The fact that they face one another in every single match
1 Like
Thatâs not a justification.
Thatâs just describing things that exist, then declaring itâs self evident that a specific methodology get used.
What a cop out.
Itâs professional malpractice if you work in Game Design, but donât understand what a âGameâ is at an abstract level.
Yeah so youâre doing the Grey Falcon thing again, pretending that you understand something that you clearly donât, then just asking entirely irrelevant questions, and acting indignant rather than actually engaging on any topic.
4 Likes
Dude, you got the audacity to try to pawn off a logical fallacy as a justification.
Just declaring something to be true, doesnât mean itâs true.
And I genuinely donât know how you got to adulthood believing thatâs appropriate behavior to try to pawn off lies as fact.
So you also donât know what logical fallacies are now too?
Yeah, itâs a classic âA Priori Fallacyâ, to claim something is self evident.
Either back yourself up, or donât act like you did.
Armor is in itâs second worst state that itâs ever been, yet simultaneously the most annoying to deal with that it has ever been.
The transferred tank busting power from the few and the weak into the hands of the many and the strong. Reaper, bastion. The only two DPS that could âtank bust,â but were also required to be point blank, in the enemies face in order to do mediocre damage (especially in comparison to their OW1 states).
Blizzardâs solution? Give half the DPS roster, characters who can sit across the map, the ability to tank bust more efficiently with a tenth of the risk. Truly genius beyond human comprehension.
A priori fallacy has literally nothing to do with this discussion, at all, in any way, shape or form.
There is no necessary justification for whether two roles face each other in the same game that they need to be tuned taking each other into consideration. Things that interact must have that interaction recognized and tuned.
That isnât an âa priori fallacyâ any more than âthe sky is blueâ is.
1 Like
While theres only 1 tank, the role role will be the most dependant on their team to do their job but theyll be the first to be blamed when things go wrong.
Sure on ppaper tanks are strong but in thrle reality of the game they feel horrendous to play and most games are not enjoyable.
Not every tank has a ânoâ button or one that is consistently effective against storm arrow lol, and letâs not even get into how itâs 10x more effective against non-tanks. Bastion simply ceases to exist when getting targeted by it and has no option other than run and hide or pray he misses.
Queenâs shout gets erased instantly by storm arrow
Maugaâs overdrive requires him to be blasting the tank or a massive squishie to avoid being erased by storm arrow
Storm arrow lasts longer than Doomâs block
Storm arrow melts Zaryaâs bubbles, not to mention if sheâs used both sheâs erased by storm arrow
Is that so?
Granted, the Role Queue lobby menu does have Role vs Role Balancing.
I.e. Everybody suffers from bad Queue Times and Matchmaking issues, if they donât have enough Tank players.
Which somehow queue times isnât a part of your âmust be equal because they exist on same serverâ gimmick.
As long as the teams are equal, and the players have enough viable hero choices in their role, thatâs Balanced.
That said, there are âQualitative Counterplay Issuesâ, which are not really a Balance issue. And more of a minmax on reducing player frustration levels with an aim of minmaxing the total active players.
So yeah, is it an optional, nice to have, aesthetic issue, that factors in to player retention, and needs to be weighed against other player retention issues. Sure.
But thatâs an optional extra. And itâs going head to head with queue times and matchmaking quality.
You are doing the exact same GreyFalconing that you always do. Link something unrelated to the discussion about a completely different product with a completely different set of variables and a completely different set of design docs and pretend it has a bearing on the present discussion.
It doesnât, and you havenât even defined any parameters anyhow, itâs the vehicle that makes you think that being slippery and vague is a legitimate way to discuss topics like this.
Every single interaction in a game needs to be defined. This is as basic game design as there can possibly be. This extends to chess, tic tac toe, and every single other game ever made. A game in essence is structured play, usually with rules and goals.
Not all definitions must be tuned in every game, since many of them arenât interactions which have a direct bearing on the outcome of the game, for instance are things like line of sight checks, collision checks, object interactions, etc, UI, display, controls, sounds, etc. Every single component interacts with something or someone.
In an online shooter, all player vs player interactions must be tuned just like every chess piece must have defined movement, attack blocking, special moves, etc. They arenât always the same (see chess vs Othello for pieces with individually defined roles vs all pieces functioning identically). The rules vary from game to game, and pretending that because in one game, there are rules, that this is a universal truth is just wrong.
5 Likes
Can you name me any kind of Choice where having enough Quantitative Value and enough Unique Qualitative Value isnât important for making a compelling set of Choices?
Any kind of Choice, in the entire world.
idk if im just rusty on hog or if heâs terrible rn, but he seems SO hard to get consistent games with.
lot of effort when you can just play mauga and brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr till the cows come home. his breather feels like a drop in the bucket sometimes.
idk tho i could just be really rusty
Stop with the obscurantism already, youâre being utterly ridiculous. Having âenough valueâ or âvalue I likeâ means absolutely nothing when that value is without context or undefined, and also no one is arguing that there are choices not based on perceived value.
The number of strawmen you have built in this thread alone are worthy of consideration by Guiness.
At least rein is slow and very short range so you dont can play around that.
A dva is fast, with better range, very low cooldowns
And there is a difference between shooting at DM and rein shield.
Shooting rein shield is actually usefull.
DmâŚwether you shoot or not, there is no difference.
Not with chargeâŚ.
This isnât ow1 lmao
Every Tank has a defensive ability. Thatâs a core part of their template, whether it negates damage or significant reduces damage, it is there.
As for whether Storm Arrows is more effective on non-tanks, thatâs harder to say. Most players donât seem to be landing a bulk of the arrows on cooldown.
And thus, reduces the damage to her health. A cooldown well-spent and timed.
Mauga also has armor, direct damage resistance with Overrun, and generates some limited overhealth.
More evasive than the other tanks, as well.
And in return, gains significant energy for more damage.
Now letâs add healing from other sources in the equation as an additional mitigator to Storm Arrows.
I mean it just goes to show the Devs have no idea what to do with tanks.
Spoiler: the answer is 2 tanks per team.
And not all of them are effective against storm arrow.
She still is either dead or on the verge of death. Shout does nothing to protect her from storm arrow.
You mean the armor thatâs weaker against storm arrow now?
Overhealth that Hanzo chews through in an instant.
Or just flops over and dies before she can use any of that damage because she has no mitigation anymore, especially against a coordinated team that chooses simply to keep shooting her rather than worrying about bubbles.