Flint Beastwood [2.5.18]

[[f13]`11411181]

I don't see how this is a fault of Flint as a hero and not Silhouette.

I didn't say it wasn't Silhouette, just stating it as it was.

[foxmindedguy]

Last time we saw a pure flint vs sil game competitively, the flint had 400gpm 30min in and still couldn't compete with a 300gpm sil. Team composition was mostly the same, only that sil could just illusion swap and grapple away, whereas the flint had no recourse for when his team couldn't screen him - and that's the main difference. It's not possible enough currently to screen a flint effectively enough to make him pay off dividends.

This is why I respect him. When he is not putting up one-liners, he makes such clear and concise points.

100% with him on this one.

Down with those semi-carries (and well, most of the sturdy heroes as well)

[Dominare]

As others have said, Flint is fine as a hero, he just doesn't do well in short games and thus has no place in the current meta. If you want a ranged carry with 25% longer range than everyone else then you have to expect him to have some pretty glaring weaknesses to make up for it. As others have said, his flare is all-round an amazing skill, his hollowpoints make him a great chaser lategame (he'll have +ms from geo) and forget about channeling spells while he's around. Then you've got his ult, allowing him to lasthit heroes with impunity and pick up the gold. Oh, and let's not forget you can't ever deny a tower he's killing (from beyond its attack range) without taking him out first...

[[f13]`11411181]

This is why I respect him. When he is not putting up one-liners, he makes such clear and concise points.

100% with him on this one.

Down with those semi-carries (and well, most of the sturdy heroes as well)

You respect me because I managed to causally agree with one point in your tidal wave of biased vomit? Get out.

[foxmindedguy]

You respect me because I managed to causally agree with one point in your tidal wave of biased vomit? Get out.

And what exactly is my tidal wave biased towards (or against)?

While we do have a lot of disagreement, you tend to be able to reason through your point of view. The fact that you mostly don't choose to do so makes you one of the biggest dicks. Knowing stuff is appreciated but being a douche bag about it is both, unproductive and repulsive.

[[f13]`11411181]

How is that question even ****ing relevant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

I want you to read this very carefully. And then re-read it. Perhaps even print out a copy and staple it to your toilet door so you read it every single time, or make a printscreen of it your desktop. It gets really frustrating even bothering to metaphorically fart in your general direction, because even coming close to addressing half the eristic vomit you spew would require a patience and mental fortitude that I (and everyone else that shuns even mentioning what you post in passing seriously) quite frankly don't get paid enough to possess.

I'm a douchebag about certain things because somehow it seems that because I'm a more recognizable face upon these forums, that somehow I'm magically obligated to give twice the effort when posting in response to something that my 13 year old sister could recognize as stupid with merely 120 seconds of critical thought.
No, those stupid posts are still stupid, regardless of what I post.
No, they will not be any less stupid even if I decide to respond and critically assess them.
No, I will not give you a 1000-word essay as to how or why you somehow invoked at least 4 different logical fallacies within 2 sentences and why that's wrong, as much as that may impress me for all the wrong reasons.
No, I don't care about shitty trivial eristic arguments to the effect of stating that 99% != 100%, as though that's even ****ing relevant to the topic.
Yes, I will respond to posts that call for it, that are made with a decent effort to be logically consistent and state what they think/believe with attention to why.
No, I will not respond to post that just resort to relativistic bullshit that can't be argued upon, used as a crutch fallback by bad posters who only wish to have their delusions validated by like-minded people.
Yes, most of this only applies to an ever widening section of people who flow in here just to post trash and be told that they're still important because they paid $30 2 years ago or bought gold coins. **** that.

Yes, underneath it all I'm actually a reasonable person and no, I don't have time for answerly plainly retarded **** when I've likely put in about 20000x the thought and refinement into the opinions I have, only to have it dismissed by some half-wit telling me to play the hero 200 times before I can have a proper opinion or to have them repeat the same **** ad nauseum until it disgusts me to even look at the replies and the complete lack of effort put through them.
Yet you somehow still have the gall to call me out for my dismissive one-liners.
No, you're the one that's being unproductive and repulsive with shitposts from here to every other thread starting with F. Get ****ed. They can infraction me for all I care, because you and everyone else in f=13 who posts like you do will get the same treatment, until you lift your standards above being a mouthbreather.

[foxmindedguy]

No, you're the one that's being unproductive and repulsive with shitposts from here to every other thread starting with F. Get ****ed. They can infraction me for all I care, because you and everyone else in f=13 who posts like you do will get the same treatment, until you lift your standards above being a mouthbreather.

F? Oh you have been reading my general discussion threads...

My list adding OCD for F has nothing to do with my judgement on the inferred heroes. Had it been so, I would not be calling out for Fayde nerfs or Forsaken Archer's nerfs. Instead, I'd be wasting my time trying to convince people that they are bat-**** under-powered.

Just because a person has a hobby (or a condition) doesn't make them unable to think critically. I have mostly stated the reasons why I think heroes are in need of a nerf or a buff or should be left untouched, which gives other people the chance to debunk it and sprout further debate (if need be). THAT IS WHAT BALANCE DISCUSSION FORUMS ARE FOR.

You, on the other hand, down-right bash on (and ridicule) the people who do not agree with you. Such hostility is drying up the forums. I could kindly ask you to stop being a plague, but then how would you exert your life frustrations onto here. Therefore continue speaking whatever you wish.

My verdict is that either buff Flint to become relevant earlier on or nerf the others to Flint's power level. If you don't agree with me, then go **** yourself for all I care.

[[LsE]Hsssh]

Personally i don't remember Anakha bashing me(or it was very "weak bashing" that i don't even remember it) and i have disagreed with him plenty. PzkW also disagrees with him on few occasions and i haven't seen them getting into bashing either. I could give you few more examples where certain people have disagreed with Anakha and he didn't start bashing them but whatever, that is not the point, point is that you are posting **** and that is why Anakha bashes you and majority of older posters of this sub forum either ignore you completely or laugh from your posts in IRC.

I have mostly stated the reasons why I think heroes are in need of a nerf or a buff or should be left untouched, which gives other people the chance to debunk it and sprout further debate (if need be). THAT IS WHAT BALANCE DISCUSSION FORUMS ARE FOR.

My verdict is that either buff Flint to become relevant earlier on or nerf the others to Flint's power level. If you don't agree with me, then go **** yourself for all I care.

Oh my.

[[f13]`11411181]

F? Oh you have been reading my general discussion threads...

My list adding OCD for F has nothing to do with my judgement on the inferred heroes. Had it been so, I would not be calling out for Fayde nerfs or Forsaken Archer's nerfs. Instead, I'd be wasting my time trying to convince people that they are bat-**** under-powered.

Just because a person has a hobby (or a condition) doesn't make them unable to think critically. I have mostly stated the reasons why I think heroes are in need of a nerf or a buff or should be left untouched, which gives other people the chance to debunk it and sprout further debate (if need be). THAT IS WHAT BALANCE DISCUSSION FORUMS ARE FOR.

You, on the other hand, down-right bash on (and ridicule) the people who do not agree with you. Such hostility is drying up the forums. I could kindly ask you to stop being a plague, but then how would you exert your life frustrations onto here. Therefore continue speaking whatever you wish.

My verdict is that either buff Flint to become relevant earlier on or nerf the others to Flint's power level. If you don't agree with me, then go **** yourself for all I care.

Not only did you manage to deflect that into some random stupid personal tangent, you completely missed the ****ing point as per usual. I'm done, forever.

[foxmindedguy]

Not only did you manage to deflect that into some random stupid personal tangent, you completely missed the ****ing point as per usual. I'm done, forever.

Thank ****ing GOD.. You won't be missed at all (by the majority).

[foxmindedguy]

^^^^^^ soo ture this guy must suck with flint dont understand he is one of the best carrys out ther if played by skilled player

The problem is, being the best carry out there (potentially) in HON is not enough, especially in this current meta. Practicality is what matters. How often do you see Flint be on the winning side (even in trilane setups, Flint was picked but more often than not he would lose)?

What incentive do competitive people have to pick such a risky squishy carry in hopes of extending the game past 45-50 minutes (wherein Flint is not ganked much and has had decent hero kills along with creep kills), when they can pick an FA or Valkyrie or Silhouette and almost guarantee to end the game around 30 minute mark?

[[TECH]Gorb]

Why are we talking about Fayde in a Flint Beastwood thread? Or Anakha, for that matter.

Thread cleared up; if you want to debate this in a vaguely civil manner, please restart it in the Balance Dump. I am not copying it over on the grounds that there is too much bad blood that has translated into forum posts which would colour the restarted debate in a negative manner.

Also, <3 Skyve.

[Dominare]

The problem is, being the best carry out there (potentially) in HON is not enough, especially in this current meta.

That's the thing about the metagame though: it is transient. Just because a hero is perhaps not viable right this second, does not mean they need balancing. Armadon was a complete joke pick for a couple of years, but recently you started seeing him all the time because the meta shifted to one which suited him. This is not a Bad Thing(tm) and doesn't need "fixing" - it actually adds depth to a game to have heroes, units, whatever that aren't necessarily considered viable, because it allows creative teams and players to innovate with them. Anyone who followed competitive Brood War even a little will know how often that kind of thing happened, and how infrequent balance patches were. They did alright, afaik.

tl:dr just because a hero isn't being picked this month doesn't mean they need buffs

[Alten]

Brood War balance was practically a miracle. Blizzard themselves' admitted to such, in fact. They're having a hard time balancing SC2 while keeping it fun because it deviates from Brood War in so many ways. Well, that, and because it's difficult to balance three different factions at singular periods if you're releasing expansion packs at two-three year intervals that specifically focus on a particular faction's improvement.

[Easy_Lee]

While stronger than many ranged carries, such as moon queen, flint does have some problems in the current meta. He's not really good at any one thing a ranged carry needs to do, besides harassing. One of the earliest posters said the game doesn't last long enough for him to be relevant, and that's true. However, even if it did he would still not be as relevant as some other ranged carries. Silhouette will always do more burst and have better escape than flint, and corrupted disciple will always be harder to kill and do higher damage over time than flint. Since there are ranged carries who outfarm him too, such as soulstealer and archer, you really need a very specific reason to pick flint.

He needs some rebalancing, as do over half of the heroes on the roster.

[Pineapple]

Both low survivability and low mobility are to balance a 800+ range hard carry that scales really, really well with items into late game.



His animation is the best in the game. Damage problem can be solved with stat items early game, and with 2.9 agi gain it's not a problem once he gets a few levels.



Who said "ranged carries are supposed to be stronger in lane than melee carries", except for the logical range benefit? And even then, just because he doesn't hit for a lot doesn't mean he doesn't hit. The melee heroes you are taking as examples either have self-regeneration capabilities or are ridiculously tanky ( is both), both balancing factors considering they're melee and they NEED to be able to withstand harass from heroes like . Otherwise you might as well remove melee hero viability.

(That said, take examples like who aren't tanky or have any regenerating skills, and with constant harass you can easily push them out of the lane. But do you focus on harassing or last hits as a hard carry? If "flint can't harass" is a problem for you, I really don't know why your thread got approved.)



has ~600 damage burst at level 6, all from 600+ range. I won't say that's a useless early game. On top of that, a with a few cores (Shield Breaker, Geometer's Bane) can eat up most heroes mid game. As you keep adding items to him, his effectiveness goes on increasing as he can disrupt heroes like few others with his constant ministuns. If you go Frostwolf, it's even worse since you're slowing them. Sure, you aren't doing a lot of damage, but you're doing a decent amount of consistent damage and slow. It's a tradeoff between damage or utility; I think it's a good thing that he is meant to make that decision depending on the team he has and he's going up against rather than have a single item build that works against any lineup (coughcough).



Wrong. Just, simply, wrong.



Seem to? How about you get some numbers to back up your claim? Anecdotal (and that too perceived) evidence is useless and best not argued around.



Every hard carry is single target (primarily), simply because their damage scales with items and levels. The AoE carries are semi-carries who carry by out-farming and out-leveling the other team. Put a against any of them with equal levels and equal farm and will outcarry by a mile. Get your concepts straight.



The problem isn't with ; the problem is with tanky heroes who can blink or in general close the gap between themselves and ranged heroes (like 's charge) which is what screws over. His range is his survivability, which is why when was popular in the competitive scene you saw heroes like picked up who could close that gap. Now, since every hero has some sort of blink, 's advantage isn't that much of an advantage. Where the problem lies, I'll let the others decide.

^this <3

flint is fine.. its those ridiculously strong str melee carries thats an issue

[foxmindedguy]

Nobody uses anymore, maybe we should buff again? +3.0 str gain, yeah? After all, carries in HoN in 2012 are pretty much heroes that are innately tanky or can be built tanky.

If no one uses Arachna anymore and you are not seeing the meta-game to shift any time soon to favor her (which I don't even know what it would be), then she does need tweeks. And you see them happening, first the nerf on the duration of her carapace got semi-reverted going from 6 seconds to 3 seconds to 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 seconds.

I'm guessing you're also the kind to not go Soulscream rings because they don't build into anything late game and whatever farm you do get is better put into straight out late-game items?

You are trying to disprove my points by predicting that I am a noob. Er... Not logical whatsoever. Try to debunk the points I have posted, do not try to win arguments by e-peening (or whatever you kids call it nowadays).

Also, just because games are over before heroes like can reach their peak doesn't make the hero weak/broken/imbalanced/whatever. It means the game isn't balanced to allow all strategies to play out equally. It's a fault of the environment the hero is put in, not the hero itself.

You are talking about Flint's potential here but contradict yourself in the statement below:

(And one shotting enemy teams? Lol. If that's true, why don't we see picked? Sounds pretty strong to me? Stop watching Youtube clips of pubby s. Those gimmicks don't work against half a brain.)

So therefore I ask you: If Gladiator can't one-shot people, is it the fault of the environment or the limitations of the hero? As far as I know, Gladiator has the potential to one-shot people. The reason you don't see him get picked is the same reason you don't see Flint get picked: Reaching their potential is not feasible. Any team with half a brain knows how to not get one-shotted by Gladiator, similarly any team with half a brain knows how to prevent Flint from becoming a Beast.

It's just annoying to see people who don't see how ****ed up the balance of this game is and when they do, they're trying to "fix" the wrong things. Yes, S2 doesn't need to listen to this, but it also means that the members of the community with the initiative to fix the balance are incapable of doing it. Kinda like how our countries are led by people who have the initiative to run for office but are incapable of actually doing any "fixing".

I do see how ****ed up the balance of the game is, but when you know that the developers wish to continue on this path, then your only other option is power-creeping. Ideally I would want DOGKaiser to completely gut off Kraken's Charge, Cthuluphant's Charge, Amun-Ra's Charge, Legionnaire Charge, Predator's Leap and Tundra's Charge (because their DOTA counterparts do not have a gap-closer {I know Cthu & Amun-RA do not have said comparables}); but I know this expectation is not realistic.

[LordTroll]

Gladiator is a whole different issue... He's never guaranteed to 1 shot teams, he needs a lucky crit to proc when he attacks OUT of shroud, WITH his passive ready. Quite some conditions that overall make him unreliable for that purpose. This isn't to say Gladiator needs to be built with the all-or-nothing items, of course.

[foxmindedguy]

Gladiator is a whole different issue... He's never guaranteed to 1 shot teams, he needs a lucky crit to proc when he attacks OUT of shroud, WITH his passive ready. Quite some conditions that overall make him unreliable for that purpose. This isn't to say Gladiator needs to be built with the all-or-nothing items, of course.

Isn't Flint also in the same luck-based boat? If he is very unlucky and gets absolutely no mini-stuns, then he hasn't been the disruptive orc that makes him a monster.

[PlayeroJ]

Isn't Flint also in the same luck-based boat? If he is very unlucky and gets absolutely no mini-stuns, then he hasn't been the disruptive orc that makes him a monster.

No, it's pretty plainly different. The more auto-attacks Flint lands the closer he is going to 35% of his attacks having the ministun vs Glad who has a MASSIVE increase in output if he manages to crit coming out of shroud. Glad is going to be attacking out of his shroud far less often Flint is going to be landing his autos, making it far more luck based. Did I mention the difference is pretty huge too?