22 Jun 14, 04:37PM
The game has gotten a lot slower with the new release. AR was OP in the old version sure, but damn if it wasnt fun to go shooting around the map and getting wrecked if you weren't careful. Maintaining this status quo of "do something and it might be considered" isnt an effective way to ellicit positive change in this scenario. You need a constant to be able to test effectively and currently that constant would be smg which is a poor excuse for an effective gun.
If you're trying to raise skill cap overall (and we most certainly should be) then think about how randomness affects development. Imagine if you were trying to learn biology and the definition of cell would skip randomly (a bad analogy I know). It'd be fairly impossible to learn subject matter in a precise and effective way. You all are talking about the heart or the fun of the game. Who truly would be invested in a game that was impossible to get better at after a very short period of time? I get very happy when i can squeeze out another 1% accuracy. Why? because spread and recoil are too damn high. At a certain point I get better results sprinting around the map then actually engaging my opponents head on.
This baity style of play has gotten much more prevalent in this version (not necessarily bad) but has effectively slowed down the game due to what aspects are being rewarded. Fast-arcade FPS turned poor CS imitation.
I'm not placing blame. I just think what we consider "good" need be re-evaluated. Balance for pubs does not mean balance for competition. Traditionally, competition has kept games alive long past their prime.
We all want the game to be better, here's somebody who has offered to do something about it. I believe larry has the organizational skills, the relative respect of many of the top players (for testing) and is willing to hear a good argument. Who among you would honestly do hours of work (especially coding) without a high probability that the work you do would actually matter?
If you're trying to raise skill cap overall (and we most certainly should be) then think about how randomness affects development. Imagine if you were trying to learn biology and the definition of cell would skip randomly (a bad analogy I know). It'd be fairly impossible to learn subject matter in a precise and effective way. You all are talking about the heart or the fun of the game. Who truly would be invested in a game that was impossible to get better at after a very short period of time? I get very happy when i can squeeze out another 1% accuracy. Why? because spread and recoil are too damn high. At a certain point I get better results sprinting around the map then actually engaging my opponents head on.
This baity style of play has gotten much more prevalent in this version (not necessarily bad) but has effectively slowed down the game due to what aspects are being rewarded. Fast-arcade FPS turned poor CS imitation.
I'm not placing blame. I just think what we consider "good" need be re-evaluated. Balance for pubs does not mean balance for competition. Traditionally, competition has kept games alive long past their prime.
We all want the game to be better, here's somebody who has offered to do something about it. I believe larry has the organizational skills, the relative respect of many of the top players (for testing) and is willing to hear a good argument. Who among you would honestly do hours of work (especially coding) without a high probability that the work you do would actually matter?