Snazzelicious
Baron
warband safe spaces 
WPL2 Friendly Criticism Thread
- Thread starter Gorlock
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Baron
Ebdanian Admiral said:
if we wanted to be sheltered from mean internet people we would join GK...
stfu john u pills berry muffin boy
i bet u reported dis thread
i bet u reported dis thread
Snazzelicious
Baron
wow, heat is savage
um, ok
"Bants" (e.g. Banter) implies something witty or clever. This and the other thread are looking pretty lackluster. Just typing insults isn't witty. Talk about some teams or something, get creative.
Not bant
Bant
Not bant
hëat said:
Bant
[quote author=Fritigern]
X, why are you suck a voracious cocksucker? I mean, how do you even manage to type a response at any given moment? The sheer mechanics of you operating a keyboard while simultaneously tonguing balls and two-fisted jacking dicks at the same time is just mind boggling. But, no one can deny your eloquence in spite of your self inflicted handicaps, so in that regard I can't help but admire you. I, too, some day hope to gobble the gob with such poise.
So, now that I've caught up with -- and surpassed -- all this bizarre animosity that has been brewing for the past few pages, I can now jump into the discussion surefooted and on equal terms with all involved. So, as X's motto goes: Let's take it from the top.
Why were shield drops somehow a requirement in our match with Balion; or, that is to say, why are people criticizing both BkS' and Balion's choice NOT to equip their archers with shields? The simple answer is they weren't needed. The complicated answer is that they would have been a hindrance and, potentially, could have spelled doom for the team that partook of such a cowardly tactic. That is, at least, where the first match is concerned. Why? Because if you had been down in the trenches in the map you would have observed very quickly that this was not a map that provided adequate protection for archers.
"Bhut Frithigurn," X gags around a throbbing member, "if an archer has no cover, that is WHY you would give them a shield! (We'll assume X had the decency to clear his throat at this point in the conversation)." False! Archer shield tactics are most effective when hard cover is an option, so that archers can cross open ground to reach said hard cover, where upon they can, figuratively speaking, make it rain. If you are standing in open with a tree scattered every hundred yards, where are you going to go to hide? Sure, you can maybe absorb a few arrows, but when facing a team bristling with talented archers, how safe would you really be with your shoulders and legs poking around the sides of trees, while three or more archers start spreading out to get shots on target? The answer in that map was to maintain maximum sustained firepower for as long as possible. With so many hard to kill horses on the field, and so much open ground and shields needing holes, a large ammo supply was needed to assert dominance. BkS was on the ball with this tactic, we even briefly discussed it as the match was in progress if we should shield up or not, and I'm sure a similar conversation took place in the Balion camp. We each independently and quickly came to the same conclusion, which is what made that first match so close.
The team that sacrificed arrows in favour of defence was leaving themselves open to suppression and domination. This is the main flaw in this whole "meta" debate, because what people perceive to be the pinnacle of "high level" tactics quickly turns into dogmatism that is followed blindly and without thought. Emulation becomes doctrine for the weak minded who aren't brave enough to think on their own. And everyone in this thread who parroted this bull**** just proved themselves to be a colossal idiot.
As for everything else? The turtling, the s-key-heroes, the camping? That **** is god damn boring, and I'm not getting paid enough to play like a *****. I am here to have fun and splatter blood on my glorious beard and top-knot. If things degrade to a point where, in order to assure victory, I have to start playing like a vagina? Well, then I just won't play at all. A game that has been so sapped of creativity and risk is not a game worth playing.
[/quote]
X, why are you suck a voracious cocksucker? I mean, how do you even manage to type a response at any given moment? The sheer mechanics of you operating a keyboard while simultaneously tonguing balls and two-fisted jacking dicks at the same time is just mind boggling. But, no one can deny your eloquence in spite of your self inflicted handicaps, so in that regard I can't help but admire you. I, too, some day hope to gobble the gob with such poise.
So, now that I've caught up with -- and surpassed -- all this bizarre animosity that has been brewing for the past few pages, I can now jump into the discussion surefooted and on equal terms with all involved. So, as X's motto goes: Let's take it from the top.
Why were shield drops somehow a requirement in our match with Balion; or, that is to say, why are people criticizing both BkS' and Balion's choice NOT to equip their archers with shields? The simple answer is they weren't needed. The complicated answer is that they would have been a hindrance and, potentially, could have spelled doom for the team that partook of such a cowardly tactic. That is, at least, where the first match is concerned. Why? Because if you had been down in the trenches in the map you would have observed very quickly that this was not a map that provided adequate protection for archers.
"Bhut Frithigurn," X gags around a throbbing member, "if an archer has no cover, that is WHY you would give them a shield! (We'll assume X had the decency to clear his throat at this point in the conversation)." False! Archer shield tactics are most effective when hard cover is an option, so that archers can cross open ground to reach said hard cover, where upon they can, figuratively speaking, make it rain. If you are standing in open with a tree scattered every hundred yards, where are you going to go to hide? Sure, you can maybe absorb a few arrows, but when facing a team bristling with talented archers, how safe would you really be with your shoulders and legs poking around the sides of trees, while three or more archers start spreading out to get shots on target? The answer in that map was to maintain maximum sustained firepower for as long as possible. With so many hard to kill horses on the field, and so much open ground and shields needing holes, a large ammo supply was needed to assert dominance. BkS was on the ball with this tactic, we even briefly discussed it as the match was in progress if we should shield up or not, and I'm sure a similar conversation took place in the Balion camp. We each independently and quickly came to the same conclusion, which is what made that first match so close.
The team that sacrificed arrows in favour of defence was leaving themselves open to suppression and domination. This is the main flaw in this whole "meta" debate, because what people perceive to be the pinnacle of "high level" tactics quickly turns into dogmatism that is followed blindly and without thought. Emulation becomes doctrine for the weak minded who aren't brave enough to think on their own. And everyone in this thread who parroted this bull**** just proved themselves to be a colossal idiot.
As for everything else? The turtling, the s-key-heroes, the camping? That **** is god damn boring, and I'm not getting paid enough to play like a *****. I am here to have fun and splatter blood on my glorious beard and top-knot. If things degrade to a point where, in order to assure victory, I have to start playing like a vagina? Well, then I just won't play at all. A game that has been so sapped of creativity and risk is not a game worth playing.
[/quote]
Wert said:
This is why these threads get closed. If people stopped hurling insults constantly and actually brainstorm real banter we wouldn't have this problem.
Alright, I'm gonna try to communicate again, see how it works.
I feel like the "social justice police" arguments don't really hold up when the thread is like, well, this. The moderation isn't against criticism. We're not against banter either. Most of the moderation members have participated in banter on clan threads in the past, and some still do in their own circles. But that was lighthearted chatter and the people we talked to knew that it was the case. "This person is a fag" or "lol, this person sucks ****" isn't banter. It's not witty, it's not a lighthearted way of poking fun. You just pick an insult and direct it at someone. That's never gonna stand. "Blixn sucks more than a cow in heat" is acceptable though. Sorry Blix.
It is obvious that not all of you pursue such actions, but for such threads to stay unlocked, we need those people to take action. If there are those among you that want to have threads to offer criticism, without ad hominems (as Gorlock rightly says), then we will try our best to moderate these threads. But those people who want these threads need to report the people who sabotage them. When the majority of people participating in such threads are making posts we wouldn't to have on the forums, putting an effort to penalize people and delete those posts becomes a hassle that no moderator wants to take part in, thus they get locked before they cause too much trouble.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've interpreted some of your posts to mean that there is a desire to have such threads exist. They can't exist in this state, but we can work towards it, as long as moderators are given an inclination that the community itself will take a stance against those subpar posts that only serve to sabotage the threads.
TLR If you want to discuss the future of such threads, let's do so now.
I feel like the "social justice police" arguments don't really hold up when the thread is like, well, this. The moderation isn't against criticism. We're not against banter either. Most of the moderation members have participated in banter on clan threads in the past, and some still do in their own circles. But that was lighthearted chatter and the people we talked to knew that it was the case. "This person is a fag" or "lol, this person sucks ****" isn't banter. It's not witty, it's not a lighthearted way of poking fun. You just pick an insult and direct it at someone. That's never gonna stand. "Blixn sucks more than a cow in heat" is acceptable though. Sorry Blix.
It is obvious that not all of you pursue such actions, but for such threads to stay unlocked, we need those people to take action. If there are those among you that want to have threads to offer criticism, without ad hominems (as Gorlock rightly says), then we will try our best to moderate these threads. But those people who want these threads need to report the people who sabotage them. When the majority of people participating in such threads are making posts we wouldn't to have on the forums, putting an effort to penalize people and delete those posts becomes a hassle that no moderator wants to take part in, thus they get locked before they cause too much trouble.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've interpreted some of your posts to mean that there is a desire to have such threads exist. They can't exist in this state, but we can work towards it, as long as moderators are given an inclination that the community itself will take a stance against those subpar posts that only serve to sabotage the threads.
TL
R If you want to discuss the future of such threads, let's do so now.
That's optimistic.
Lol no the problems not with the ones talking **** it's the ones who talk **** than can't defend themselves when the heat comes so the admins defend them
Guaccmoleboy
I've beaten Thunderbeu in countless ft7s
