Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
No.
In order to define something as objectively too high, you need an objective maximum height.
We don't have one.
Posts: 3260
No you do not. You simply need the value of the unit with similar role that you use as benchmark.
Tell what, find what unit have more acceleration and rotation than Churchill and we can continue this.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Yes, you do. It's in the very definition of the word.
If something is too high, then it's higher than is acceptable.
If it's higher than is acceptable, then there is a maximum value which is acceptable.
To define something as too high without subjectivity, you must define that height without subjectivity.
Posts: 3260
I am not sure why you want to start on semantics. I can say a person is too tall if he is 40 cm taller than the average without knowing what the high of the tallest person that existed.
Again try to keep it on subject and simply compare the acceleration and rotation of other vehicles with that of the Churchill.
Posts: 4474
well, at least lower than the frontal armor of a medium tank
I'm not sure you understand what 'too' means in this context.
It's comparative. It can't exist in isolation. You have to be too something to something.
If a theme park ride only allows people under 180 cm tall to ride it, and a man is 185 cm, then he is too tall to ride it.
You're saying the rear armour (or rotation speed or acceleration) is too high to be balanced, yes?
If that is true, then there is a maximum rear armour that is not too high to be balanced.
For that to be objectively true, that maximum balanced rear armour value has to be defined objectively.
Katitof-2018
Posts: 3260
well, at least lower than the frontal armor of a medium tank
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I'm not sure you understand what 'too' means in this context.
It's comparative. It can't exist in isolation. You have to be too something to something.
If a theme park ride only allows people under 180 cm tall to ride it, and a man is 185 cm, then he is too tall to ride it.
You're saying the rear armour (or rotation speed or acceleration) is too high to be balanced, yes?
If that is true, then there is a maximum rear armour that is not too high to be balanced.
For that to be objectively true, that maximum balanced rear armour value has to be defined objectively.
Posts: 3260
Now that value is clearly objectively and undisputed TOO HIGH especially taking into account that role of vehicle.
Posts: 351
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Lago is correct here. With out predefined limits, the second you say “too” it becomes your opinion. Hell, even with predefined limits ordained by Relic, that’s still just Relic’s opinion of how a unit should work and the community often disagrees with Relic’s opinion.
Objective is: The Churchill’s acceleration value is 3.5. (This is an observable, repeatable fact taken from game files)
Subjective is: The Churchill’s acceleration of 3.5 is too high. You have now applied your opinion to the matter.
Posts: 607
Posts: 5279
by that logic shouldn't the panther have superb rear armor ? as it's meant to counter them ?
Posts: 351
Posts: 3260
Not really it is too high for a vehicle with a role a slow heavy infatry support tank compared to other tank and especially other heavy Tank.
It more than double than what KV-1 has for particular reason and that make its simply "too high".
Now pls stop semantics pointless arguing and move on.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
It isn’t just semantics. Balancing is largely subjective and there’s nothing wrong at all with having an opinion on something. The problem is when you start to state something which is an opinion as an objective fact. It shuts down the conversation.
The trick here is to state why you have the opinion you have, possibly present solutions, state why you think those solutions would actually be solutions. Just stating, “My opinion is fact!” over and over isn’t very helpful and just comes off as arrogant, or worse, ignorant.
You feel the Churchill’s acceleration is too high right? Why? Because it’s higher than the KV-1? Why do you feel this is a relevant metric? Given the Churchill’s acceleration, speed, damage, armor, abilities, why do you think focusing on its acceleration is the right approach? What even is the supposed problem you’re trying to address? I’m not asking sarcastically, I’m genuinely curious.
Posts: 3260
"Giving LMG-42 damage 1.000 accuracy, 100% and penetration 1.000 would too high."
Am I stating an opinion or fact?
Do I have to establish an upper limit before I can state that?
Posts: 1217
Yes. And since we only have upgunned P4s and stronger AT in the game (with the exception of the Puma) the game mechanics don't reflect anything from reality.
KV-1 was outdated because of its gun, which struggled against P4s and better at range and it couldn't close up reliably, so mobility was another issue.
It was completely imprevious to P3 and P4s were upgunned to stand any chance.
Sounds shockingly familiar to CoH2 representation and dynamics.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
In literal terms, you're stating nothing at all. You're making a comparison but aren't saying what you're comparing to.
If we assume your "too high" has an implicit "to be balanced" on the end of it, then you're stating an opinion.
A no doubt widely held opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.
Posts: 3260
Now you simply have moved way past a balance thread into philosophy. There are Philosopher that argue that "absolute truth" exist and those argue it does not. You can read their opinions, justification and argue with them.
For me it is quite clear that in the current system an lmg-42 with damage 1.000, accuracy 100% and penetration 1.000 would be simply be game breaking and thus those values are simply "too high".
I don't have to establish what the upper limit is before I can safely make that claim.
If you do not like the term replace it with what ever suits you, it works for me fine and I will continue using it.
Once more have a nice day.
 |
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
55 | ||
|
|
|
|
21 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
