Senior Member
Arbitrarily deciding the future of a game's potential over a single event is silly. The fact that there are still competitive players skrimming with new people taking interest in it goes against your supposed claim. People making throw backs to that day whenever this kind of discussion arises uses it as an excuse to undercut the other person's points rather than actually shoring up a decent counter point. No duh it was defended. The devs were fully aware of the exploit before the tournament was held. They chose to continue the tournament. By the simplest of understanding that means the devs called it fair play. That has nothing to do with how they feel about said exploits. You're completely forgoing context in order to try and bolster your argument.Originally Posted by Sweaty_Sock Go to original post
To make an easy real life comparison. I'm politically pro choice. personally i'm pro life. Meaning in terms of our discussion it's completely possible and understandable for the competitive players to be against certain kinds of exploits. But also defend their usage in certain situations. You can and will write that off as being a hypoctritcal thing to do. But really as an adult you should be able to understand that your holier than though alltrusitic bull isn't how life is nor will it ever be. And you're taking the easy route to try and find a way to dismiss the other arguments rather than acknowledge and try to understand them.
Pretty much any fighter i've ever played has casuals complaining about others using techs. It's fairly common to see people complain about something as common as juggling in the corner when that's a corner stone to most fighters out there. And I can personally atest to exsisting on a competitive team for a shooter and having both me and my ex clan mates constantly barrated for using optimal strats like back pack reloading or bxring. The devs are always responsible to some capacity. Especially if they do nothing to denounce something or attempt to address it.
Member
Sweaty, Raime, and Vakris, correct me if I'm incorrectly portraying your points here.
Sweaty's first : you have a particular idea of what gameplay in For Honor looks like: player picks character and uses that chars kit to outsmart and achieve victory over opponents. Understandable point of view since this is what the devs/ubi advertised and have lead players to believe. Being a good player is by using mindgames to bait, punish or otherwise trick your opponent until you beat him. everyone uses their kits and although kits aren't all made equal, mechanically speaking you are on even ground. you don't like techs because they aren't necessarily about outsmarting your opponent as much as working around base game mechanics to get every possible advantage and so it's less the player outsmarting the opponent as much as the player beating the game. If this is a correct portrayal of your viewpoint, I can say I sympathize with it, Ubisoft promised that type of gameplay after all. I may be going out on a limb to say that you would probably be ok with techs if they were catalogued, explained and posted in game or on the official website (ie not reddit)? that way at least people would have easy organized access to the info to keep the playing grounds even. Finally you don't consider people who win due to use of techs as top tier player (although they may be good) because they are just doing everything they can to avoid risk, at the expense of mindgames? so the in the end you would consider playing this game as a social contract of sorts, you both agree to play by certain rules, and while you can work around those rules to a certain degree via techs in order to gain an advantage, it is nothing to be admired or considered healty for the game.
The result of which you place the blame on mainly the devs for allowing such things to exist, but also on the player for using tech that they know defeat the central purpose of the game (ie outsmarting your opponent on an even playing field). Again if this portrayal is incorrect or incomplete, do correct me.
Raime and Vakris: your point is a bit simpler. If it's in the game then its fair game. If the devs don't like it or the players don't like it, the devs need to change it. not only is it fine to have techs, its actually stupid not to use them, why take more risk than necessary? especially in team modes being a good player means using every tool at your disposal, wether it be tech, stalling, kit, etc. In fact not playing as optimally as possible is pretty rude to your team, because you are putting your own desires ahead of the team. you want to get as much done for your team while costing your team as little as possible. Its a pragmatic way to play, and a fair viewpoint. In the end if the players don't like something they need to get the devs to change it or the devs need to do it on their own if they don't like it, until it gets changed then the devs are ok with it. Please correct me if I portrayed you guys incorrectly or incompletely.
Personally I can see both sides merit, but I don't know how much of this is actually the devs fault. this is a live service game, which means ubi is going to prioritize whatever gets them more mtx and season pass sales, especially when you consider how comparatively small FH's playerbase is. As far as the techs and stuff go, I don't know how ok the devs are with it and while I havent kept up with everything they've said I dont really recall them ever giving direct approval to an of the various techs. they could approve of it, or they might want to fix it, but fixing it would likely open a whole can of worms as far as bugs go, and in the end not push mtx sales or season passes. So I doubt ubi wants them "wasting" time improving the quality of a relatively small game when they could be coming out with more content that costs steel or a season pass. So in the end it could be the devs fault, could be the fault of their corporate overlords, we just don't know for sure.
As far as play styles go between you guys I side more with Sweaty, mainly because I like puzzles/mindgames the most, and I don't have time to scour the reddit threads to keep up on every particular thing that pops up. If there was central organized spot to learn everything then I would likely be more on board, but as it is I've already stopped playing due to the absolute trash state of balance and molasses slow and only minorly effective attempts to balance things. that being said I respect the mindset of trying to play most optimally, it just depends on whats fun for you. I prefer going at it in a fast paced mind game oriented way. I will admit that the optimal play style usually does make for better teamwork, if not for exciting high adrenaline play.
Senior Member
@Velentix
To some extent you're correct. I was mainly trying to state two things. That tech's themselves are not inherently bad for a game. And that Tech's themselves have no baring or influence on a player's capability. I'm perfectly fine with people who set their own rules/limits. Even I do not roll every mix up or attempt to stall all the time. I don't play at a competitive level so doing that isn't really needed. (and for the record skrim players don't typically sweat in pubs either.) I just take issue with someone talking down to another person simply because the other player is playing differently.
Like...you tell yourself whatever you need to in order to get through the day and enjoy yourself. but don't set that crud out in the open for the rest of us to have to look at.
Senior Member
@Velentix - more or less yep, there is a clear intention in this game that, while problematic, can be still be realized by players who play in the spirit of the game - it is immensely fun
@Raime - I don't need to tell myself anything to get through the day. I am not the one being triggered by an opinion - I think its you telling yourself something each day and a part of you doesn't like that what i'm saying. You won't do certain things. I will do even less. Competitive will do everything. The intention of the game was obvious (if flawed in its implementation) - after 3 years of dev inactivity at what point do you take some responsibility yourself. For me the example is raider on rework. There swarm of new raider 'mains', raider 4 stacks - raiders as far as the eye could see. Some said he was fine. Some said he needed a nerd. Some refused to touch him in his broken state. Just yesterday I was put into a dual against a top 10 console wide player - they were rep 34 raider, I was rep 8 LB. I got the early lead to 2:1, messed up my finish and got max punished to death. At 2:2 the raider used a mixup to GB and full run cliff me @ full health. They then left before I could rematch with one of my actual mains... that's your competitive scene right there in a nutshell - its not about playing the game, its about winning the game.
Senior Member
It was a phrasing, not me accusing you of that. Just because I am bothered by something you say/do doesn't mean i'm "triggered." It's 2019 my guy. If you're going to insult me then try to do better than saying triggered. that's not creative at all.Originally Posted by Sweaty_Sock Go to original post
The fact that the competitive community outlawed the one shot tech and slippy tech proves they don't use everything. But you keep on keeping on with your objectively false view of the competitive scene.
Senior Member
Raime i'm not trying to insult you - I mean you said 'makes me sick to my stomach' - thats pretty strong emotional language. Triggered is a word used when something strikes a chord in a bad way, not a meme.
The issue I have is exactly as I said. The competitive is about winning, not about playing. Whatever shortcuts open up will be used & then sad excuses come out generally blaming the devs. Heres the thing. If neither person did it then the lack of a patch becomes irrelevant. Its like I was saying to one of the newer players I was recently schooling up - do you want to learn a move or a moveset - competative = option 1, I chose option 2.
