Invis potion and INDIVIDUALITY

[quote="CHIEFHERO[SKS]"]

Quote :

why are you asking me to explain my views as opposed to asking shoop, when you probably agree with me?
[...]about invis requiring 0 skill [...]

Simply, because you claimed that invis requires skill, although you didn't bring up one point to back it up is enough to ask for it.

CHIEFHERO[SKS] wrote:

what makes it fun to get a golem kill? and what makes it fun to die to a golem? answere these two.

Throwing a golem needs good prediction on wether the sheep moves or doesn't, it's same with holding a side when you run back and forth trying to not get tricked and trick the other one in mind. If you get tricked by the sheep due to false prediction you can learn from that, if you succeed you are either smarter or more experienced than the other guy (or lucky, but that's a factor that is in any game in nearly any situation) and therefore you can be proud of the kill.
I can learn to predict golems to not run into them, I can place farms different to not get hit by them, I can run around slower golems to get a good escape, I can redirect them. I don't get killed by them without having had the chance to predict the kill before.

So much for the basic golem, with the iron golem there are advanced aspects to it: I recently started throwing an iron golem to hold an extra side if the iso is far away, so my team has more time to get by. Holding two sides to buy extra time in an iso requires huge individual skill of one wolf. Also can you place an iron golem in the middle in order to get another cutter into the early/middle minutes of the game.

I hope I met your needs of those questions
Please don't hesitate to give me theory about invis! I'm eager to learn about it, since I'm not pro at it.

good shit. do you think it matters/is bad that a sheep can die to a golem by screwing up/having bad spikes/not being careful enough?



there are insanely many factors to invising.
1) knowing when to go invis
2) knowing on which part of the map to stand
3) predicting where the sheep is most likely to play careless/not expect you
4) knowing how to handle failing 1 snipe and their entire team expecting to get sniped on that side the following minutes

and MUCH more. invis is obviously not just about buying the item, watching the sheep run at a constant speed out of his farms, and then timing the hit. what idiot thinks that is reality? and even IF that was the reality, there are still other non-technical factors that come in play which would unarguably make me perform better than a less skilled player. i would get kills faster and more frequent regardless of whether everyone is equally good at the technical side of the item or not.

Invis reduces the individual impact a good wolf have on a team beacause it requires so little skill to be good in it. If you want more individuality we should remove it so that we can emphasize parts of wolfing which you can actually be superior to others in with talent/practice.

CHIEFHERO[SKS] wrote:

good shit. do you think it matters/is bad that a
sheep can die to a golem by screwing up/having bad spikes/not being
careful enough?

Thanks. I don't think that matters. Sheep fuck up, sheep die.

CHIEFHERO[SKS] wrote:

there are insanely many factors to invising.
1) knowing when to go invis
2) knowing on which part of the map to stand
3) predicting where the sheep is most likely to play careless/not expect you
4) knowing how to handle failing 1 snipe and their entire team expecting to get sniped on that side the following minutes

and
MUCH more. [...] there are still other non-technical factors that come in play [...]

Nice! That answers what allows you to get kills more frequently and to be of use to your team. What are the non-technical factors? I don't get what you mean by that at all, sorry.
Also, can you give me theory on how to predict/dodge/any other technique to get killed far less than anyone else, please?
What do you actually think of the point that invis makes most people "-.-" instead of ";D"? Did you experience the same with yourself/others? I, for one, did

Shoop wrote:

Invis reduces the individual impact a good wolf have on a team beacause it requires so little skill to be good in it. If you want more individuality we should remove it so that we can emphasize parts of wolfing which you can actually be superior to others in with talent/practice.

Do you deny Amir's points 1) to 4)? Why? It seems like there's a lot of brainwork and predicting in it, although I still don't fully understand how it works. Amir just told me what I already assumed, but atleast I can be sure of that now.

What about the argument that invis is 100% only based on players ping. Sheep with higher ping will die more frequently to invis then sheep with lower ping. Simply because the game takes that 1/15th of a second longer for the sheep to walk back.

XXXandBEER wrote:

What about the argument that invis is 100% only based on players ping. Sheep with higher ping will die more frequently to invis then sheep with lower ping. Simply because the game takes that 1/15th of a second longer for the sheep to walk back.

Basically the argument is that invis is very hard to predict in short-terms. I once heard grim say that he can predict chances on where invis is running around and thus risks differently in different zones (long-term). But I'd like to see the answer of Amir (/anyone else) on how to not get killed that easy by invis in order to get myself satisfied by that item, because grim's statement didn't convince me enough.

Please don't miss to answer the questions in my previous post!

Quote :

I don't think that matters. Sheep fuck up, sheep die.

Quote :

What do you actually think of the point that invis makes most people "-.-" instead of ";D"? Did you experience the same with yourself/others? I, for one, did

more people go ''-.-'' over dying to invis than to golems. the theory i think explains this the best is that there is nothing wrong with people dying because of bad reactions or because they fuck up(shoop actually uses that as an argument, lol..), and there is nothing wrong with getting ''non-isolation'' and ''non-teamwork'' kills. everyone loving golems supports this.

the important difference between the invis and the golem is that there are certain situation with the invis where ANYONE would die, no matter how good u are. and its those situations that piss people off the most, when ''there was nothing i could do -.-".

is there any reason to go ''-.-'' over dying to invis and go '';D'' over dying to golems? OTHER than dying to golems being your own fault, while dying to invis sometimes is not your own fault - there was nothing you could do. with the right balancing and develouping of the map, avoiding invis could be just as much in your own hands as avoiding golems. people would like the invis for the same reasons the like the golem now.

remember lakes. im not arguing to add the invis in the map today, and end the debate. it has to be properly incorporated into the map. there is no way for you to 100% avoid invis today except maphacking.

Quote :

What about the argument that invis is 100% only based on players ping. Sheep with higher ping will die more frequently to invis then sheep with lower ping. Simply because the game takes that 1/15th of a second longer for the sheep to walk back.

this is obviously not an argument. this is how its supposed to be. difference in ping is the same as difference in reaction. by making people with 100 ping have an equal chance of surviving as someone with 10 ping, you're completely taking out the reward of good reactions. we WANT people with high ping to die and NOT to live as long as everyone else.

but ofc ping is not the only relevant factor to getting kills. but to say that it shouldn't even be a factor is INSANITY.

CHIEFHERO[SKS] wrote:

the important difference between the invis and the golem is that there are certain situation with the invis where ANYONE would die, no matter how good u are. and its those situations that piss people off the most, when ''there was nothing i could do -.-".

is there any reason to go ''-.-'' over dying to invis and go '';D'' over dying to golems? OTHER than dying to golems being your own fault, while dying to invis sometimes is not your own fault - there was nothing you could do. with the right balancing and develouping of the map, avoiding invis could be just as much in your own hands as avoiding golems. people would like the invis for the same reasons the like the golem now.

remember lakes. im not arguing to add the invis in the map today, and end the debate. it has to be properly incorporated into the map. there is no way for you to 100% avoid invis today except maphacking.

The red part being said I agree on having further discussion on invis . We must not remove invis, but we have to nerf it in a way that it becomes predict- and avoidable. I can't think of a very good concept of making the "predictable"-part, because to me the sense of invis is to surprise a sheep. But I gladly will listen to any suggestions on this.

Until that idea has been brought up and is supported by a certain basis, can we please change invis in a way that we get rid of those "piss-off-situations" Amir described for now?

lakes, maybe u havent read all my debates on invis, but i have always said that i want the invis in the map IF there is a way to always avoid it by being good. the current invis is not perfect, and i die to it all the time, so does chaise, shoop, and everyone who doesnt maphack.

there have been made suggestions on how to get rid of that problem, but people like shoop want the invis removed no matter what balancing you do. he thinks the item itself is bad, not the balancing. first i have to make people agree that the invis CAN be positively incorporated into the map, then i can argue on HOW to do this.




my point is that all of shoops arguments against the invis are based on current balancing-flaws, NOT on the fundamental properties of the item. this is why his most effective arguments are subjective ''invis leads to boring games'' etc, which people agree on(for understandable reasons), but he loses every objective debate such as individuality/mastery/skill/variation/depth/etc..

Obective debates? Not only are "individuality/mastery/skill/variation/depth" not objective debates they are also basically irrelevant to the mapdiscussion. The only relevant discussion is if invis makes the map more entertaining, you can use factual arguments but the discussion in itself is always normative. Its a common misstake that all discussions needs to be based on something we can objectivly meassure. Thats not the case, infact no debate is objective. Then there would be no debate, someone would just publish proof and the debate would be over.

Debates like how high taxes should be, if torture is right or wrong, if we should have free education, if we should remove offside from football etc are always based on normative values.

The difference is that I can explain what I value, a game which leaves room for the best players to shine (what I mean with adding more individuality), a game with high pace, a game with much variation and a game with much action both for the wolves and the sheep. Invis is contraproductive to all of these values, something I try to argue for and something more and more players seem to agree with.

I dont know what you want amir, tell me what you want from sheeptag and we can have a debate. Because right now its not very clear if you argue against what I want more of in sheeptag or if you argue against invis standing away of this?

Also, please quote what arguments of mine you think is an argument against the current balance of invis.

Quote :

Obective debates? Not only are "individuality/mastery/skill/variation/depth" not objective debates they are also basically irrelevant to the mapdiscussion. The only relevant discussion is if invis makes the map more entertaining, you can use factual arguments but the discussion in itself is always normative. Its a common misstake that all discussions needs to be based on something we can objectivly meassure. Thats not the case, infact no debate is objective. Then there would be no debate, someone would just publish proof and the debate would be over.

what???????? some really insane post lol.

whether an item adds individuality or dependence is objective. whether an item requires skill and adds mastery or not is objective. and ofc its relevant if i think individuality makes the game more fun. you can argue for ANYTHING by the lines of ''it will make the game more entertaining". objective arguments is what explains why it will make the game more entertaining.

and ofc you can't just publish an objective list of arguments because people have different visions for the game. its objectively true that invis adds individuality, mastery, skill, variation, depth, and so on, to the game. its subjective that i want the game to have more individuality(as opposed to more teamdependance). its subjective that i want more focus on skill(as opposed to a game thats too hard for people to be interested), and so on.

i have good reasons for my ST vision, while yours is based on subjective(invis is boring blabla) and invalid(invis takes away individuality, invis is luck based etc) arguments. then you have some arguments which apply to golems/str/everything other than claws. your vision is designed and defined around what makes YOU perform better compared to the rest. this subjectively makes the game more fun for you but you can't objectively defend it.



show me 1 argument that isn't subjective(i want this and this), isnt general bullshit(can be applied to golems/str/anything), and isn't straight out illogical.

Objective? Where is the evidence then? How can a debate be objective? We would all agree if it was objective, we dont. You have one opinion of what makes something add individuality I have one. And the relevant debate is the debate about the whole picture, what we should value in sheep tag. I have told you what I value, what I want in sheep tag. When are you going to write what you value? Or at least, what do you mean with individuality?

And what do you base the claim that its objectivly true that invis "adds individuality, mastery, skill, variation, depth, and so on, to the game"?

And why would I present an objective argument when I just said the entire debate is normative. This not an empiric debate. Its not a question about what is. This is a normative debate, about what should be, and a constructive debate, how we should get there.

Ive said several times what my visions are, how I think removing sheep tag will get us there. You on the other hand do not have any visions for sheep tag. If it was up to people like you and Sidey sheep tag would stand still in development. You are conservatives to an extreme that you are against basically any big chance ever presented. There are no objective truths about what best for the map, it all depends on what you as a person value. So Amir and Sidey what do you actually want for the map? Tell us that for once.