Jump to content
flatiron113

Grenades are way to OP in Solos

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Migwar said:

How would everyone feel about a time penalty between nades to "reload" them? You can still carry as many as you like, but u can't just spam them..

 

Think of it as "you have one nade ready to throw, after u use it, u need to get another one out before u can throw it"

 

Not saying u have to hold X to physically reload, just an automatic delay.. nothing major, just a few seconds?

 

Not sure how that exactly would work but i sorta like it. Like a time to dig another out of your pack (maybe 3-5 seconds) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, flatiron113 said:

 

 

Its all good! 

 

Id rather not see people ripping back and forth at each other.(looked to me like it was going that way) We all have opinions. If you have played a couple hundred matches (I'm sure most of us have) you understand how nades work. Getting grenade'd happens to even the best. I didn't want this to turn into a stat war 👍

 

Lol I'd lose that war miserably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ColonicBoom said:

 

Doesn't matter how long you've been saying it, it makes no sense to limit grenades/mollies.

 

Nearly every final circle I see has a few players that will do nothing except wait until the blue pushes their enemies out of cover. They have no intention of out-manoeuvring their opponent, no intention of being a better shot, no intention of pushing the enemy. They will just wait and hope they get gifted the chicken dinner or complain that they "never get the circle" if their 'plan' backfires.

 

Grenades/Mollies are the best way to deal with these parasitic chicken-thieves. I carry as many of them as I can, I'll throw away anything to carry extra grenades and molotovs. It gives me great pleasure to set them on fire and finish them as they come screaming out of their 'safe place'.

I think this is a very good way to think of it. 

 

Because the circle is so variable, you can have players just get lucky with it. Throwables are the answer for this. 

 

Just last night I came into the final circles (in duos). 7 dudes alive and I'm pretty sure they're all camping the one set of buildings in the circle. The next circle favors me and I watch as they push out. The team that survived tried to displace me with grenades. If they hadn't had these? They would have had very little chance given how lucky I was with the circle.

https://xboxdvr.com/gamer/pajama-dad/video/72078369

 

That said... dying to a grenade is a little anticlimactic...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, therealkyle0g said:

@spanker63

 

If your name on here is your GT, i truly feel bad that you're even trying to make this a debate or an argument. I respect opinions, but to try and make an argument out of this with those stats.. cmon man. You should be taking in all of the tips and tricks thrown your way.

 

so unless you're a world class chef you cannot have an opinion on food?

Unless you're the finest actor you cannot comment on a movie?

 

 

Don't be ridiculous.

  • Like 1
  • RIP 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, flatiron113 said:

I didn't want this to turn into a stat war 👍

 

44 minutes ago, spanker63 said:

Lol I'd lose that war miserably.

Bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spanker63 said:

 

To be fair... i thought i kept it on the topic of grenades until i found out my opinion doesn't matter due to stats. Maybe stat requirements should be mandated to be able to post.

Honestly one's opinion does matter less the worse they are at the game. Just as nobody would listen to a homeless guy about how to get rich, or nobody will listen to an obese guy about how to get fit. Nobody will listen to someone with poor stats about how to play the game. People who are good know how to use the mechanics to gain an advantage, using a mechanic that can often be abused, grenades being one of those things. Just because you don't know how to do that, doesn't mean it doesn't need fixing. It just means that you haven't figured it out yet. Fixing the grenade problem won't make you personally any better or worse, the effect will be on those who abuse the mechanic.

  • RIP 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SiXXX said:

Honestly one's opinion does matter less the worse they are at the game. Just as nobody would listen to a homeless guy about how to get rich, or nobody will listen to an obese guy about how to get fit. Nobody will listen to someone with poor stats about how to play the game. People who are good know how to use the mechanics to gain an advantage, using a mechanic that can often be abused, grenades being one of those things. Just because you don't know how to do that, doesn't mean it doesn't need fixing. It just means that you haven't figured it out yet. Fixing the grenade problem won't make you personally any better or worse, the effect will be on those who abuse the mechanic.

 

Nah. Those opinions matter less to the people who have a superiority complex, but most non-assholes choose to hear others out and see things from another person's perspective. 

 

This is a game of many strategies and tactics. Tearing one strategy down because it isn't what you're doing (especially when that strategy works against the person claiming it isn't a viable strategy on a forum) is naive and pig-headed.

 

Due to the amount of different strategies, this game is a game of adaptation. Either you adapt or you don't. If i die because somebody is doing something in a different fashion than i, i'll try to be more aware by adapting to that particular scenario the next time i'm faced with it. I'm not going to jump on the forum and demand a programming change. (Not directed at you OP... might seem like it, but not my intention).

 

My opinion is no different than anybody else's as far as i am concerned. No opinion on this forum is gospel... regardless of stats, followers, or being named after Mexican chocolate sweets. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SiXXX said:

Honestly one's opinion does matter less the worse they are at the game. Just as nobody would listen to a homeless guy about how to get rich, or nobody will listen to an obese guy about how to get fit. Nobody will listen to someone with poor stats about how to play the game. People who are good know how to use the mechanics to gain an advantage, using a mechanic that can often be abused, grenades being one of those things. Just because you don't know how to do that, doesn't mean it doesn't need fixing. It just means that you haven't figured it out yet. Fixing the grenade problem won't make you personally any better or worse, the effect will be on those who abuse the mechanic.

Logical fallacies abound....

 

The fat guy might have been a very fit person years ago. The homeless guy might have been rich but suffered from mental illness or drug addiction.

 

Yes, people will discount those opinions based on the superficial rather than the content contained... that doesn't mean it makes sense to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

9 hours ago, therealkyle0g said:

if that nade is within 10ish meters you win.

 

any decent player would 100% agree that bombing someone with a nade is far easier than hitting a shot, especially with an SR.

 

You have to land a grenade a whole lot closer than that to deal lethal damage.

I'd go as far as to say that if a grenade is 10 metres away then it won't do any damage at all.

 

Check this clip, which would you say was the easier kill/knock?

https://xboxdvr.com/gamer/colonic-booivi/video/72065384

Personally, I think the UMP was the easiest of the three. It was the only one that I thought "ha, noob" when I dropped him. I think that both of the grenades took a lot more skill. But it's all situational, the UMP would have got me killed against the first enemy, the grenade would have got me killed on the second enemy and the grenade was the only play for the third enemy because I knew there were at least two more enemies and only 11 bullets in the mag.

 

I don't think you can say that I chose the easy options there. I chose the right options. Possibly the only options.

 

 

7 hours ago, Migwar said:

How would everyone feel about a time penalty between nades to "reload" them? You can still carry as many as you like, but u can't just spam them.

 

Hate it. I want to be able to throw two grenades at once 😉

Really I'd like to be able to arm the grenade and stuff it back into the bag along with 10 more grenades and 20 mollies, then throw that at the enemy for an explosion that flattens every tree on Erangel and sends out a shockwave so big that people shit their pants in a different lobby.

 

 

5 hours ago, SiXXX said:

Honestly one's opinion does matter less the worse they are at the game. Just as nobody would listen to a homeless guy about how to get rich, or nobody will listen to an obese guy about how to get fit. Nobody will listen to someone with poor stats about how to play the game.

 

That's true as far as tactics and improving skills goes, people will rightly want advice from the best players.

But when it comes to making changes to a game, the opinion of the majority is far more important that the opinions of full time pro gamer sorts.

 

Edited by ColonicBoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, pajama dad said:

Logical fallacies abound....

 

The fat guy might have been a very fit person years ago. The homeless guy might have been rich but suffered from mental illness or drug addiction.

 

Yes, people will discount those opinions based on the superficial rather than the content contained... that doesn't mean it makes sense to do so.

 

You're coming up with exceptions rather than the rule in an effort to defend the unsuccessful. Speaking of logical fallacies when the only ones I see are your previous posts. Nobody said the guy can't have an opinion. Everybody can have an opinion about anything thankfully. Just nobody will take it seriously unless one looks like they know what they're talking about. It's not superficial; the best way to be successful is to do what successful people do. 

 

 

48 minutes ago, ColonicBoom said:

 

That's true as far as tactics and improving skills goes, people will rightly want advice from the best players.

But when it comes to making changes to a game, the opinion of the majority is far more important that the opinions of full time pro gamer sorts.

 

 

We can agree to disagree. Nobody knows the game better - and what can and can't be abused in it - than people who play it for a living. It's been seen in competitive games repeatedly. As an example, take bunny hopping in CS, take a second to watch the video if you have time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNvDUO42Hys    CS has since changed their physics to prevent bunny hopping, this is how it should be done. This is an extreme example, but it shows that abusable mechanics benefit players who perfect how to abuse them far more than average players. But the average players for whatever reason try to defend it, maybe they feel like it's removing from the game, and removing = bad. Except these changes are generally made in order to add strategy variation, not decrease it. 

 

Since streamers and pros are saying that grenade spam is currently the best late game strategy - no matter what the average player says-, everybody who wants to be competitive must do the same.  If everybody is carrying 5+ grenades to final circles in order to spam them in the last team's direction, that decreases the number of viable strategies. If grenades were in some way nerfed to be just on par with guns on average, that obviously adds to the number of viable strategies in the final circles.

 

Edited by SiXXX
  • RIP 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, SiXXX said:

We can agree to disagree. Nobody knows the game better - and what can and can't be abused in it - than people who play it for a living. It's been seen in competitive games repeatedly.

 

If everybody is carrying 5+ grenades to final circles in order to spam them in the last team's direction, that takes away from viable strategies.

 

 

I agree, they know the game better but there are different levels to exploits.

 

The pros didn't like people being able to hear footsteps in CoD WW2, they considered it 'cheap' because everyone can use it to their advantage. They got footsteps nerfed out of the game and it pretty much killed it. They preferred gunfights to be purely about who could exploit the ADS aim-assist mechanic better. They didn't call for that particular exploit to be nerfed though because they know that exploit widens the skill gap, whereas audible footsteps narrowed it.

 

It's entirely possible (and extremely likely) that some pros don't like grenades because it's something they can't directly counter. They know that in a 1v1 shootout, they're better than nearly every other player and have a huge advantage. They also know that if those same 'other players' have the ability to throw grenades on them then they won't necessarily get to rely on their superior shooting skills. They want to remove the thing that can potentially hurt them the most.

 

They don't want to remove grenades to 'improve the game', it's far more selfish than that, they want to remove grenades to improve their game.

 

What strategies do grenades hurt other than hiding, camping, waiting for the blue to give an advantage? Those are cheap strategies too and grenades are the best counter. Remove the grenades and the cheap players will reign supreme.

Edited by ColonicBoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ColonicBoom said:

  

They don't want to remove grenades to 'improve the game', it's far more selfish than that, they want to remove grenades to improve their game.

 

 

I don't think anybody suggested removing grenades. Just adjusting or limiting them to be more balanced with other final circle plays. Anyway, I'm sure the devs have the statistics to look at correlations between grenades thrown, and kills/wins in final circles and determine whether it's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SiXXX said:

 

You're coming up with exceptions rather than the rule in an effort to defend the unsuccessful. Speaking of logical fallacies when the only ones I see are your previous posts. Nobody said the guy can't have an opinion. Everybody can have an opinion about anything thankfully. Just nobody will take it seriously unless one looks like they know what they're talking about. It's not superficial; the best way to be successful is to do what successful people do. 

Rather than tell someone that they shouldn't put forth an argument or an opinion on pubg because they don't have the stats, you can address the content of what they're saying.

 

I'm not defending the unsuccessful, as you say, but rather I'm pointing out that your comment is a logical fallacy- the fact that I can easily point out exceptions speaks to that.

 

Suppose you come across a down trodden homeless man. If he gives you sound advice or not cannot be determined simply by his current situation. The content of the advice is what you address.

 

Someone says grenades are fine, you don't say "your stats suck," you address the idea of grenades being fine- show they aren't.

 

This isn't even about opinion- what was said: "I respect opinions, but to try and make an argument out of this with those stats..."

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To address the content of the rest:

1 hour ago, SiXXX said:

We can agree to disagree. Nobody knows the game better - and what can and can't be abused in it - than people who play it for a living. It's been seen in competitive games repeatedly. As an example, take bunny hopping in CS, take a second to watch the video if you have time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNvDUO42Hys    CS has since changed their physics to prevent bunny hopping, this is how it should be done. This is an extreme example, but it shows that abusable mechanics benefit players who perfect how to abuse them far more than average players. But the average players for whatever reason try to defend it, maybe they feel like it's removing from the game, and removing = bad. Except these changes are generally made in order to add strategy variation, not decrease it. 

 

Since streamers and pros are saying that grenade spam is currently the best late game strategy - no matter what the average player says-, everybody who wants to be competitive must do the same.  If everybody is carrying 5+ grenades to final circles in order to spam them in the last team's direction, that decreases the number of viable strategies. If grenades were in some way nerfed to be just on par with guns on average, that obviously adds to the number of viable strategies in the final circles.

 

Yes mechanics should offer the most varied gameplay. Its pretty well established that a diverse metagame is healthy.

 

But what streamers say is the best late game strategy does not make it so. It might be... but oddly enough just being good at something does not make you a good analyst of it. Great sports players don't always make great coaches. We would need to see data on how often grenade spam wins games. You want to talk about exceptions... EVERYBODY is carrying 5+ grenades in final circles? Is that heppening? Are we seeing 8 or so guys with 5 nades each? 40 odd frags going out in the last circles? I've never seen that.

 

What's more likely is streamers are human and hate losing. So they rail against the thing that sucks dying too (cuz it does suck dying to a frag). But I'm willing to entertain the idea of a broken throwable economy if we have actual data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Migwar said:

How would everyone feel about a time penalty between nades to "reload" them? You can still carry as many as you like, but u can't just spam them..

 

Think of it as "you have one nade ready to throw, after u use it, u need to get another one out before u can throw it"

 

Not saying u have to hold X to physically reload, just an automatic delay.. nothing major, just a few seconds?

I've put forth the idea of equipping nades based on vest level. I don't think its necessary though.

 

1 for no vest.

2 for lvl 1

3 for lvl 2

4 for lvl 3

 

Additional nades can be carried, but would need to be equipped from a menu, or using the d-pad in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, pajama dad said:

Rather than tell someone that they shouldn't put forth an argument or an opinion on pubg because they don't have the stats, you can address the content of what they're saying.

 

I'm not defending the unsuccessful, as you say, but rather I'm pointing out that your comment is a logical fallacy- the fact that I can easily point out exceptions speaks to that.

 

Suppose you come across a down trodden homeless man. If he gives you sound advice or not cannot be determined simply by his current situation. The content of the advice is what you address.

 

Someone says grenades are fine, you don't say "your stats suck," you address the idea of grenades being fine- show they aren't

 

I've made my point about the grenades and I think people get it whether they agree or not. So I'm not going to continue with that.

 

I think your definition of logic is a little different than most. Regurgitating the "logical fallacy" phrase against someone's argument doesn't make you win. And I'm not sure why you think that listening to unsuccessful (in any context) people just on the off chance that they might have a good reason for it - and knowledge that is not apparent by looking at them - is more logical than listening to the successful people themselves. It seems like saviour complex to me. 

 

I'm looking at it statistically, which is based entirely on logic. Statistically, an average homeless man will not give as good of advice on being rich as an average rich person will. Statistically, given opposing views, you wouldn't choose to listen to the homeless man over the rich person if being rich were your goal, and you wouldn't weight their opinions the same. It would not be rational. If we had the opportunity to talk to 10 people, even if we were generous enough to say 1 or 2 out of 10 homeless men will give good advice on being rich, it would not be logical to talk to 10 homeless men over 10 rich people on getting advice to be rich. Your point of using the exception would on average bring results down, that is the very definition of illogical. 

 

To relate this to the thread, when somebody says "grenades are not OP", and says "I don't spam grenades, I use guns in the final circle" and has below average stats, statistically he just correlated not using grenades with having bad stats. Doesn't spam grenades = bad stats. If the only data points were that user and myself for example, I would say "I do spam grenades", and "I have above average stats". Which means having above average stats is directly correlated with spamming grenades. So when someone with below average stats gives an opinion, unfortunately they statistically just correlated that opinion with having below average stats, which has the opposite effect of what they were probably trying to achieve. You can argue correlation does not equal causation and etc. but that goes back to my first point. If good stats was the goal, on average it would not be rational to accept the opinion of someone with below average stats over an opposing opinion of someone with above average stats, they are not weighted the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, SiXXX said:

 

I've made my point about the grenades and I think people get it whether they agree or not. So I'm not going to continue with that.

 

I think your definition of logic is a little different than most. Regurgitating the "logical fallacy" phrase against someone's argument doesn't make you win. And I'm not sure why you think that listening to unsuccessful (in any context) people just on the off chance that they might have a good reason for it - and knowledge that is not apparent by looking at them - is more logical than listening to the successful people themselves. It seems like saviour complex to me. 

 

I'm looking at it statistically, which is based entirely on logic. Statistically, an average homeless man will not give as good of advice on being rich as an average rich person will. Statistically, given opposing views, you wouldn't choose to listen to the homeless man over the rich person if being rich were your goal, and you wouldn't weight their opinions the same. It would not be rational. If we had the opportunity to talk to 10 people, even if we were generous enough to say 1 or 2 out of 10 homeless men will give good advice on being rich, it would not be logical to talk to 10 homeless men over 10 rich people on getting advice to be rich. Your point of using the exception would on average bring results down, that is the very definition of illogical. 

 

To relate this to the thread, when somebody says "grenades are not OP", and says "I don't spam grenades, I use guns in the final circle" and has below average stats, statistically he just correlated not using grenades with having bad stats. Doesn't spam grenades = bad stats. If the only data points were that user and myself for example, I would say "I do spam grenades", and "I have above average stats". Which means having above average stats is directly correlated with spamming grenades. So when someone with below average stats gives an opinion, unfortunately they statistically just correlated that opinion with having below average stats, which has the opposite effect of what they were probably trying to achieve. You can argue correlation does not equal causation and etc. but that goes back to my first point. If good stats was the goal, on average it would not be rational to accept the opinion of someone with below average stats over an opposing opinion of someone with above average stats, they are not weighted the same.

 

This might make sense if the person with bad stats was trying to give advice on having good stats. This is not the case. You might not want to listen to a homeless man giving advice on how to be rich but that doesn't mean you would discount all of his advice. He might be someone worthwhile listening to regarding things to avoid if you don't want to be homeless, for example.

 

The opinion of someone at the top of their field will carry more weight but that does not mean their opinions have greater validity.

 

To be honest I can see both sides of this, in the other thread along the same lines I initially thought restrictions were a good idea. I was later swayed in the other direction. 

 

I think your point is a bit lost in your post, or I'm just not following it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 10:08 AM, DB0VIN said:

 

Thanks for this, found the thread and had a chuckle too 😂

 

Hahaha, yes if course. If by brutally mauled you mean having to listen a selection of nonsense points from angry basement dwellers, then yes I was ripped to shreds. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MajorClagNut said:

 

This might make sense if the person with bad stats was trying to give advice on having good stats. This is not the case. You might not want to listen to a homeless man giving advice on how to be rich but that doesn't mean you would discount all of his advice. He might be someone worthwhile listening to regarding things to avoid if you don't want to be homeless, for example.

 

The opinion of someone at the top of their field will carry more weight but that does not mean their opinions have greater validity.

 

To be honest I can see both sides of this, in the other thread along the same lines I initially thought restrictions were a good idea. I was later swayed in the other direction. 

 

I think your point is a bit lost in your post, or I'm just not following it.

The opinion of a top tier streamer with top tier skill certainly would carry more weight with someone who has taken over a year to win a solo match. See, you demonstrably don't really know how to play the game therefore whatever your thoughts on how the game works can't really be taken that seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SiXXX said:

I don't think anybody suggested removing grenades. Just adjusting or limiting them to be more balanced with other final circle plays. Anyway, I'm sure the devs have the statistics to look at correlations between grenades thrown, and kills/wins in final circles and determine whether it's a problem.

 

Ok, reduced to a maximum carry of 2 grenades or whatever. The question still stands...

Which strategies do grenades hurt? Other than sitting behind a piece of cover or in a building? The whole point of grenades is to shift/kill enemies that have an advantageous position, if you nerf the grenades then you give even more power to circle luck / campers.

 

And I stand by what I said about pros too. The ones that call for an item, that they don't like, to be nerfed are nearly always doing it for their own benefit under the guise of 'for the community'. 

 

 

7 hours ago, pajama dad said:

We would need to see data on how often grenade spam wins games. You want to talk about exceptions... EVERYBODY is carrying 5+ grenades in final circles? Is that heppening? Are we seeing 8 or so guys with 5 nades each? 40 odd frags going out in the last circles? I've never seen that.

 

Extremely rarely in my experience.

And we need to define 'nade spam' properly too. If someone dies to the 2nd of only 2 grenades, they'll still scream "nade spam" but it's not. They can't nerf it to carrying only one grenade.

 

I reckon that maybe 1 person per game manages to bring 5 grenades to the final ten, usually nobody does though. More people will have 5 grenades earlier in the game but they'll usually have used some of them by the time the game reaches it's finale. And so what if they do, they're using a huge amount of their carrying capacity to do it, they had to forego meds and ammunition for the entire game up until that point.

 

I've got a clip where I took a lot of grenades (and meds) into the final circle, I end up with only 23 bullets when there are 2 or 3 enemies remaining out of range of my grenades. I lost because I had too many grenades.

 

I'd guess that I get killed by a grenade maybe 1/25 games. And that's not because I'm great at positioning or dodging, it's because the game doesn't have a problem with grenades or grenade spam.

 

7 hours ago, pajama dad said:

I've put forth the idea of equipping nades based on vest level. I don't think its necessary though.

 

1 for no vest.

2 for lvl 1

3 for lvl 2

4 for lvl 3

 

Additional nades can be carried, but would need to be equipped from a menu, or using the d-pad in some way.

 

I don't like that idea. The level 3 armour already has the advantage in the 1v1 gunfight against a lower level armour, to give them further advantages (or disadvantages for the lower level) would be too much.

 

4 hours ago, MajorClagNut said:

This might make sense if the person with bad stats was trying to give advice on having good stats. This is not the case. You might not want to listen to a homeless man giving advice on how to be rich but that doesn't mean you would discount all of his advice. He might be someone worthwhile listening to regarding things to avoid if you don't want to be homeless, for example.

 

^ spot on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GingerP1ston said:

The opinion of a top tier streamer with top tier skill certainly would carry more weight with someone who has taken over a year to win a solo match. See, you demonstrably don't really know how to play the game therefore whatever your thoughts on how the game works can't really be taken that seriously. 

 

That may apply to you, but not everybody. Personally, I don't get all worked up over streamers, so they're opinion does not mean as much to me as it does you. If I was in here trying to give you tips... then you have a point. That isn't the case here. Just because you have better stats than I doesn't mean I'm going to change my opinion of grenades not being too overpowered, because my opinion is based off of my feelings towards and my interactions with grenades being used in the final circle. That's why it's my opinion.

 

You act like I'm getting killed in the first 10 seconds of every game just because I received my first solo win recently.

 

In 600 solo games, I've still made top 10 17.25% of the time. That may not be great, but that's still being in the top 10 119 times. So it's not like I haven't been there and experienced it enough times to form an opinion of my own. I can tell you now, if my aim was better while shooting, those numbers would be greatly different. It doesn't mean I "demonstrably don't really know how to play the game". It shows my aim sucks and I potato in the end when the adrenaline is pumping. It sounds as though you're deciding the validity of my opinion based on nothing but assumptions on your part.

 

That's just the nice version of why I think you belittle others based off of stats. If I were making assumptions, I'd assume you're most likely just a condescending dick.

 

It's a good thing I don't assume.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, GingerP1ston said:

Hahaha, yes if course. If by brutally mauled you mean having to listen a selection of nonsense points from angry basement dwellers, then yes I was ripped to shreds. 

 

Yeah, you got taken apart like pulled pork.

 

34 minutes ago, GingerP1ston said:

The opinion of a top tier streamer with top tier skill certainly would carry more weight with someone who has taken over a year to win a solo match. See, you demonstrably don't really know how to play the game therefore whatever your thoughts on how the game works can't really be taken that seriously. 

 

Their opinion on tactics, skilful plays, how to win, is potentially more valuable than the opinion of somebody of only average skill. But their opinion on what is 'best for the game' is no more important than the average player - really it's less important because there are far more average players fighting against other average players.

 

Going by your logic, the only opinion that matters is the opinion of the single best player. Even the 2nd best player's opinion can be considered irrelevant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColonicBoom said:

 

Yeah, you got taken apart like pulled pork.

 

 

Their opinion on tactics, skilful plays, how to win, is potentially more valuable than the opinion of somebody of only average skill. But their opinion on what is 'best for the game' is no more important than the average player - really it's less important because there are far more average players fighting against other average players.

 

Going by your logic, the only opinion that matters is the opinion of the single best player. Even the 2nd best player's opinion can be considered irrelevant.

 

Just apply his own logic and stop listening to him, he'll attempt to drag you down to his own level....we all know the meme by now

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...