Profile of Myself

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 677

General Information


Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 18:04 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 17:56 PMInverse ... You can't blame people for dismissing suggestions from mediocre players out-of-hand; there's just too much crap out there to sift through... Well actually the majority of dismissing is made by people who are mediocre themselves and it seems that you have no problem with that. With your logic (and I do not agree with it) only top players should be allowed to "dismiss suggestions from mediocre players out-of-hand" In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 17:53 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 17:43 PM__deleted__ Sorry , but when player from top end of skill level see that somebody is creating thread about unit and unit is fine , only he have some arrors in his play and this leads him into incapabilit to counter that build then it is L2P. l2p without any other conscructivity should be avoided. Players should always firstly tell the other one why is he mistaken and then say him about l2p and how to imrpove for exaple 1) Forum rules do not make such a distinctions... 2) Roughly what percentage of L2P comments come from Top players? 1%? 5%? the majority of them seem to come from a handful of people who actually are not top players 3) Brings us to the most important problem, who decides that someone is entitled to use the term L2P or not... In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 17:45 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 17:09 PMInverse Sure, if it's a valid issue. But a rank 1000 player is more likely to think a skill issue is a balance issue than a rank 1 player is, because the rank 1 player is going to understand the game better than the rank 1000 player 99% of the time. If the best player in the world thinks something is problematic, I'm inclined to believe him because his bona fides have been established. If a rank 1000 player thinks something is problematic, it's far more likely that the problem is simply a lack of player skill and not a true balance concern because he lacks game knowledge that could inform his opinion. That's not always the case, obviously, but in my experience it's true the vast majority of the time. An issue razed by a top player is more probable to be more valid that is true, (if one want to prioritize he should check it first), but that does not mean that if a rank of player is not high the issue razed is not valid so it better to focus on the issue and not the person. In addition L2P comments are nonconstructive and discouraged according to forum rules. In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 17:38 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 16:27 PMFichtenMoped Oh yes it is! I will prove this with a simple question: Why do we see a bazillion balance rants every day from players who are around Rank 500-1000, but players like Jesulin, Luvnest or Jove rarely even post balance rants (if I remember I haven't seen either of them post one)? Because of simple arithmetic(?) there only 3 (Jesulin, Luvnest or Jove) and several hundred members of COH2.org and if each one of mention made 1 thread of balance you would 3 made from top players and hundreds of non top players. Or maybe because Jesulin, Luvnest or Jove don't like posting in COH2 balance threads because it full of hostility and toxic comment. For a better response check Swiftsabre response 3-4 post above... In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 17:31 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 17:15 PMNailirie Its definately a bad way of putting it, but in balance debates it does have a place... You have to argue that with the moderators of this forum who wrote: L2P - Learn to/2 Play. Often used as an dismissive insult. Use on the forums is discouraged and may prompt moderation. In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 16:14 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 15:56 PMInverse ...The simple truth is player skill is absolutely something to be taken into consideration when determining the accuracy of balance complaints... No actually it is not. A balance issue remain exactly the same weather it is reported by a person ranked number 1 or person ranked number 1.000 In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 16:11 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 15:57 PMKozokus You seems to confirm a tendancy to deform other's words to streghten yours. Tsss shame! leaves that bad habit quickly. Are you actually arguing the children stop being children when they start "WHINING" because I don't really see how I deform your words. But since you feel that I have deformed your sentence I will add "WHINING" to it... In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 16:08 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 15:46 PMKatitof ... You're dictionary example of a noob while we have treated you as a newbie before. ... Dear Katitof when will you realize that insulating others does not promote your point and it simple illustrates you don't have arguments? By they way, in your opinion do fortifications and assault guns exist in COH2? In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 16:05 PM If one want to post in forum one should try to comply to the rules of that forum the rules are simple: "L2P - Learn to/2 Play. Often used as an dismissive insult. Use on the forums is discouraged and may prompt moderation." In: Lobby
Thread: Why imo the use of L2P is not constructive.6 Jan 2016, 15:42 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 15:40 PMAustralian Magic When you are quoting someone, quote whole post becasue otherwise you are proving how biased you are. There is a big difference between "L2P" and "L2P becasue you do A, B, C, D, E... to prevetn it" simply check link Jump back to quoted post6 Jan 2016, 15:14 PMMajorBloodnok http://www.coh2.org/guides/45391/basic-concepts-and-glossary-part-ii The Report button is there. Please use it. In: Lobby