|
Post by megajonzero on Nov 19, 2009 21:38:14 GMT -5
I meant that this thing has gone on for months and no one has changed their opinions so it mite as well end.
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Nov 20, 2009 3:45:16 GMT -5
Rather, your head is so far up your ass that you might want to contact Guinness, because you may have a world record on your hands. I can see why your friends, you both posses that oh so pleasent tact and when you you're always so diplomatic.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Nov 20, 2009 3:59:56 GMT -5
lol, he was pretty civil to you until you suggested he was my bitch.
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Nov 20, 2009 6:25:15 GMT -5
^Pretty much. I'm fine with being civil to anyone, but then you go and say something so cripplingly stupid (ESPECIALLY considering that BM and I just spent like four pages debating) that I honestly have no other response than to insult you mercilessly.
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Nov 20, 2009 12:29:40 GMT -5
Pretty much you weren't, from the start you reacting to 1vs1 was actually pretty rude, but hey if you guys love debating so much don't let me interrupt you.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Nov 20, 2009 13:02:58 GMT -5
Well you see, in an actual argument - you know, where both sides bring up legitimate points and counter-points - the discussion moves forward, ground is given and taken, certain points conceded by both parties, and eventually both sides come to an accord, a common ground where they both can agree on major points. And if you'd read the posts you would see that's what happened.
You wouldn't understand that because not only do you not ever support your opinion with legitimate points (you simply state it as fact and assume you don't need to explain why you're right), but you are also wholly incapable of admitting someone else has made a valid claim: instead you choose to ignore everyone else's arguments and simply restate your original (unsupported) claim. This leads to "debates" which simply go around in circles and make you look like a fool.
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Nov 20, 2009 13:24:42 GMT -5
Well you see, in an actual argument - you know, where both sides bring up legitimate points and counter-points - the discussion moves forward, ground is given and taken, certain points conceded by both parties, and eventually both sides come to an accord, a common ground where they both can agree on major points. And if you'd read the posts you would see that's what happened. You wouldn't understand that because not only do you not ever support your opinion with legitimate points (you simply state it as fact and assume you don't need to explain why you're right), but you are also wholly incapable of admitting someone else has made a valid claim: instead you choose to ignore everyone else's arguments and simply restate your original (unsupported) claim. This leads to "debates" which simply go around in circles and make you look like a fool. You're really hung up insulting me as much as you can aren't you? I don't get into stuff as much as you are joppi but what I'm write is practically shakespeare compared to the one liners 90% of the community here gives, yet you just keep pointing how i don't support anything. You need to quit with the whole intelligence thing because It's just getting old and I'm intelluct is way above average, I'm not a master of words, I'm more into science, which is the main focus of what I've learned. I really don't feel the need to overly explain myself. I'm not denying you or anyone else has made good points, but after a while the talking should cease and we should like actually play (or experiment if you will) to see if all those fancy points you made actually mean anything or is just smoke and mirrors. Either way this goes beyond any silly debate, you should have some problem with me I'd instead of just going around in circles why not just say it and save us both some time.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Nov 20, 2009 13:43:37 GMT -5
Hey, I would criticize anyone else in the community for not supporting their points if I was debating them. If you actually made points I would focus on them instead the lack of them.
And even if you want to conduct an experiment you have to know what you're testing for and what your results will prove. I have made the case several times that your proposed experiment is flawed in that its results will not answer the question you are posing (which class is better), but you ignore that and stubbornly push forward with an experiment which will only prove which class is better in the hands of mediocre players.
Take basketball, for example. Let's say we are debating the effectiveness of the 3 point shot vs the medium range 2. You're suggesting that the way to determine which shot is more effective is to see which one average players plucked out of your local ymca can hit with greater consistency. The problem with that is your ymca players aren't very good at basketball. Sure, some of them might be ok, but even they aren't anywhere near pro level. A better way to measure which is a more effective shot in basketball is to look at nba statistics. Now, at a local ymca level the medium range 2 might be more efficient because shooters lack the range to hit 3s at good percentage, but all that proves is that mediocre players don't shoot well from range, not that the 3 point shot is less efficient than the medium range 2.
In the same way, all that your proposed mediocre archer vs mediocre mage will only prove (given enough repetitions) which class mediocre players perform better with. If you looked at nba statistics you would find that the 3 is actually a much better shot than the medium range 2. Just because ymca players don't have the skills to make 3s doesn't mean the 3 is an objectively worse shot than the medium 2. It's not a deficiency of the shot, it's a deficiency of the test group.
If you wanted to run your test you would have to use top level archers and mages as your test group, and repeat multiple times with a variety of people. Even then that would only go a limited way in proving which class is better; the results would probably provide convincing evidence that one class was better than the other in 1v1 situations, but wouldn't address real game 8v8s. For that you would need to gain data over time of 8v8s between players skilled with their respective classes, trying to record as much solid numbers as are available (though you still wouldn't be able to account for intangibles). Then you would analyze the data and present your conclusions. Unfortunately, that would take a great deal of time and effort; more than is really practical. So in lieu of that we debate the elements that such a test would give data for, crafting theories supported by the information already available to us, which you refuse to do.
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Nov 20, 2009 14:10:16 GMT -5
Hey, I would criticize anyone else in the community for not supporting their points if I was debating them. If you actually made points I would focus on them instead the lack of them. And even if you want to conduct an experiment you have to know what you're testing for and what your results will prove. I have made the case several times that your proposed experiment is flawed in that its results will not answer the question you are posing (which class is better), but you ignore that and stubbornly push forward with an experiment which will only prove which class is better in the hands of mediocre players. Take basketball, for example. Let's say we are debating the effectiveness of the 3 point shot vs the medium range 2. You're suggesting that the way to determine which shot is more effective is to see which one average players plucked out of your local ymca can hit with greater consistency. The problem with that is your ymca players aren't very good at basketball. Sure, some of them might be ok, but even they aren't anywhere near pro level. A better way to measure which is a more effective shot in basketball is to look at nba statistics. Now, at a local ymca level the medium range 2 might be more efficient because shooters lack the range to hit 3s at good percentage, but all that proves is that mediocre players don't shoot well from range, not that the 3 point shot is less efficient than the medium range 2. In the same way, all that your proposed mediocre archer vs mediocre mage will only prove (given enough repetitions) which class mediocre players perform better with. If you looked at nba statistics you would find that the 3 is actually a much better shot than the medium range 2. Just because ymca players don't have the skills to make 3s doesn't mean the 3 is an objectively worse shot than the medium 2. It's not a deficiency of the shot, it's a deficiency of the test group. If you wanted to run your test you would have to use top level archers and mages as your test group, and repeat multiple times with a variety of people. Even then that would only go a limited way in proving which class is better; the results would probably provide convincing evidence that one class was better than the other in 1v1 situations, but wouldn't address real game 8v8s. For that you would need to gain data over time of 8v8s between players skilled with their respective classes, trying to record as much solid numbers as are available (though you still wouldn't be able to account for intangibles). Then you would analyze the data and present your conclusions. Unfortunately, that would take a great deal of time and effort; more than is really practical. So in lieu of that we debate the elements that such a test would give data for, crafting theories supported by the information already available to us, which you refuse to do.[/quote I'll translate for those who don't feel like reading, The only way to prove which class is better would be a butt load of work and not really worth, so lets just talk about it. Well, I already talked about it, if you look at the stop spamming mages and archers thread I already said why I think mages are better. Lets say at the highest level archers are better (at killing) I really don't see how that effects an every day random game. I know you think nothing of my skill but when I play archer I'm normally the best shot playing. Which means 99% of the games there is no megajon, joppi or broly playing. I think a lot of perspective comes from what we normally play. I used to main archer, and I know you main mage, or at least used to. Mages always gave me the most trouble and I'm assuming archers gave you the most from sniping from a distance. Either way, I'm still going to accept challenges from archers, and the ones that so far have challenged me i do not feel they are mediocre. nor am I a mediocre mage.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Nov 20, 2009 14:19:13 GMT -5
Dude, (unless you've changed) you don't even jump cancel, which makes you a less than mediocre mage. And have you learned to recover by pressing X when you get knocked down yet?
Btw, nice summary. Except you (again) aren't addressing my points about how your experiment is flawed.
Every day random games don't pertain at all to the discussion about which class is better. If we were debating which class is easier to play as, or which class will be more effective for mediocre players to use against other mediocre players, I would agree that the mage is the clear choice. But that's not what we are discussing, nor is it of any worth in evaluating which class is objectively better.
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Nov 20, 2009 14:28:02 GMT -5
Dude, (unless you've changed) you don't even jump cancel, which makes you a less than mediocre mage. And have you learned to recover by pressing X when you get knocked down yet? Btw, nice summary. Except you (again) aren't addressing my points about how your experiment is flawed. Every day random games don't pertain at all to the discussion about which class is better. If we were debating which class is easier to play as, or which class will be more effective for mediocre players to use against other mediocre players, I would agree that the mage is the clear choice. But that's not what we are discussing, nor is it of any worth in evaluating which class is objectively better. I sort of jump cancel now, I beat most mages 1vs1. just ask the people who just played me, whoever they are. I'm not an expert mage but in my opinion I'm above average and I think anyone that could do good with a mage and not jump cancel shows true skill. Either way, it's just whatever at this point, I don't even think we're debating about the same thing anymore.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Nov 20, 2009 14:43:28 GMT -5
let's see what the topic title is, shall we: "who's better, Archers or mages"
It would seem you were never debating that in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Nov 20, 2009 15:00:47 GMT -5
okay well I feel the average Mage is better then average Archer.
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Nov 20, 2009 15:11:45 GMT -5
which is a statement about the skill level of players, not the attributes of the classes.
|
|
|
Post by Strider on Nov 20, 2009 15:21:18 GMT -5
Ease of use does not equal better.
Yes, the mage is easier to pick up and use. That doesn't make it the superior class. Is it the most valuable class? Maybe.
As far as killing is concerned, the archer is second to none. Top notch archers will kill more than top notch mages over 90% of the time (depending on the map/circumstances).
The challenge:
I'm not sure a challenge of this sort would prove a damn thing. I'd participate - but only for fun. Not because I think it'd solidify anything.
|
|