Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Beneej_Spoor

Catharsis II: Admiral Spoor — No Sir, Notser

5 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

58
[RE]
Members
109 posts
9,055 battles

Catharsis II: Admiral Spoor — No Sir, Notser

 

I've decided it's not worth recording myself doing another rambling rant, but I suppose I am reviewing a single quarter of the entire content.

 

I must disclose, I felt at first Notser had redeemed himself significantly since the 6.11 patch videos and I am glad he will be enjoying an event in Corpus Cristi at the USS Lexington. The problem is still the generalizations and contradictions he makes without paying heed in part to first, how his perspective influences company policy (potentially, but not in fact. I attempt to cover that). Additionally, the oversight to continue to insist that he does not have a dog in the fight, then to proceed to breakdown the game experience and the ways it frustrates him bother me. So below is my outline point by point.

 

I have another thread on it: 

 

And I have a post concerning Zoup's recent inane approach to the game as well

 

 

 

 

Untitled Ep. 61 - 6.12, Internet, USS Lexington

  1. Clan Warfare, 6.12

    1. 2:35 "How's the game gonna play”

      1. Probably complete garbage and HE-Cruiser kiting, but what do we know, you said previously

      2. "Go ahead, try, like that's not happening already" in your 6.11 review

        1. I'm glad we can all afford now to be rampant hypocrites since our audiences won't hold us to scrutiny after we've forgiven ourselves by making enough decent content in between inane and flawed statements that no one will catch us.

    2. 2:40 "I'm extremely happy that I'm on the sidelines"

        1. Except by definition you, much less literally the large video CCs are not on the sidelines ii. Never mind that the changes to foster quote, "Brain-dead design and game-play are largely influenced by feedback from CCs that seem not to represent the community not contribute to it's growth.

        2. That's a subjective statement; yes, but it's worth noting you wanted this change most to break up stagnant ranked play (6.11 review) yet now mysteriously you claim you have no stake

    1. 2:48 "l would be really frustrated if I really cared"

      1. Shall I play you segments of "What's Up With Me" and your "6.11 Review" concerning how frustrated you were with "Us"

      2. In this case, you may call me out for pretending I represent the larger community. I do not, but at least I understand or will admit up front my frustrations I will take out on the players, but not by asking the game to be changed to get rid of these players or the tactics they use.

    2. 2:58 "There are players that spent so much time leveling up their CVs"

      1. So I'm guessing to uphold the anti-BB narrative we'll over look those too ii. Also, am I the only one who's getting the weird vibe soon you all will be coming for our carriers too?

      2. Strange thing to point out that both CVs and DDS are extremely important, assuming I guess that we all recall your critique from Clan Wars prior to this video yet tacitly overlook BBS being removed mostly and CVs being killed off as collateral damage to suit your narratives.

    1. 3:05 — 3:17 "It's going to look nothing like any competitive mode . .. we've ever seen"

      1. I don't know, I think it will look almost exactly like S6 and S7 of Ranked, even given that Tier VI battles of S7 had more battleships, that was the Shinonome, Farragut, Cleveland meta, whereas S6 was Belfast, Atlanta, Shiratsuyu.

      2. I suspect it will be equally, if not more cancerous, because [edited] BBS and [edited] Cvs if they make the game hard for anyone.

    2. 3:18-3:24 "And I think that's fantastic, I hate [current] ranked play, I think it's boring"

      1. Let's say the argument CCs have "no" influence toward WGs decisions is true, then we're looking strictly at the content of his words towards the audience; ii. This is a hypocritical and leading on statement to present considering earlier you said:

      1. 2:40 "I'm extremely happy that I'm on the sidelines"

        1. So neither of us can accurately clam we're on the sidelines anymore given we're both paying customers

        2. The only difference is where as I am not funny and charming, and you happen to be that, which is subversive AND have an audience of thousands that will almost follow you to death regardless of what you say or do (with one or two exceptions that I pleasantly may point to).

    1. 3:32 "l don't want to sit in smoke with a 1 to 1 objective"

      1. I believe this calls for two clips

        1. Jingles, "l believe they call this Teamwork"

        2. Any of Notser's content prior to "6.11 Review" emphasizing Teamwork

        3. RedLetterMedia, "It's always good to show contempt of your audience"

    2. 3:40-3:46 "Sorry, I just hate that . . . I have better things to do with my life"

      1. And the rest of us don't?

        1. Also if you truly did, I'd imagine your quote from 6.11 wouldn't be so much "It's my smoke, I should dictate who uses it" would be more along the lines of

      2. Why are people blaming players for bad play rather than the bad mechanics of the game.

      3. Then again Flamu does that every day as of late but assume it's all targeted toward casuals.

      4. I also like how you dropped sorry three times, like that deflects the clear contempt you have of you know the people that no longer watch you

        1. I still do because I; on the other hand; do not believe the CC's have no influence over WG

          • And in my case, I imagine even if you or other CC's say WG listens poorly and implements misunderstood or misguided patches at CC's behest, the point is even once in a while if you repeat the same lies enough, WG will listen

    1. 3:54 "l think competitive should feel fast"

      1. Make them all battleships and spawn them within 13 km of each other. ii. CG:GO Mode engaged, may the twitchiest players win.

      2. Oh, and even good play is balanced in part by RNG even at that rage, that will make your matches damned fast

      3. Also gets rid of the risk aversion issue of dealing with literally everything else.

      4. I know why you didn't suggest this though, that would ruin your anti-BB narrative

        1. Also I understand my suggestion is patently absurd; however, if you want fast, this would help resolve that blasted issue for you.

    2. 4:00 — 4:03 "It should reward aggressive play"

      1. No, and this is not actually a matter of opinion, it should reward the play the company wants.

      2. You of all people should understand this

        1. Even if say "well profit motive or the design of the company is not paramount", fine, then the game should reward "Intelligent" play, and not all aggressive moves are intelligent

        2. Ask Field Marshal Haig or Josef Joffre as to what unwarranted amounts of aggression got them

          • They felt in their opinions just as much that defensive postures shouldn't be rewarded.

          • Granted one's a philosophy of war, the other is a philosophy of a game; my point is that abject statement of opinion is fairly stupid and underthought or analyzed

    1. 4:05 —4:30 Largely irrelevant rambling about how it sucks that someone slow-plays an advantage to win something

      1. My only point here will be I guess he's not sports fan.

      2. It must drive him nuts to see a team in football up 3 to O start running the ball to chew clock for 15 minutes.

        1. Clearly the team that got their field goal should not be rewarded with a win for conservative, albeit victorious play

        2. I dare him to watch Nebraska vs. Texas A&M 2010, I bet he would wish Texas A&M investigated for squeaking out their win 9 to 6 for slow rolling most of the game

      3. How much more like CS:GO would you like Warships to be?

    2. 4:40 "l would like to see some sort of extra reward for pushing

      1. Then you'd need a fundamental change in the game

        1. Never mind there is crazy base XP rate for capping now, but that does not change who does or does not kill you.

        2. Or even better, get rid of cover, and bring back ocean, make cover and concealment irrelevant, oh and may DD's and CA's able to survive more torps

          • Then everyone will want to knife fight, because there's almost no consequence to bad play, because you can survive it.

      2. That being said your counter, to yourself in straw-man fashion is this

    1. 4:50 Strawman "Their counter to my hatred of it, well I need to get damage"

      1. Never mind that's your counter to yourself, and only I think morons like Flamu would say something so inane as the one-point to summarize everything, you miss the point in analyzing your own risk-reward structure

      2. I cannot recall if it was you, iChase, or Flamu who pointed it out, but ultimately "Influence" wins you game. The longer you stay alive, the more opportunities are afforded to you to try to change the tide of the game.

        1. Day 9-Rule; If you're ahead, you help your team get farther head

        2. If you're behind, you help your team deal damage to win or secure points on the flank if you're a DD.

      3. That being said, note, being ALIVE is perhaps the MOST influential psychological reinforcing factor, it should come as no surprise that defensive play, conservative approaches are how players good AND bad choose to play

        1. Somehow though you hate the fundamental structure of the game and ask that "We" simply learn a new way to play, not you.

      4. Maybe this game isn't' for you then.

        1. I seem to recall hearing that directed to myself a few times as of late.

    2. 5:00 "Nobody wants to play for the 20 minutes . . . If I can't win it, I certainly [won't] lose it"

      1. Your argument should have stopped there, that's perfectly fine and accurate statement alone

        1. You don't want to be flamed for losing a game

        2. Most would like to contribute, but if you can't, just don't throw the game

        3. iChase I believe has something on this called "How to Throw a Game" ii. Alas, the rambling continues

    1. 5:20 "l don't think that should be the entire game, I think that should be a type or a line"

      1. What's the point of a game if you can't win

      2. Even better, what's the point of a game if you can't lose?

      3. Yes, you can say Co-op and Operations (which removed casual filthy Tier Vs) you may basically never lose, but they possess that single-player edge challenge just enough to be entertaining without being cancerous or pedantic

      4. But this is an MMO, winning is everything, your rewards, your XP, your stats, literally almost everything lives and dies on that in the PvP world, so I am not sure where this reasoning is coming from.

    2. 5:37 Strawman "l don't want every line to play the same"

      1. Never mind that lets say you're over generalizing, by definition still, they don't play the same

        1. CVs are supposed to be in the back since they only have planes.

        2. BB's, can push but get flamed for over extending, so they have to use cover and hope the dice-roll of the knife fights between DD's and CA's go well\

        3. Light vessels have to use smoke, cover, and planning to creep upon an objective and use sonar or radar to dictate the terms of the fight and either flush the enemy from cover or kill someone early to get the snowball rolling that permits

        4. BB's to face-punch people like boxers

      2. That's the IDEAL scenario, which almost NEVER happens

      3. So what's the reasonable alternative if a player or a team loses literally all ability to dictate the terms of engagement

        1. If you lose initiative, guess what you are on immediately . . .the defensive.

    1. 5:50 “I'd rather teams make 10 different mistakes and it be back and forth"

      1. Are you just appealing to the "Casuals" at this point to win you brownie points?

        1. Let's assuming exciting to watch meant anything to exciting to play

        2. Imagine how frustrating mysteriously it would be to competitors if you had to play perfectly and you still get back and forths.

        3. Imagine how frustrating it is given the current mechanics of the game to play normally and still be called a potato.

        4. You're basically asking for one of two things

          • Mistakes are punished ruthlessly but by design engine, the other team will make mistakes somehow

          • Or, mistakes have no consequence, so no one has that risk aversion the reinforces development of positioning knowledge

          • That way you can face-roll to victory regardless and have an exciting looking game, but exactly no agency almost in its outcome.

        5. As for the false-dichotomy of my set up, I "imagine" another option would be assuming the generalization was casuals tend to make a lot of mistakes on either side would behave smaller maps with team-death match rather than capping or objectives so brawling was strictly speaking necessary, but then you get risk averse game-play anyway without enticing anyone to want to die first

        6. Again more CS:GO

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
79 posts
8,541 battles

man you put a lot of effort into this

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[RE]
Members
109 posts
9,055 battles

In one manner of speaking yes. I will not deny; however, I have been and am in fact rude here. I've decided in any case the forum may be easier, but in any case I just hope in part to see more akin to "Conqueror Getting Nerfed", which I did appreciate. I have disagreed with other material before, not to the extent of late which has come up.

 

In any case, thank you for stopping by. I know you'll keep up your work sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×