While I am note saying every post is GOLDEN, essayists are all around… it’s also NOT a requirement.
And yeah, some people are not fair in their posts. Many a nerf x hero is just hate in disguise. I feel it’s definitely a lot. I’m not denying that.
But similarly, sometimes… you can just not like a thing. Not everyone needs to cite 3 sources, pull a Big Daddy Quote, and face the Spanish Inquisition regarding their viewpoint, idea, thought, or opinion.
and this is coming from ME. I be the loser pouring 4 weeks of my life into a post (i was writing from beyond the grave, sure… but still)
It doesn’t make them golden. It doesn’t inherently make me right. Or worth reading.
The only time Big Daddy Jeff acknowledged me was to give me the ban hammer about “ever stepping in Irvine, CA again” and a half baked post for experimental.
Calm Down. Sometimes people like, or don’t like a thing.
Iz fine to not have a full dissertation defending it.
Moreover, WHY do you want a full dissertation? are you going to read it? scroll through each half baked idea from a 12 yr old neckbeard e girl (as everyone is all three until proven otherwise) from the boondocks of who knows where?
relax. Breathe. Go outside. God knows I should more.
Moral of the story is stop asking people to be me for every slight or like they have. I’m trash.
No everything must be nerfed if I have the slightest hate against it and things will get buffed when I demand
And Moria is op 6000 dps really Blizzard how could you make this lock on monster this thing is performing a 0.01° on me and is still hitting me how dare Moria still be able to hit me
The whole thing relies upon the idea of burden of proof. If you are going to claim something worth arguing, you need to present a case. Simply stating “Mercy is OP” does not do justice to your argument. If you are saying something is true, it is up to you to prove it. No one should have to prove you otherwise if you aren’t willing to prove something yourself.
While I agree that you don’t always need sources or to be experienced, it certainly helps. When presented with something, you don’t want it to come from someone with no experience or with no proof. You want tests, confirmations, and the best of the best to bring that information to you.
It is one thing if you are just ranting or complaining, but it is another if you are looking to actively seek change. If you want Genji nerfed, you have to present your case. Simply saying an opinion and expecting it to be agreed with is sloppy, lazy, and shouldn’t be seriously considered.
The forums have honestly become a joke because people come all day spamming complaints about a hero because they personally feel like they are good.
Sombra has consistently been the second worst damage hero in the game for years now. The only hero who has a lower pickrate is Bastion, who is incredibly niche. But even then, because some people can’t live without their abilites as kill methods, they complain about how she is annoying, which is why she has been god-awful for months.
Mei is another example. She has one of the worst pickrates and winrates in the game, but because she is annoying people ask for her to get more nerfs. Hell, I just responded to a post asking for three different Mei nerfs because they found her annoying.
Something I find annoying is that even if I present a full case, someone points out one insignifcant flaw/disagreement, and act as though that discredited everything I said. If everyone practiced defending their post with logic and reason, the forums would be much more civilized. Instead we have troll threads and half-baked threads that lead to no-where.
Couldn’t agree more. People don’t just phrase their arguments as rants, but as requests that will effect everyone that plays the hero. And then they have the nerve to get upset when people who are either trying to be objective or play the hero, have a counterargument that puts more thought into it than their OP and tears it apart.
i can only half agree here though. We don’t have stats. We don’t have solid sources for play. The best source we have are dev responses to intent or idea of what they are looking at.
If I say Jeff once responded “yeah, experimental will be a week” i can prove that. I can’t prove the extent to which sombra’s sr exploit was a thing because I don’t have the data for that.
I totally agree. But I also don’t think that’s on the forums either. We don’t have a lot of requirements. Nor a place for “meta grievance” or whatever.
general discussion is where half the posts go because the others are dead or not really hoppin.
Well, I agree. Like I said, the standard seem to apply in the weirdest of places.
I linked my own posts here. Imagine writing both a essay for why i like brig, and and essay for why i don’t post-rework, and linking both, and STILL having people reply “I get it. you hated Goats”
9k+ of words… waste of time.
it’s not just the posters, it’s commentors. But ultimately, again, the merit of the posts aren’t really set in the logic.
again, the only post i got a reply on was my half baked thread when experimental hit. I was planning an essay. It WAS being kind of formed in my initial discussion after posting:
My last reply before a blue response from the Biggest of Daddies was with sparkles… I’ve never used sparkles in my life. and this is when Big Papa gave me a serious reply that wasn’t about how “bribing us with edibles to work here won’t work. it’s already legal here in CA”… like… I was barely putting my brain cells together and then…
BAM. Blue reply.
The forums are like, comment cards. Everyone gets one. How you think, your experience/ credibility, your ideas are all equal on the little anonymous comment card.
we just have to abide by the platform as best we can. and there is some merit imo, to the emotional “scrreeeeee” comment.
For example: Imo I dont understand why the forums have “curse word” censorship for a game rated T… we HAVE some curse words, we have blood , and death, and smoking and war and violence… but apparently, the F bomb is too far.
I can’t really change that. the comment card will be destroyed. Because the platform is not organized to allow the comment card beyond it’s scope.
I think that’s another issue though. Like I said, I definitely know half the moira posts have NOTHING to do with her. And I do feel I “know” now that we had hero pools, and started looking into Non NA reports about plays.
but I also know that there is a pressure that your bias means “not valuable” so some people would rather deny a bias, and claim innocence.
I try my absolute best to be transparent. And it usually hurts more than it helps. Because I say “i don’t like a thing” and people project to “that means you want it dumpstered”.
I end up in this ad hominem argument after that because POOF all merit is gone because i have the integrity to say "no, I just don’t like that. "
we aren’t used to being able to say “i just don’t like that.” and i think it fuels the “x is broken, look at this one clip proving it always happens”
Yeah. That’s fair. I just think people are weary of having changes made on the basis of “I just don’t like that.”
It’s causing the game to become increasingly like many other shooters in the market and the game is losing a lot of it’s charm as a result, for many people.
And so I think that people may get a bit defensive at rants about things people don’t like.
But we do have limited amounts of data from Overbuff. I can prove that Ana has a super high win-rate, and that Sombra has a super low one. It is a statistical value that we have. We can’t prove a change will be better for a hero, but we can prove that a hero needs to be changed.
