25 posts · 2008-03-13 12:30:08 to 2008-03-25 13:32:00
I am Zudrag, and I support this idea.
I support this idea. A reuse timer, possibly calibrated to the length of an interlock round might fix it.
PS: Please stop posting within the same minute of each other. I'm beginning to get concerned. 
Zudrag wrote:sry, hivemind and all.I am Zudrag, and I support this idea.
I support this idea. A reuse timer, possibly calibrated to the length of an interlock round might fix it.PS: Please stop posting within the same minute of each other. I'm beginning to get concerned.
Mhm... doesn't fix all tactic switches, you'd only be able to do them every 5 seconds, though. Also that doesn't fix OoIL tactic switching.
Some weeks ago I sent 9mm a PM with a more complicated (and IMO possible) idea on a fix that involves coding that is already implemented. He didn't answer me to that one, though >_<'
GoDGiVeR wrote:Mhm... doesn't fix all tactic switches, you'd only be able to do them every 5 seconds, though. Also that doesn't fix OoIL tactic switching.
Some weeks ago I sent 9mm a PM with a more complicated (and IMO possible) idea on a fix that involves coding that is already implemented. He didn't answer me to that one, though >_<'
Out...of interlock sploits? What?
No, we're talking about the grabpowergrabpowergrabpowergrabpower sploiting shenanigans in interlock while spamming specials.
Tactic switching is a part of this game now, and just like ability/clothing stacking, its a design flaw thats part of the system. With out dumbing down the system, I doubt its ever going to be able to be fixed in a manner that doesnt make the combat system complete ****.
Tactic switching is a part of this game now, and just like ability/clothing stacking, its a design flaw thats part of the system. With out dumbing down the system, I doubt its ever going to be able to be fixed in a manner that doesnt make the combat system complete ****.
AnXieTy wrote:Except at least it's obvious when people stack clothing. This is why I sometimes go to Datamine with FRAPS running just to catch these goons.Tactic switching is a part of this game now, and just like ability/clothing stacking, its a design flaw thats part of the system. With out dumbing down the system, I doubt its ever going to be able to be fixed in a manner that doesnt make the combat system complete ****.
TS is complete BS and tones down serious combat complete by A LOT. By fixing TS, the combat system would be more like it was supposed to be. And it would be good that way.
On a sidenote, ability and clothing stacking is not part of everyday life, I know only a few elitists that like to do so to feel good ("e-*CENSORED*" complex).
Except at least it's obvious when people stack clothing. This is why I sometimes go to Datamine with FRAPS running just to catch these goons.
ThePigeonKing wrote:That works too, but anyone can give excuses that can fool the CSRs. Plus, "Screenshot evidence can no longer be accepted" because the screenshots can be edited. So I've gone with FRAPS video recording.Except at least it's obvious when people stack clothing. This is why I sometimes go to Datamine with FRAPS running just to catch these goons.
Ican roughly tell the pts, % and so forth for gunman and MAs just by looking at their clothing and abs they have loaded. I can easily tell when someone uses TS just by looking at the damage and tactics they do in system chat.
So is there an actual problem caused by tactic stacking, aside from us apparently having called it an exploit, and it not being featured in the documentation or whatever?Well, the problem is people using green for the defense bonus, or blue for the accuracy bonus, then hitting a special and going into red just as it hits to get the damage bonus.
SolidRevolver wrote:
Actually, I did a DPE on a NPC while out of IL, it did the animation of being hit.... but it still missed. This says to me it is all calculated at the same time out of IL.
I remember that it *used* to, but I haven't seen that happen in a long time.
How sure are you that it wasn't, say, the freefire animation showing instead of the special? Do you recall?
But, I suppose that's besides the point. Myself, Zudrag, Solid, and Bayamos have seen clear indications that OL calculations are done at the same time. This is very important if we're discussing keeping TS around.
This means that only IL builds benefit from a combination of tactics. As I said before, OL builds can only benefit defensively, that is, swapping between block tactics and power/speed/grab while a special is launching. This is certainly not comprable to the MA TS, because there is no combination of tactics being calculated. OL builds cannot do more damage with more accuracy, we can only get hit less - something every class can do outside of interlock anyways.
Thus, the only other argument I've read was from Pylat, who stated the following:
"There are a grand total of about 2 OoIL classes in the whole game. Snipers and Hackers. And even then a great deal of hackers like to IL people. I would venture a guess and say there are A LOT more IL builds running around in normal PvP than OoIL ones."
This is known as a dismissive argument: he knows that he's beat, thus he conjurs a way to simply make that retort "disappear!"
Fact is, there are plenty of OL builds, especially when fighting a Zerg, and you will not dismiss them simply so you can run with your argument.
On a personal note, there's a reason that I call interlock a "prison cell". If you're fighting the Zerg in interlock, well, I sure hope you're fighting some idiots who don't know how to root, and don't run around as anything besides MA's.
Pylat wrote:
No you just ignored large sections of my posts and then claimed I didn't back my statements.
[...]
I've elaborated this point about 10 times now, but I guess I will do it ONE MORE TIME.
I just quoted three bloody things of yours where you didn't back anything up. You just asked the questions, and left it at that. As if they somehow proved your point for you.
That was in this post, by the way: http://forums.station.sony.com/mxo/...594#36300430091 , right after I called you out on overexaggeration.
I wish you'd read my posts, Pylat, because then you'd notice I said:
"It's only after I called you out on it did you actually start fleshing them out. Which is good, though I don't enjoy having to go through the extra effort."
Thus, fleshing them out again was unneccassary. Read my posts before posting a block of text, please.
Pylat wrote:
Really, how about YOU back that statement huh?
Excuse me?
Read my post before responding, please.
"As I said before, OL builds can only benefit defensively, that is, swapping between block tactics and power/speed/grab while a special is launching. This is certainly not comprable to the MA TS, because there is no combination of tactics being calculated. OL builds cannot do more damage with more accuracy, we can only get hit less - something every class can do outside of interlock anyways."
Don't ever call me a hypocrit without the proof to back it up. Otherwise you end up looking stupid. Difference here is I've always backed up my points - you only started when I badgered you about it in the first place.
Pylat wrote:
You'll have to repeat that last line, it doesn't make sense.
Of course it does, to someone with a basic grasp of English.
GypsyJuggler was unaware that the system calculates OL numbers at the same time. I would call that ignorance. Thus, his argument about all classes benefitting equally has been nulled.
Got it? Or would you like me to hold your hand and walk you through all that again? I know, I know, English is hard! 
Your other points I've ignored because I'm not hanging my hat on the difficulties of tactics switching. I am hanging my hat on the fact that TS benefits interlock classes, namely high-damaging MA's, far more than any other.
Your only retort to that is to try to sweep OL builds under the rug. Which means, you lose.
QED.
Pylat wrote:
Actually, you just tried to outlaw the use of certain words
I did... what?
"If using phrases such as "even less", "nothing but", "even more", and sweeping generalizations about CR2 are the only way to state your case, then you've already lost this particular debate."
You were exaggerating. I called you on it. It would be the end of story, but you're still resorting to exaggeration to state your case (case in point: "SNEAKER IS OUTLAWING TEH ENGLISH LANGUAGE!"
Oh yes, two can play at that exaggeration game.
Moving on.
Pylat wrote:
After I fleshed them out, you asked me to flesh them out... again.
Oh? Where was this. Link please, because I'm only seeing posts of me reminding you that you're the guilty party when it comes to backing up your statements.
Moving on.
Pylat wrote:
Ok, let me simplify things for you, cause you really are struggling to keep up
Cool your jets. Your pissing contest is getting old.
Pylat wrote:
You asked me to explain why IL classes will be nerfed agaisnt a zerg. I explained why, you said you disagree, therefore:
Explain to me how an IL class will perform just as effectively against a zerg if they can't TS.
You asked me to explain why removing TS will be an overall benefit for the zerg. I explained, you said you disagree, therefore:
Explain to me how removing TS will NOT be an overall benefit for the zerg.
You asked me to explain why removing one of the rare things in the game that actually rewards skill and practice will not shift combat more towards blind luck, I explained, you said you disagree, therefore:
Explain to me how removing TS will NOT just make combat even more about luck and less about practice.
What the heck are you talking about? Do you actually read my posts?
"I still disagree. Because, in the end, it's not about how hard it is, it's about the fact that they benefit a specific class, namely MA's, far more than any other."
Pay very close attention to the last sentence: it's about the fact that TSing benefits a specific class, namely MA's, far more than any other. I don't recall specifically agreeing or disagreeing with any of those above points, aside from stating counter-points to them (ie: OL builds getting trapped in IL easier with TS, thus benefiting the zerg)
That's what I care about, and that's the very reason that TS should not be permitted to continue. That point trumps every other point you've made, and as yet, you've done nothing but sweep it under the rug.
Thus, in order to refute that point, you have to a) convince me that OL builds are so rare that they don't matter, or b) convince me that TS benefits OL builds just as much as IL builds.
Pylat wrote:
That's pathetic, it really is.
You're hanging your hat on the stance that exploiting is hard. I would call that pathetic.
I don't give a rats arse how hard it is. The fact is, my point trumps your point for a simple reason: TSing benefits one select group of people over another.
This is simple logic here. Either refute that, or you're done in this argument.
Until you address that point with something concrete, we're done here.
Convince me that an exploit should stay in the game when it benefits interlock builds far more than others, regardless of the difficulty it adds to the game.
Seriously. I'll listen.
Rarebit wrote:
MA's have been in need a bit of a boost, as far as I can see.
I have to disagree entirely with that statement.
The limitations imposed on MA's are via their dependency on Interlock - that is, only one target at a time. But within that realm they dominate completely. And that's their job. Yet, I don't see that changing in that event that we remove TSing - MA's will still dominate interlock, as they never rolled the impossible, they simply combined favourable rolls for two seperate instances.
But, underpowered? How so? They dominate their niche, with or without TSing.
Pylat, you're sidestepping my point, so I'll rephrase it.
You're arguing for the inclusion of an exploit into the game. It's up to you to convince me that the negative aspects of that exploit are not enough to prevent said inclusion.
It's certainly not my job to downplay the positive aspects - obviously there's a large advantage to be had, otherwise folks wouldn't be using them.
Pylat wrote:
Sneaker has not so skillfully sidestepped my entire post, so I see no need to continue the debate if that's all he will do.
Did you not see the post from Rarebit asking us to stop?
Until you can post a response without flaming and resorting to name-calling, I will be ignoring you - I've been through far too many arguments to respond to someone when they begin screaming and baiting me.
If you wish, feel free to lay out your points in a respectable manner, and I'll be glad to post a response.
But in the meantime, cool it. Take a breather. Go have a coke. I'll still be here tomorrow.
GypsyJuggler wrote:
Thanks. It's not conclusive, but it's more than we knew for sure before.
Sneaker, do you think it's fair to say neither side was spot-on in this case?
I know you're handing me the olive branch, but I still have to say that in this instance, I was correct.
It's certainly not my intent to insult you - I didn't say ignorance as in "Oh, he's an idiot!" by any means, I meant that my experience taught me contrary to what you were saying.
It's only one point, Gypsy. You have other perfectly valid points, so fear not. 
ThePigeonKing wrote
Wow guys, way to fail. I've requested for this thread to be locked because you guys can't take Rarebit's advice to cool down.
Guys, plural?
I know when to stop. I told him I'd ignore him until he cooled down, and that's what I'm doing.
