[Toronto] The Race to 10,000 Mountain

Status
Not open for further replies.
Toronto having a leader is like a penis actually having it's own brain... NOTHING WILL CHANGE AND RAPE STATISTICS WOULD SKYROCKET!
 
I don't understand how Americans are so contradictory.

They bitch, whine, and criticise about some imaginary balanced game of 26 options, and act like it's entirely within ordinary to policy auto-ban some of those characters to 'avoid headaches'. I am talking about Devil Jin.
In Japan, balanced means having everything there to 'stay afloat'. A game will have its not so good characters. A game will have characters with absolute flaws. A game will have its Dan Hibiki - either the comedy element, the weak-as-shit element, or both in one (as Dan is). I claim: a game is better when it has the Dan Hibiki than when it doesn't. But that game isn't American "balanced" - Dan sucks! And so, is it too hard to imagine the other choices actually making a game better, putting aside the logical possibility of the American ideal?

What angers me is the contradiction. Everyone accepts that of moves there are better and worse. You can't do whatever you want there and expect victory. If character choice is privileged in some special way - where, unlike moves, everybody has an inalienable right to dispense whupass donning whatever avatar they wish - then how can you in the next breath say "[X] character needs to go, and we have to not let the opinion against that get too much momentum" I've even seen the following part expressed, along the lines of, "because, it's obvious, but going into arguing this opinion is annoying", which looks to me like "because my opinion is baseless, I am stubborn, and have no idea how to handle an argument, or balancing values with my own."
There may -be- a way to reason to ban Devil Jin from SCV. But I can't stand to hear it aside such obvious contradictory framework.

Daishi has a peculiar view over top of that, with which I might not agree: of having a well-defined, 'pushed' single character to be the one to beat. The one to rage against or build hype. This is the main character, used by He Who Is Winning A Lot, in the widest tournaments consistently. This approach - intentionally breeding that character option - is an interesting position which, to be fair, I think becomes reasonable when viewed as a kind of satisficing: Balance is hard, it's much more likely one character is boss rather than three in a perfectly neat trifecta of A-tier goodness, and games have come before with that property which yet cultivated a positive tournament environment and meta-game identity/community. That is, it seems players can 'deal with' such scenarios in some cases, so why not settle for making a game have one of the 'good cases' of that, if working on another ideal could sacrifice any benefit if mis-executed? So it looks reasonable.
I will criticize that nonetheless, and say, I think I agree a pushed date is preferable to this sort of design. Try to get the three top characters instead. I would also hope any Dev would agree with me that having a singleton S-tier is not desirable, over an elite, but still oligarchic, A-tier (or oligarchic S-tier). The (uncontested) top character, if exists, should share a tier; being 'better' than the rest of that tier, nothing more.

Aside on unviable charcters (strong unviability: informed players can curbstomp theory-perfect users of the unviable option)
If no character is literally unviable (or at most one is, and its existence is hilarious), then the consumers know the devs haven't wasted time - because, unviability being an extreme defect, means nothing but wasted time. That's the only reason unviable characters can upset the discriminating consumer, I say. Unviability implies irrelevance to competition, so you can add arbitrarily many unviable pieces of garbage to a "balanced game" and it should still be good in every way - implying it even counts as balanced; but for the discomfort players have knowing this cost time.


At the end of the day, there is the fact that "equal" rosters beyond ... 5 characters, being generous, are a pipe dream. Development time is finite and games are complicated. But let's grant infinite development time. Balance is still impossible. The reason why for that, is because the characters are different. The very thing that makes the game attractive is exclusive of this ideal that people have derived from nowhere. I have come to believe that , actually, when the attention to balance and break-safety is painstaking, a spark of some kind is lost in a Fighter. When the players can see what makes the game balanced, the pursuit of exploiting the system is quieted, and I think that bores people. A contest of minds is brilliant, and there is much to be said of the learning curve, but I honestly believe players greatly value the idea of finding and proving that some aspect of the system can grant an advantage, but only with some choices.

If the system, pushed to its extreme in competition by players motivated to win, is consistent everywhere you go, then the game tests Skill, and it passes the litmus test for being a decent Competitive Fighting Game. That's always my bottom line.

When a person expresses recognition of the impossibility of this faux ideal, American balance, then they can come back to me and make sense to talk about headache-prevention bans. Only when you admit that there are some things that do not belong, when you don't in one breath say "every character is the same" and in the next say "This character, uniquely, is a cancer upon us all", are you talking sense.


TL; DR Amaury is right (about balance), and only if you agree with Amaury part of the way are you allowed to disagree with Amaury.
It's unfortunate that Devil Jin does not have a preset character avatar. That -is- a legitimate reason for ban possibly, depending on how CaS works, because the game does not provide any setting clearly identifiable as default. It's something we can inject, but not in the Versus Mode screen.
But this logic may be extended to Edge Master, and even settling the -idea- of Devil Jin (if he was a locked CaS on every machine, say) is important to me.
 
Oh boy, you've just opened up an ugly can of worms, Mandritti.

There are certain people on this forum that have an irrational resentment towards me. And seeing my name used in such a way, whether it's true or not, will bring pain and rage to their hearts. Who knows what will transpire now.

Why are these people like this? Who knows, I figure it's because they're jealous of my success in the SC. Or perhaps they don't like that I fearlessly express my opinion regardless of how controversial it is. Or maybe it's because I taunt them with posts like these. lol

These are the people who attack me on the forum every chance they get. The ones that I have owned and are now salty. No need for names, they know who they are. We all know who they are.

hahahahaha
 
I don't understand how Americans are so contradictory.

They bitch, whine, and criticise about some imaginary balanced game of 26 options, and act like it's entirely within ordinary to policy auto-ban some of those characters to 'avoid headaches'. I am talking about Devil Jin.
In Japan, balanced means having everything there to 'stay afloat'. A game will have its not so good characters. A game will have characters with absolute flaws. A game will have its Dan Hibiki - either the comedy element, the weak-as-shit element, or both in one (as Dan is). I claim: a game is better when it has the Dan Hibiki than when it doesn't. But that game isn't American "balanced" - Dan sucks! And so, is it too hard to imagine the other choices actually making a game better, putting aside the logical possibility of the American ideal?

What angers me is the contradiction. Everyone accepts that of moves there are better and worse. You can't do whatever you want there and expect victory. If character choice is privileged in some special way - where, unlike moves, everybody has an inalienable right to dispense whupass donning whatever avatar they wish - then how can you in the next breath say "[X] character needs to go, and we have to not let the opinion against that get too much momentum" I've even seen the following part expressed, along the lines of, "because, it's obvious, but going into arguing this opinion is annoying", which looks to me like "because my opinion is baseless, I am stubborn, and have no idea how to handle an argument, or balancing values with my own."
There may -be- a way to reason to ban Devil Jin from SCV. But I can't stand to hear it aside such obvious contradictory framework.

Daishi has a peculiar view over top of that, with which I might not agree: of having a well-defined, 'pushed' single character to be the one to beat. The one to rage against or build hype. This is the main character, used by He Who Is Winning A Lot, in the widest tournaments consistently. This approach - intentionally breeding that character option - is an interesting position which, to be fair, I think becomes reasonable when viewed as a kind of satisficing: Balance is hard, it's much more likely one character is boss rather than three in a perfectly neat trifecta of A-tier goodness, and games have come before with that property which yet cultivated a positive tournament environment and meta-game identity/community. That is, it seems players can 'deal with' such scenarios in some cases, so why not settle for making a game have one of the 'good cases' of that, if working on another ideal could sacrifice any benefit if mis-executed? So it looks reasonable.
I will criticize that nonetheless, and say, I think I agree a pushed date is preferable to this sort of design. Try to get the three top characters instead. I would also hope any Dev would agree with me that having a singleton S-tier is not desirable, over an elite, but still oligarchic, A-tier (or oligarchic S-tier). The (uncontested) top character, if exists, should share a tier; being 'better' than the rest of that tier, nothing more.

Aside on unviable charcters (strong unviability: informed players can curbstomp theory-perfect users of the unviable option)
If no character is literally unviable (or at most one is, and its existence is hilarious), then the consumers know the devs haven't wasted time - because, unviability being an extreme defect, means nothing but wasted time. That's the only reason unviable characters can upset the discriminating consumer, I say. Unviability implies irrelevance to competition, so you can add arbitrarily many unviable pieces of garbage to a "balanced game" and it should still be good in every way - implying it even counts as balanced; but for the discomfort players have knowing this cost time.


At the end of the day, there is the fact that "equal" rosters beyond ... 5 characters, being generous, are a pipe dream. Development time is finite and games are complicated. But let's grant infinite development time. Balance is still impossible. The reason why for that, is because the characters are different. The very thing that makes the game attractive is exclusive of this ideal that people have derived from nowhere. I have come to believe that , actually, when the attention to balance and break-safety is painstaking, a spark of some kind is lost in a Fighter. When the players can see what makes the game balanced, the pursuit of exploiting the system is quieted, and I think that bores people. A contest of minds is brilliant, and there is much to be said of the learning curve, but I honestly believe players greatly value the idea of finding and proving that some aspect of the system can grant an advantage, but only with some choices.

If the system, pushed to its extreme in competition by players motivated to win, is consistent everywhere you go, then the game tests Skill, and it passes the litmus test for being a decent Competitive Fighting Game. That's always my bottom line.

When a person expresses recognition of the impossibility of this faux ideal, American balance, then they can come back to me and make sense to talk about headache-prevention bans. Only when you admit that there are some things that do not belong, when you don't in one breath say "every character is the same" and in the next say "This character, uniquely, is a cancer upon us all", are you talking sense.


41e12133-7dfc-4a7f-b244-0d0d25b9e300.jpg

TL; DR Amaury is right (about balance), and only if you agree with Amaury part of the way are you allowed to disagree with Amaury.
It's unfortunate that Devil Jin does not have a preset character avatar. That -is- a legitimate reason for ban possibly, depending on how CaS works, because the game does not provide any setting clearly identifiable as default. It's something we can inject, but not in the Versus Mode screen.
But this logic may be extended to Edge Master, and even settling the -idea- of Devil Jin (if he was a locked CaS on every machine, say) is important to me.


STILL TL;DR........
 
So much bigotry and unfounded rudeness in this thread. STD, you're a dick. If you had no interest in the effort Mandritti put forth, why spend time quoting and shitting on it. I've only been part of the forum a few weeks and already I'm questioning the maturity of the T.O. SC scene.

On a brighter note, I hope to see you guys @ A and C this Wednesday. I have so many questions regarding basic match theory, and I want to play IV and get into the SC mindset before V drops.

Over optimistic fanboyism is overrated.

Better optimistic fanboyism than pessimism devoid of empirical data and any REAL reason. The scene's general disapproval of a few of Namco's minor decisions shouldn't make people give up on the series. The implications of these decisions might affect some more than others, but there's no reason to cry about it. Its much easier for people to dismiss something they haven't experienced. Also, considering the absolute trash Capcom has released in the past few years...I'd say SCV isn't looking half bad.
 
This is completely off topic.

Can anyone recommend a small TV for Soul Calibur? I'm going to play other games on it too, but I'll probably get a 19 inch one for my desk. Any recommendations will be appreciated.
 
Better optimistic fanboyism than pessimism devoid of empirical data and any REAL reason. The scene's general disapproval of a few of Namco's minor decisions shouldn't make people give up on the series. The implications of these decisions might affect some more than others, but there's no reason to cry about it. Its much easier for people to dismiss something they haven't experienced. Also, considering the absolute trash Capcom has released in the past few years...I'd say SCV isn't looking half bad.
But sometimes ppl are being blinded by over optimism that they just don't see the fault in the game and acknowledge to themselves that it's already perfect.

Now it's true that game play should be the final verdict but there are times when having a good impression is just as important and there are those pessimistic bunch who would walk away from that. Now I like to meet more players but it's a shame that I don't get to face these type of audience.

I'm just one of those ppl who still has a lot of optimism only to acknowledge with some pessimism that there are some faults with this game.
 
For anyone new to the Soul Calibur series and live in Toronto... please don't mind these guys! I'm not sure why they're so rude/mean/aggressive/ect., but please don't be discouraged to come to get-togethers. I'm pretty sure they don't act like this offline...
 
So much bigotry and unfounded rudeness in this thread. STD, you're a dick. If you had no interest in the effort Mandritti put forth, why spend time quoting and shitting on it. I've only been part of the forum a few weeks and already I'm questioning the maturity of the T.O. SC scene.

On a brighter note, I hope to see you guys @ A and C this Wednesday. I have so many questions regarding basic match theory, and I want to play IV and get into the SC mindset before V drops.



Better optimistic fanboyism than pessimism devoid of empirical data and any REAL reason. The scene's general disapproval of a few of Namco's minor decisions shouldn't make people give up on the series. The implications of these decisions might affect some more than others, but there's no reason to cry about it. Its much easier for people to dismiss something they haven't experienced. Also, considering the absolute trash Capcom has released in the past few years...I'd say SCV isn't looking half bad.


Noone is a dick here, and noone is really hate filled... Just stating thoughts, opinions and venting uhh and random trolling going on.

Believe it or not the community is a pretty tight, mature, and welcoming community. People just want the best for the game they are passionate for, so the attitude is expected.

Also keep in mind that not every0ne is complaining and not everyone is trolling. A few people here do not speak for an entire community.

People will be talking on a more serious level when the game is around to discuss. You will also begin to see more members of the community posting rather than what appears to be the regulars....
 
So much bigotry and unfounded rudeness in this thread. STD, you're a dick. If you had no interest in the effort Mandritti put forth, why spend time quoting and shitting on it. I've only been part of the forum a few weeks and already I'm questioning the maturity of the T.O. SC scene.

.

474af8f5-6a2e-4c82-a2c5-2147a4d4f991.jpg


Love you 2
 
Noone is a dick here, and noone is really hate filled... Just stating thoughts, opinions and venting uhh and random trolling going on.

Believe it or not the community is a pretty tight, mature, and welcoming community. People just want the best for the game they are passionate for, so the attitude is expected.

Also keep in mind that not every0ne is complaining and not everyone is trolling. A few people here do not speak for an entire community.

People will be talking on a more serious level when the game is around to discuss. You will also begin to see more members of the community posting rather than what appears to be the regulars....

I just can't stand it when people who form sound, structured, logical posts are insulted by trolls like that. All of the SC players I've met so far have been awesome to talk to, so I have a good feeling you're right in that the community is chill. Just got riled for a moment, my bad.

But sometimes ppl are being blinded by over optimism that they just don't see the fault in the game and acknowledge to themselves that it's already perfect.

Now it's true that game play should be the final verdict but there are times when having a good impression is just as important and there are those pessimistic bunch who would walk away from that. Now I like to meet more players but it's a shame that I don't get to face these type of audience.

I'm just one of those ppl who still has a lot of optimism only to acknowledge with some pessimism that there are some faults with this game.

Now that I can agree with. Accepting the game's faults while looking positively towards the future is the way to go.
 
I like the energy in here it better translate when we all play SC5.

Wednesday I'll be going to A/C, would like to meet the new folks there. So Rayn will be there, C_3 you showing up. Russell I'll bring my system. Also Russell I will have to update you on the equipment I'll have for the tournament
On a serious note, new folks should know everyone here is just having fun and are just eagerly awaiting for SC5. There no bad blood, or not yet anyway...

On a more serios note, Oof thinks he owns people? Hahahahaha. Ok, lets do a reality check, first off your a scrub when it come to SC, your gimmicks don't work on my pro skills. Second, here on the forums you just been my puppet, it's so easy to get you aggravated and defensive. Oof I wish you can somehow transfer that aggressiveness/defensiveness in to SC, at least then it would be somewhat good in this game

Only 9 more day
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back