We definitely see it differently. If a trooper walks out into the open and i see them I don't have to make a decision right away. I could certainly react quickly and dive for cover. Or i could wait and see if they raise that combi towards my direction. Un holster their weapon. Look my direction. Reacting as you're suggesting is a terrible idea imo. If you insist that everything is working thematically I understand why you'll be no help towards my goal. Even though i strongly disagree with your assessment. But it seems you do find some situations strange. Why not try to improve the one you mentioned? I suggested an example above that could fix it with some TLC.
Genuine question, have you seen much military action? Swat teams clearing buildings etc? If you wait to see what they are going to do, you are dead. Weapons aren't holstered, they are in hands, ready and live to fire because fractions of a second are the difference between life and death.
The majority of everything that has ever been created was intentional. It doesn't mean it's the best way to do something. Nor does it mean it makes the most sense. You all let this blind you to areas that can be improved. It's an excuse, plain and simple. You're all entitled to your opinion. But surely you can make better arguments than.. well it works that way now, so it doesn't need improvement. When a new game comes out and does it better... you can all run to it and claim that one does it perfectly fine too. Completely different scenario with completely different objectives and rules. Do you want me to explain them to you and why your analogy doesn't work?
Ginrei, I think the problem is that you state your opinion as a fact, and when someone argues with your point you dismiss it as a lack of understanding, when it's clearly obvious that things need to be changed. I understand you don't like some mechanics in the game, it's a perfectly valid opinion, but still - just an opinion. And apparently one that majority of people here doesn't share.
Eh? Are we playing the same game... Infinity represents 5-15 mins of hot black-ops action. You get in, do your job, get out. Anyone in the way is removed. This isn't trench warfare, or peace keeping ops or a city sweep. You aren't concerned about civilian casualties either. Heck, you don't even exist, complete deniability.
These threads are the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA"
Essentially, facts are facts until proven otherwise. Being confident in my opinion doesn't change anything. You say I dismiss others opinions but I'm pretty sure the shoe is on the other foot. I explain in detail why an argument isn't valid. If someone wants to disagree they need to provide evidence. If they don't provide any, and I have, the burden is now on them to disprove my argument. Now, they're welcome not to do this and simply claim I'm wrong, which is disgustingly common I might add, but with no new evidence what have they added to the discussion? So it may sound terrible when I dismiss that opinion, but what am I really doing? I'm dismissing their argument because it's based on no new evidence. Typically an argument I've already proven to be incorrect. If I say they don't understand, it's usually because they are making an argument not relevant to the points being made. I explain why that's the case. Do I really need to waste the little time I have discussing things not relevant and disproved already? And you can parrot the same things others say about me all you want. It doesn't actually change the facts. Look at @ijw's response below. He's backing up a comment that hasn't even explained the rules of the situation or why it's applicable. How often do these people actually provide evidence to their arguments? Is it my responsibility yet again to assume what situation and rules they are talking about only for them to make another response with no evidence? Here, I'll give a teaser about their argument. Infinity's goal is about scoring more VPs than your opponent, does a SWAT team have the same goal? No, so how we react(ARO) is completely different. Please don't sit there and tell me my opinion is, just an opinion. It's an opinion with a hell of a lot more substance to it than those providing opinions to the contrary. It's like you all want me to actually prove things can change for the better despite the fact the world we live in has been doing this for millennia. So please forgive me about how I respond to opinions to the contrary. I can't even get any of you to discuss possible ways to improve the game. Which I can accept if that's not what someone wants. Make that clear and move on. But what I won't accept is being told it can't/shouldn't be improved because it's working just fine as intended. Yes, only you've gotten it backwards about who's doing the lalala'ing.
Listen, you make some decent arguments sometimes, but I think you're mislead on this one. This is very clearly an intended part of the game – whether you like it or not, at it's core it's the game functioning as intended. It's not going away any time soon How many people have to tell you otherwise before you pack it in?
Argument from ignorance. The burden is on you to make a compelling case in the first place, which I don't see having happened for various reasons already posted.
It was once a fact that the world was flat. How do you explain that? I'm pretty sure it stopped being a fact once it was proved otherwise. Seriously, after everything i said before, your only evidence that i'm wrong is that it's working as intended? EDIT: The first bicycle was working as intended before someone created a better one. Now look where we are.
If the designers of the game wish for and design their game to force a specific set of actions and reactions and that’s what happens, then the game is functioning as designed. You may not like it, and may wish for something different. That’s fine, but that’s not Infinity, but rather your game. If you wish to go that route, then by all means do, and show folks that your new game is superior and worth playing.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what you think – you're not designing the game and you have little to no effect over how it is designed. You're complaining that water is wet.
Check this out if you're interested: http://brianlassen.blogspot.com/2010/05/facts-until-proven-otherwise-repost.html
The one who hesitates dies. Also you seam to be describing a situation where you have the drop on your opponent like you are in some sort of camo/marker state.
The blog post does pose some interesting situations, but I would be wary of someone using a TEDx talk to support their argument...
