Good games with TheWalrus! Good luck for bronze!

The Finals are coming!

I was informed that we should arrange the finals on next Saturday evening (13/05/2023), 7 PM GMT.

Would that be convenient for you, Zwitter?

Quote from: Xrayez on April 12, 2023, 10:51 AM

StJimmy, let's play tomorrow at 6:00 PM GMT?

Can you make it 6:30pm GMT please? I finish my workout at 6pm GMT so need 30 minutes to wash up then prepare stream.

Fine for me, as long as StJimmy agrees to play at this time in the first place.

so here is the log


00.59] [dj-blitzor`zar] if u wanna tus/tel let me know otherwise only for fun

[2023-04-04 20.01.44] [dj-blitzor`zar] is it tel?~

[2023-04-04 20.01.46] [dj-blitzor`zar] or ttl

[2023-04-04 20.01.48] [dj-blitzor`zar] i forgot

[2023-04-04 20.02.00] [dj-blitzor`zar] tel used to mean elite

[2023-04-04 20.02.00] [vesuvio`] tel doesnt exist any more :S

[vesuvio`] its tus allround



and u said if i say tus its tus !!!

When blitzed asked for clarification regarding the correct naming for TEL or TTL, I believe vesuvio took it as an implicit agreement to play TUS. However, blitzed could have clarified that just because he was asking the question did not necessarily mean that he wanted or agreed to play TUS, although he was not obligated to do so. In other words, there was no explicit agreement to play in a TUS or TEL match. blitzed was seeking clarification on the type of TUS league naming convention.

It is strange to me, though, that in order to play TUS, both blitzed and vesuvio would have to agree to play two games in a row, each picking their own scheme. But recent games reported by vesuvio indicate that they have all been vesuvio's pick, which further confirms that blitzed has not picked any schemes to play, which is a direct violation of TUS league rules by vesuvio.

The 1st one says skilled instinctual players are not affected by the reaim feature.
The second one says skilled instinctual players are affected by the reaim feature.

Looks like you followed request:

• You haven't semantically shifted the "contradiction" word itself.
• You haven't accused me for not knowing English.

Yet, you literally rewrote my two statements in order to misrepresent and misinterpret my argument. I'm looking at you, the strawman!

Not sure what you are trying to achieve here except look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Congratulations! What a beautiful projection right here.

I'm done.

TL;DR: The reaim (anti-lock aim) feature may be beneficial for notchers because it saves them a few seconds of resetting their aim. However, this benefit is very insignificant and can be achieved without the reaim feature. There are no other benefits for notchers with this feature. Non-notchers may be disadvantaged because they rely on intuition to shoot, but this does not change the fact that all players end up resetting their previous shot either due to the reaim feature or the reaim rule anyway. Skilled instinctual players are not affected by the reaim feature, but less skilled players may be affected. However, this advantage/disadvantage is not significant, and it can be mitigated by adjusting shots with respect to the in-game sprites.

---

About reaim:

Reaim feature can benefit notchers, yes.

Reaim feature can only benefit notchers in a sense that this technically saves them a few seconds to reset the aim back to 90 degrees position, so we can consider this benefit to be really negligible, especially when this can be achieved without the reaim feature enabled. Other than that, there's no other intrinsic benefit behind this feature for notchers (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, namely whether you see any other intrinsic benefit for notchers specifically with the reaim feature enabled, not for any other type of players).

However, it is non-notchers specifically that can be put at disadvantage due to the fact they rely mostly on intutition to shoot, but this is a conjecture which has to be proven. Regardless of whether this feature is enabled, the reaim rule (as a game rule, not as an option) makes all players to re-aim, not adjust, which makes everyone "equal" (but not equal in relation to notching itself, of course, because notching still remains a major advantage regardless of whether the reaim feature is enabled).

Therefore, the addition of the reaim feature into the scheme changes mostly nothing for skillful instinctual players, but I also realize that this may affect those who are less skilled to do instinctual shots (those kind of shots which are based on intuition alone). Regardless of whether we consider this kind of disadvantage to be real or not, this advantage/disadvantage gap is definitely not huge, and this perceived advantage/disadvantage will be mitigated or even eliminated completely if players learn to adjust their shots with respect to the in-game sprites.

Do I have to repeat that notching itself still remains a major advantage?

I still think the issue is the notching thing that can be banned as a rule or simply accepted as part of the game.

And what I've described above is an insignificant problem in contrast to notching itself, that's why notching is a more serious problem in contrast to the combination of notching + reaim feature. Note, I do realize that the reaim feature is not a problem in and of itself.

In other words, the biggest flaw of the BnG scheme is still notching. But even this kind of perspective may be subjective for those who consider themselves notchers and don't see any problem with notching.

But I think it's cool to have a feature that doesn't require rules. People created a coded feature that is interesting, why use manual rules? Ban notching and not reaim feature.

For rules like sitters, this can be enforced because this has a concrete metric, you can check whether a grenade is a sitter by playing back the replay file which shows the internal grenade's fuse. In contrast, notching cannot be banned, as violations of a "anti-notch" rule would be very difficult to detect with certainty.

Therefore: 

• Those people who prefer notching will do notching, and nothing is going to stop them (notice the potential pun here).
• Those people who prefer to rely on their intuition, aka instinctual players, they will have to become even more skillful to do shots while relying on intuition alone, and they will become masterful instinctual players by doing so! This is the spirit of BnG!

Given above, that's why I'd vote for enabling this feature.

If a disadvantage is created for one side, it gives the other an advantage. So while Anti-Lock gives an effective disadvantage to non-notchers, it's the very see-saw effect that gives notchers the advantage.

You're not bringing anything new to the table, 6 of 1 - Half dozen of the other.

What I wanted you to acknowledge is similar to what you just said. However, it is important to note that this distinction is significant as it can affect the direction of the discussion. If you had initially presented your point in this manner and maintained clarity throughout the conversation, I wouldn't need to bring this up. Additionally, if the distinction had been made clear from the beginning of the discussion, some of the participants, such as lalo, would not have felt confused.

You are being very dismissive about my opinion, especially when you put the word "opinion" in quotes. Whatever this is supposed to mean.

The one who will decide what is truth or not is not us, but readers of this thread. You can base your explanation on facts and experience, but they can still be misleading to the wider audience. That's how manipulative propaganda works, by the way. I don't imply that you do this on purpose, though.

Even then, I don't necessarily disagree with you here, no need to go all defensive. My message is more about your way of framing this problem. This requires logical reasoning applied to your conclusion only, and your conclusion is misleading and exaggerated, and I explained why. Therefore, I provided my perspective on how to untangle the unrevealed assumptions that are made in the OP, but I also covered the problem itself. However, if my explanation is not enough for you to understand, then read on.

I perfectly know what notching is, especially when you've defined this in the OP. Also, whether someone is able to notch is completely irrelevant to being able to understand what notching is all about. It's also absolutely not necessary to have an inordinate amount of playing hours to master notching just to understand what kind of advantage notchers have over non-notchers. Moreover, since we're talking about our experiences, I'm a game developer, and if you say that I didn't "genuinely understood notching", then you dismiss my own experience, expertise, and you frankly insult my intelligence this way. The hell, we're both in a2b community!

---

I hope you'll agree that notching is advantageous both with and without the anti-lock aim option. More so, you could actually have this kind of discussion even prior to introducing the anti-lock aim feature in W:A 3.8. I also totally agree that having notching skills is a huge advantage over non-notchers. But again, this advantage is huge only with respect to notching itself, and not the anti-lock aim feature. So, the way you labeled this advantage as "huge" with the addition of the anti-lock aim feature is in fact exaggerated, because this advantage has been there all the time.

Just to convey the idea. Here's the advantage that notchers have over non-notchers, using the 0-to-10 scale (I base this solely upon your conclusion, not mine):

• Without the anti-lock aim option enabled: 7/10.
• With the anti-lock aim option enabled: 8/10.

If you follow this scale, then clearly, notching is a much serious problem in BnG to talk about in the first place, but instead of addressing the anti-lock aim option, you fixate on the notching problem itself. Basically, you substitute the topic of discussion here, as if the problem is about the anti-lock aim option that creates a "huge" advantage for notchers, while in fact the problem is more about notching itself, which is already huge. I feel like what prompted you to create this thread was not about the fact that the anti-lock aim option was added to the scheme, but the fact that notching was already problematic aspect of BnG in the first place, and this addition was like the straw that broke camel's back for you.

Also, perhaps the way you framed this problem may signify that you have a personal issue with enabling the anti-lock aim option that would cause you to be at a disadvantage, perhaps for some specific shots that may be more challenging for you to perform that you have already mastered, but I can only guess here, you'd never tell this if you ever have a hidden agenda. Excuse me for not assuming positive intentions here, but given your reaction to my reply, I have to cover this possibility as well.

Let me reiterate: the anti-lock aim feature does not create a huge advantage for notchers. However, one can argue whether non-notchers are put at a disadvantage while having this option enabled, as they mostly rely on intuition. In contrast, the way you framed this problem implies that enabling the anti-lock feature gives a huge advantage to notchers, which is false. Do you understand this distinction? If not, feel free to ask questions. Otherwise, this will be my final reply to you in this thread.

Speaking of myself, as an instinctual player, I assert with confidence that the anti-lock aim feature doesn't impact my ability to use my intuition to adjust the shot in BnG, especially when there are enough of visual aids to help with this process. In fact, it only removes the need to constantly re-aim, as required by BnG rules. Less rules means more adoption of BnG by novices. Having more rules is always off-putting.

I enjoyed playing. I made some mistakes, but I could win those games! GGs

I cannot disagree, especially if we take the Grenade Wars match! You had quite a bunch of bad luck moments... GGs anyways!