On December 15 2015 01:00 greggy wrote: Obviously pros disagree, they want to keep their competitive advantage.. Do you think jw would agree with cz nerf, or kenny with awp nerf?
Ultimately, rifle changes are nbd and people will adapt (just as awp isn't dead after the nerf). Timer changes are so/so, could be spun either way and but certainly aren't game-breaking. (As an aside, I think devs were too lazy to rebuild every single map around new smoke timings so they just gave everyone more time instead - not necessarily wrong either).
Pistol nerf is a bit ham-fisted (glock, p2k should not have been touched imo) but also isn't the end of the world. R8 is nerfed so it's irrelevant now. (Inb4 it was op for 1 day, devs are clearly clueless)
Well not every pro disagree. But then again a lot of them really don't understand the patch that well either (Shox even thought that tapping had been buffed) and this is because the patchnotes are not clear at all and the actual effects of the changes are not exactly always intuitive.
And this is exactly where I have an issue with. I am all for promoting tapping, or maybe even nerf spraying a bit in comparison, BUT the changes made to do it by valve are not even close to being optimal to achieve that effect. These changes are lazy, detrimental to the game and poorly thought, and this is where people have problems with them. As Pimp explained on reddit (first post). Adding rng everywhere (and in the process nerfing spraying) is a terrible design choice, and people are completely justified to be pissed about it.
Overall, the "people will adapt" mentality is a terrible one. You do not build a great game by just taking it up the ass everytime the devs make a terrible design choice. And I'm not saying everything about the patch is bad. We do need more data on bomb timers so i'll wait for that one, the r8 was obviously going to be fixed quickly (even if I don't know why this gun was implemented anyway other than the dirty skin money), the pistol nerf is a bit heavy-handed on the glock but it's fundamentally not that bad of a change. The only problem I really have, and it is a big one, is the "we fix everything with rng" mentality for the rifle change. I'd rather have them buff tapping by giving 100% first-bullet accuracy to the ak and m4, get rid of that damned rng (well at least for the first bullet).
100% first shot ak and m4 would break the game harder than what valve just released
On December 15 2015 04:36 Sn0_Man wrote: Stop lumping the Aug in with the SG the Aug is just a worse M4 for more money the SG is now a superior AK (due to tighter spraying accuracy) for $300 more. Worth buying in the situation where you don't care about the $300. However, most pros probably aren't as comfortable with it for spray pattern reasons etc so you won't see it too much.
First shot inaccuracy and RNG existed before the nerf and people were still willing to gamble on those long distance shots. I don't see why they still wouldn't choose to gamble. You can still hit those shots most of the time.
Those $300 might not be worth it that round but could be worth something in future rounds. You normally want to be efficient with your money and only spend what you need.
On December 15 2015 04:38 Luolis wrote: SG is pretty damn useful at mid to close range aswell, when you learn the spray controk.
On December 15 2015 04:36 Sn0_Man wrote: Stop lumping the Aug in with the SG the Aug is just a worse M4 for more money the SG is now a superior AK (due to tighter spraying accuracy) for $300 more. Worth buying in the situation where you don't care about the $300. However, most pros probably aren't as comfortable with it for spray pattern reasons etc so you won't see it too much.
First shot inaccuracy and RNG existed before the nerf and people were still willing to gamble on those long distance shots. I don't see why they still wouldn't choose to gamble. You can still hit those shots most of the time.
Those $300 might not be worth it that round but could be worth something in future rounds. You normally want to be efficient with your money and only spend what you need.
On December 15 2015 01:00 greggy wrote: Obviously pros disagree, they want to keep their competitive advantage.. Do you think jw would agree with cz nerf, or kenny with awp nerf?
Ultimately, rifle changes are nbd and people will adapt (just as awp isn't dead after the nerf). Timer changes are so/so, could be spun either way and but certainly aren't game-breaking. (As an aside, I think devs were too lazy to rebuild every single map around new smoke timings so they just gave everyone more time instead - not necessarily wrong either).
Pistol nerf is a bit ham-fisted (glock, p2k should not have been touched imo) but also isn't the end of the world. R8 is nerfed so it's irrelevant now. (Inb4 it was op for 1 day, devs are clearly clueless)
Well not every pro disagree. But then again a lot of them really don't understand the patch that well either (Shox even thought that tapping had been buffed) and this is because the patchnotes are not clear at all and the actual effects of the changes are not exactly always intuitive.
And this is exactly where I have an issue with. I am all for promoting tapping, or maybe even nerf spraying a bit in comparison, BUT the changes made to do it by valve are not even close to being optimal to achieve that effect. These changes are lazy, detrimental to the game and poorly thought, and this is where people have problems with them. As Pimp explained on reddit (first post). Adding rng everywhere (and in the process nerfing spraying) is a terrible design choice, and people are completely justified to be pissed about it.
Overall, the "people will adapt" mentality is a terrible one. You do not build a great game by just taking it up the ass everytime the devs make a terrible design choice. And I'm not saying everything about the patch is bad. We do need more data on bomb timers so i'll wait for that one, the r8 was obviously going to be fixed quickly (even if I don't know why this gun was implemented anyway other than the dirty skin money), the pistol nerf is a bit heavy-handed on the glock but it's fundamentally not that bad of a change. The only problem I really have, and it is a big one, is the "we fix everything with rng" mentality for the rifle change. I'd rather have them buff tapping by giving 100% first-bullet accuracy to the ak and m4, get rid of that damned rng (well at least for the first bullet).
pimp's argument is what? that you can't master rng? he hardly makes any points other than "rng = no skill", which is an assertion, not an argument
people make it out as though everybody is some sort of aimgod with perfect accuracy but reality of the fact is that everybody spins the roulette dozens of times in every match whenever they spray and this change makes those that are bad at spraying, or bad at positioning, less likely (even though the percentages are small) to get a kill = good, right? ultimately having solid aim is still king
terrible design choice was giving the r8 118 fucking damage, not making a long-range spray slightly less accurate
On December 15 2015 01:00 greggy wrote: Obviously pros disagree, they want to keep their competitive advantage.. Do you think jw would agree with cz nerf, or kenny with awp nerf?
Ultimately, rifle changes are nbd and people will adapt (just as awp isn't dead after the nerf). Timer changes are so/so, could be spun either way and but certainly aren't game-breaking. (As an aside, I think devs were too lazy to rebuild every single map around new smoke timings so they just gave everyone more time instead - not necessarily wrong either).
Pistol nerf is a bit ham-fisted (glock, p2k should not have been touched imo) but also isn't the end of the world. R8 is nerfed so it's irrelevant now. (Inb4 it was op for 1 day, devs are clearly clueless)
Well not every pro disagree. But then again a lot of them really don't understand the patch that well either (Shox even thought that tapping had been buffed) and this is because the patchnotes are not clear at all and the actual effects of the changes are not exactly always intuitive.
And this is exactly where I have an issue with. I am all for promoting tapping, or maybe even nerf spraying a bit in comparison, BUT the changes made to do it by valve are not even close to being optimal to achieve that effect. These changes are lazy, detrimental to the game and poorly thought, and this is where people have problems with them. As Pimp explained on reddit (first post). Adding rng everywhere (and in the process nerfing spraying) is a terrible design choice, and people are completely justified to be pissed about it.
Overall, the "people will adapt" mentality is a terrible one. You do not build a great game by just taking it up the ass everytime the devs make a terrible design choice. And I'm not saying everything about the patch is bad. We do need more data on bomb timers so i'll wait for that one, the r8 was obviously going to be fixed quickly (even if I don't know why this gun was implemented anyway other than the dirty skin money), the pistol nerf is a bit heavy-handed on the glock but it's fundamentally not that bad of a change. The only problem I really have, and it is a big one, is the "we fix everything with rng" mentality for the rifle change. I'd rather have them buff tapping by giving 100% first-bullet accuracy to the ak and m4, get rid of that damned rng (well at least for the first bullet).
pimp's argument is what? that you can't master rng? he hardly makes any points other than "rng = no skill", which is an assertion, not an argument
RNG is luck and luck is not skill. What don't you understand about that?
people make it out as though everybody is some sort of aimgod with perfect accuracy but reality of the fact is that everybody spins the roulette dozens of times in every match whenever they spray and this change makes those that are bad at spraying, or bad at positioning, less likely (even though the percentages are small) to get a kill = good, right? ultimately having solid aim is still king
Incorrect. Since there is more randomness and luck, you will be rewarded more often for missing. This is the opposite of skill and aiming incorrectly now has a closer chance of a kill as someone who is aiming correctly.
If there was 100% accuracy you would only be rewarded for the shots you hit and punished for the ones you miss. How do you not want that?
If you're leaving it up to luck, then that's your problem for taking bad engagements. Every gun has a different effective range, it's been like this for a long time
On December 15 2015 11:53 whatusername wrote: If you're leaving it up to luck, then that's your problem for taking bad engagements. Every gun has a different effective range, it's been like this for a long time
You are saying adding more luck is good. Why? Keep in mind you have zero control over what engagements you take.
On December 15 2015 11:53 whatusername wrote: If you're leaving it up to luck, then that's your problem for taking bad engagements. Every gun has a different effective range, it's been like this for a long time
You are saying adding more luck is good. Why? Keep in mind you have zero control over what engagements you take.
Zero control? That's patently not true.
I don't like the change but it's only in the context of rifle vs pistol or rifle vs SMG fights where full strafe ADAD is difficult to combat with worse spraying. In rifle vs rifle fights, this change is actually good. While it does affect all firing, it disproportionately affects spraying, so tapping and bursting are comparatively stronger, which leads to actually more skillful engagements at range rather than every fight boiling down to spray v spray.
DMing on the new patch, I feel like I'm winning more fights by simply being more accurate than the person I'm fighting, which is what I think it should be. Before I felt like spraying was too strong to do this, as having better aim was only so good. This argument feels like a bunch of players who aren't actually very well-versed in the game fighting about something they have relatively little experience with.
If all you want to do is scream about RNG and less skill, you may kindly take your complaints to reddit and acquire karma there, because this forum is far less receptive to simple-minded evaluations of gameplay changes.
On December 15 2015 11:53 whatusername wrote: If you're leaving it up to luck, then that's your problem for taking bad engagements. Every gun has a different effective range, it's been like this for a long time
You are saying adding more luck is good. Why? Keep in mind you have zero control over what engagements you take.
Zero control? That's patently not true.
I don't like the change but it's only in the context of rifle vs pistol or rifle vs SMG fights where full strafe ADAD is difficult to combat with worse spraying. In rifle vs rifle fights, this change is actually good. While it does affect all firing, it disproportionately affects spraying, so tapping and bursting are comparatively stronger, which leads to actually more skillful engagements at range rather than every fight boiling down to spray v spray.
DMing on the new patch, I feel like I'm winning more fights by simply being more accurate than the person I'm fighting, which is what I think it should be. Before I felt like spraying was too strong to do this, as having better aim was only so good. This argument feels like a bunch of players who aren't actually very well-versed in the game fighting about something they have relatively little experience with.
If all you want to do is scream about RNG and less skill, you may kindly take your complaints to reddit and acquire karma there, because this forum is far less receptive to simple-minded evaluations of gameplay changes.
You cannot control where the enemy will go. If you're holding long A doors with a shotgun and the terrorist go B, how do you control your engagements from there? You can't. If your a terrorist on Inferno and you have an AK do you never go in apartment because that's a close range battle? Makes no sense.
Being accurate will win you more fights but it's less important than before because you are more inaccurate no matter what. If you and your enemy are in a long range fight, both line up perfect headshots and both fire at the same time, you should both die but instead it's whoever has luck on their side.
Lol simple minded? You haven't made one argument yet based on the actual mechanics of the game.
Saying you have NO control over your engagements is pretty silly. You can control where you go yourself and have actions to assist what sort of engagements you take. You can position yourself so that if they do go into an area you take the engagement. You can also use nades to manipulate how they have to move thus controlling the engagement. Obviously you don't control where they go completely all the time or the game would be trivial.
And to add to that, the examples you are providing are pretty irrelevant with respect to weapon accuracy. Taking on a shotgun in close quarters is a bad idea no matter how accurate the gun is.
Its not even ass bad as you are suggesting . "The we both shoot at the same time with perfect aim and one guy loses cause RNG is pretty simple minded." argument like someone said.
If that was a big enough problem it would manifest itself in a way that displayed itself regularly at all levels of play. And it really doesnt. At the end of the day if you play smarter and dont ascribe to aim =/ flicks to the head, the rifles are consistent and will still reward you.
On December 15 2015 11:53 whatusername wrote: If you're leaving it up to luck, then that's your problem for taking bad engagements. Every gun has a different effective range, it's been like this for a long time
You are saying adding more luck is good. Why? Keep in mind you have zero control over what engagements you take.
Zero control? That's patently not true.
I don't like the change but it's only in the context of rifle vs pistol or rifle vs SMG fights where full strafe ADAD is difficult to combat with worse spraying. In rifle vs rifle fights, this change is actually good. While it does affect all firing, it disproportionately affects spraying, so tapping and bursting are comparatively stronger, which leads to actually more skillful engagements at range rather than every fight boiling down to spray v spray.
DMing on the new patch, I feel like I'm winning more fights by simply being more accurate than the person I'm fighting, which is what I think it should be. Before I felt like spraying was too strong to do this, as having better aim was only so good. This argument feels like a bunch of players who aren't actually very well-versed in the game fighting about something they have relatively little experience with.
If all you want to do is scream about RNG and less skill, you may kindly take your complaints to reddit and acquire karma there, because this forum is far less receptive to simple-minded evaluations of gameplay changes.
People are going overboard with "game is dying" and "I can't control anything anymore" thing obviously, but saying that we should go back to reddit if we have complaints about the patch and that we are whining only because we "aren't well-wersed in the game" is incredibly simple-minded too.
These are for the most part very valid complaints that a lot of people have including high-profile ones. And I might repeat myself here, but I don't mind the aim of the patch, I just criticise the implementation that was sloppy at best. There are better ways to promote tapping than that.
On December 15 2015 11:53 whatusername wrote: If you're leaving it up to luck, then that's your problem for taking bad engagements. Every gun has a different effective range, it's been like this for a long time
You are saying adding more luck is good. Why? Keep in mind you have zero control over what engagements you take.
Zero control? That's patently not true.
I don't like the change but it's only in the context of rifle vs pistol or rifle vs SMG fights where full strafe ADAD is difficult to combat with worse spraying. In rifle vs rifle fights, this change is actually good. While it does affect all firing, it disproportionately affects spraying, so tapping and bursting are comparatively stronger, which leads to actually more skillful engagements at range rather than every fight boiling down to spray v spray.
DMing on the new patch, I feel like I'm winning more fights by simply being more accurate than the person I'm fighting, which is what I think it should be. Before I felt like spraying was too strong to do this, as having better aim was only so good. This argument feels like a bunch of players who aren't actually very well-versed in the game fighting about something they have relatively little experience with.
If all you want to do is scream about RNG and less skill, you may kindly take your complaints to reddit and acquire karma there, because this forum is far less receptive to simple-minded evaluations of gameplay changes.
People are going overboard with "game is dying" and "I can't control anything anymore" thing obviously, but saying that we should go back to reddit if we have complaints about the patch and that we are whining only because we "aren't well-wersed in the game" is incredibly simple-minded too.
These are for the most part very valid complaints that a lot of people have including high-profile ones. And I might repeat myself here, but I don't mind the aim of the patch, I just criticise the implementation that was sloppy at best. There are better ways to promote tapping than that.
Yeah thats true, the implementation is quite sloppy, but thats been the case for pretty much every change they've made so far. Even back in 1.6 they would just up and change shit and it was whatever.
Your right its not ideal, and maybe since I just play casually at like a mid level it doesnt bother me so much.
EPT
