Shoot back and strafe, duck, hide behind cover. You don't get shot and go down instantly with a BR.
Shoot back and strafe, duck, hide behind cover. You don't get shot and go down instantly with a BR.
You'd be surprised how fast you fall.
Besides, you can just avoid common ambush places and that'll cut out 90% of your shotgun deaths right there. It's not cheap when you have to practically stand on top of them for it to work.
I think the biggest problem people have is that in close quarters as soon as they lock eyes with a shotgun wielding opponent they are almost always screwed, skill regardless. Never mind the actual lack of foresight that got them in that situation, the moment of helplessness is enough to make a lasting impact, and provokes a 'violent' to someone who builds so much of them self on their ability to play the game.
I'm all for custom rules people use to make the game more fun. If you find a game more fun w/o a certain weapon included, and can find others who also like to play that way, more power to you. Just don't assume that the skill set that you like the game to be based around is the only one of value.
I don't think anyone would really argue that. But when playing a game competitively (as in for titles or money) such rules are stupid. Either play the game the way it was made or compete in a different game. Reducing strategic options in friendly play is fine, but it has no place in competitive play where the best players should win, not the ones who whine too much if people don't play by their rules.Originally Posted by VeloZer0
If you want to set up a league that plays by your own rules, all the power too you. If I like watching people slug it out with battle riffles better than with all the weapons available why is it wrong for me to hold a tournament with those rules? I agree that players shouldn't be setting the rules, but the governing body organizing the titles or money in question should be completely free to reward whatever behavior they see fit.
The problem, as you said, is when you start thinking that your custom rules are how the game was intended to be played.
I virtually never play FPS games, so I don't have a lot of firsthand experience on this. I'm just going on general life experiences of elitism, of which this seems to be a classic case.
I believe it to be more of a mindset than a lifestyle. People tend to think casual gaming as not gaming very often. I tend to think of it as people who play lighter games with less meat that are just in it as a distraction. Whereas the hardcore gamers actually care about the games and the industry and the majesty of the experience. I have the mindset of a hardcore gamer. But I don't game very much. I cringe at the thought of being considered a casual gamer because I only delve in once in a while. A leisurely pace I suppose. But the people I think of as casual gamers are the ones who play Sims and WoW. And they can play those games for HOURS. But those games are nothing to me. Just mindless filler. Time wasters. Entertaining maybe. Sometimes. But still. The hardcore gamer will always go for the action or adventure games with meat. And that's me. Even if those times are months apart
streme Wheelie
Recognized Member
I don't wait in lines on release day. I don't have the time nor the money to do this. Also the closest gaming store is in a neighbourhood where being out at midnight will probably result in a mugging or assault.
I don't argue and debate, but I will chat to the few gamer friends I have about what games I liked.
Yeah, I like the smell of a freshly opened game. I also like that with my textbooks for school. I like the smell of new cars too. I just like the smell of new things.
I'm still calling myself a gamer. Even though, according to this definition, I never really have been. Oh well, who cares about labels right
Oh yeah! Look at your sig!I'm still calling myself a gamer. Even though, according to this definition, I never really have been. Oh well, who cares about labels right
I also think a variable between hardcore and casual is in the time devoted to the hobby. Unlike you, I don't really mind being considered a casual gamer these days because I know I have much less time to do it than I did, say, in high school days. I'm much more strapped for cash now as a uni student now too, so I'm more likely to be re-playing FFVIII on PSP than shelling out for CoDMW2.
I suppose, in a way, most hardcore gamers will become casual gamers at some stage. It's not necessarily permanent, it's just that in life, as you mature and move onto new things, these certain things may need to take priority over your gaming. I'd love to play The Sims for hours, tbh, I think the game is awesome (2 moreso than 3) but I also need to finish this essay, tidy up my resume, buy a pink tie for that themed birthday party on the weekend and book those reservations to make up for the anniversary I forgot about.
If gamer 'type' is more of a mindset than a lifestyle, I guess I'm still hardcore, but otherwise, evidence would suggest I'm more casual than anything else. Or I'm in that middle ground somewhere because I guess 'casual' gamers don't play FFVIII on the bus on the way to uni.
Like I said, I have no problem with people playing friendly matches by whatever rules they choose. And by extension, if someone wants to start their own tournament where people have to play by those rules then all of the power to them. The thing is though, that as far as I'm concerned, a tournament should be about competition amongst players, and any rules in place should foster competition and strategy. Banning every weapon except the battle rifle may be interesting to some (usually those who can't win if you allow more weapons), but it stifles competition and strategy rather than supporting it. It removes valid competitive options from the game eventually whittling the gameplay down so that only one style prevails.
It'd be like having a Street Fighter tournament where people can only play as Ryu, or a Starcraft tournament where ever player has to play Terran. Or to use a real world example, imagine a baseball game where the only pitch a pitcher can throw is a fastball. The only people who will genuinely find that preferable in a competitive environment are those who can't win without special rules in place. If something doesn't give an unfair advantage then there's no reason to ban it. Players should simply be forced to adapt to new strategies as they would in any competition.
I can't believe you think that that making balance tweaks is unnecessary. I don't see how it's wrong for someone wanting characters to be better. You must don't play with Viper in SF4 her worst match ups have to be Zangief and E.. Honda. In these match ups Zangief doesn'tgnearly have to work nearly as hard as Viper to win. If he can knock Viper down he can win pretty easily by standing over her and doing pile drivers or lariats. Not much Viper can do in that situation. Her choices are waking up with a block if you expect a lariat or do a BK if you expect him to pile drive. Neither of these are reliable options as there's only a 50% chance of you being correct.
Basically the fight consists of her just trying to keep Zangief as far away from her as possible and punishing him when he smurfs up. Viper smurfs up a couple of times and it's looking grim for her. That fight isn't any fun.
Peach being low tier first for me, thought everyone in Smash had a fair chance of winning, minus the ol' Jig.
If you have a field and a stack of equipment you can chose to play any sport you want. It is like saying (American)Football players just changed the rules to soccer because they didn't like having to run for extended periods of time.
It stifles strategy in one way, but it greatly expands the strategies that involve the battle riffle.Banning every weapon except the battle rifle may be interesting to some (usually those who can't win if you allow more weapons), but it stifles competition and strategy rather than supporting it. It removes valid competitive options from the game eventually whittling the gameplay down so that only one style prevails.
To throw out another real world example, whitewater and flatwater paddling. A whitewater paddler has to learn and use all sorts of behind the head and backwards strokes to do their sport effectively. A Flatwater paddler goes straight and fast, only using one type of stroke. You can say that Flatwater paddlers are just limiting the amount of skill they have to learn, but after spending countless hours and drills just working on this one motion a Flatwater forward stroke is miles ahead of a whitewater forward stroke. There is less variety to develop, but that just means the effort is spent on focus and specialization.
Yes, but (hypothetically) imagine a day long ago where the pitcher could throw from several different places. By limiting him to one place pitchers were then forced away from thinking of strategy of where to throw from to developing new kinds of pitches because they couldn't mess with the other variables.Or to use a real world example, imagine a baseball game where the only pitch a pitcher can throw is a fastball.
And if they could only throw fastballs, you can damn well bet that the level of fastball throwing would increase in a hurry.
That's not quite what I meant, but that was my bad for not clarifying. Tweaks are alright, if it's to make one character do better. I haven't played Street Fighter 4, but by giving Viper a couple of moves to help against Zangeif wouldn't be bad. However, taking moves away from Zangeif so he won't be such a threat is my problem.
That's what I hate, most of the time when people talk about balance, they mean taking stuff away from other characters. I'm sorry you were too good, so now your nerfed. It's the same complaint I have against dynamic difficulty. Instead of having you learn to play better, they fix it so you can win.
That is the one thing I hate the most about MMOs is that everyone demands stuff get 'fixed' as soon as they get beaten by something a few times. A good quote to remember: "I am Rock, Scissors is balanced, nerf Paper"That's what I hate, most of the time when people talk about balance, they mean taking stuff away from other characters. I'm sorry you were too good, so now your nerfed. It's the same complaint I have against dynamic difficulty. Instead of having you learn to play better, they fix it so you can win.
And there is you taking a definition far to literally.I don't wait in lines on release day. I don't have the time nor the money to do this. Also the closest gaming store is in a neighbourhood where being out at midnight will probably result in a mugging or assault.
I don't argue and debate, but I will chat to the few gamer friends I have about what games I liked.
Yeah, I like the smell of a freshly opened game. I also like that with my textbooks for school. I like the smell of new cars too. I just like the smell of new things.
I'm still calling myself a gamer. Even though, according to this definition, I never really have been. Oh well, who cares about labels right
The only part you really need to focus on is the first line, about gamers having passion. ;P
It doesn't expand the strategy for the battle rifle though. All of the same strategies it had before still apply, it's just more useful in situations where another weapon easily countered it. Without banning any weapons you have to be aware of the situations where yours excels and where it doesn't, understand the trade off, and play accordingly; either by carrying a weapon that makes up for the battle rifles deficiencies, or by avoiding situations where you have the disadvantage. What little you gain in terms of strategies that now work more often that didn't before is far outclassed by the strategic possibilities you give up. Losing the element of having to be ready for different possibilities removes strategic layers and replaces it with pure reflex and hand eye coordination.
That's not the point. The point is the game has rules that have been established by it's creators. Some may have to be made later to account for broken situations the original creators didn't intend (akin to patching a game) but that's not the same as arbitrarily changing rules because you think they're unfair.Yes, but (hypothetically) imagine a day long ago where the pitcher could throw from several different places. By limiting him to one place pitchers were then forced away from thinking of strategy of where to throw from to developing new kinds of pitches because they couldn't mess with the other variables.
But then the game becomes one of being able to hit the fastest pitch possible, but you always know what it will be. By limiting the pitcher to one pitch you remove the need for the batter to predict what's coming next, removing strategic layers from the game and reducing pitching and batting to a game of who's faster and stronger, not who can read the situation and their opponent better.And if they could only throw fastballs, you can damn well bet that the level of fastball throwing would increase in a hurry.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
