawn” body tattoo
•Exclusive UAC (Security) and Cacodemon (Resistance) customized skins for the Bulpdaun SMG
•Exclusive UAC Marine Body Armor (Security) and Lost Soul Screaming Skull (Resistance) t-shirts, exclusive UAC beanie cap (Security) and DOOM bandana (Resistance)

pre-order deals are simply skins for the guns… just for the looksies

(DarkangelUK) #159

[QUOTE=madoule;244876]sorry to bother y’all. but this might aid the discussion:
http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=75114

pre-order deals are simply skins for the guns… just for the looksies[/QUOTE]

2 packs are skins, 2 packs are guns.

http://www.splashdamage.com/content/brink-pre-order-packages-and-north-american-retailers-revealed

(Senethro) #160

[QUOTE=H0RSE;244807]I think you are just arguing semantics. If a gun is equal in power, to me at least, that means it’s equal in stats.

How can something be both equal and diverse?[/QUOTE]

Does a dude who has the guns Rock and Paper have an advantage or disadvantage compared to the guy who has Rock, Paper and Scissors?