Remove Obsidian property in obsidian? POLL

[eo2]

Hello I figured we should bring back the forums a bit. Lets take each change one at a time so they don't get lost. This is my idea - if people have other ideas (like classic's 10 block rocket thing) make a new topic and we can discuss it.

I am arguing for.

As for the 'obsidian property', the change has one main reason - antistalemate mode. Its pretty well established that antistalemate mode has been a problem for years now (we used to have tagging break it, if you remember)

[6:18 PM]

While I was casting the tournament, I realized that at the highest level, it is extraordinarily difficult to break antistalemate mode against good players, largely because people can pillar on obsidian pillars (think of your game on outpost, Okasian). If you have good teams, this can last for nearly an entire match. This makes the game pretty boring to watch and fairly boring to play, without much room for counterplay, if teams are playing optimally. The change would not fundamentally change how people avoid with the flag (its a rather minor change imo, look at anchorage Left Ballas vs. Team OP, which still lasted awhile) it would just make it more difficult for them to do so, which in turn speed up antistalemate modes. Some other people have proposed things like a cap on how long you can hold the flag (too much I think), a ban on holding the flag in spawns (really difficult to implement), among other things. I think this is a small step towards correcting that problem, and if you disagree, please tell me why having obsidian makes the game more active/interesting or more accesible. If you give me the "its in the game so it should stay in the game" argument I will unleash the arguments I brought up for banning ice (which I hope I don't have to but if you genuinely think that you should give it some more thought)

[Okzn]

(From Discord)

Ian, I think you raise some valid concerns, and I actually would agree with you that CTF gameplay has been detrimentally affected by a lot of existing features. The features, as they are now, reward players for playing incredibly defensively--or "cowardly" depending on who you ask. It is, as you and I both saw in the tournament, to a team's advantage to camp with the flag on top of an obsidian tower, among other "defensive" tactics. Such plays clearly aren't much fun to watch and do make the games more boring. But with all of that said, 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?

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.

Whatever we chose to do, Classic and Shredder are probably right about the rocket range idea. We should carefully consider all of the consequences of changing obsidian property, too, and prepare contingencies like having rockets "arm" themselves for detonation past ten blocks.

[pen23]

Also reiterating from discord:
I quite frankly do not think that there is an ideal solution to the anti-stalemate at this point because anything can be taken the most advantage of with players of our relative skill caliber, but we can try our hardest to make it the most balanced. I don't disagree nor agree with removing the obsidian property, but if and ONLY IF you have a better solution and a viable PRACTICAL counter to the rocket (not just luck-based), I'll join your force. And yes, I agree with classic's idea that the rocket should only detonate if it flies past 10 blocks. Rockets (and pretty much all store items) have already been buffed thanks to hotkeys hence they're nearly impossible to avoid in close-counters (which is how most people use them now), so I think the range thing will do justice for that if we remove the obsidian property so people can actually use the rocket for how it was likely intended.

To go along with that, yeah it will be hard to implement a "death" property to going into the spawn with flags (like how they do in premium) because spawn could be defined differently among players. The least we could do is make it a rule, although the rules in general are a bit under-enforced by most operators. But you shouldn't be going in your spawn like that anyway, that's probably the cheapest thing you do in the game besides cheat.

[eo2]

@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).

[Classic]

I'm struggling to understand how the obsidian property is part of the 'core gameplay' in CTF. It wasn't even meant to be there in the first place, as it's always been known to be a bug unfixed.

Secondly, I agree with eo2 on the points he has given concerning the matter. Often CTF can get boring due to the stalemates extending and flag carriers becoming idle or left out of the game while their teammates push forward. This change will force the flag carrier to move around the map a little more. As a result, more interactions will take place and the overall viewing experience during tournaments will be exciting to watch.

CTF after all is about teamwork, not necessarily who can stay safe on a pillar the longest as an individual. Teams will be forced to work strategically by continually positioning themselves away from incoming rockets and co-operate together to defend/attack simultaneously.

[Cheesse]

I think the property of obsidian allowing rockets to pass through it is an odd, unexpected quirk of the game, and it should be removed. Also, the rocket block should have it's own unique appearance with a custom block.

[Okzn]

Ian: "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." 

Ian, for context, I was not aware that the obsidian property currently in the game is an unintended consequence of past coding projects. I, like many others, only learned about this fact after I had issued my initial comments--when Jacob elaborated on how exactly the obsidian property became a feature of the game in the first place. With that said, I can now better understand why certain people want to remove that aspect of CTF. At the same time, I do think that there is a bit of a reasoning flaw affecting the argument you and others have raised with regards to Jacob's explanation from yesterday.

To quote Cheesse, for context, you all believe that "the property of obsidian allowing rockets to pass through ... is an odd, unexpected quirk of the game, and it should be removed." In other words, some of you argue that just because Jacob didn't intend to include obsidian property to CTF, it is therefore not a core feature of the game and should therefore be removed. The problematic, necessary assumption of this point is that over the many months, if not years, obsidian property has been an element of CTF, people supposedly haven't significantly adapted their play styles to account for this aspect--that the game hasn't been substantially affected by obsidian property. That element clearly has affected gameplay to a substantial degree, hence why we're currently debating its removal--hence why you, just yesterday, Ian, bemoaned how games grinded to a halt due to obsidian pillaring. If, truly, obsidian property isn't some feature that does "not change much in terms of actual gameplay," what then is the point of your proposal, Ian? If it doesn't affect CTF gameplay, why are we wasting our time discussing whether to get rid of something so supposedly inconsequential?

Ultimately, without repeating myself too much here, my point--in short--is this: Jacob may certainly not have intended to include obsidian property to CTF, but insofar as it has been a widely known aspect of the game for several months or years that has long, seriously impacted the way people play this game--as we have all mentioned previously--then one must consider that feature a core element. And if obsidian property is not some element of CTF that has serious consequences on the way people play--if it is not a core element--then this discussion is pointless. 

---

Ian: "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 conceivably 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)."

Firstly, my initial comments that you reference in this part of your response aren't "premises" to any actual arguments. They are, if you couldn't already tell, good-faith, conditional offers of support for your plan. There is a reason I have not voted in this poll yet; it is because I have not yet confidently made up my mind. And if you do want my full backing, then you should know what to do. That is, secondly, the burden of proof is actually on you to convince others to support your proposal--the initiative that you have introduced and so strongly championed.

Thirdly, I did not necessarily ask you to provide any "counter-examples" to your own plan; in fact, what I did ask of you was to prove to me how other possible counter proposals were not as appealing as the removal of obsidian property. Unfortunately, in your response, I still have not yet received a good answer to my question. Simply telling me that you have the "best" solution to a problem because it happens to be the only proposal someone has raised is an incredibly unconvincing argument. Indeed, this point, too, suffers from an incredibly flawed line of reasoning. On the one hand, just because your plan is sufficient for addressing an issue--assuming that it even is--does not mean that it is the only viable proposal nor even the most appealing. If you are not willing to complete the basic task of strengthening your own argument--your own proposal--and instead want to tell me that it somehow is not your job to do so, that you don't have to carry the burden of making your idea sound that much more appealing to an undecided member, then that is certainly within your rights, just as it is within mine to not support your plan. 

And finally--fourthly--I could certainly act like a bad-faith actor and reject your proposal on rather circular grounds--on the notion that there's always some better, nebulous idea out there. That is very true. I'm just a little saddened that you would seemingly assume that I would behave that immaturely, considering that I've been willing to listen your idea and even support it. It seems to me that this concern of yours isn't at all timely--appropriate--when no one has actually engaged in that kind of bad-faith argumentation. If I engage in that kind of circular reasoning, do feel free to let me know. Believe me, I think we'll all know when that kind of tactic gets exhausting and petty. But make no mistake, me asking once for you to address possible counter arguments is not unwarranted on my part and in fact is probably something you should have done initially--just as good writers tend to do when constructing argumentative essays. 

---
I apologize in advance for the wall of text.