Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

96 Excellent

About Infinitum

  • Birthday 01/01/1004

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think I'm going to let this go now cause you are missing my point. In fact I'm not sure if I even remember what my point is anymore.
  2. Its not irrelevant. Emotions and opinions matter, thats all I'm saying. Figuring out motives matter, end results matter.
  3. Are you talking herding around a corner or just gathering/clustering as you go? thats a crazy big improvment.
  4. Whether intentional, unintentional, nefarious or pure the topic was originally a call to nerf. No other way to spin it. So here we are.
  5. the intent may be to ruin it though. if the desired result is to nerf it, that could be considered attempting to ruin it, especially when no evidence can be provided as to why exactly the game is broken because of it. Pointing to other games doesnt provide any evidence that the diseased imbalance exists here or will ever exist here. I believe that is where the opinion comes from, and why its a valid concern.
  6. A little different here because people who are wanting to balance TW whether needed or not could ruin the game for someone whether or not that is rhe intent. So there is basis for not liking the stance and who has the stance of changing something they like.
  7. Yeah I was thinking the same thing, thats why I was wondering if the test couldn't be increased in difficulty as an additional metric so there is a threat and then a reaction to a threat.
  8. There are no rules if you don't know them. You can poke at emotional reactions all you want but they have a place also. At least they are enjoying the game not freaking out about a mythical balance that doesnt yet exist and may never have existed with this game.
  9. There is motive behind everything, just because a point is an emotional reaction doesnt make it a bad point even if its an illogical one. Who is to say which motive is right or wrong but just because its wrapped up in a sound logical argument doesn't necessarily make the intent pure. Quoting the debate rules handbook wont win anyone over that dont get it anyway.
  10. Agree 100% to both points, though with enough tests run variances in player ability should be averaged out to a baseline eventually, however with newer sets like TW and sets that have mechanics that affect damage and recharge, the baseline could vary wildly because there is a certain level of skill needed to maximize those. The trick to those will be where should the balance point be? My stance for TW is high level performance should not be penalized because if it does bring the outlier in line the low skill or novice will suffer those versions of TW out of existence. I'm hoping that this will be a tool to illustrate what needs buffs moreso than what needs to be balanced down.
  11. Everyone has a motive hidden somewhere even if its shrouded behind debate and formal argument terms. Doesnt make the persons point any less valid either way. They play the game too. For instance I couldnt tell you what an ad hominem is. And I dont care enough to look it up.
  12. You are mistaking a debate team argument for a conveyance of feeling and opinion. And there is nothing wrong with either. It's getting a little annoying seeing logical fallacy this logical fallacy that, honestly. I'm not on a debate team, I'm not here to win an argument, it's opinion and sharing of feelings. Nothing more, you don't have to win a debate or prove anything to tell it like you see it. Right or wrong. The fact that it isn't structured in argument form doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion or what the are feeling, because that matters too.
  • Create New...