02-11-2021, 02:14 PM
@pen23
You should make a new post with 'classics rocket idea' if you want it changed otherwise it won't happen. I personally disagree with the change (I think rockets are fine as is/should be adjusted via points a nerf, because the game flows well with 'OP' rockets as players have to make a decision whether or not to blow a bunch of points to get a single quick kill which could disadvantage them in the long term. It feels bad to get point blanked rocketed, but I think the threat of it is very important, especially in anti-stalemate mode)
@Okzn
I have two qualms. The first is more to the point, and the second is more on your method of argumentation, so you can just ignore it if you like. First:
" I still wonder whether changing something as core to CTF gameplay as obsidian property is exactly the wisest first step. Isn't it a bit extreme to change a core feature of the game--a feature that's been part of CTF for several years now--so suddenly without trying other, less-dramatic proposals?"
Can you explain why this is core to CTF gameplay? It seems as though it is a relatively minor thing to me, and would not change much in terms of actual gameplay.
"If removing or editing obsidian property is truly the only viable solution available--if you can prove that to me, Ian--then I'll support your plan. I just need you to demonstrate to me how there aren't any other reasonable solutions other than changing obsidian property."
I will not accept this premise. First, demonstrating that "there aren't any other reasonable solutions" is fairly near impossible. As it stands, I have the most reasonable proposal that has been proposed and I believe it to be a fair solution. However, if I accept your premises, you could concievably always imply that there is "another reasonable solution" and we just haven't found it yet. That would kind of make the discussion moot.
Second, as for "if you can prove that to me, Ian", it is not my burden to provide other counterexamples to my own proposition - currently my proposition is the best possible one out of all of those proposed, because no one else has proposed anything reasonable except just not making the change (which it seems like you are in agreement that the change might be better than the way it is now, or are least ambivalent about it).
You should make a new post with 'classics rocket idea' if you want it changed otherwise it won't happen. I personally disagree with the change (I think rockets are fine as is/should be adjusted via points a nerf, because the game flows well with 'OP' rockets as players have to make a decision whether or not to blow a bunch of points to get a single quick kill which could disadvantage them in the long term. It feels bad to get point blanked rocketed, but I think the threat of it is very important, especially in anti-stalemate mode)
@Okzn
I have two qualms. The first is more to the point, and the second is more on your method of argumentation, so you can just ignore it if you like. First:
" I still wonder whether changing something as core to CTF gameplay as obsidian property is exactly the wisest first step. Isn't it a bit extreme to change a core feature of the game--a feature that's been part of CTF for several years now--so suddenly without trying other, less-dramatic proposals?"
Can you explain why this is core to CTF gameplay? It seems as though it is a relatively minor thing to me, and would not change much in terms of actual gameplay.
"If removing or editing obsidian property is truly the only viable solution available--if you can prove that to me, Ian--then I'll support your plan. I just need you to demonstrate to me how there aren't any other reasonable solutions other than changing obsidian property."
I will not accept this premise. First, demonstrating that "there aren't any other reasonable solutions" is fairly near impossible. As it stands, I have the most reasonable proposal that has been proposed and I believe it to be a fair solution. However, if I accept your premises, you could concievably always imply that there is "another reasonable solution" and we just haven't found it yet. That would kind of make the discussion moot.
Second, as for "if you can prove that to me, Ian", it is not my burden to provide other counterexamples to my own proposition - currently my proposition is the best possible one out of all of those proposed, because no one else has proposed anything reasonable except just not making the change (which it seems like you are in agreement that the change might be better than the way it is now, or are least ambivalent about it).
