Jump to content

 

Veedrock

Members
  • Posts

    4,136
  • Joined

Everything posted by Veedrock

  1. And unsurprisingly this has become a second "Random Thought of the Day" topic. Except your post count adds up here.
  2. Kombat Pack 1 only advertised 4 characters, that's all that is included with it. It's not called a "pass" of any kind, even then the term has never meant every piece of DLC for a game will be free, only what is advertised to come with it. This exact situation happened with Injustice, where the Season Pass only included the first four characters with the final two requiring a separate purchase.
  3. I'd believe that if he didn't quote Creech. I'm out.
  4. Man y'all ruin everything. Any of your frat boys makes a bad joke and you beat that horse til it's blue in the urethra, but I do it and party's over. #XBA
  5. Do we have a disqualification before the competition even begins? #askingtherealquestions #notgettingrealanswers #howcanourquestionsberealifouranswersarentreal #askingtheexistentialquestions
  6. Stop making things up. X1's TV functionality continues to improve, with the upcoming Win10 update adding several new TV features. TV on Xbox does not impact your "games console."
  7. Your post is on this page with default forum settings, I don't know what other post you're talking about. Just because I don't post doesn't mean I don't peek in here, and my response was to something directly related to me. I'm really not looking to argue, I'm just confused to see myself mentioned, especially in that regard. I like to think I'm pretty individualistic but now I'm being mistaken for a pawn in some grander feud.
  8. Kombat Pack 2 will be a separate purchase, not included with Kombat Pack 1.
  9. I already went over why this isn't ok. You added nothing to dispel concerns about the rule or the response; Creech already tried the "deal with it" response and Corrupt attempted the "wait and see" approach , why are you expecting these to work for you? Don't write off my legitimate post because of the sideshow.
  10. DCs solo stories are incredibly dull imo, but their team-ups are really good. They have all-powerful villains that require teamwork, the heroes' powers are all complimentary, and of course the interaction between heroes is fantastic. My biggest peeve with DC by far is their reliance of the multiverse. That "twist" completely and utterly ruined Injustice for me, and many of the biggest arcs in the comic series have been centered around the multiverse. I just don't understand why they rely on it so much. DC also does the best animated movies and shows for sure. === Marvel does solo stories significantly better than DC though, their character development is top notch and you really care about the progression That's probably because they were designed to be relatable though. It also feels like villain/hero interaction is more personal in Marvel. Marvel undoubtedly does live action better, but their recent animation movies and shows have been...not so good. Maybe Disney is to blame for that, they seem to think animated automatically means catering to children. Animation can have adult themes while still being appropriate for younger audiences, in fact that's what made some of their older series so good (Spider-man TAS and X-Men Evolution <3). Their animated movies of late have been pretty bad too, way too many attempts to capitalize on the popularity of Avengers. Netflix is riddled with that badness. I don't care for Marvel's teamups, they don't feel as organic. There's less villain choice as well, feels like an endless cycle of Dr. Doom and (lately) Loki. Shoot apparently even with the latest Marvel happening has Dr. Doom behind it or something. === So they both have pros and cons, I can't fairly pick one over the other. Give the choice though I'd go with DC, as I prefer the animated stuff over comics and live action. I don't actively follow either DC or Marvel though, I'm very casual.
  11. Double post because I think the above is hilarious and deserves its own post. GSL is the site's flagship tournament and happens once a year (roughly), and you're trying to pass off a significant rule change as "experimental?" GSL is not the tournament for that kind of stuff; I'm not saying additional rules or twists can't be added, but they should have some serious thought put into them and if there's criticisms they should be taken into account, not dismissed. So instead of addressing the point you're going to make attacks on character? His argument is valid and you did nothing but distract from it. To demonstrate, let's return to your previous post: So teamwork is the intention of this rule? That's fantastic, but I don't see how this new rule does that whatsoever. If you could make a post explaining that it'd help put a lot of complaints to rest. But moving on, teamwork is the focus here. So let's say somebody's mother does die, and they can't play anymore. Well and truly unfortunate, but that is not the focus here. We have a competition going on, the other teams aren't going to stop and neither should the person's team. While that person is on bereavement there are still three healthy members than can compete. They're a man down, a serious deficit, but under the regular GSL rules they can rally and try to remain competitive. Under this new rule though, that team is stuck without recourse, they can't do anything to improve their situation. Where's the teamwork there? You can't dismiss these criticisms as "whining," they are legitimate flaws in your system, and your deflections lend credence to the theory that not much thought was put into the rule. As a result of this you are hyper defensive and are prepared to enforce it without any consideration. Instead, I really think you should be open to allowing alternative suggestions for "twists" so we have a different formula to GSL that still accomplishes what you want it to. === To that end I've been giving it some thought on my three day "vacation." Not because I think XBA deserves my contributions, not even to prove a point, but just because it was a fun little brain exercise. I won't reveal the formulas right away (though somebody could probably figure them out), but they do relate to the gamerscore disparity between teammates. I don't think either of these are flawless, but of the dozen different things I tried these are the two that stood out the most. I used GSL 13 as my sample set. I wanted to use other GSL tournaments as well to sort of compare methods, but the information on those tournaments isn't as convenient as GSL 13 info. Besides, this does demonstrate each fairly well. [spoiler=RAWRAWRAWGAMERS]Raw table, sorted by most points for reference. http://i.imgur.com/1oJEviw.png Same table, this time sorted by Lowest Gamerscore (the current twist). http://i.imgur.com/MNyobBt.png The biggest change here is that Fetching Young Hounds moves from 6th up to 3rd, a serious gain! But besides that there's no much change, there's some other shifts but really the gamerscores are so close together they don't mean a whole lot. I think the biggest thing to look at here is that the differences between first and second place are lesser than through addition. Maybe I've been reading the situation wrong but it seems one of the bigger complaints from last year was that it was that one person single-handedly closed the gap between first and second; if the twist is meant to prevent something of that nature, lowest GS is a poor way to do that because they almost had it that way too, and can you really argue they deserved to win over Finnish Line? I don't think so, but opinions may differ. Now the table sorted by Method 1. http://i.imgur.com/gKdLA8S.png The idea behind this method was to give teams a bonus based on the disparity of their team members. Team placements remain largely the same with this formula (only one shift), but what does change is the gap between each team. Suddenly 1st and 2nd isn't a 12k gap through one man's efforts, but they're 65k points behind because they got a MUCH lesser bonus. On the other hand, the bonus received by Fetching Young Hounds closed their gap significantly, going from 14k behind AxH to 1.5k. This idea isn't perfect, I won't point out the flaws just in case, but at the very least it does give a truer representation of how the teams-at-large did than simple addition of their scores. Last table, sorted by Method 2. http://i.imgur.com/DCYNmoE.png Opposite of the above, the idea was to give a penalty based on the members' gamerscore gaps. Positions at the top stayed the same, but like the above it does give a truer representation of their placement, as Stack It took a huge hit while Finnish Line to a pretty insignificant fall relative to their total. The story gets more interesting as you get lower though, where the total gamerscores were much closer. Looking at Fetching Young Hounds vs AxH once again, this method once again puts Fetching Young Hounds within reach of AxH by reducing a 14k raw point shortage to a 3.5k point shortage after the penalty. While in both cases FYH still didn't beat out AxH, with the revelation that even teams are rewarded more they may have been able to initiate some additional teamwork that AxH hadn't demonstrated. GoG is a very telling story, as they lose over half of their score with this method, because the vast majority of their score came from one player. But they aren't alone, as Team 4 Stars also lost most of their points. As a result, both teams went from middle of the rankings to the bottom. PlanEx and Underdogs were practically tied for raw gamerscore, but after applying this method it's clear that PlanEx's team was more balanced as Underdogs took a bigger hit and lost to PlanEx as a result. This method is my favorite by far. I see less flaws than Method 1 and it's actually very straightforward, but I understand the desire to use a bonus instead of a penalty so I included both. I don't think GoG would be very happy to have lost half of their score, but then again they could have reduced that penalty quite easily if they knew the method. === With a little effort a potentially better system could be created. Stifling the dissatisfaction instead of opening up to contribution and collaboration strikes me as counterintuitive. I think the official response and behavior presented within this topic are unreasonable. I can't say much more than that without being disrespectful.
  12. http://i.imgur.com/Ha1yiwQ.jpg
  13. That does absolutely nothing when you think about it. The results will be exactly the same as straight addition, you're just dividing the total score by 4 for no reason. That won't affect rankings or have any bearing on the competition. I agree that only factoring in the lowest person's score is a bad idea.
  14. Well that's pretty lame. You'd think they'd expand it considerably without the XBLA restrictions to hold them back. Definite sign of a lazy port, but hey they made it free so what can you do?
  15. Nice! I ended up trading in MUA2 after having it for ages but never playing it...then the price shot up considerably. Big mistake! If the DLC goes back up I may just have to pick the game up from the marketplace also. Here's hoping.
  16. After struggling with Twins for 3 days, I agree with its inclusion. It can be difficult to grasp, but enough time and it starts to "click." Even if Twins takes you a few hours to complete (fairly certain I was 3+), that's less time than some games on the list and the difficulty only scales down the more time you put in. It's not so much a grind as it is a learning curve, but if you learn fast then it's an uber easy completion, if not it's moderately easy. YMMV to be sure, but short and straightforward enough that it belongs on an easy list.
  17. Very odd that the description of the game is specifically tailored to this promotion right now. Thanks for the heads up though. Wondering if I should attempt to get my X1 up for a quick completion before the day's up. It's pretty late and my internet is piss slow though...
  18. Didn't they very recently show footage from these versions? Odd. Good decision anyways imo.
  19. Ah yes, Charlier Murder, the last community game I played. I had a good time in the one session I was invited to, but it didn't take long to be reminded how exclusive the XBA community is. I won't hold my breath this time around. EDIT: You are correct, used the word in an incorrect manner. Wonder how long I've been doing that.
  20. Appeal for the actual games, or appeal for achievement junkies that are mostly worried it'll be hard to complete? I'm seeing the latter.
  21. I hated this on the classic Sonic releases, sucks to see it here too. I feel like those that see this as a positive thing aren't going to like the games anyways. Taking the "frustration" out isn't suddenly going to add appeal.
×
  • Create New...