|
|
Your quote of my wall o' text made my day. It's funny, I was actually thinking in terms of economics as I wrote that, but I haven't studied it per se, so the econ definition of "sacrifice" may include what I was talking about. I just want this thread to die, because nothing good is coming of it anymore, it's just a semantic f***-fest. also sageOriginally Posted by china
Funny thing you mention intelligent decision-making, resource management, and scarcity, as that falls right in the realm of economics - and economics is all about sacrifice, trade-offs, costs and benefits.
I knew how this thread would turn out, which is why I deleted any talk of it from the wards thread. It's garbage to even bother discussing it unless there are finite settled-upon definitions for each and every word that could be misunderstood. And knowing the volatility and irrationality of some people, that could never be achieved.
Economics doesn't really define sacrifice in a definite way, but it uses it a lot when talking about costs.
Thread sucked as much as I thought it would.Nice to see some measure of rationality in this forum for once. Stick around.
He's sacrificing the opportunity to get kills/assists in the teamfight, which could potentially result in higher GPM for that minute of the game. Ultimately, he's sacrificing the potential for more so that he can have the guarantee of average. OFC he could also end up dying in the team fight, so he's forgoing the risk of losing more as well.
This is really what this thread needed. Thank you. (I have my serious face on for you).
To add to it: Sacrifice is a very subjective word, much like fun, and has just as much place in balance. If someone goes in to a game as Glacius, they can be fairly certain that they're going to have a negative K/D at the end of the game. That's just how the hero works. You die so the people on your team that can't afford the death don't have to die. You're not necessarily sacrificing your life as much as you are making the decision about when it would be proactive to die in someone else's place, since you know you're going to have to do it at some point.
OFC according to the Oxford sacrifice is the act of giving up something for the benefit of another, and of course support heroes, especially suicide stunners like andromeda and voodoo jester, are going to be giving up things, but the very idea that they know what they're giving up prior to doing so in many ways mitigates the sacrificial nature of it and merely treats your own life as a consumable resource.
edit: China #1 meanieface
Last edited by Radio_Raheem; 09-29-2011 at 08:22 PM.
Ah, the Bad Boys movies. The gold standard for race relations.
If it sucks China, de-rail it, turn it into something productive, or **** it, close the bastard down. Do something other than complain about it. I still have yet seen a good reason for you to even start this war of semantics, because your opening post is more childish and "trash" than most other posts I've read in this thread.
Nobody is going to stop you, and you've closed threads sooner than this before. I gave up semantics, I'll concede there is some sacrifice. But I'm more concerned with the WHY at this point. I posted a mini-essay about the main ideas and meta-analysis of supports, and the only thing people pick out of it is semantics of sacrifice, and you do nothing but exacerbate it by continuing down that road. Please, berate the micro essay I posted, I would love to know why the legacy turtlefest support player thinks I'm wrong in my most basic understanding of the game. And why gameplay emphasizing team-play by all 5 players, instead of 4 players and a selfish MMO gold farmer is a bad thing.
Last edited by flox44; 09-29-2011 at 09:25 PM.
Some really dumb **** being said in this thread.
More tanks, aoe, stuns! Play to win!
This is largely because you are the moderator, and you have your definition of what support should be. When other people want to discuss balance based on what their definition of what support should be, you can shut it down. Now you decry people with different opinions, because you don't agree. No wonder this thread is garbage.
If you want people to give objective balance opinions on things, you have to listen to their presupposed context, instead of telling anyone with a different context from you that they suck. Someone could come in saying that all heroes HP could be reduced by 20%; it would lead to more of your 'support sacrifice', and allow for big plays in that sense, it would lead to the shorter, more gank-oriented games that S2 is looking for, and would mean that the super-hero semi-carries, who tend to be squishy, die more easily. Its a stupid, stupid change to most people, but within that context it does some things well.
If you want to get feedback, don't start threads daring people to disagree with you, and then close it when they do.
there needs to be a separate forum for this kinda crap
hon theory craft or something
balance discussion should remain purely balance discussion
This "hero/item/map design" is unbalanced because...."
not blah blah this blah blah that oh look an encyclopedia blah blah waffle waffle
/thread.
Agreed definitions are necessary to make sense of any sort of discussion. There's a reason all debates start with the affirmative team defining the topic. If we don't agree on definitions, then we can be saying the name thing, yet mean something altogether different.
To the topic on hand: the main semantic issue is the meaning of sacrifice. Honestly, I'm surprised that people made a big deal about this. It's pretty damn clear that support heroes do not try and get gold or xp and allow their team mates to acquire these resources. Even with the overall game plan etc. you cannot deny that the hero avatar is sacrificing survivability and power so his team may win the game.
Overall though - definitions are vital. Dismissing it as semantics shows a refusal to engage in proper debate.
I'm a terrible moderator.
/meanieface
Posting Permissions
