Monday Night Combat Title Update, DLC, and PAX Discussion

If they are such a small percentage, then I would like to know what warranted the change.

No, it's a completely valid idea. berEntertainment is removing the unintended cloaking simply because it was unintended, and nothing more, not because it was unbalanced or overpowered.

This.

Since you are presuming to know what they think based on several sentences during a live session, I will also presume to know what they think based on nothing. If they do not like something, such as being able to Assassinate next to turrets with no fear of retaliation by those turrets, then, as the developer, they are free to take it out. Because it seems like every Assassin on here insists on saying that those kills are not important, but they don't like how they are taken out, it would seem to me that you are lying because if it wasn't important then it would not matter if they took it out.

I've also seen the argument that it makes Support OP vs. Assassin, which it very well might. However, look how the game is balanced. Classes are weak against other classes, while being strong against ones too. Its how they achieved balance, and it works very well.

If they say something was unintended, maybe they meant unintended because it unbalances slightly. People seem to be caught up in word choice, while at the same time make generalizations about what they think the classes should be.

Why would you assume that? Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Someone says, "Hi, friend. I really love the color purple. Purple is my favorite color, and my entire life is revolved around purple."

Based on two sentences, I can safely assume that he loves the color purple. You just said that since I can assume that with his dialogue, I can also assume that if he had just kept his mouth shut the entire time. Thus, elaborate.

Of course they're free to do so. No one ever declared that it was illegal to change the game. Consider a situation where ber decided that it would be nice to give Tanks the ability to shoot through walls, fly, and have infinite range on their Jet Gun. Just because they think it would be nice does not mean it would change the game for the better.

Please show me where people who play as the Assassin declared that killing enemy Pros was not important.

I have not declared that killing Pros is not important as an Assassin.

Assassin vs.:

Assault - Lose (Jetpack/Charge)
Gunner - Win if not seen.
Support - Lose (Firebase and Shotgun)
Tank - Lose in every situation.
Sniper - About equal if the Assassin is smart.

Right here we have one definite win, one equal match, and three definite losses. It's not the Support that's OP, it's the Assassin that's UP in combat situations.

All they have said was that Assassins can walk into a heavily fortified base and live. This is obvious since they have cloak, but she cannot simply wreak havoc.

Other than that, they have said nothing about how balanced or unbalanced she is pre-patch.

Yes. It does in fact seem that people supporting this change consider the Assassin unfit for PvP combat anyway.

Wow. Responses in order to your responses.

Small Sample Size, live event, did not feel further elaboration was necessary.

Your next response was just an unnecessary waste of time.

Considering you just ignored the sentences coming before the next sentence you were responding to, I'l restrain from flaming you about your intelligence and go on to telling you why you are wrong. I was talking about assassinations in the enemy base next to turrets. Which many of the previous posters said were not important.

Your next response was more of the same.

I find your table of matchups flawed. Assassins fair well against pretty much every class, and dominate a few. It comes down to knowing how to play them and what specific tactics to use instead of blindly chasing.

Sort of replied to this already. You are presuming to know what they mean through semantics. It seems far more likely they were talking about assassinating near turrets.

Your next response makes no sense. It doesn't even address any of the words you quote.

Sorry I didn't post my responses in the quote box, I was feeling lazy.

Sweet, the Bug fix is long overdue but I love playing the game despite the bugs. Free DLC is awasom news great work, hope new maps are apart of the future DLC.

<3

Further elaboration is still necessary. Small Sample Size? Sample of what? What does the fact that it was a live event have to do with anything?

I'm glad you liked it. The Assassin should not have to worry about being torn apart by automated turrets during an Assassination because they are automated and it will happen every single time. She should have to worry about being destroyed by an enemy team while doing so. It's the entire reason why you would assassinate the target in the back of a group first. If your team doesn't care enough to attack an Assassin doing a 5-second grapple, then the Assassin is the least of your worries, as someone stated before.

I was saying how just because they don't like it, doesn't mean that it will change the game for the better.

While I will admit I missed that, I still stand by my statement. Give me examples. I looked back a little bit, and I have actually found someone who even said that Assassins do want those kills.

Your turn. I'm sure that with all the thirty seconds you saved not putting it in an easier format you should be able to find an example supporting your claim.

You have not only not told me how it was flawed, but you also did not yet again provide any kind of example. The problem is that you guys refuse to look behind you every few minutes. She's running, and she cannot attack until she reaches you. The fact that she become translucent when she's near you makes it easy enough to see her, and the fact that dust puffs appear when she's running makes it Easy mode. That is more than enough time to press the right trigger on her location. The tactic to beat her is to just be aware. Everyone else? It's not as simple. I stand by my table.

Assassinating near turrets was never a problem. If people are camping by their base, surely they have enough time be a little more aware since they wouldn't be doing anything else anyway.

I was indeed referring to the quoted sentence. Specifically, how you said that people make generalizations about how they think the class should be.

Not to derail the hilarious and pointless argument going on and talk about other aspects of the Title Update, but...

I was wondering if anyone at Uber wanted to elaborate on what "New You Win!/You Lose! UI for the end of a match." means? Does this refer to the match summary screen showing kills/assists/deaths or the animations of the moneyball exploding and Bullseye dancing etc.?

If it's the prior, what kind of changes are made? Will it show bot kills, turrets built, etc for players? This change caught my eye.

I love the fact that Uber are making the first DLC free ) and the patches too. They all seem fair to me. I am not sure why some people feel they need to flame the changes.

How about this for a suggestion - download the patch, have a play, and THEN and ONLY THEN comment. Because until you actually play with the patch you never quite know how major the changes are and how they really will affect the game.

In other words, stop moaning about something you have not actually tried yet....

Sample of him talking. They have said one thing about this, which was a very short sentence, and during a live event, in which there was no further explanation. People have been drawing conclusions based on the Dev saying it was "unintended".

Why should Assassins not have to worry about turrets? Because they are automated? Is that seriously the best answer you have? Oh wait, you said it would happen every time...in their base...which is what Uber was (assumedly) trying to eliminate. I don't even understand why you referencing kills Pro's at the back of a push, as going cloaked does nothing to prevent turning around and killing the Assassin in mid-animation, and has nothing to do with what is being argued.

Good thing you gave examples there. You are a big boy, go back and read this thread and the many others that are about this change.

This isn't addressed towards me, but seems to reference me...odd.

I already laid this out a little bit earlier, quick recap.
Assault: Split. Assault has enough mobility to somewhat avoid easy assassinations, but only when consistently jetpacking around...however, jetpack drains while Lvl 3 Cloak does not. Charge can kill, but backstab kills even with Gold armor.
Tank: Tank. I think we agree on this.
Gunner: Assassin. Only thing Gunner has going for him is slam, which can be jumped over. Assassin in so many ways.
Sniper: Assassin. Very hard to hit on the move consistently for the sniper, plus the necessary immobility(to a degree) of the sniper make this a difficult match up. Traps are their only defense. However, these can be seen and jumped over easily. Lvl 3 trap does not negate grapple if done correctly.
Support: Support. However, not as much a domination as Tank. Firebases kills Assassins hard, but support has to be camping them...which does not help them(overall wise) as much as people seem to believe. Switch to shotgun is the real key here, but is negated if approached when injured.

Yet camping near turrets and camping near firebases is the ONLY thing this change affects. You apparently just want to be able to assassinate next to built defenses because...well, you just want it.

Your sentence still doesn't make sense, and you saying it does just is untrue. Are you trying to say people supporting the change think the Assassin is terrible and should be nerfed even farther? I don't even get where that comes from, as I am saying the Assassin is good, and is necessary to counter other classes, in addition to being maybe the best turret killer(close with gunner and support).

I'm also pretty sure this argument will never die, because neither side will change their opinion.

I didn't even know I could cloak during an assassination and I do good in games. Also, here's an Idea, why not try to not assassinate people next to turrets and wait for them away from the turret or skip them entirely.

Why is that not enough to draw a conclusion? Someone from ber publicly stated that it was unintentional. Why can't we consider ber's own words?

Why should Supports not have to worry about Assassins? Because they pressed Y sometime during the match? In fact, why should every single person in their base not have to worry about any kind of danger, as long as they're in their own base?

ber was trying to eliminate Turret kills? What?

That's exactly what I mean. If it's so easy to turn around and kill an Assassin mid-animation, why is there a problem? It seems to me that you have no problem with dealing with Assassins when they are Grappling your teammate, so why does it matter so much to you?

I can't tell if you're being stupid or serious.

This is you admitting that you cannot back up your claims with evidence, therefore it carries no merit. Learn the basics of debate.

I don't know how you could have possibly thought that it wasn't addressed to you.

Believe it or not, Lv. 3 Cloak does indeed drain. You have to be moving, and any Assault for their sault (c that?) would be moving. His rifle destroys the Assassin, and his Charge rings her out.

His SMG is plenty strong to kill an Assassin. If he is smart with his traps and Flak, he can use them during a fight very effectively. He also has his Grapple, which kills the Assassin from the front or the back. For this reason Snipers are amongst the trickiest classes to Assassinate.

Of course I want to be able to do that. How else can I move up my bots if there's an invincible Support and his 3.3 Firebase behind a wall?

This is what I was talking about. Take note that this is what an example looks like:

So I started off this post with a bunch of insults about your intelligence at first, but decided to change it because it wasn't constructive. So instead, I filled my post with a bunch of thinly-veiled sarcastic remarks. I'm not gonna bother to quote you again, because it isn't even worth it. Responses in order.

Obviously you have never taken statistics. You are drawing conclusions from ONE WORD in a unscripted live event. And you are trying to make the argument that the word unintended means that the ONLY REASON THEY ARE TAKING IT OUT IS BECAUSE IT WAS A MISTAKE. Not that they thought about it after the fact, and decided they wanted to remove it. Obviously, that one word bound them to what you think forever, and nothing else could possibly be true.

Your next statement is maybe the dumbest things I have ever seen in my life. Obviously pressing Y once means the support is immune to Assassins. Not taking into account the support must camp that firebase, thus hurting his team and most likely getting killed by another class more suited towards that fight. And being in your base doesn't mean you are safe you goddamn idiot, but it means that Assassins cannot run around with abandon in the opponents base and assassinate at will when there is a goddamn turret there. Your answers are literally making the people reading them dumber.

Your inability to read is scary.

The next post is not based in reality. You have no idea what I am arguing and are just making half-assed attempts to make yourself seem smart. I don't think what they are changing affects this issue at all, and am stupefied that you even brought it up.

Wow, I was making fun of how when you said to give examples, you backed it up by saying you saw a guy say something once. You did the exact same thing I did, but were criticizing me for it.

That is me saying that you can read and I shouldn't have to pull up quotes from pages in the same thread and forum to prove my point. If you have read the thread, me pointing to the evidence is enough. Notice how in literary papers, they do not reference themselves with a citation when discussing something that happened earlier in the paper. Additionally, they do not quote most of the time, they just reference and summarize. Never mind the fact that I was pointing to peoples opinions that they don't care if you can assassinate in the base, but instead care about the firebase's. If you can't do the reading, don't jump into the discussion.

That quote is not of me, or of anything I said, and has someone else's name at the top of it. Apparently you think I am Entropy and cannot tell myself apart from him. Your stupidness from this statement is a wonder to all who read it.

I know Lvl 3 Cloak drains, however, as was inferred, you can stand still. As much fun as it is to run around like a moron hopelessly grappling at hovering legs, I assumed you would be doing something smarter, like waiting for him to land.

As a competent sniper, I know what is good against them. Let me tell you that Assassin, if played well, is the best or second best against them. Usually people cannot just look down and jump.

Remember how I talked about that balance thing? How not every class is good against all others? Balance means some fights you cannot just dominate.

Then you quote me and go off on another diatribe about referencing because I think you should be smart enough to read the previous posts on this thread. I guess I was wrong.

Edit: I'm going to make an attempt not to respond after this, however, I have a feeling I might get drawn back into it again. Best bet is to just lock the thread after he responds next.

Blah, I go to do some stuff and in that short absence it all descends into posts verging on outright ad hominem XD

Sorry to skip back two pages to the last response to myself but I felt like debating it

I was saying that those kills get the assassin doing them killed 99% of the time even with the glitch in place and that they are extremely rare
I'm saying I don't even think they're common enough to be statistically significant.

I'm sorry if you don't understand my principal but judging by your description of what you thought it was I think I need to give a more detailed explanation to clarify the crux of it...

Design is a big thing for me. As such one of the important things I ask about design choices is 'why' and not just 'how'. I'm not going to argue for something being kept in because it wasn't intended, however I will quite happily argue against something being removed if the main and most important motivation for the choice is simply the fact it's unintended and nothing more.

This isn't an "ooh isn't it cute! can't we keep it?", this is an argument against inorganic and inflexible thinking in design. If the designers come out and say "we think assassins killing players in front of bots and turrets is a serious problem and so we fixed this glitch" then fine, I'm totally satisfied. But all I've seen so far is talk of what they 'intended'. They didn't say it was a problem they just said they didn't intend this playstyle. That bothers me. It's not being fixed because it's detrimental, it's being fixed just because they decided to fix it. To me that's like them adding optimus prime to the game and when being asked why, the answer coming back as a simple shrug of the shoulders and "just because."
Heck, they even seemed surprised that people didn't realise it was a glitch which shows that they've never even considered it anything but a bug, which I find worrying. We wouldn't have penicillin if Fleming had been of that mindset; he would've just washed off the unintended bacteria that had grown on his dirty equipment and modern medicine would've lost one of it's greatest discoveries. I don't think grappling whlie cloaked is quite on the level of penicillin, hell, truth be told I'm not that fussed about it really, but it's the attitude; the mindset behind this getting fixed, that I'm all fired up about here. That's also the reason I argue with people who give reasons for the fix like "it'll stop people getting killed in the base all the time" because I seriously doubt it will and I've seen no evidence to suggest it'll make a significant difference to the number of in-base kills... if anything it'll effect the lane pushing kills more

That said, regardless of my principals I see absolutely no proof that an equal or greater number of people support this glitch being fixed. I can point to the dissatisfied posts here as some kind of evidence of the opposite, flawed evidence but evidence none the less.
Ok, we can happily admit that most people come to forums either because something annoyed them or they're flaming fanboys while the majority, especially those who are happy, remain silent, but if they don't come here the chances are they don't know about the changes coming yet either, so in this case silence is no certain sign of acceptance... unless you have some solid proof otherwise. People cannot rant about something they have no concept of, after all :3

Thankies!

I can understand not liking an explanation for something if all it amounts to is "just because", however, I'm not sure that is the case here. The only explanation so far I have seen for that change comes from the live event with the Dev answering questions and all he did say was that it was "unintended". although there could be more that I did not see. And if that was the extent of it, I could not liking the decision making process, if not the decision itself. However, as I said earlier, it is a small sample size to be drawing from (one response), and to think that is the extent of it may be drawing the wrong conclusion. I took it as it was something they did not intend, and they felt did not fit with the balance of the game. I could be wrong also, but based on how they have been approaching making changes to the game, I don't think I am, because I don't think they would change something "just because".

And as someone stated before, there is a large amount of selection bias when looking at who responds to the changes. May not enough to say that a greater amount of people support the change, but more than likely that it is at least equal, with a large amount of the people against it being Assassins.

My sympathy to Uber grows and grows!

This is so great!

Cool. part of the reason I keep saying that it being 'unintended' is the reason for this fix is due to no real response to my claim. If I was really that wrong I'm sure someone would've stepped in by now to say "actually gem, it's more than simple deviation from the original vision that's motivated our choice here" but nothing so far. In this case I can't help but be inclined to the notion that they don't because that's not the case and that they'd look a bit silly going "actually yeah, you're right, but wait until after the patch so you can see what the world is like without pencillin before you point out the flawed motivation behind this choice to destroy this unusual mould without analysing it first" :3

I'm not saying Scathis and co have unlimited time on their hands to answer every single post and question but I do notice that less serious posts have gathered response within this same thread. Then again, I know what a 'political' nightmare it is trying to answer hot topics on forums so I don't blame them either (I've also had the wonderful experience of being admin of forums in my past, including the official Neocron ones... not the most fun thing in the world, though I've got to give props to the people who did and still do the daily patrols, including the Uber lot here ~hug~ )

On a fun note regarding biases though... if the majority of assassins are against this glitch being fixed and the assassin is one of the most played classes then it makes sense to postulate that the majority of players would be against the glitch being fixed. No numbers to back that up, of course, but then again I suspect that's a problem for both sides of this argument

The mature response to an impasse over an unproveable point would be to agree to disagree, but I'm not that mature yet ;D

Let me say something first. I think its cute how you decide you want to go with the tough southsidesox thing and continually make negative remarks about my intelligence. I can just go out now and say that you have no place debating if you cannot even provide examples (which you have continually failed to do), and that you are an idiot for doing so. I can also easily say how hypocritical it is that you say I cannot read, yet you continually fail to do so yourself. However, I will not officially say that because that has no place in a debate. Thank you.

Well, point me to a contradicting word of theirs. The way I see it, youre basing an assumption off of no words at all, which is 100% less words than I am basing mine off of. Thus, your assumption has 100% less merit than mine. ber has not given any other word, so why should I believe anything else other than the official source? The fact that it is crossing your mind alone is making this frustrating.

Glad you thought so.

Its funny because even though you fail to realize that the Firebase destroys passing-by Bots as well as Pros, it does anyway. Every single map has a wall that a Support can hide behind with his Firebase. How is he helping his team? He is stopping Bot and Pro advance of the enemy team on that side of the map. Im surprised that you did not realize that yourself, given the way you seem to present yourself on these forums.

Basically, what you just said was exactly what I said. After the update, people will be completely safe in their own base from Assassins. However, what about Snipers, Gunners, and other Supports camping outside their base? Why havent you complained about them as well?

Im glad Im intimidating you.

Let me quote you,

Oh wait, you said it would happen every timein their basewhich is what Uber was (assumedly) trying to eliminate.

Let me quote what I said that made you type such a thing,

The Assassin should not have to worry about being torn apart by automated turrets during an Assassination because they are automated and it will happen every single time.

Look closely, and you will see the irony. Just to help you out a little, I bolded the common words to help you see the correlation. I was referring to the fact that turrets would rip an Assassin every single time. I believe (you didnt specifically say) you were referring to the fact that the Assassin can waltz in a base and wreak havoc. It was obviously a mistake on your part, but if you cannot even bother to check what you write then I will not let it go.

You seem to have a warped idea on the difference between 1 and 0. 0 is the number of total examples you have given me, while 1 is the number of examples I gave you on that statement alone. See the difference? I bothered to show you why I was right, and you failed to show me contradicting evidence. Thus, you cannot prove me wrong on that front.

There are 18 pages in this thread at the time of me writing this. Now ask yourself this, Why would he have to read thoroughly through 18 pages just to prove my point, when I can just link my examples to him since I know them so well and I know they exist at all, which they totally do, by the way.

Now, I have the perfect chance to call you an idiot for not being capable of telling the difference between what you wrote and what other people wrote, but again, I will refrain from doing so. The first, most important, completely necessary, required, and essential rule to writing a paper is to CITE EVERYTHING THAT YOU DID NOT WRITE.

Thats why you can quote for them, as there is a very easy way to do it on these boards. To turn your last sentence around, if you cannot do the writing, dont jump into the discussion.

Now youre just acting stupid. Of course its not of you. It says Entropy on the top of it. This may be a new concept to you, but that is a quotation; an example that Ive been talking up so much. I was talking to you, no? Dont worry about who wrote it. Worry about how it contradicts what you said.

You dont suppose Assaults move, do you? Thats weird, I would have guessed that they stayed in place the entire match, especially if theyre hovering. Now youre going to tell me how that was the worst thing youve ever read and you just became retarded for reading it. How did I predict that? Well, youve been saying it about every other thing that you didnt like about the way my argument was constructed.

As a competent Assassin, I know that 1 on 1, paper armor against paper armor, the one with the bullets wins. Of course youre not going to be able to win if you tunnel-vision down your scope the entire match. Any competent Sniper would be aware.

Yes, and its not balanced if the Assassin loses 4 out of 5 of her matchups.

Instead of telling me that I dont understand what you mean, how about you clarify more? Tell me what Im not getting, or this will never get resolved.

I think a huge problem with this debate is your stubbornness to give simple examples or even refrain from raging all the time.

Knock off the personal attacks or we'll nerf all your favorite classes. Wait, in fact we'll nerf them all including Pitgirl, Mascot and the Announcer. Back to topic please