Or you know, I could play this one and suggest ways to improve it. Unfortunately nobody seems interested in discussing this. Which I must accept. Are you implying facts are determined by the majority? I'm going to assume you didn't read it then. The atom was the smallest particle (defined by its name) in existence, until the quarks saw the light of day in 1961. See how facts are a little less permanent than you seem willing to admit? EDIT: There's a parallel to be found in these online discussions.
The TED talk came after their original post, but these things don't change the validity of the points being made.
I'm not arguing against the merits of the post itself, just pointing out that using inaccurate information to support a claim tends to be detrimental to the point of view it supports TEDx talks are not TED talks (or TEDed talks for that matter) They have no scientific rigor applied and tend to have unhealthy amounts of pseudoscience. I hope that does not come off as pedantic, but there is a lot of false information being spread through those, and lack of scientific rigor in education is a huge pet peeve of mine
Ok, than let`s state some facts and opinions. 1) Evade ARO is a dumb idea. Fact until proven otherwise. 2) Evade ARO is some magic "Defense" action, somewhere from classic turn-based jRPGs, mean to increase Armor stat and receive less damage. Should increase ARM and BTS if we follow this pattern. 3) If there is an action that allows to choose one of two different rolls after action is declared, it should be available for both active and reactive players. Why tilt game in favor of reactive player? It`s not his turn after all. So let`s have general "Attack" and general "Evade" actions with choice of attack type to be made later. Of course attacking hacker should be able to specify does he want to shoot his target with rifle or make vicious hacking attack after split-second decision. He is not inferior to his opponent after all. So sequence will be Move -> Evade -> Attack -> Evade type choice -> Attack type choice. Aaaand... nothing changes except of increased time spent on simple action. 3.1) Attack/Evade type choice could be executed in more fair manner, with perfect recreation of split-second decisions and all-at-once principle. Cards. Pick Action card, hold it facedown and reveal both attacker and defender cards at once. Would it be fair? Quite so. Would it be rock-paper-scissor? Yes. Would it be time-consuming? Yes. Would it be fun to play? I don`t think so.
I skimmed through it, but it wasn't a 'fact' that atoms were the smallest particle in existence until 1961. It was an accepted theory, assuming we ignore the 1961 date. For starters, the electron was discovered in the 19th century, and the whole of nuclear physics and the atom bomb relied on the atom not being the smallest particle...
I'm amused that the justification for claiming a factual position is an essay about how people take things for granted as facts only to be proven wrong later.
For everyone with even a minor experience with philosophy of science - what this guy is describing as facts are, in (hehe) fact theories or paradigms. Which are a subject to change. Facts doesn't change. Our knowledge and perception of them does. To argue otherwise is like saying that Mount Everest didn't exist before being discovered (granted, there are philosophers who would argue exactly that). Now, back to our discussion - the only fact in here is that "some combination of skills, equipment, and tactics allow one player to put another in Catch 22 situation". And there are two different opinions about it: "It's a bad thing" and "it's a good thing", with possible third "it's a game mechanic, I don't care".
Scientifically, what the layman would consider a "fact" is the theory that is most supported by evidence I.E. the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity or the theory of gravity With time, we might find sufficient evidence to disprove these, but as of right now they are "facts" Or at least, we must call them facts, or else the anti-science types can wave their favorite flag "It's just a theory"
It’s a game mechanic functioning as intended, which means the game is working as the creators wanted. If it’s good or bad is immaterial, a change would make something not-Infinity.
I made a mistake in my other thread where i tried to discuss a potential improvement. We ended up discussing it from very different points of view. Everyone had different goals or desires. I figured it made more sense to try and start from a point of common ground. One simply based on trying to improve the game. Even this has failed... (incoming sarcasm) because apparently Infinity works so perfectly in this area it doesn't need or warrant improvement. For the record, i find the above extremely hilarious. Exactly, (side note: the only facts that exist are essentially situations we've created ourselves where we control all the variables and systems governing them) So how does this relate to this discussion you might ask? People are claiming something doesn't need to change because it was intended to work this way. But what does intended actually tell us? It simply tells us that this is what we've been given. It has no bearing on how satisfied CB is with its functionality. And even if they're happy and think it's great, that doesn't actually mean that it is. Which brings me to the parallel i'm drawing here. Once a better way of handling this game play is found, we've essentially proven everyone claiming it can't/shouldn't be improved, to be incorrect. I don't care how many people thought the world was flat, I care that what they thought to be true, turned out to be wrong. There are cases and examples of this everywhere. I find it extremely naive for anyone to think we can't actually improve the situation i'm talking about in this thread. Again, if you don't want to improve it, that's perfectly fine, leave. But don't tell me it shouldn't or can't be improved. There's a world of evidence out there to the contrary.
Ginrei, it's not that we don't want to improve a game, or argue that it shouldn't be subject to change. We argue that the change you're proposing isn't an improvement. Whether it is or isn't is mostly subjective opinion.
I think this whole argument stems from the aspect that you, and others, keep using the word "FACT" when clearly something like this is PREFERENCE. your suggestions are not factually "better" than what we have now – there is no way to prove this. it is impossible. because ultimately, it is preference. To say otherwise is smug and pretentious.
Then this is where i get to say you're not listening. My opening post hasn't suggested any specific change. Only the area i want to improve. I actually made one suggestion later in this thread. Which was about possibly creating a Feint/Distraction type of skill that hasn't gotten a single comment. (unless i missed one). So when you tell me you want to improve the game, you've either lying or don't see it yourself. And yes, i'm talking as if i'm stating fact because i have a ton of evidence in this thread supporting my case.
I mean You're doing exactly what that essay was criticizing, declaring something as fact and telling us we're not allowed to disagree on that point. The rules needing improvement in this instance is irrefutable, so everyone disagreeing is wrong no matter what they say. It's not that there may be a better design solution, there absolutely is, and the responsibility for finding it is on everyone else because you say so. Disregard everyone who likes the rule the way it is now.
Save for the position that the area you’re looking to “improve” is a core facet of the game functioning as intended, and functioning in what many see as a good way. Any change is highly unlikely to be an “improvement”, since that “improvement” would either change the game in a fundamental way so as to make something “not-Infinity” or be buried under additional layers of complexity that would be, on balance, a worsening of the game.
You can't dodge an attack that had already occurred. That is the whole point of this ARO, you think you will be shot and proactively try to avoid that. Same applies for any other ARO that doesn't seem right at the time. I completely disagree with the idea what a trooper will wait for the enemy to calmly raise his weapon/look at his hacking interface before deciding to take an action. Based on how fast hacking works you can even assume the attacker could have their weapon at the ready and the hack program queued up ready to go as soon as they spot the enemy hitting the dirt. The counter argument that the attacking trooper shouldn't always know the optimal response to the ARO is a decent game mechanic way to ensure that the attacking player is the one in control of the situation. I don't like the idea of having to do a card flip style reveal to ensure both parties are in the dark about what is happening and I prefer the way it is now that gives the active player (the one spending limited resources) more control over the situation. I also don't want to have to have more steps to the ARO process by allowing more waiting and counter action than there already is. The issue with these kind of AROs is not the ARO rule. Stealth should be able to do what it intends without "breaking stealth", that is the only thing that really comes to mind. Jammer/hacking vs shooting or moving is a choice presented to the player over which threat they think is more important to deal with.
I disagree with your interpretation. I've already explained myself in this thread, and here i go again, don't think you understand what I've said. Sadly, I don't think you're someone worth trying to explain this to any further. I apologize as this makes me sound like a terrible person... but i have to cut my losses where i can. This is one of those instances. You're all welcome to do the same to me. See, now that's your opinion. You're saying the world is flat (highly unlikely this area of change will be an improvement for infinity). The only way for me to prove you wrong is by succeeding(proving the world is round). If you tried to help this might actually be easier and possibly more fun. But telling me it won't change when the world has continued to make better wargames over time, is laughable... mainly because i've said this stuff already..
This is very misguided false equivalency. I have a feeling this is how you feel about anyone who disagrees with your opinion.
