It’s not the unintended interaction alone, which has been all your examples,
That's because I was replying to Broxxor, and then to people who somehow didn't get that i was replying to Broxxor.
It's Broxxor that said that the problem was that the use of GAS/Echo was something CG "didn't intend".
What you're saying is that you agree with me, but that you haven't yet figured out you agree with me. I'm the one criticizing the idea that "didn't intend" is relevant.
The only way to disagree with me is to defend Broxxor, which I note that neither you nor anyone else has actually done. Broxxor's "if it wasn't intended, it's bad" is a laughably bad argument. I said that at the time, I still say it now, and yet the people who make a show of disagreeing with me can't point to a single aspect of what I said with which they actually disagree.
The best you can do is say,
The argument is that an unintended interaction happened that affects the newest shiny.
But again, "unintended interaction" is irrelevant
Let's say that you and Broxxor found out later that a group of programmers knew about this strategy for defeating this specific squad of FO and decided not to do anything about it b/c they thought it was cool and it could be defeated by Malak or whatever anyway. Would learning that make you perfectly happy with GAS being used with a weakly modded Echo as a counter to this specific FO squad?
Of course not. And it shouldn't. Because what makes it bad in your eyes and in the eyes of everyone who has SLKR isn't what some programmer said while giggling with his friends or what another programmer dropped in her documentary comments in the code. What makes it bad is that a 5-person SLKR squad got defeated by a 2-person squad.
Intended, unintended: doesn't have anything to do with it.
And since a huge part of the fun of the game is coming up with new uses for a character, arguing about "intended" is not merely missing the point, it would be actually dangerous to the health of the game if anyone took it seriously and started punishing and/or preventing unintended uses of characters.
The argument that "intention" has anything to do with it is laughably bad.
It was laughably bad when Broxxor said it. It was still laughably bad after Gifafi finished an incompetent defense of Broxxor. It's even laughably bad now, after you've tried to stick up for Broxxor twice.
It’s not the unintended interaction alone, which has been all your examples,
That's because I was replying to Broxxor, and then to people who somehow didn't get that i was replying to Broxxor.
It's Broxxor that said that the problem was that the use of GAS/Echo was something CG "didn't intend".
What you're saying is that you agree with me, but that you haven't yet figured out you agree with me. I'm the one criticizing the idea that "didn't intend" is relevant.
The only way to disagree with me is to defend Broxxor, which I note that neither you nor anyone else has actually done. Broxxor's "if it wasn't intended, it's bad" is a laughably bad argument. I said that at the time, I still say it now, and yet the people who make a show of disagreeing with me can't point to a single aspect of what I said with which they actually disagree.
The best you can do is say,
The argument is that an unintended interaction happened that affects the newest shiny.
But again, "unintended interaction" is irrelevant
Let's say that you and Broxxor found out later that a group of programmers knew about this strategy for defeating this specific squad of FO and decided not to do anything about it b/c they thought it was cool and it could be defeated by Malak or whatever anyway. Would learning that make you perfectly happy with GAS being used with a weakly modded Echo as a counter to this specific FO squad?
Of course not. And it shouldn't. Because what makes it bad in your eyes and in the eyes of everyone who has SLKR isn't what some programmer said while giggling with his friends or what another programmer dropped in her documentary comments in the code. What makes it bad is that a 5-person SLKR squad got defeated by a 2-person squad.
Intended, unintended: doesn't have anything to do with it.
And since a huge part of the fun of the game is coming up with new uses for a character, arguing about "intended" is not merely missing the point, it would be actually dangerous to the health of the game if anyone took it seriously and started punishing and/or preventing unintended uses of characters.
The argument that "intention" has anything to do with it is laughably bad.
It was laughably bad when Broxxor said it. It was still laughably bad after Gifafi finished an incompetent defense of Broxxor. It's even laughably bad now, after you've tried to stick up for Broxxor twice.
CG clearly did not intend for a two man team to perform better than the full team from that faction against any character, let alone their newest meta character. the evidence for this is the fact that they are investigating to determine if any changes should be made. This is not a question of "theory crafting", it is a question of breaking the fundamental point of the game: characters/teams should not get worse with more investment. it is the precedent set by paper zombie (and probably some things before that).
And yes, intended absolutely has something to do with it. They intend for each new character to fit somewhere in the game, and for characters to be better with more investment. Any interaction that undermines that goal is unintended.
I'm going to assume everyone is ignoring that it FO Stormtrooper is taken out and replaced with masked Kylo it doesn't work AND SLKR can solo nearly every team in the game?
Let's say that you and Broxxor found out later that a group of programmers knew about this strategy for defeating this specific squad of FO and decided not to do anything about it b/c they thought it was cool and it could be defeated by Malak or whatever anyway. Would learning that make you perfectly happy with GAS being used with a weakly modded Echo as a counter to this specific FO squad?
Unless you answer yes, then you agree with me: intention is irrelevant and nothing else you say about it matters.
I'm going to assume everyone is ignoring that it FO Stormtrooper is taken out and replaced with masked Kylo it doesn't work AND SLKR can solo nearly every team in the game?
Well, the people who are arguing that a fix is necessary are ignoring that, because they don't think that a player should be responsible for crafting different teams on offense and defense ... or something. I don't know.
I would fight a small tweak, but for lots of reasons, including being able to defeat this counter by slightly modifying your defensive squad, I don't think one is remotely necessary.
Let's say that you and Broxxor found out later that a group of programmers knew about this strategy for defeating this specific squad of FO and decided not to do anything about it b/c they thought it was cool and it could be defeated by Malak or whatever anyway. Would learning that make you perfectly happy with GAS being used with a weakly modded Echo as a counter to this specific FO squad?
Unless you answer yes, then you agree with me: intention is irrelevant and nothing else you say about it matters.
I'm going to assume everyone is ignoring that it FO Stormtrooper is taken out and replaced with masked Kylo it doesn't work AND SLKR can solo nearly every team in the game?
Well, the people who are arguing that a fix is necessary are ignoring that, because they don't think that a player should be responsible for crafting different teams on offense and defense ... or something. I don't know.
I would fight a small tweak, but for lots of reasons, including being able to defeat this counter by slightly modifying your defensive squad, I don't think one is remotely necessary.
The problem with you whole argument is that the devs have announced that they are monitoring this interaction, inplying it was not intended
Look at what I've written. All I've said amounts to
1. bad interactions are bad whether or not they were intended.
2. Good interactions are good whether or not they were intended.
3. talking about whether the interactions were intended is pointless, since they don't fix "good" unintended interactions, so the only determining factor is whether or not the interaction is "bad".
4. ETA: And so when people argue about intention, when that's ultimately not going to make a difference, makes me laugh at how badly people miss the point.
It's amazing to me that people can comment on what I've written without coming close to understanding it.
In order to argue that something must be "fixed" (and many people have been using that word) you must argue that something is "wrong" or "bad". You don't fix things that are right or good or wonderful.
If it didn't need fixing, it obviously wasn't "wrong" or, to use a synonym, "bad". (The reason I put it in quotes is because "bad" here is a relative thing, based on what people think is healthy for the game.)
If it needed fixing and hasn't gotten fixed yet, then it can't be that bad, can it?
In any case, while things that you consider "bad" might go without fixing, you have to concede that things that were unintended also go without fixing.
The only way you can convince the devs to fix something is by arguing that it's bad. The devs already know whether or not it was intentional. Telling them it was intended or unintended is not going to have any effect on them. You have to argue that the effect is actually bad, in the sense that we're discussing, or nothing will be done. And why should it? Unintended interactions are a great part of the fun and challenge. If ever GAC had the same defenses set, and they used the same abilities to achieve the same effect, it would be boring and you might as well be playing PvE.
So don't argue that the interaction was unintended. They already know whether it was intended or not. Do you really think you're giving new information to CG when you call the interaction unintended? That would be, to use a word, laughable... and also doomed to be completely ineffective, since as I'm sure you agree they don't fix things merely because they were unintended.
So to contribute anything to the discussion, you have to make an actual argument that the game would be better if the kit of one or more toons was different. Make an argument that the current status quo is, to use a technical term, bad.
In my arena, SLKR is the harder defensive team to beat even with Rey.
Um. I love Kylo, but it sounds like your shard is in dire need of a massive transfusion of GIT GUD.
So the fact that Kylo can 2 man rey, while rey cant 2 man kylo means Git Gud? Kylo at ultimate and his ability to chain ultimate makes him a much much stronger defensive team compared to Rey. If Rey could chain ultimate youd see Rey hold better too.
Find me a team that doesnt include a GL that can reliably beat any variety of SLKR teams. Because DR team with thrawn, or JKR with GS both have a high win rate vs any Rey comp(even with some G12). Vs SLKR and his varied comps theres no high win rate with anything less than a team of R7 because SLKR AOE will instantly murder any G12 or low relic G13
In my arena, SLKR is the harder defensive team to beat even with Rey.
Um. I love Kylo, but it sounds like your shard is in dire need of a massive transfusion of GIT GUD.
So the fact that Kylo can 2 man rey, while rey cant 2 man kylo means Git Gud? Kylo at ultimate and his ability to chain ultimate makes him a much much stronger defensive team compared to Rey. If Rey could chain ultimate youd see Rey hold better too.
Replies
That's because I was replying to Broxxor, and then to people who somehow didn't get that i was replying to Broxxor.
It's Broxxor that said that the problem was that the use of GAS/Echo was something CG "didn't intend".
What you're saying is that you agree with me, but that you haven't yet figured out you agree with me. I'm the one criticizing the idea that "didn't intend" is relevant.
The only way to disagree with me is to defend Broxxor, which I note that neither you nor anyone else has actually done. Broxxor's "if it wasn't intended, it's bad" is a laughably bad argument. I said that at the time, I still say it now, and yet the people who make a show of disagreeing with me can't point to a single aspect of what I said with which they actually disagree.
The best you can do is say,
But again, "unintended interaction" is irrelevant
Let's say that you and Broxxor found out later that a group of programmers knew about this strategy for defeating this specific squad of FO and decided not to do anything about it b/c they thought it was cool and it could be defeated by Malak or whatever anyway. Would learning that make you perfectly happy with GAS being used with a weakly modded Echo as a counter to this specific FO squad?
Of course not. And it shouldn't. Because what makes it bad in your eyes and in the eyes of everyone who has SLKR isn't what some programmer said while giggling with his friends or what another programmer dropped in her documentary comments in the code. What makes it bad is that a 5-person SLKR squad got defeated by a 2-person squad.
Intended, unintended: doesn't have anything to do with it.
And since a huge part of the fun of the game is coming up with new uses for a character, arguing about "intended" is not merely missing the point, it would be actually dangerous to the health of the game if anyone took it seriously and started punishing and/or preventing unintended uses of characters.
The argument that "intention" has anything to do with it is laughably bad.
It was laughably bad when Broxxor said it. It was still laughably bad after Gifafi finished an incompetent defense of Broxxor. It's even laughably bad now, after you've tried to stick up for Broxxor twice.
CG clearly did not intend for a two man team to perform better than the full team from that faction against any character, let alone their newest meta character. the evidence for this is the fact that they are investigating to determine if any changes should be made. This is not a question of "theory crafting", it is a question of breaking the fundamental point of the game: characters/teams should not get worse with more investment. it is the precedent set by paper zombie (and probably some things before that).
And yes, intended absolutely has something to do with it. They intend for each new character to fit somewhere in the game, and for characters to be better with more investment. Any interaction that undermines that goal is unintended.
Unless you answer yes, then you agree with me: intention is irrelevant and nothing else you say about it matters.
@ttvAntisthegoat
Well, the people who are arguing that a fix is necessary are ignoring that, because they don't think that a player should be responsible for crafting different teams on offense and defense ... or something. I don't know.
I would fight a small tweak, but for lots of reasons, including being able to defeat this counter by slightly modifying your defensive squad, I don't think one is remotely necessary.
The problem with you whole argument is that the devs have announced that they are monitoring this interaction, inplying it was not intended
What, exactly, do you think my argument is?
You seem to be arguing that the devs lie when calling interactions unintended
Nope. Not even remotely close.
Look at what I've written. All I've said amounts to
1. bad interactions are bad whether or not they were intended.
2. Good interactions are good whether or not they were intended.
3. talking about whether the interactions were intended is pointless, since they don't fix "good" unintended interactions, so the only determining factor is whether or not the interaction is "bad".
4. ETA: And so when people argue about intention, when that's ultimately not going to make a difference, makes me laugh at how badly people miss the point.
It's amazing to me that people can comment on what I've written without coming close to understanding it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , but apparently it's laughable. So laughable it had to be said a laughable number of times.
DISCLAIMER: Post is subject to change.
In order to argue that something must be "fixed" (and many people have been using that word) you must argue that something is "wrong" or "bad". You don't fix things that are right or good or wonderful.
If it didn't need fixing, it obviously wasn't "wrong" or, to use a synonym, "bad". (The reason I put it in quotes is because "bad" here is a relative thing, based on what people think is healthy for the game.)
If it needed fixing and hasn't gotten fixed yet, then it can't be that bad, can it?
In any case, while things that you consider "bad" might go without fixing, you have to concede that things that were unintended also go without fixing.
The only way you can convince the devs to fix something is by arguing that it's bad. The devs already know whether or not it was intentional. Telling them it was intended or unintended is not going to have any effect on them. You have to argue that the effect is actually bad, in the sense that we're discussing, or nothing will be done. And why should it? Unintended interactions are a great part of the fun and challenge. If ever GAC had the same defenses set, and they used the same abilities to achieve the same effect, it would be boring and you might as well be playing PvE.
So don't argue that the interaction was unintended. They already know whether it was intended or not. Do you really think you're giving new information to CG when you call the interaction unintended? That would be, to use a word, laughable... and also doomed to be completely ineffective, since as I'm sure you agree they don't fix things merely because they were unintended.
So to contribute anything to the discussion, you have to make an actual argument that the game would be better if the kit of one or more toons was different. Make an argument that the current status quo is, to use a technical term, bad.
So the fact that Kylo can 2 man rey, while rey cant 2 man kylo means Git Gud? Kylo at ultimate and his ability to chain ultimate makes him a much much stronger defensive team compared to Rey. If Rey could chain ultimate youd see Rey hold better too.
Find me a team that doesnt include a GL that can reliably beat any variety of SLKR teams. Because DR team with thrawn, or JKR with GS both have a high win rate vs any Rey comp(even with some G12). Vs SLKR and his varied comps theres no high win rate with anything less than a team of R7 because SLKR AOE will instantly murder any G12 or low relic G13
Have you ever looked at the meta report?