LegendaryRQAHonestly the biggest change made to the game was the Medic Speed with scouts and that has nothing to do with any given weapon, that's just a core mechanic change like the sticky nerf a little wile back.
Not disagreeing, but there's also the many crossbow buffs which definitely have changed the meta. The big arguments are how much it changed it, if the meta change was good or bad (though most people seem to agree that it was bad), and if it's bad enough that it should be banned.
LegendaryRQAI'm sorry, but until i see something in the vain of a Brass Beast Heavy pocketed by a Kritzkrieg wile a Panic Attack Engi guards them i'm going to remain unconvinced that allowing this weapons is a bad thing.
The other thing is that, whether through inexperienced players not knowing how to counter it or sandbaggers dicking around with it, this does sometimes happen at low levels. Sure, if a weapon never got used then it doesn't matter if they're banned or not, but they are used (even if it's not at the level we play or watch). So how do we approach that, should we leave them unbanned so that new players learn to deal with it, or should we ban them so that the issue never comes up at all? If a "useless" weapon is only ever used to mess with people, is that reason enough to ban it, or should it be on them to get better and win against it?
I think we should just ban them and be done with it (though really I'd be happy with pretty much any stricter whitelist), but the only reason this thread's 9 10 pages long is because a lot of people have a lot of different views.
[quote=LegendaryRQA]Honestly the biggest change made to the game was the Medic Speed with scouts and that has nothing to do with any given weapon, that's just a core mechanic change like the sticky nerf a little wile back.[/quote]
Not disagreeing, but there's also the many crossbow buffs which definitely have changed the meta. The big arguments are how much it changed it, if the meta change was good or bad (though most people seem to agree that it was bad), and if it's bad enough that it should be banned.
[quote=LegendaryRQA]I'm sorry, but until i see something in the vain of a Brass Beast Heavy pocketed by a Kritzkrieg wile a Panic Attack Engi guards them i'm going to remain unconvinced that allowing this weapons is a bad thing.[/quote]The other thing is that, whether through inexperienced players not knowing how to counter it or sandbaggers dicking around with it, this does sometimes happen at low levels. Sure, if a weapon never got used then it doesn't matter if they're banned or not, but they are used (even if it's not at the level we play or watch). So how do we approach that, should we leave them unbanned so that new players learn to deal with it, or should we ban them so that the issue never comes up at all? If a "useless" weapon is only ever used to mess with people, is that reason enough to ban it, or should it be on them to get better and win against it?
I think we should just ban them and be done with it (though really I'd be happy with pretty much any stricter whitelist), but the only reason this thread's [s]9[/s] 10 pages long is because a lot of people have a lot of different views.
yukariCollaidecitation needed
do you even play 6s?
That's not an argument.
[quote=yukari][quote=Collaide]citation needed[/quote]
do you even play 6s?[/quote]
That's not an argument.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/QAt79Uu.png[/img]
CollaideyukariCollaidecitation needed
do you even play 6s?
That's not an argument.
so no then?
[quote=Collaide][quote=yukari][quote=Collaide]citation needed[/quote]
do you even play 6s?[/quote]
That's not an argument.[/quote]
so no then?
Pugchamp could try out a week/weekend with no crossbow so people can form their opinions on it maybe?
Pugchamp could try out a week/weekend with no crossbow so people can form their opinions on it maybe?
Cyanicso no then?
Firstly, wether or not I play 6s is irrelevant to my arguments, secondly you could find this out with less than 20 clicks/button presses. I'll show you how:
Show Content
And here is my response to jarateking:
Show Content
JarateKingCollaidestuff about skill
You're saying it like they either get skill from playing against unlocks, or never get better at anything. People will improve whether things are banned or unbanned. You don't need to play against unlocks to get better or learn to adapt, you learn that just fine by playing normally.
I don't actually know where you got this impression from, since you don't include the actual quote.
JarateKingI'm speaking all anecdotally
Which is a problem for people in this thread, who are so sure they're right, they don't listen to arguments from the other side.
JarateKingI think it's safe to say that it didn't work (whether or not it helped cause the decline, it certainly didn't stop it).
Maybe it stopped the flow out of some players? Maybe it accelerated the death of tf2? We don't know. Conclusive statements like these are only supported anecdotally. I think it's more likely that other games like Overwatch & Paladins releasing in recent seasons is a larger factor than whitelist change, but what I think doens't matter, because we actually don't know for certain.
JarateKingAnd while low signup numbers could be / are from a lot of things, if there's a decent chance that changing the whitelist could help, we should try it. Worst case scenario, we just give the majority of current players what they want (as we've seen from the polls, where 80% of people wanted a much stricter whitelist).
Well, we don't actually know this, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the polls are usually conducted on tftv where 90% of people are sweaty tryhard americans?
JarateKingalso how the fuck are you asking for a citation for the statement "if they deserved to win or lose is an opinion"?
Accidentally split one quote into two. Was gonna remove the first one.
JarateKingThat specific example
Sounds pretty sad, but it also sounds like the players who scored the most points won.
JarateKingIt will always happen to some degree. It just depends how much. There always was a separation between skill levels, but it wasn't as big or as different as it is now. And while I do feel that this separation being a lot bigger than it needs to be is a big reason people quit (as I've said many times before), this just goes back to the citations argument where the only thing we have to go off of is anecdotes and the team signup decline.
I don't think people quitting is the (most important) issue, I think it's that the influx of new players is too low, because the game is not similar enough to the normal games (pubs) and that's why tf2 esports will never take off.
JarateKingAnd they still do. They still say "the only reason pyro isn't viable in competitive is because all his stuff is banned" or "I'd play competitive if I could actually use a loadout that isn't stock" or "even highlander is better, they dont ban as much." Even after the whitelist has been opened so much that they're all flat out wrong. What they really mean is that they don't care about competitive and want a reason to hate it, and we'll never be able to convince them to join.
Fair point. That's probably true for a chunk of them. They might also not be updated with the scene and be aware of the changes.
JarateKingWe shouldn't focus our efforts on appealing to them, because we can't really do anything more for them (the whitelist is as open as it's gonna get without rebalances) and we haven't seen any results from compromising for them (as the signup numbers say). The only crowd we need to appeal to is the people who like the idea of competitive, but aren't currently playing for one reason or another.
Signup numbers went down before this whitelist too. So at the very least it had a neutral impact. We don't actually know what impact it had; we simply don't have the data.
JarateKingBut the meta didn't suddenly become this fresh, new, unstale and exciting thing when we moved to the open whitelist.
Meta won't be super fresh new and unstale in tf2 ever, unless drastic changes happen. (I'm not advocating drastic changes) What I meant was more that it removes different kinds of flavour and fewer ways to potentially do thinigs: variety.
JarateKingI'd say the meta now is more stale than it was before we started unbanning everything, easily. How stale the meta is doesn't depend on how many weapons are available, it depends on how many strats are viable, and unlocks often actually limit those.
But unlocks can unlock different ways of doing a strat, or make new strats (eg. soldier backpacks)
JarateKingDoes that mean it's somehow wrong? Hell, the whole point of the whitelist at the end of the day is to make sure the game is more fun / remove things that aren't as fun, so if the overall community's opinion is "we should ban things", doesn't that mean we should ban things?
1. Not necessarily, because the majority might not realise what benefits the game as whole the most. Theoretically, they could just not be concerned about this at all, but that's their choice. I for one, would not like the community to shrink faster than it already is.
2. Appeal to popularity, look it up.
3. The point of this thread is to have a discussion, no? If everyone has the same opinion maybe they should construct arguments instead of using anecdotal evidence (the majority of posts on this thread).
EDIT: I love how people dislike the post before it's possible to have read it all.
[quote=Cyanic]so no then?[/quote]
Firstly, wether or not I play 6s is irrelevant to my arguments, secondly you could find this out with less than 20 clicks/button presses. I'll show you how:
[spoiler][img]http://i.imgur.com/iqd6U4Q.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/hHE87Y1.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/qp0z7L7.png[/img][/spoiler]
And here is my response to jarateking:
[spoiler][quote=JarateKing][quote=Collaide]stuff about skill[/quote]
You're saying it like they either get skill from playing against unlocks, or never get better at anything. People will improve whether things are banned or unbanned. You don't need to play against unlocks to get better or learn to adapt, you learn that just fine by playing normally.[/quote]
I don't actually know where you got this impression from, since you don't include the actual quote.
[quote=JarateKing]I'm speaking all anecdotally[/quote]
Which is a problem for people in this thread, who are so sure they're right, they don't listen to arguments from the other side.
[quote=JarateKing]I think it's safe to say that it didn't work (whether or not it helped cause the decline, it certainly didn't stop it).[/quote]
Maybe it stopped the flow out of some players? Maybe it accelerated the death of tf2? We don't know. Conclusive statements like these are only supported anecdotally. I think it's more likely that other games like Overwatch & Paladins releasing in recent seasons is a larger factor than whitelist change, but what I think doens't matter, because we actually don't know for certain.
[quote=JarateKing]And while low signup numbers could be / are from a lot of things, if there's a decent chance that changing the whitelist could help, we should try it. Worst case scenario, we just give the majority of current players what they want (as we've seen from the polls, where 80% of people wanted a much stricter whitelist).[/quote]
Well, we don't actually know this, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the polls are usually conducted on tftv where 90% of people are sweaty tryhard americans?
[quote=JarateKing]also how the fuck are you asking for a citation for the statement "if they deserved to win or lose is an opinion"?[/quote]
Accidentally split one quote into two. Was gonna remove the first one.
[quote=JarateKing]That specific example[/quote]
Sounds pretty sad, but it also sounds like the players who scored the most points won.
[quote=JarateKing]It will always happen to some degree. It just depends how much. There always was a separation between skill levels, but it wasn't as big or as different as it is now. And while I do feel that this separation being a lot bigger than it needs to be is a big reason people quit (as I've said many times before), this just goes back to the citations argument where the only thing we have to go off of is anecdotes and the team signup decline.[/quote]
I don't think people quitting is the (most important) issue, I think it's that the influx of new players is too low, because the game is not similar enough to the normal games (pubs) and that's why tf2 esports will never take off.
[quote=JarateKing]And they still do. They still say "the only reason pyro isn't viable in competitive is because all his stuff is banned" or "I'd play competitive if I could actually use a loadout that isn't stock" or "even highlander is better, they dont ban as much." Even after the whitelist has been opened so much that they're all flat out wrong. What they really mean is that they don't care about competitive and want a reason to hate it, and we'll never be able to convince them to join.[/quote]
Fair point. That's probably true for a chunk of them. They might also not be updated with the scene and be aware of the changes.
[quote=JarateKing]We shouldn't focus our efforts on appealing to them, because we can't really do anything more for them (the whitelist is as open as it's gonna get without rebalances) and we haven't seen any results from compromising for them (as the signup numbers say). The only crowd we need to appeal to is the people who like the idea of competitive, but aren't currently playing for one reason or another.[/quote]
Signup numbers went down before this whitelist too. So at the very least it had a neutral impact. We don't actually know what impact it had; we simply don't have the data.
[quote=JarateKing]But the meta didn't suddenly become this fresh, new, unstale and exciting thing when we moved to the open whitelist.[/quote]
Meta won't be super fresh new and unstale in tf2 ever, unless drastic changes happen. (I'm not advocating drastic changes) What I meant was more that it removes different kinds of flavour and fewer ways to potentially do thinigs: variety.
[quote=JarateKing]I'd say the meta now is more stale than it was before we started unbanning everything, easily. How stale the meta is doesn't depend on how many weapons are available, it depends on how many strats are viable, and unlocks often actually limit those. [/quote] But unlocks can unlock different ways of doing a strat, or make new strats (eg. soldier backpacks)
[quote=JarateKing]Does that mean it's somehow wrong? Hell, the whole point of the whitelist at the end of the day is to make sure the game is more fun / remove things that aren't as fun, so if the overall community's opinion is "we should ban things", doesn't that mean we should ban things?[/quote]
1. Not necessarily, because the majority might not realise what benefits the game as whole the most. Theoretically, they could just not be concerned about this at all, but that's their choice. I for one, would not like the community to shrink faster than it already is.
2. Appeal to popularity, look it up.
3. The point of this thread is to have a discussion, no? If everyone has the same opinion maybe they should construct arguments instead of using anecdotal evidence (the majority of posts on this thread).
EDIT: I love how people dislike the post before it's possible to have read it all.[/spoiler]
I don't think people quitting is the (most important) issue, I think it's that the influx of new players is too low, because the game is not similar enough to the normal games (pubs) and that's why tf2 esports will never take off.
why do people still even make this argument. Like is there any precedent at all? I can think of several games that had a community competitive scene that had a custom ruleset which was replaced or adopted by devs when they started supporting the game. But i honestly cant think of any that saw reasonable growth by pubbifying their game before that happened.
Considering tf2s position of being a decade old game with no dev support and a very casual reputation, its had a very successful run. Overwatchs release did more to stunt growth than anything the comp community's done. Anyone who gives half a fuck about wanting to play a more casual competitive mode has already switched over.
[quote]I don't think people quitting is the (most important) issue, I think it's that the influx of new players is too low, because the game is not similar enough to the normal games (pubs) and that's why tf2 esports will never take off.[/quote]
why do people still even make this argument. Like is there any precedent at all? I can think of several games that had a community competitive scene that had a custom ruleset which was replaced or adopted by devs when they started supporting the game. But i honestly cant think of any that saw reasonable growth by pubbifying their game before that happened.
Considering tf2s position of being a decade old game with no dev support and a very casual reputation, its had a very successful run. Overwatchs release did more to stunt growth than anything the comp community's done. Anyone who gives half a fuck about wanting to play a more casual competitive mode has already switched over.
I'm not responding to everything, both because I don't want another huge wall of text, and because these few points cover most of your post.
CollaideWe don't know the impact of the whitelist / I don't want the community to shrink more
"We don't know for sure, so we should do nothing" is a terrible approach. All the information we have points to it having done nothing good. We have more information now than we did when we decided to start unbanning everything, at least. If you need more assurance that it will or won't work, you can always start polling reddit or go ask every low open player or whatever, but the information we have is enough to go off of imo.
Sure, overwatch is probably a way bigger factor, but if all that means is the whitelist's impact is negligible then we don't need to worry about "shrinking the community" from changing it. In that case we can do pretty much anything we want with it, because how much it changes the community size is a non-issue then. It's either not very significant, in which case we shouldn't worry about changing it, or pretty significant, in which case it failed horribly and we should change it asap.
CollaideSounds pretty sad, but it also sounds like the players who scored the most points won.
I'm not saying we deserved to win, and I'd be telling that story even if we ended up winning by the end of it. That's not the point, the point is that it was effective. It switched directions of a hard roll because it was just so different than anything we'd encountered before, not by them playing smarter or fragging harder but by doing a retard strat.
CollaideBut unlocks can unlock different ways of doing a strat, or make new strats (eg. soldier backpacks)
I agree, and for that reason I'd like to see them included (tentatively, because I'm not sure if those strats are actually fun and non-bull, so I'd go with more experienced players' opinions though I'm not against the idea). What do you think I've been arguing, "if it's not gunboats it's banned"?
CollaideNot necessarily, because the majority might not realise what benefits the game as whole the most. Theoretically, they could just not be concerned about this at all, but that's their choice.
I'm just saying, the only times I can remember the community being wrong about balance is when problems get exaggerated, but those same problems do still exist within the game to some degree more than they benefit the game. And I don't think it's really a problem to work off that since how big the issue is might be off, but there's still an issue with them. We, as a community, tend to be pretty good at this stuff. You're free to provide counter examples though.
I'm not responding to everything, both because I don't want another huge wall of text, and because these few points cover most of your post.[quote=Collaide]We don't know the impact of the whitelist / I don't want the community to shrink more[/quote]
"We don't know for sure, so we should do nothing" is a terrible approach. All the information we have points to it having done nothing good. We have more information now than we did when we decided to start unbanning everything, at least. If you need more assurance that it will or won't work, you can always start polling reddit or go ask every low open player or whatever, but the information we have is enough to go off of imo.
Sure, overwatch is probably a way bigger factor, but if all that means is the whitelist's impact is negligible then we don't need to worry about "shrinking the community" from changing it. In that case we can do pretty much anything we want with it, because how much it changes the community size is a non-issue then. It's either not very significant, in which case we shouldn't worry about changing it, or pretty significant, in which case it failed horribly and we should change it asap.
[quote=Collaide]Sounds pretty sad, but it also sounds like the players who scored the most points won.[/quote]I'm not saying we deserved to win, and I'd be telling that story even if we ended up winning by the end of it. That's not the point, the point is that it was effective. It switched directions of a hard roll because it was just so different than anything we'd encountered before, not by them playing smarter or fragging harder but by doing a retard strat.
[quote=Collaide]But unlocks can unlock different ways of doing a strat, or make new strats (eg. soldier backpacks)[/quote]
I agree, and for that reason I'd like to see them included (tentatively, because I'm not sure if those strats are actually fun and non-bull, so I'd go with more experienced players' opinions though I'm not against the idea). What do you think I've been arguing, "if it's not gunboats it's banned"?
[quote=Collaide]Not necessarily, because the majority might not realise what benefits the game as whole the most. Theoretically, they could just not be concerned about this at all, but that's their choice.[/quote]I'm just saying, the only times I can remember the community being wrong about balance is when problems get exaggerated, but those same problems do still exist within the game to some degree more than they benefit the game. And I don't think it's really a problem to work off that since how big the issue is might be off, but there's still an issue with them. We, as a community, tend to be pretty good at this stuff. You're free to provide counter examples though.
YeeHawPugchamp could try out a week/weekend with no crossbow so people can form their opinions on it maybe?
replace mapchamp with medchamp? hmm
[quote=YeeHaw]Pugchamp could try out a week/weekend with no crossbow so people can form their opinions on it maybe?[/quote]
replace mapchamp with medchamp? [url=https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yiYA8Ssdx6o/maxresdefault.jpg]hmm[/url]
Anyone remember Vita-Saw? It's banned, because if one team runs it, other one basically has to, too, since the advantage weapon provides is huge. I think the same principle can be applied to the Crusader's Crossbow. If you don't run it and the other team does, you simply give the other team an insane advantage.
Also, I don't think people, who say that playing Medic without Crossbow makes Medic less fun, have played with needles. They should try it out though. Syringe Gun is really fun and underappreciated.
Anyone remember Vita-Saw? It's banned, because if one team runs it, other one basically has to, too, since the advantage weapon provides is huge. I think the same principle can be applied to the Crusader's Crossbow. If you don't run it and the other team does, you simply give the other team an insane advantage.
Also, I don't think people, who say that playing Medic without Crossbow makes Medic less fun, have played with needles. They should try it out though. Syringe Gun is really fun and underappreciated.
Sorry if someone's already posted it already but there was an etf2l one night cup where they banned the crossbow and the feedback was mostly positive
http://etf2l.org/forum/feedback/topic-33952/
Sorry if someone's already posted it already but there was an etf2l one night cup where they banned the crossbow and the feedback was mostly positive
http://etf2l.org/forum/feedback/topic-33952/
YeeHawFreedeerfCan we step back from the crossbow for a second and look at how stupid the market gardener is?
Why should a soldier be granted a pick for swinging once? If you have a soldier flying right towards your med, there is not much to do unless you have scouts. It is either hitting a nut airshot or watching your med get picked.
Shit is fucked.
Well there's your problem, its the same as a normal soldier bomb but it has even less chance of working.
Based on playing the no xbow cup, I think it should be banned next season. I'm just a scout though, did any sollies/demos/medics have any problem with it?
https://youtu.be/m1GD0ND8Lrs?t=11m58s
This should have never worked, but it did. A soldier who's life should have been worthless on the mid after he shot his fourth rocket got a very favorable early pick.
[quote=YeeHaw][quote=Freedeerf]Can we step back from the crossbow for a second and look at how stupid the market gardener is?
Why should a soldier be granted a pick for swinging once? If you have a soldier flying right towards your med, there is not much to do [b]unless you have scouts[/b]. It is either hitting a nut airshot or watching your med get picked.
Shit is fucked.[/quote]
Well there's your problem, its the same as a normal soldier bomb but it has even less chance of working.
Based on playing the no xbow cup, I think it should be banned next season. I'm just a scout though, did any sollies/demos/medics have any problem with it?[/quote]
https://youtu.be/m1GD0ND8Lrs?t=11m58s
This should have never worked, but it did. A soldier who's life should have been worthless on the mid after he shot his fourth rocket got a very favorable early pick.
FreedeerfYeeHawFreedeerfCan we step back from the crossbow for a second and look at how stupid the market gardener is?
Why should a soldier be granted a pick for swinging once? If you have a soldier flying right towards your med, there is not much to do unless you have scouts. It is either hitting a nut airshot or watching your med get picked.
Shit is fucked.
Well there's your problem, its the same as a normal soldier bomb but it has even less chance of working.
Based on playing the no xbow cup, I think it should be banned next season. I'm just a scout though, did any sollies/demos/medics have any problem with it?
https://youtu.be/m1GD0ND8Lrs?t=11m58s
This should have never worked, but it did. A soldier who's life should have been worthless on the mid after he shot his fourth rocket got a very favorable early pick.
High risk high reward
[quote=Freedeerf][quote=YeeHaw][quote=Freedeerf]Can we step back from the crossbow for a second and look at how stupid the market gardener is?
Why should a soldier be granted a pick for swinging once? If you have a soldier flying right towards your med, there is not much to do [b]unless you have scouts[/b]. It is either hitting a nut airshot or watching your med get picked.
Shit is fucked.[/quote]
Well there's your problem, its the same as a normal soldier bomb but it has even less chance of working.
Based on playing the no xbow cup, I think it should be banned next season. I'm just a scout though, did any sollies/demos/medics have any problem with it?[/quote]
https://youtu.be/m1GD0ND8Lrs?t=11m58s
This should have never worked, but it did. A soldier who's life should have been worthless on the mid after he shot his fourth rocket got a very favorable early pick.[/quote]
High risk high reward
Does no crusader's crossbow mean that the overdose is back
d:j
Does no crusader's crossbow mean that the overdose is back
d:j
JarateKing"We don't know for sure, so we should do nothing" is a terrible approach.
I'm advocating the "think first, act later" approach.
JarateKingSure, overwatch is probably a way bigger factor, but if all that means is the whitelist's impact is negligible then we don't need to worry about "shrinking the community" from changing it.
I'm not saying that means it's negligible. I'm saying we don't know it's impact.
JarateKingIn that case we can do pretty much anything we want with it, because how much it changes the community size is a non-issue then.
I'm not arguing against change, I'm arguing against banning weapons because "nobody uses them therefore they should get banned", or "people who use them goof around and don't tryhard".
Show Content
JarateKingWhat do you think I've been arguing, "if it's not gunboats it's banned"?
I don't know which unlocks you would like to keep! There are probably lots of people who think the backpacks are stupid and should be banned.
Edit: I just fixed formatting...
Edit 2:
yukarihow would asking u if u dont play 6s not be an argument when you are talking about 6s???????
do u drink tap water by any chance
Because he's attacking my character instead of attacking my arguments? Do you live on this planet by any chance? Of course playing 6s gives me experience in the matter, but if someone needs to attack your characted instead of the arguments you're making, it really tells you a lot about the person.
EDIT 3:
JarateKingThat's why you keep getting asked "okay, but do you have anything to back you up on that?" What more thinking do we need to do first, if the opposing side isn't actually offering anything up other than "but are you sure?"
I'm pointing out unsubstantiated claims, how are you twisting this into something negative?
JarateKingSo all that's left is it's either negligibly positive, not impactful at all, negligibly bad, or significantly bad. Which means we either aren't really losing anything by changing the whitelist and don't need to worry, or we're actively improving things when we do.
EXACTLY. We aren't really loosing anything by changing the whitelist. So why do you want to revert the negligible change WITHOUT BACKING UP YOUR CLAIMS?
JarateKingThat's fair, and that's what I've been arguing too. I think useless weapons should be banned personally, and I've laid out my reasons why I think so. If you think they should be allowed, that's completely fine too. But the point I'm making here is that I disagree with you that banning useless weapons is some sort of huge risk that could potentially have big terrible consequences to team numbers.
But there is no reason to fix what's not wrong mate! And here you're having a version of the "Neutrality bias" where you say neither position is correct, but subjective, while in actuality, this conversation has been you shifting the goal post.
JarateKingWhat I'd like to see banned is anything that overall has a clearly and demonstrably negative impact on the meta / how the game is played / how enjoyable it is (in other words, actively bad weapons), or weapons with no positive impact to speak of and no usage numbers in competitive to justify it (useless weapons).
Yeah but a weapon only used in less serious games of fun games is not enjoyable how? Again, if your enemies are using it you should get an easier time, and if you're teammates are using them:
Show Content
THEY WERE GONNA THROW ANYWAY.
[quote=JarateKing]"We don't know for sure, so we should do nothing" is a terrible approach.[/quote]
I'm advocating the "think first, act later" approach.
[quote=JarateKing]Sure, overwatch is probably a way bigger factor, but if all that means is the whitelist's impact is negligible then we don't need to worry about "shrinking the community" from changing it.[/quote]
I'm not saying that means it's negligible. I'm saying we don't know it's impact.
[quote=JarateKing]In that case we can do pretty much anything we want with it, because how much it changes the community size is a non-issue then.[/quote]
I'm not arguing against change, I'm arguing against banning weapons because "nobody uses them therefore they should get banned", or "people who use them goof around and don't tryhard".
[spoiler][quote=JarateKing]What do you think I've been arguing, "if it's not gunboats it's banned"?[/quote]
I don't know which unlocks you would like to keep! There are probably lots of people who think the backpacks are stupid and should be banned.[/spoiler]
Edit: I just fixed formatting...
Edit 2: [quote=yukari]how would asking u if u dont play 6s not be an argument when you are talking about 6s???????
do u drink tap water by any chance[/quote]
Because he's attacking my character instead of attacking my arguments? Do you live on this planet by any chance? Of course playing 6s gives me experience in the matter, but if someone needs to attack your characted instead of the arguments you're making, it really tells you a lot about the person.
EDIT 3:
[quote=JarateKing]That's why you keep getting asked "okay, but do you have anything to back you up on that?" What more thinking do we need to do first, if the opposing side isn't actually offering anything up other than "but are you sure?"[/quote] I'm pointing out unsubstantiated claims, how are you twisting this into something negative?
[quote=JarateKing]So all that's left is it's either negligibly positive, not impactful at all, negligibly bad, or significantly bad. [b]Which means we either aren't really losing anything by changing the whitelist[/b] and don't need to worry, or we're actively improving things when we do.[/quote] EXACTLY. We aren't really loosing anything by changing the whitelist. So why do you want to revert the negligible change WITHOUT BACKING UP YOUR CLAIMS?
[quote=JarateKing]That's fair, and that's what I've been arguing too. I think useless weapons should be banned personally, and I've laid out my reasons why I think so. If you think they should be allowed, that's completely fine too. But the point I'm making here is that I disagree with you that banning useless weapons is some sort of huge risk that could potentially have big terrible consequences to team numbers.[/quote]
But there is no reason to fix what's not wrong mate! And here you're having a version of the "Neutrality bias" where you say neither position is correct, but subjective, while in actuality, this conversation has been you shifting the goal post.
[quote=JarateKing]What I'd like to see banned is anything that overall has a clearly and demonstrably negative impact on the meta / how the game is played / how enjoyable it is (in other words, actively bad weapons), or weapons with no positive impact to speak of and no usage numbers in competitive to justify it (useless weapons).[/quote]
Yeah but a weapon only used in less serious games of fun games is not enjoyable how? Again, if your enemies are using it you should get an easier time, and if you're teammates are using them: [spoiler]THEY WERE GONNA THROW ANYWAY.[/spoiler]
CollaideI'm advocating the "think first, act later" approach.
That's why you keep getting asked "okay, but do you have anything to back you up on that?" What more thinking do we need to do first, if the opposing side isn't actually offering anything up other than "but are you sure?"
CollaideI'm not saying that means it's negligible. I'm saying we don't know it's impact.
Well, we know its impact wasn't massively positive, otherwise we'd have seen a reversal in the team signup decline instead of it just getting bigger. So all that's left is it's either negligibly positive, not impactful at all, negligibly bad, or significantly bad. Which means we either aren't really losing anything by changing the whitelist and don't need to worry, or we're actively improving things when we do.
CollaideI'm not arguing against change, I'm arguing against banning weapons because "nobody uses them therefore they should get banned", or "people who use them goof around and don't tryhard".
That's fair, and that's what I've been arguing too. I think useless weapons should be banned personally, and I've laid out my reasons why I think so. If you think they should be allowed, that's completely fine too. But the point I'm making here is that I disagree with you that banning useless weapons is some sort of huge risk that could potentially have big terrible consequences to team numbers.
CollaideI don't know which unlocks you would like to keep! There are probably lots of people who think the backpacks are stupid and should be banned.
What I'd like to see banned is anything that overall has a clearly and demonstrably negative impact on the meta / how the game is played / how enjoyable it is (in other words, actively bad weapons), or weapons with no positive impact to speak of and no usage numbers in competitive to justify it (useless weapons).
I could make a whitelist and you could nitpick it, but ultimately it comes to those two categories being banned. That's still a lot of weapons, but don't think anyone's trying to argue for a 3-item-whitelist or anything like that.
[quote=Collaide]I'm advocating the "think first, act later" approach.[/quote]
That's why you keep getting asked "okay, but do you have anything to back you up on that?" What more thinking do we need to do first, if the opposing side isn't actually offering anything up other than "but are you sure?"
[quote=Collaide]I'm not saying that means it's negligible. I'm saying we don't know it's impact.[/quote]
Well, we know its impact wasn't massively positive, otherwise we'd have seen a reversal in the team signup decline instead of it just getting bigger. So all that's left is it's either negligibly positive, not impactful at all, negligibly bad, or significantly bad. Which means we either aren't really losing anything by changing the whitelist and don't need to worry, or we're actively improving things when we do.
[quote=Collaide]I'm not arguing against change, I'm arguing against banning weapons because "nobody uses them therefore they should get banned", or "people who use them goof around and don't tryhard".[/quote]
That's fair, and that's what I've been arguing too. I think useless weapons should be banned personally, and I've laid out my reasons why I think so. If you think they should be allowed, that's completely fine too. But the point I'm making here is that I disagree with you that banning useless weapons is some sort of huge risk that could potentially have big terrible consequences to team numbers.
[quote=Collaide]I don't know which unlocks you would like to keep! There are probably lots of people who think the backpacks are stupid and should be banned.[/quote]What I'd like to see banned is anything that overall has a clearly and demonstrably negative impact on the meta / how the game is played / how enjoyable it is (in other words, actively bad weapons), or weapons with no positive impact to speak of and no usage numbers in competitive to justify it (useless weapons).
I could make a whitelist and you could nitpick it, but ultimately it comes to those two categories being banned. That's still a lot of weapons, but don't think anyone's trying to argue for a 3-item-whitelist or anything like that.
how would asking u if u dont play 6s not be an argument when you are talking about 6s???????
do u drink tap water by any chance
how would asking u if u dont play 6s not be an argument when you are talking about 6s???????
do u drink tap water by any chance
fahrenheitDoes no crusader's crossbow mean that the overdose is back
d:j
Without the crossbow it's the best option left. Medic has 4 primary weapons including stock...
[quote=fahrenheit]Does no crusader's crossbow mean that the overdose is back
d:j[/quote]
Without the crossbow it's the best option left. Medic has 4 primary weapons including stock...