Profile of Myself

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 677

General Information


Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.7 Jan 2016, 14:27 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Jan 2016, 11:52 AMKatitof ... Sure, if the issue was actually real. Now, completely hypothetically, if a low level player claimed that random thing that is fine since the first game over a decade ago, say, infantry crush is op and plethora of higher level players say its fine, then it doesn't mean there is any issue at all. You know the difference?... If that low level player claimed that crush infantry in a light tank like T-70 makes that unit O.P. he would actually be right because it would make T-70 O.P., and thus it is balance issue... In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.7 Jan 2016, 14:22 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Jan 2016, 12:51 PMKozokus Everything is competition. I has to be. Kozo. That sound like a really sad way to live your life...bu then it is your life... In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.7 Jan 2016, 11:46 AM A balance issue remain exactly the same weather it is reported by a person ranked number 1 or person ranked number 1.000 Jump back to quoted post7 Jan 2016, 11:35 AMPlaguer ... Completely wrong, let me tell you why:... If a low level player claimed that riflemen with flamer where O.P. during the previous patch and a number 1 player claimed also that riflemen with a flamer where O.P. thee issue would remain exactly the same In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.7 Jan 2016, 10:51 AM Jump back to quoted post7 Jan 2016, 10:41 AMKatitof removed image after readers complained it was annoying (bait) says the man (with 7.500 post yet) who contributes the least... Katitof I truly suggest that you actually read some of the 7.500 post you made and then start counting how many of them are insulting to other, L2p, trolling video and pictures or comments supporting your favorite side. Then try to find an original idea or proposal you wrote on balance change that in your opinion would improve the game. It might actually be harder than you think... For your information though the post I was referring to got moderated.... In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.7 Jan 2016, 10:37 AM Removed my comment since original post has been turned to invs and do not wish to recreate it... In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.7 Jan 2016, 10:24 AM Jump back to quoted post7 Jan 2016, 00:51 AMSkabinsk ... America is built on competition (Capitalism), there are winners and there are "losers". ... First of all, this is not America Second of all, balance thread is not supposed to be a competition, it a place where someone can give his opinion on how this game can be improved Third, is breaking the law in order to win the "competition" encouraged in America ? because according to forum rules "L2P" is discouraged. PLS read the forum rules before posting on this issue. Thanks In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 21:47 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 21:08 PMSwift But there is a difference between being stupid and being unskilled, and no one is calling anyone stupid. Actually some people in this forum are being offensive, insulting repeatedly and questioning others people intelligence (they might not actually use the term "stupid"), even in this thread... In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 18:40 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 18:34 PM__deleted__ I said that conscrutive "l2p" is allowed. This mean somebody will say you why your opinion in that thread is bad and how you can improve. Once more forums rules do not make such distinction...there is ling read them pls... Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 18:34 PM__deleted__ I think only ones that can make l2p are real pros (jesulin an co.) that lack time to look at every thread and write article about your bad game understanding Again rules do not make such distinction, in addition pls try to avoid using "you" and pls use "one's" instead since, I am guessing that, you are not referring to me in particulate in this sentence: "write article about your bad game understanding" On the other hand, PLS take the time to point this out to those (accept jesulin an co.) that use the term repeatedly without actually being top players... In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 18:34 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 18:12 PMInverse I'm a mediocre Starcraft player and I laugh when other mediocre Starcraft players make balance demands because I know they're no better than me, and I'm clueless about balance relative to pros who have invested thousands of hours more than me. Well I cant say I agree with someone laughing at others people "balance demands" if he is incapable of actually evaluating the "balance demands" themselves. A word comes to mind and that is prejudism... Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 18:12 PMInverse If you're a mediocre player who thinks your balance opinions are more valid that those of other mediocre players because you're somehow "different" then you're a hypocrite, which is an entirely different issue that doesn't detract at all from my point. I on the other hand believe that every one is "different" yet, equal and their opinion and views should be respected (even if they are wrong). On the other hand I have to respect your opinion...I simply disagree with it... In: Lobby
Thread: Running over troops6 Jan 2016, 18:22 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 18:08 PMelchino7 Relic is not agreeing with you, all medium tanks have crush and the only light tank that does have it is the Su76. Relic change demonstrate that it can be balance issue and not a L2P for some units... Retreat still worked, Faust still worked at the time... My point is that it can be balance issue since some tanks are very good at it and other are not and that is not reflected in price, CP or role of the specific unit... In: COH2 Balance