Author Message

Element.Ag

Rank 0
Element.Ag
Joined
31 Oct 2012
Posts
72
Location
Chicago United States
PostedJan 02, 2013 8:05 pm   Last edited by Element.Ag on Jan 22, 2013 4:01 am. Edited 1 time in total
-ok the other team got dragon? kill it instantly you got an entire team with you, the other team members stopping you? stall them and keep attacking it.

Instantly kill a templar dragon? Instantly kill an evade dragon? If your team isn't lucky enough to have someone who can competently root then reaching that crystal is child's play. I'm not exaggerating when I say I have never once been killed after transforming into a dragon.

I haven't even brought healing teammates into the equation.

I also haven't brought up the fact that requires complete teamwork. Something that's impossible when grouped with 4 random people that seldom even read party chat.


-it leeched and other team has proph that heals it making it impossible to kill? attack the xtal most of the time while dieing yes but least you dont let the point gap go too far and it last 5 mins top

I've easily gained 70 point unanswered leads off of kills and crystal points as the dragon and have stopped the other team from capping completely. Not too hard considering you have 3 to 4 other teammates helping you.

Also, lol at that capping comment. Dragon dive allows them to recap the crystal in seconds. Let's not forget about all that free HP you're repeatedly giving it.


-teams are balanced? then I doubt one will get a 35 point lead on other

Read "momentum." It is very possible to gain 35 point leads on good teams. 35 points isn't much at all. Also, good team versus good team isn't automatically going to have the match end at 245 to 250.

-it one rush you? use it to your advantage there are beings that are called 'bait' for a reason

Bait? Bait would require me to get the dragon to charge the player that has the least impact on the game. We all know anyone with an iota of sense won't do that.

I also am not sure how I can be good bait if a dragon camps a crystal, one-charges me, then instantly turns around and AOE roots whoever else is attempting to cap. Warlords cannot slow down or restrict the movement of a dragon effectively. As a matter of fact they are favored targets because of the lack of penalty. You never miss, can finish them off in one hit consistently, and you've taken a very fast crystal capper out of the game temporarily.

-the dragon makes things more interesting and you to rethink your strategy and work as a team, arena is base on teamwork and like I said before the dragon is to give the losing side a chance at winning instead of 'which ever team has the most geared player on it wins' it makes things more interesting.
dont want them to have dragon? then find a way to win AND not have a 35 points lead

"Rethinking strategy" takes on a whole new meaning when it's coupled with "fight through a severe disadvantage." Rethinking strategy isn't an issue. Accounting for a handicap that I was given because I am winning the game is.

And your last comment must be a joke. The losing team doesn't deserve anything other than to lose. It really is a sad state of competition when people need comeback mechanics in order to compete.

Watch a professional sport. Have you seen basketball? If the score at the end of the game is 121 to 58. The team that scored 58 points wasn't given extra advantages because they were behind by a set amount of points. They couldn't come back using their skill and resources so they deserved to lose.

When I lose a match I think, "What can I do next time to win?" I don't want a mechanic that attempts to hand me wins to cover my shortcomings. I'm too competitive. Plus I actually respect my opponents' effort.

We need to axe this "everyone deserves a chance" mentality. You're only entitled to what you earn. It took me months on end to earn enough gold to craft and fortify my armor, max masters, earn reputation for talents, and learn as much as I have about PVP. Unfortunately as a cash shop game, its going to be very gear-based. However, you don't necessarily have to spend money. You do, however, have to spend at the very least, effort.
Advertisement

KurysFlame

Rank 3
KurysFlame
Joined
30 Mar 2012
Posts
1310
Location
United States
PostedJan 02, 2013 11:57 pm

Re: Fix Arena

Put it back to how it used to be
Element.Ag wrote:
Please educate me how to counter a dragon that one-charges me on sight.  


I could be wrong, but you sound like a temp. At least, everything but this sounds like a temp. If you get one shot, then you got a serious problem. I may not be the best mystic out there, but I'm semi-decent and I typicaclly can't one shot a decent temp.

Element.Ag wrote:
Also explain how I kill said dragon with 4 other combatants attacking me and trying their hardest to keep me from killing it. Also, some teammates can and will buff and heal it. That of course is only if it hasn't leeched thousands of HP off of the crystal while capping.  


Dang man, you expect to do good against that? I mean, sure temps are used to tanking, but if you're asking to be able to take on the entire enemy team at once, thereare some things a bit much to ask for. Just like you, each of those "combatents" are people, some with the same or an even stronger desire than you to win.

Imo, the dragon is just one aspect of the HF arena "both" teams need to work around. It's nothing more, nothing less, which is just part of the game. Now the interesting question you pose is, "why the mechanic is necessary?" And your argument for why it isn't necesary: "How can you justify handicapping a winning team for doing nothing more than winning?" I'd like to counter with the question, why is removing it necesary? In the end it effects both teams equally.

I saw something interesting in the forums for WoW (just started trying it as a free player). Some people were laughing at a class which recently got nerfed. The response from the players that used that class was one of being proud they have rode out nerfs before and will be able to do so again. It's nice to know some people can roll with the hits well enough to bounce on back.

"Radical Edward's profile is a seven foot tall ex-basketball pro Hindu guru drag-queen alien." ―Jet Black

Element.Ag

Rank 0
Element.Ag
Joined
31 Oct 2012
Posts
72
Location
Chicago United States
PostedJan 03, 2013 12:30 am

Re: Fix Arena

Put it back to how it used to be
KurysFlame wrote:
Element.Ag wrote:
Please educate me how to counter a dragon that one-charges me on sight.  


I could be wrong, but you sound like a temp. At least, everything but this sounds like a temp. If you get one shot, then you got a serious problem. I may not be the best mystic out there, but I'm semi-decent and I typicaclly can't one shot a decent temp.

Element.Ag wrote:
Also explain how I kill said dragon with 4 other combatants attacking me and trying their hardest to keep me from killing it. Also, some teammates can and will buff and heal it. That of course is only if it hasn't leeched thousands of HP off of the crystal while capping.  


Dang man, you expect to do good against that? I mean, sure temps are used to tanking, but if you're asking to be able to take on the entire enemy team at once, thereare some things a bit much to ask for. Just like you, each of those "combatents" are people, some with the same or an even stronger desire than you to win.

Imo, the dragon is just one aspect of the HF arena "both" teams need to work around. It's nothing more, nothing less, which is just part of the game. Now the interesting question you pose is, "why the mechanic is necessary?" And your argument for why it isn't necesary: "How can you justify handicapping a winning team for doing nothing more than winning?" I'd like to counter with the question, why is removing it necesary? In the end it effects both teams equally.

I saw something interesting in the forums for WoW (just started trying it as a free player). Some people were laughing at a class which recently got nerfed. The response from the players that used that class was one of being proud they have rode out nerfs before and will be able to do so again. It's nice to know some people can roll with the hits well enough to bounce on back.  


Not a Templar. Warlord.

With that being said, its not about trying to solo an entire team. I'm making a point that people seem to think it's an isolated fight like its five members versus the dragon. That's not the case. Its five versus four plus a dragon. Doing all of these tactics isn't exactly easy in a group of random people with random classes.

Both teams do not have to work around it. The team that gains momentum and begins to win has to work around it. There are plenty of situations where both teams are not able to receive the dragon in the same round (Hint: I explained one in a previous post). Unless both teams are guaranteed either one dragon or no dragons in the same round, then its not even.

I answered why removing it is necessary. It is a mechanic that undermines competition by boosting the losing team's power.

Saying "it's just part of the game" is a cop out. That's not a valid argument that supports its need to exist.

Spoto1992

Rank 0
Spoto1992
Joined
02 Oct 2010
Posts
39
Location
Dublin United States
PostedJan 07, 2013 6:06 pm
Ok i have to disagree with the dragon being total OPness its 99% based on characters normal stats...i own a DS myst and SS and if a char cant hit me in normal mode they cant hit me in dragon either and dmg is basicly the same add as a SS can get with gun proc spam of 300% dmg boost with 100% crit rate.....use the evade class as bait 90% of the time and the dragon is useless against em.

now if u dont have a evade class...get the AM to put on Gravity barrier and get staff proc and they have 100% dmg redux and get hit 0's...


or go dmg redux mode if ur on temp and normaly dragon cant even 2 hit u normaly around 3-4 for u to die specialy if ur leech capping xtal with buffs on...

Element.Ag

Rank 0
Element.Ag
Joined
31 Oct 2012
Posts
72
Location
Chicago United States
PostedJan 21, 2013 2:44 pm
Spoto1992 wrote:
Ok i have to disagree with the dragon being total OPness its 99% based on characters normal stats...i own a DS myst and SS and if a char cant hit me in normal mode they cant hit me in dragon either and dmg is basicly the same add as a SS can get with gun proc spam of 300% dmg boost with 100% crit rate.....use the evade class as bait 90% of the time and the dragon is useless against em.

now if u dont have a evade class...get the AM to put on Gravity barrier and get staff proc and they have 100% dmg redux and get hit 0's...


or go dmg redux mode if ur on temp and normaly dragon cant even 2 hit u normaly around 3-4 for u to die specialy if ur leech capping xtal with buffs on...  


99% based on stats? Are you sure?

Here let me break this down for you.

I wear nearly all +15 armor, a +11 RoE, heavy tank, Iron wall potion, Elsa damage reduction potion, and damage reduction sprite procs, and a blessed gauntlet (-1% damage received).

With all of that I reach from 44-64% damage reduction, -54% crit rate reduction, and a little bit of crit damage reduction. I also have close to 9k physical defense. I am level 70.

I got killed in ONE CHARGE by a SHARPSHOOTER. A sharpshooter with +9 SWORDS.

Are you SURE it's not overpowered?? Are you SURE?

A sharpshooter with +9 swords hitting 20k crits on 9K defense and 64% damage reduction is most certainly not "based on stats." A sharpshooter with a +18 gun can't hit over 100 on me if I'm rolling that kind of build.

He floated around with 84K hp (prophet on their team) and was not able to be hit because of his Evade. Leeching the crystal isn't possible when dragon dive stuns, and they have a six second root that outlasts sleep. I never made it close to the crystal for the entire match.

Of course I lost the match because I was the MVP on the team and I was simply targeted repeatedly. Run out, die in one charge, rinse and repeat. I lost my hard earned lead to yet another dragon.

KurysFlame

Rank 3
KurysFlame
Joined
30 Mar 2012
Posts
1310
Location
United States
PostedJan 22, 2013 1:47 am
Given your stats, I'm having a hard time seeing that SS one shotting you... I'm not saying you're lying, but that there's some unknown factor going into play here. I'm a mystic with what I believe are better stats in attack than your SS. When I got dragon, there was at least one mystic I couldn't couldn't one-shot (not counting evade) and least one mystic who I couldn't always one-shot. There's no way a mystic in wolf can beat the defense on your character unless he procced the 70 staff, which I see as highly unlikely.

Your main reason for wanting it removed as you said is, "It is a mechanic that undermines competition by boosting the losing team's power." I was recently reading an article on MOBAs (Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas). The basic idea is there are 2 sides, each with a base which spawns soldiers/monsters/etc. which try to take out the enemy base. You and the other players are more powerful soldiers with special abilities meant to be the deciding factor in the balance. Now, the problem with the MOBA being reviewed was that once one side had momentum, there was just about no shred of hope for a turn around. Though the game still continued, after halfway the "competition" turned into a mere grinding down of the oposing side. There is a chance that the counter to preventing that slow, painful grind is to strong, thus making the scales tip from slightly to one direction to full force in the other (think Flubber, if you've seen the movie), but given that you've already said it only effects teams that are already about even, I don't think this is the case. The point is though that giving the losing team a slight edge doesn't destroy competition, but prolongs it.

It's true that WL don't really have good ways to deal with dragns as their forte (battle) is pretty much the dragon's strong point. Still, it might be a better idea to ignore the dragon than try to kill it, especially if it has full health. Hopefully you have someone on team who "can" mitigate the damage of the dragon and you can help that person by keeping the other 4 enemies off him. (See, yes, I do know it's not just you 5 vs. the dragon. Your art is dealing with the other 4).

Perhaps my biggest difference in out viewpoints is that my character is not quite as strong as yours. From what I've seen of WL with near your gear, they typically have run of the battlefield. For me, due to the high population of twinked out DS (a pretty decent counter to mystics at least at 70) I already experiance quite a few deaths. The dragon is just one more health hazzard for me. Also, I got stealth and root, both decent enough counters to the dragon problem.

Last li'l thing. Saying, "It's part of the game" isn't quite a copout, but more of a chllenge imo. It sais that, as it already is part of the game, you need to come up with a reason it needs to be removed. You can't simply say, "it has no purpose," but need to find a way in which it detracts from the game. In other words, it doesn't need a reason to exist. That's not the goal of this... debate... The goal is that either you find a reason it should be removed, or others show that there really is none. In a manner it is a bit like the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality of a courtin the USA.

"Radical Edward's profile is a seven foot tall ex-basketball pro Hindu guru drag-queen alien." ―Jet Black

Element.Ag

Rank 0
Element.Ag
Joined
31 Oct 2012
Posts
72
Location
Chicago United States
PostedJan 22, 2013 3:57 am
KurysFlame wrote:
Given your stats, I'm having a hard time seeing that SS one shotting you... I'm not saying you're lying, but that there's some unknown factor going into play here. I'm a mystic with what I believe are better stats in attack than your SS. When I got dragon, there was at least one mystic I couldn't couldn't one-shot (not counting evade) and least one mystic who I couldn't always one-shot. There's no way a mystic in wolf can beat the defense on your character unless he procced the 70 staff, which I see as highly unlikely.

You either do believe it or you don't. I posted that right after leaving the match. I was being killed in one dragon dive almost every single time.

Your main reason for wanting it removed as you said is, "It is a mechanic that undermines competition by boosting the losing team's power." I was recently reading an article on MOBAs (Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas). The basic idea is there are 2 sides, each with a base which spawns soldiers/monsters/etc. which try to take out the enemy base. You and the other players are more powerful soldiers with special abilities meant to be the deciding factor in the balance. Now, the problem with the MOBA being reviewed was that once one side had momentum, there was just about no shred of hope for a turn around. Though the game still continued, after halfway the "competition" turned into a mere grinding down of the oposing side. There is a chance that the counter to preventing that slow, painful grind is to strong, thus making the scales tip from slightly to one direction to full force in the other (think Flubber, if you've seen the movie), but given that you've already said it only effects teams that are already about even, I don't think this is the case. The point is though that giving the losing team a slight edge doesn't destroy competition, but prolongs it.

That point is invalid. I stress the notion that the losing team deserves nothing more than to lose.

Look at any professional sport. What would a World Cup Championship mean if the losing team halfway through the game was allowed to have double the players on the field, simply because they were losing the game? No one would take the losing team seriously if they won under those circumstances.

You're essentially telling me that the winning team does not deserve the lead that they worked to obtain and that the better team does not deserve to win the match. You're endorsing the punishment of success.

The entire point of competition is to find which team is better. Nothing more, nothing less. "Prolonging competition" isn't even an argument because it stops being competition when outside forces sway the outcome of a match.


It's true that WL don't really have good ways to deal with dragns as their forte (battle) is pretty much the dragon's strong point. Still, it might be a better idea to ignore the dragon than try to kill it, especially if it has full health. Hopefully you have someone on team who "can" mitigate the damage of the dragon and you can help that person by keeping the other 4 enemies off him. (See, yes, I do know it's not just you 5 vs. the dragon. Your art is dealing with the other 4).

How do I ignore a dragon that circles the crystal and actively seeks me out when I'm anywhere near it? Ignoring the dragon would mean sitting at spawn for 5 straight minutes while my team's lead whittles away.

Did you think I tried to solo a dragon with 84K HP while a prophet was healing it? Seriously?

Your oversimplified solution doesn't work in practice.


Perhaps my biggest difference in out viewpoints is that my character is not quite as strong as yours. From what I've seen of WL with near your gear, they typically have run of the battlefield. For me, due to the high population of twinked out DS (a pretty decent counter to mystics at least at 70) I already experiance quite a few deaths. The dragon is just one more health hazzard for me. Also, I got stealth and root, both decent enough counters to the dragon problem.

No, I think the biggest differences are:

1. You have a means to root the dragon.
2. You have stealth.
3. You have not put in an insane amount of work carrying your team and then lost because you're targeted repeatedly.
4. You have not been repeatedly dragon exploited. (Waiting until near the end of the game and sitting until you can receive a dragon while the other team can't due to score limits)
5. You do not value true competition. Competition that is not swayed by selective, unequal mechanics.

In this particular match I got 6.2 million crystal damage and 13 kills. This was more than 6 times as much crystal damage as my entire team combined and the kills were also more than my entire team combined.

I was simply targeted for 5 straight minutes by the dragon. I lost because I had to helplessly get one-shot by a sharpshooter for a quarter of the match's duration.

Tell me, why did I deserve to lose? What did I do besides put in an insane amount of effort to try to ensure my team's victory? You yourself admit that my class is extremely disadvantaged versus a dragon. So what possible strategy or tactic could I possibly have done to win that game?


Last li'l thing. Saying, "It's part of the game" isn't quite a copout, but more of a chllenge imo. It sais that, as it already is part of the game, you need to come up with a reason it needs to be removed. You can't simply say, "it has no purpose," but need to find a way in which it detracts from the game. In other words, it doesn't need a reason to exist. That's not the goal of this... debate... The goal is that either you find a reason it should be removed, or others show that there really is none. In a manner it is a bit like the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality of a courtin the USA.

Unless you haven't been reading, I've already given numerous reasons why. Since you have trouble remembering I will restate and even add new ones.

1. It undermines competition with unequal, selective mechanics.
2. It punishes success. The winning team has to deal with a larger challenge simply because they are winning.
3. It is extremely unbalanced towards certain classes. Speaking from experience, WL are almost completely powerless against any dragon that isn't a caster.
4. It can be exploited.


And one last thing. Saying "Its part of the game" is a cop-out. This is a debate of the fairness of the mechanic. Whether or not it already exists in game doesn't add any sort of strength to your position. "It's part of the game" isn't a logical argument that holds any sort of weight. So as I said before, it's invalid.


 

KurysFlame

Rank 3
KurysFlame
Joined
30 Mar 2012
Posts
1310
Location
United States
PostedJan 30, 2013 3:02 am
Element.Ag wrote:
KurysFlame wrote:
1. Given your stats, I'm having a hard time seeing that SS one shotting you... I'm not saying you're lying, but that there's some unknown factor going into play here. I'm a mystic with what I believe are better stats in attack than your SS. When I got dragon, there was at least one mystic I couldn't couldn't one-shot (not counting evade) and least one mystic who I couldn't always one-shot. There's no way a mystic in wolf can beat the defense on your character unless he procced the 70 staff, which I see as highly unlikely.

You either do believe it or you don't. I posted that right after leaving the match. I was being killed in one dragon dive almost every single time.

2. Your main reason for wanting it removed as you said is, "It is a mechanic that undermines competition by boosting the losing team's power." I was recently reading an article on MOBAs (Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas). The basic idea is there are 2 sides, each with a base which spawns soldiers/monsters/etc. which try to take out the enemy base. You and the other players are more powerful soldiers with special abilities meant to be the deciding factor in the balance. Now, the problem with the MOBA being reviewed was that once one side had momentum, there was just about no shred of hope for a turn around. Though the game still continued, after halfway the "competition" turned into a mere grinding down of the oposing side. There is a chance that the counter to preventing that slow, painful grind is to strong, thus making the scales tip from slightly to one direction to full force in the other (think Flubber, if you've seen the movie), but given that you've already said it only effects teams that are already about even, I don't think this is the case. The point is though that giving the losing team a slight edge doesn't destroy competition, but prolongs it.

That point is invalid. I stress the notion that the losing team deserves nothing more than to lose.

Look at any professional sport. What would a World Cup Championship mean if the losing team halfway through the game was allowed to have double the players on the field, simply because they were losing the game? No one would take the losing team seriously if they won under those circumstances.

You're essentially telling me that the winning team does not deserve the lead that they worked to obtain and that the better team does not deserve to win the match. You're endorsing the punishment of success.

The entire point of competition is to find which team is better. Nothing more, nothing less. "Prolonging competition" isn't even an argument because it stops being competition when outside forces sway the outcome of a match.


3. It's true that WL don't really have good ways to deal with dragns as their forte (battle) is pretty much the dragon's strong point. Still, it might be a better idea to ignore the dragon than try to kill it, especially if it has full health. Hopefully you have someone on team who "can" mitigate the damage of the dragon and you can help that person by keeping the other 4 enemies off him. (See, yes, I do know it's not just you 5 vs. the dragon. Your art is dealing with the other 4).

How do I ignore a dragon that circles the crystal and actively seeks me out when I'm anywhere near it? Ignoring the dragon would mean sitting at spawn for 5 straight minutes while my team's lead whittles away.

Did you think I tried to solo a dragon with 84K HP while a prophet was healing it? Seriously?

Your oversimplified solution doesn't work in practice.


4. Perhaps my biggest difference in out viewpoints is that my character is not quite as strong as yours. From what I've seen of WL with near your gear, they typically have run of the battlefield. For me, due to the high population of twinked out DS (a pretty decent counter to mystics at least at 70) I already experiance quite a few deaths. The dragon is just one more health hazzard for me. Also, I got stealth and root, both decent enough counters to the dragon problem.

No, I think the biggest differences are:

1. You have a means to root the dragon.
2. You have stealth.
3. You have not put in an insane amount of work carrying your team and then lost because you're targeted repeatedly.
4. You have not been repeatedly dragon exploited. (Waiting until near the end of the game and sitting until you can receive a dragon while the other team can't due to score limits)
5. You do not value true competition. Competition that is not swayed by selective, unequal mechanics.

In this particular match I got 6.2 million crystal damage and 13 kills. This was more than 6 times as much crystal damage as my entire team combined and the kills were also more than my entire team combined.

I was simply targeted for 5 straight minutes by the dragon. I lost because I had to helplessly get one-shot by a sharpshooter for a quarter of the match's duration.

Tell me, why did I deserve to lose? What did I do besides put in an insane amount of effort to try to ensure my team's victory? You yourself admit that my class is extremely disadvantaged versus a dragon. So what possible strategy or tactic could I possibly have done to win that game?


5. Last li'l thing. Saying, "It's part of the game" isn't quite a copout, but more of a chllenge imo. It sais that, as it already is part of the game, you need to come up with a reason it needs to be removed. You can't simply say, "it has no purpose," but need to find a way in which it detracts from the game. In other words, it doesn't need a reason to exist. That's not the goal of this... debate... The goal is that either you find a reason it should be removed, or others show that there really is none. In a manner it is a bit like the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality of a court in the USA.

Unless you haven't been reading, I've already given numerous reasons why. Since you have trouble remembering I will restate and even add new ones.

1. It undermines competition with unequal, selective mechanics.
2. It punishes success. The winning team has to deal with a larger challenge simply because they are winning.
3. It is extremely unbalanced towards certain classes. Speaking from experience, WL are almost completely powerless against any dragon that isn't a caster.
4. It can be exploited.


And one last thing. Saying "Its part of the game" is a cop-out. This is a debate of the fairness of the mechanic. Whether or not it already exists in game doesn't add any sort of strength to your position. "It's part of the game" isn't a logical argument that holds any sort of weight. So as I said before, it's invalid.


 
 


Sorry for the late reply. I haven't been able to get on all that often due to work. I'll go point by point.

1. Not much to say. You've experianced one thing which given my experiance would require a good deal of luck on the SS's part. Despite your saying, "You either believe it or you don't." I believe I am justified in giving the opinion of undecided. I also believe neither of us understands the combat mechanics of the game to a perfect extent.

2. The argument here is over whether giving the losing side an edge kills competition or lets competition, and thus, the fun, last a bit longer. My belief is that a game in which both teams shift between winning and losing is more fun than one where as soon as one side gains the upper hand it's essentially game over.

As for your World Cup anology, you take your example to far to one extreme. I already posted on the issue of tipping the scales so drastically in the winning team's favor. In fact, it's part of what you were responding to on this point.

The last part of your response on this point demonstrates a very clear difference of opinion between us two. You believe competition's sole purpose is to find out which team is better. In the case of HF a better aim for competition is to have fun. Given the random nature of teams in HF, it really isn't a good indicator of who is better unless the round is overly one sided.

This is also why I thought "prolonging" the competition a good thing. More fun is good. A longer time deciding who is best just indicates a flawed judging mechanism.

3. Your problem is your team, not the dragon. As you've said earlier, you're basically carrying it. My solution is over simplified? Hardly. It simply requires a good team so you can focus on your job and not theirs. So far I don't believe you have reccomended changing the luck involved in what team you get.

4. Your point 1 & 2: Already mentioned them. Please don't say your disagreeing with me if your first 2 points of your counter are in agreement with my argument. Perhaps it's not I who has trouble reading previous posts.

Your point 3: You believe losing despite such great efforts on your part makes you more inclined toward your point of view and somehow shows that your team should win.
a.) You think others on your team are not trying their best with what gear they have? Think the noobs on your team enjoy being killed probably 10 times more often than you without even a dragon to blame as an excuse?
b.) You think your team should win because "you" are trying harder than the rest of your team? If the rest of your team isn't helping, that's a point against your team winning.

Your point 4: I concede, I have not encountered this all that often, or ever tbh. Does this happen often when you are "carrying" your team, or more when matches are fairly even?

Your point 5: See the bolded part in my response to section 2. We have different definitions of competitions. I believe both are valid, but the one I use in this little debate is likely a better choice for the competition in HF.

5. Do not accuse me of not reading or forgetting what I read before making sure you have read and understand what I have written.

I did not say you didn't post reasons for why the dragon in HF should be removed. I simply gave the reason for saying, "it's part of the game." It's not an argument, though it can be used as the building block for one if you fail to answer its demands.

As I'm mainly posting this from boredom, I'll respond to your 4 points you so kindly (and unnecesarilly) "reminded" me of.
1st point: I hold to my view in section 2 that it prolongs/strengthens competition rather than undermines it.
2nd: It makes those with success put in more effort than those without. Most games with levels work this way, requiring more effort for each level. Life also works this way. Peoplewith higher incomes pay more taxes. People fallen on harder times can get help from charity organizations, the government, the local church, etc. As a general idea, if youcan't stand the extra pressure, you won't be "winning."
3rd: Due to the diversity of classes, most any mechanic, or even a lack of a mechanic, will strengthen or weaken different classes in different circumstances. You say a WL will have trouble against most any dragon not a caster. Shift around the circumstances and the caster, a weak dragon, makes for a good dragon counter with its chain. Shift some more and the WL becomes essentially a super WL as a dragon.
4th: the entire game is about exploiting what can be exploited, be it a skill in pvp, a means to make money, or get masters done. That it can be exploited isn't the argument. That it can be exploited to greatly is the argument. (Please don't regale me with how it can be exploited to greatly as a counter to this point. Prove the exploitation in your points above and let this twig of the debate die its just death.)

Looking forward to more debate.

"Radical Edward's profile is a seven foot tall ex-basketball pro Hindu guru drag-queen alien." ―Jet Black

Element.Ag

Rank 0
Element.Ag
Joined
31 Oct 2012
Posts
72
Location
Chicago United States
PostedJan 30, 2013 4:42 pm
KurysFlame wrote:
Sorry for the late reply. I haven't been able to get on all that often due to work. I'll go point by point.

1. Not much to say. You've experianced one thing which given my experiance would require a good deal of luck on the SS's part. Despite your saying, "You either believe it or you don't." I believe I am justified in giving the opinion of undecided. I also believe neither of us understands the combat mechanics of the game to a perfect extent.


It did not require luck because the SS was prophet buffed. I did not explicitly state that even though I did mention that a prophet was present on his team. My apologies.


2. The argument here is over whether giving the losing side an edge kills competition or lets competition, and thus, the fun, last a bit longer. My belief is that a game in which both teams shift between winning and losing is more fun than one where as soon as one side gains the upper hand it's essentially game over.

As for your World Cup anology, you take your example to far to one extreme. I already posted on the issue of tipping the scales so drastically in the winning team's favor. In fact, it's part of what you were responding to on this point.

The last part of your response on this point demonstrates a very clear difference of opinion between us two. You believe competition's sole purpose is to find out which team is better. In the case of HF a better aim for competition is to have fun. Given the random nature of teams in HF, it really isn't a good indicator of who is better unless the round is overly one sided.

This is also why I thought "prolonging" the competition a good thing. More fun is good. A longer time deciding who is best just indicates a flawed judging mechanism.


The argument of whether or not it's "fun" isn't as strong as the argument of whether or not it's "fair." In competition variables are controlled as much as possible to ensure both sides can have as fair of an experience as they possibly can. It is not always possible to have this due to other factors. The dragon however, is a controllable variable that can be manipulated.

You cannot justify unfairness for the sake of having "fun." The fairness and win-lose mentality is the very basis of the "fun" that people derive from competition. For that matter why have an arena that deems its participants winners and losers? What motivation would people have to fort and learn their class? Why should rankings even exist? All of the above is meaningless if people don't truly value being the best. Competitive games are designed to ensure as much fairness to everyone as is reasonably possible in order to adequately find the best.

The World Cup analogy is not extreme. Back when I used to actually play HF, I had seen, more than once, times where the losing team had gone from 35 points down to 70+ points ahead. Humorously enough, this is more of a case of the dragon destroying competition instead of "prolonging" it. And if this particular instance happened late enough in the game, the team without the dragon did not have a chance to mount a comeback to win.

That is neither fair nor is it fun for the team on the receiving end. Your idea of fun seems to only extend to the losing team. I can assure you I speak to many who don't find it "fun" to have to exert twice as much effort to secure a win (provided they can win). I argue that people value fairness much more than a close game.

What does the random nature of HF have to do with finding out which team present is best for the duration of the match? I'm saying if Team A outplays Team B for the duration of Match X, then Team A deserves to beat Team B without any outside forces coming to Team B's aid. Team A should win Match X because Team A was the better team within the duration of Match X.



3. Your problem is your team, not the dragon. As you've said earlier, you're basically carrying it. My solution is over simplified? Hardly. It simply requires a good team so you can focus on your job and not theirs. So far I don't believe you have reccomended changing the luck involved in what team you get.


No, its actually not the team. The reason being? Because we were winning before the other team received the dragon. A team is not always a sum of equal members. A team is simply the sum of the skill of players and how well they work together.

Every sport I've watched has players that impact the game more than others. In both Basketball and American Football I've watched top conference teams drop to dead last because of the removal of one player.

Even though it was based around me, the sum of our combined skills still managed to outmatch the other team. And considering the fact that no one by any means can choose their team, that is even more of a reason for the dragon mechanic be removed.


4. Your point 1 & 2: Already mentioned them. Please don't say your disagreeing with me if your first 2 points of your counter are in agreement with my argument. Perhaps it's not I who has trouble reading previous posts.

Your point 3: You believe losing despite such great efforts on your part makes you more inclined toward your point of view and somehow shows that your team should win.
a.) You think others on your team are not trying their best with what gear they have? Think the noobs on your team enjoy being killed probably 10 times more often than you without even a dragon to blame as an excuse?
b.) You think your team should win because "you" are trying harder than the rest of your team? If the rest of your team isn't helping, that's a point against your team winning.

Your point 4: I concede, I have not encountered this all that often, or ever tbh. Does this happen often when you are "carrying" your team, or more when matches are fairly even?

Your point 5: See the bolded part in my response to section 2. We have different definitions of competitions. I believe both are valid, but the one I use in this little debate is likely a better choice for the competition in HF.


Point 1 and 2: In the context I'm arguing, it is a counter. You state that your biggest difference is character strength then mention stealth and root as side notes. I'm clearly stating your access to a somewhat decent counter ranks among the biggest of differences.

Point 3: First of all, I was using my experiences as an example and this applies to anyone.

Secondly, you're only targeting half of the argument. The issue with losing after putting in the effort is if it is lost because of the dragon comeback mechanic. If I put down an insane amount of effort and I lose because my opponent outplays me, then I accept that. Putting down an extreme amount of effort and being punished with a loss because of being in the lead is unacceptable.

Thirdly, again you're missing the point. The point is effort should not be wasted on an unfair mechanic. Any of those "noobs" you mentioned could dedicate time to learn their class, farm ATs, finish masters, fortify gear. Those are things everyone has opportunity to do in this game. All of this takes time, sure, but it's possible. I earned the money for my forts doing little more than logging on and doing 5 PT/ACV runs and logging off.

At the same time, the dragon does not follow that suit. Sometimes the losing team gets the dragon way too late in game for the winning team to get their's (should they fall behind). Also, sometimes the former winning team doesn't fall 35 points behind. There is a reason I'm complaining about the dragon and not Minis in WSB. Both teams, whether they're behind or ahead, can kill the opposing team's Mini in WSB. Both teams are not promised the opportunity to obtain a dragon in all HF matches.

Lastly, since you don't like me using examples involving myself I'll ask another question. What if all five members placed an insane amount of effort into winning and then lost due to the dragon? We arrive at the same conclusion that I'm trying to prove.

Point 4: This happens in more even matches. Lets say the game is a close game.
Around the 160 point mark the entire opposite team sits and receives the dragon around the 195 point mark. That ensures the winning team must be at the point of losing the game to achieve the dragon point deficit and often times there isn't even enough time to come back in the event they do receive a dragon. In every single experience I've had, if the team is strong enough to force a near even score, the dragon wildly tips the scales in their favor. In the past month this has happened to me twice... out of 11 matches. I remember it happening even more when I was regularly active.

Point 5: How can you prove that? If your definition was what people found ideal then what would be the point of players being deemed winners and losers? Why would players put so much effort into winning? The fun is derived from finding which team is better. The only true way to find which is, is to ensure the playing ground remains as fair as it can possibly be made.

5. Do not accuse me of not reading or forgetting what I read before making sure you have read and understand what I have written.

I did not say you didn't post reasons for why the dragon in HF should be removed. I simply gave the reason for saying, "it's part of the game." It's not an argument, though it can be used as the building block for one if you fail to answer its demands.

As I'm mainly posting this from boredom, I'll respond to your 4 points you so kindly (and unnecesarilly) "reminded" me of.
1st point: I hold to my view in section 2 that it prolongs/strengthens competition rather than undermines it.
2nd: It makes those with success put in more effort than those without. Most games with levels work this way, requiring more effort for each level. Life also works this way. Peoplewith higher incomes pay more taxes. People fallen on harder times can get help from charity organizations, the government, the local church, etc. As a general idea, if youcan't stand the extra pressure, you won't be "winning."
3rd: Due to the diversity of classes, most any mechanic, or even a lack of a mechanic, will strengthen or weaken different classes in different circumstances. You say a WL will have trouble against most any dragon not a caster. Shift around the circumstances and the caster, a weak dragon, makes for a good dragon counter with its chain. Shift some more and the WL becomes essentially a super WL as a dragon.
4th: the entire game is about exploiting what can be exploited, be it a skill in pvp, a means to make money, or get masters done. That it can be exploited isn't the argument. That it can be exploited to greatly is the argument. (Please don't regale me with how it can be exploited to greatly as a counter to this point. Prove the exploitation in your points above and let this twig of the debate die its just death.)

Looking forward to more debate.


I actually did read your post. I read it again before typing this out too. Your response heavily implied that I did not give you reasons why it shouldn't exist. This is especially true because from my point of view you're stating something that's clearly obvious. I did offer reasons... so why were you lecturing me on it? The only assumption I had to go on was that you didn't read it.

Point 1: It does not strengthen competition if it is unfair. Prolonging competition isn't a valid argument if it undermines fairness. Competition is weakened by unfair mechanics, therefore your point is a contradiction. I explained the many ways that it is unfair and unless you can produce adequate rebuttals, your argument is still considered to be refuted.

Point 2: Success shouldn't be punished. Those who are better should not receive a difficulty increase simply because they are better.

This is not a platform game. Platform games are of a totally different genre. Platform games are typically single player games. If they are two-player, the opponent (or ally) faces the same perils as the other. Point refuted, based on lack of relevancy.

I fail to see any relation between taxes, income, and government that are relevant to this argument. These have nothing to do with competition. There is not an encouraged concept of winning and losing when it comes to these subjects. Point refuted, based on lack of relevancy.

We are talking about competitive games. Please stay on subject, be it sports or electronic games.

Point 3: Fair enough I will concede this point.

Point 4: Quite the contrary. Exploitation is a large reason why changes need to occur. Because other forms of exploitation exist isn't an argument against my stance. I believe other forms of exploitation should be fixed as well. I condone fairness all around. I could think of a long list of things that I feel should be changed, but that is out of the scope of this debate.

I've already stated the main way it can be exploited previously in this post. (Section 4, Point 4)


 

KurysFlame

Rank 3
KurysFlame
Joined
30 Mar 2012
Posts
1310
Location
United States
PostedJan 31, 2013 1:20 am
1. Fair enough. Buffs can do wonders.

2. I was not arguing that "fun" was more important than "fairness" as I to believe fairness is neccesary for a game to be fun. Believe it or not, I'm one of those people who feel quite strongly (to the point of annoying others) on the issue, though usually my beaf is with actions which seem questionable in view of set rules. Typically the current set rules, be it board games, video games, or once upon a time 4-square during recess, set the boundaries that ensured fairness. Take the phrase, "all is fair in love and war." The reason for this is both lack rules, at least in view of the the phrase.

Rather, I was using "fun" as a counter to "deciding who's best" as the purpose of the competition in HF. My reason to prefer is there are to many factors in HF which throw off an accurate decision of who's better, of which the dragon is one among many. Also, it somewhat dulls a claim to being the best if there are to many factors which may have changed your victory to a loss. Given this, it's better to use HF for the fun it offers, rather than deciding that you and players A-D are better than players V-Z.

I still see your anology as extreme. You claim you've seen teams go from 35 points behind to 70 points ahead all in the duration of the dragon. Two problems. First, there exist to many factors, from how one team uses and the other team attempts to counter the dragon, to the performance of each players' computer, to the lack of info from other rounds besides this one you witnessed. You also claim to have seen sports teams go from winning to losing all because of the loss of one player. This is pretty good proof a small change has potential to change the course of a game. The trouble with your example is that unless the doubled team consists of grade scool girls and the other team has at least semi-competant players, it will almost always end with one result.

3. Allow me to rephrase my response. Your problem in dealing with the dragon is your team, not the dragon's OPness. You need to prove the dragon should be removed, not that it needs a reason for being there.

A side note on the sports, I do not know if you've ever been on a sports team, but something a coach will always tell the team is to think like a team and not try to be the star all the time. Sure, we love our game stars. Yes, people's talents, built up by their owners, are not made equal. Yet the fact remains, teamwork is powerful, and often necesary to win a team competition.

4. Point 1 & 2: Your argument was "differences" plural. As I even thought to mention them, I also consider them pretty big factors. You simply believe them more a factor to your view than what I thought the biggest, that you aren't used to being one-shot and it kinda hurts mentally.
Point 3: First response-Not sure I understand. What does this counter exactly?
Second response-This is true. I noticed more the point you made on your "effort" than on the fact the dragon took it. However, now I think on it more, this point is fairly similar to what I listed as the major difference in our oppinions. Only, you call it your effort as opposed to simply being a decent lvl 70 WL.
Third reason-Effort should be rewarded. At the same time that doesn't mean being week, or putting in a bit less should be crushed. This part is more a response in general and not directly relating to HF. Just because a person is somewhat newer to the game, it doesn't mean they should be outright crushed by those who've been here a while. It hurts a game's ability to grow. (Note, I don't say GF doesn't have the problem.) Back to how this relates to HF. If you want that feeling of outright crushing someone/thing, go play with the spiders outside PC. The dragon kills most players, new or old, with ease, and you don't like how much more difficult it is than the average player.
Last response- This doesn't into the difference in our views (which admittedly finding the answer to wouldn't prove anything), but is the strongest point in your favor in regards to the debate as a whole. Sadly, I find 2 even teams a rare ocurance, but if it (One team of 2 perfectly even teams relying solely on the dragon) happened often enough to be worth the effort, I'd see good reason to keep players from exploiting the dragon. This would likely come through a steeper penalty for doing nothing than ditching the dragon. Make the exploitation hard enough, and you can't blame the exploiters for lack of effort.
Point 4: As I said earlier, this has never really happened to me despite doing 70 pvp enought to get over 50k saph hearts. Ha! perhaps that's the largest difference between us. If you need a response, I'll join this with the last response of the point above.
Point 5: See first 2 paragraphs of Point 2.

5. Sorry for not making it more clear in that case. Although, I don't quite understand why you even argued that saying "it's part of the game" is a copout if you saw my reason for it as common sense.

Point 1: Gonna leave this argument to it's location in section 2. Sadly as this is an online debate with no real judges besides a public opinion which at the moment doesn't seem wishing to interupt our posts, we can't really declare any point "refuted."

Point 2: First, allow me to give an example of a platform game: Mario. Platform games are about jumping from one platform to another typically, and for the most part don't even have a levlling system. On the other hand, games which have levels and a goal of continually improving your character (for example, GF) typically have the trait of getting more difficult to advance the further you get along.

Reading both my and your previous post, I may have been misunderstood when I said "levels." I meant levels not as in stages/maps, but levels as in of your character. Perhaps I should have used GF speak and shorthanded it to "lvl."

I used the examples more as a way life works. However, due to it's lack of importance to keep up and to trim this debate, I'll scede the point. I would apreciate it if you did not claim a point to be "refuted" as us 2 seem to be the only people to decide whether a point is "refuted" or not, and I sure as heck don't see it that way.

Point 4: Exploitation- 1. use or utilization, especially for profit. 2. selfish utilization. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploitation

I can see both of these as valid definitions. Unless it is to severe and hurts another, exploitation is fine. It was neccesary for you to exploit what you could to get to your position of at least a somewhat decent WL. Everything you just said in this point I'd agree with providing you'd add "to a too great degree" to the end of everytime you mention the word "exploitation."

"Radical Edward's profile is a seven foot tall ex-basketball pro Hindu guru drag-queen alien." ―Jet Black
Display posts from previous:   Sort by: