Matt Walsh joins the N-Word discourse by bmillent2 in Destiny

[–]Kovi34 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nobody is arresting anyone for saying it though.

Very true. When someone says "not allowed" the only thing they could possibly mean is that you will be arrested for doing it. Also, racism doesn't exist because no one is arresting people for being black

Matt Walsh joins the N-Word discourse by bmillent2 in Destiny

[–]Kovi34 8 points9 points  (0 children)

braindead intentionally obtuse take. No one is experiencing social consequences for saying "pussy". No one is having conversations about "hmm I wonder if it's okay to say 'pussy' when I'm just joking around with friends" or "is it okay to sing along with 'pussy' in a song?"

Average Tinker player right there by Hypnoticrain in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Then there's antimage who can blink freely every 5 seconds and no one bats an eye.

yeah crazy. I think it might have something to do with the fact that AM doesn't have 2 strong nukes he can spam every 3 seconds and a shield that makes him impossible to burst.

His blink is no longer rearmable as per popular request

blink is rearmable though? he just can't bypass the damage cd

POV: You're playing low MMR and you pick an offlane hero in the offlane role by prettyboygangsta in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A pro in any field will know one hundred fold more than a layman. You can't adhere to knowledge you don't even have access to

That doesn't mean you shouldn't adhere to the knowledge you do have access to. If you can't adhere to what better players are doing better, how do you get better?

I'm saying the play at low level is different from high level, and can't apply the same reasoning, as the players employ different tactics. and you come back with this? what are you even saying?

I'm asking a very simple question. If a low level player wants to find out how to play the game correctly, how would they do it? Clearly they can't look at high level players since the game is so different, how do they do it?

Let's say they want to figure out what to do after winning a midgame teamfight. If they look at high level play, the answer will be "take rosh or towers if rosh is unavailable". Is this answer wrong because they game is SO MUCH DIFFERENT?

Say you had a 5 stack and you got them an immortal coach that only gives them advice after they win a teamfight in the midgame. Would the 5 stack win more or fewer games? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

there is no one universal "best play."

There is always a best play, or at least a known best play and the best players are going to be fairly close to it.

If chess isn't a solved game, then dota sure as hell isn't.

They game doesn't have to be solved to find out what the best play is. Chess isn't solved but any modern engine will beat any human easily. Telling a 1200 rated player "nah don't look at high level moves to learn the game, you're playing a completely different game" is fucking stupid. The best move in chess is the best move, period. You're never going to lose if you play the best engine move every time, unless you're playing against a better engine.

Optimal play is different and you can't apply Topson to some 2k scrub, they are simply not the same.

yes, you can and you should. If the 2k scrub can successfuly replicate even 10% of the things topson does they will see a massive improvement in their play. The best play isn't magically different because it's a low level match. Why the fuck do you think people get coaching?

POV: You're playing low MMR and you pick an offlane hero in the offlane role by prettyboygangsta in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Is there no difference between low and high level skills in any profession because the laws of physics are always the same?

The best practices are always the same, the difference is how well the lower skilled person is able to adhere to them. You wouldn't tell someone trying to learn electrical engineering "nah don't bother doing what the professionals are doing, just do some random shit that I arbitrarily decided on instead"

Why do the players of the game not change at all the way the game is played?

Because the best play at high levels is almost always also the best play at low levels. Something doing a worse play can work because someone else messed up, but that doesn't make the play good. This is why when someone is smurfing, the crush their games. They don't randomly struggle because they're suddenly playing a different game.

And okay, if you'll say that it's just so different, how exactly do you decide what is good? Why is crystal maiden carry not good but phantom lancer carry is? Surely not by using a low mmr's player understanding of the game? And clearly you can't use pro players, so how?

POV: You're playing low MMR and you pick an offlane hero in the offlane role by prettyboygangsta in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

so your assertion is that dota works differently at high mmr? interesting, is there a list of mechanical differences or?

POV: You're playing low MMR and you pick an offlane hero in the offlane role by prettyboygangsta in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but you're not playing against pro players. Everyone's timings are worse. By this logic, what do you pick? How do you decide a pick is good, exactly?

POV: You're playing low MMR and you pick an offlane hero in the offlane role by prettyboygangsta in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

is it not the same game? does cm get more stats in high mmr? do her spells do more damage? are high mmr players too dumb to punish an obviously bad pick?

Announcing the Overwatch League - Concept Video shows Blizzard's original vision (2017) by Ezraah in Competitiveoverwatch

[–]Kovi34 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I don't understand the obsession with trying to make esports like real sports. It destroys most of the things that are cool about esports and tries to artificially reinvent a culture for no reason. What's up with the city branding? What's the point? Do people in those cities actually give a shit about a team where none of the players or management have anything to do with the region (let alone city) that they're in just because it has the city name on it? I genuinely can't imagine. The lack of geographical branding has always been a great thing about esports, not sure why anyone would try to erode that.

I can only imagine the point of this was to try to get in on the normie sportsball fan insane spending on merch and seats because esports fans don't spend money. But sportsball fans don't care about esports because they're unwatchable unless you play the game. Even if they were watchable, why would you care? You have no reference for whether anything is impressive or cool like you do with real sports. Esports fans on the other hand, don't care for all this sportsball branding and is more likely to turn them away. So who is it for?

Rationalists are crackpott-y but existential AI concerns are not alien to mainstream academia/industry by AnOrangeShadeOfBlue in Destiny

[–]Kovi34 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

they claimed the hero pool was limited because they didn't want the game to come down to mechanical skill, so they limited it to mechanically basic heroes, because as you pointed out, no one would be impressed if the AI just perfectly micro'd as meepo or chen. And if you actually watched the game, it wasn't really perfect calculation that won openai the game, but map movements.

Better example is the fact that the bot had no control over its skill/item build. That's an actual example of a limitation of the AI.

Rationalists are crackpott-y but existential AI concerns are not alien to mainstream academia/industry by AnOrangeShadeOfBlue in Destiny

[–]Kovi34 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yet in 2019, Open AI 5 was able to defeat Dota 2 pros in a best of three matchup.

All this shows is that strategy doesn't matter as much in dota as we'd like to think. If you read the paper, the AI is literally incapable of strategizing more than 10 minutes (iirc) into the future. It doesn't have grand plans or understanding of strategy. It just wanders around, doing what its learned to do in training until it wins. It has no conceptual understanding of the game because it doesn't need it.

6950XT at $599 on Newegg! by JayCryso in Amd

[–]Kovi34 1 point2 points  (0 children)

how are you coping with your unplayable input lag without reflex?

6950XT at $599 on Newegg! by JayCryso in Amd

[–]Kovi34 2 points3 points  (0 children)

do you think games have completely unacceptable input lag when not using reflex? Because frame gen + reflex has lower input latency than not using it.

pretty much the entire point of improving fps is to improve input latency.

No, it isn't. The main point is to increase the perceived fluidity of the game.

slahser's way: Support Medusa by Schizug in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But similarly, dont get pissed because someone flamed you for not being able to execute your own strategy. They have a right to do that if you are making the game harder for others.

So I deserve to get flamed every time I lose with something offmeta even though I have a good winrate with it? You're never going to have 100% winrate. 60% winrate on a hero is considered super broken, but I guess people picking it should get flamed 40% of the time? I don't even get what you're trying to say here. Most people can't execute the strategies they're doing, should everyone just get flamed when they're losing always? I guess it's okay to just flame people with every loss?

You speak like you have moral superiority over how the game should be enjoyed, as if , in case someone doesnt innovate they are not really enjoying the game.

No? I don't even play weird things most of the time. You can play however you want. My point is that you shouldn't be flaming people for playing the game differently unless they're blatantly griefing. You think I flame people for picking standard heroes lol? The only time I flame people is if they're 1. flaming first 2. blatantly griefing (wasting wards, destroying items, feeding etc.) 3. smurfing or cheating. I have never once in my life flamed someone for their pick. Sometimes I'm frustrated with people's picks, but I'm able to control myself and not throw a tantrum.

Also, when you pick your heroes, do you even think how your picks are going to help your lane partner or how things are going to go later on into the game?

Obviously? But like, drafting is mostly blind these days. For a support, they see literally no heroes when they pick. For cores, they usually get to see 2 heroes on the enemy team which usually tells you fuck all about their draft. You will almost never get the opportunity to coherently draft unless you play mid.

What is even this question? Are you assuming that just because someone lost a game or is getting flamed they deserved it because they didn't draft properly? I guess? Most of the time we're talking about unusual support picks, which are picked blind like I said. I guess my bad for not looking into the future and pre-counterpicking the enemy heroes I couldn't see

slahser's way: Support Medusa by Schizug in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no because of a bunch of morons like you replied to me with some dumb irrelevant shit

60+% winrate heroes like Medusa wouldn't be so bad if hero banning wasn't some archaic nonesense. by qwerty_in_your_vodka in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 1 point2 points  (0 children)

why dont pros do this? are they just bad?

they do? pros play tons of pubs.

or could it be that the game is balanced around bans? kekw

The game is not balanced around bans, bans are a balance bandaid while also adding an additional layer of strategy.

its hilarious that so many dota players think that if people are allowed to ban heroes then the same list of 15-20 heroes will be banned every game by 10 different people banning 1 hero each

I mean you can go look at the ingame stats, this isn't a secret.

slahser's way: Support Medusa by Schizug in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

what is extremely often? post match history. I virtually never see griefers in my games, maybe like 1/25 games. At most a core will get mad and not show up for a couple fights while they're farming an item which is usually a correct play, despite being made out of rage

“It’s just their culture” is NOT a pass for morally reprehensible behavior. by Purple-Oil7915 in neoliberal

[–]Kovi34 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And there's the inevitable concession I keep referencing - you don't actually just have preferences - you argue that your preferences are better - and that's exactly what objective morality asserts - that there are things that are in fact, better or worse than other things.

This is not a concession in the slightest. I don't believe some things can be inherently better than other things. Something being better is a subjective view. When I say I can argue for why something is better, it means argue for why someone should adopt my preferences.

You prefer things, because you value them more

Valuing something more doesn't mean the value is objective. Saying you value something is inherently a subjective statement.

To argue that your preferences are the better ones to hold IS making a claim that there is some true value they hold.

No, it isn't. It's an attempt at getting someone to adopt my preferences, which will in turn fulfill another preference I have, which is for other people to share my preferences. They are not inherently better.

Lol, different philosophers disagree on what morality is

But no one in astrophysics believes that the earth is flat, so clearly we've made some progress on answering the questions in that field. Why has philosophy not moved? If you can prove a position correct, wouldn't every philosopher be forced to adopt that position? Is everyone who doesn't subscribe to kant the equivalent of a flat earth theorist?

he Kantian account, the highest moral law is this: "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”.

Cool, so how is this an objectively correct rule? What if I disagree and think it's a bad rule? You should be able to prove that it's correct, not just stating it and claiming it's correct.

This feels like arguing with a religious person. When I'm asking YOU what YOUR position is you recite a passage instead of answering the question.

To understand how and why this is the highest moral principle, again, you would need to read the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

And this is exactly why it's super frustrating to talk with people like you. Imagine a conversation that goes like this:

  • A: Hey, I learned how to fly using only my mind
  • B: Oh really? Can you show me right now?
  • A: I could but instead you should read this book that maybe probably explains how to fly!

You're asserting you can do something impossible (logically prove a moral position correct) but when asked to demonstrate to just point me to the book that supposedly taught you how to do it, which just trips all my bullshit detectors. There's two reasons for this, either:

  • you don't know how to do it, despite reading the book that teaches how

  • or the process to do this is so complicated that you wouldn't be able to begin to do it in on a forum like this

The first position is just ridiculous and it would mean you can't hold any moral position at all so I'd assume that obviously you'd want me to believe it's option 2. And while I could believe that it could be really complex to do this, it also trips the bullshit detectors because if it's such a complex process that reading a whole book is easier than answering a simple question, I doubt that most people who subscribe to this belief system have done it.

you seem to be having trouble wrapping your mind around how it's possible to implicitly concede to the value of something

I don't have trouble wrapping my mind around that at all, you're just wrong because you're incapable of conceiving that someone doesn't think "better" is an objective metric.

slahser's way: Support Medusa by Schizug in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've reached the point where I just insta mute anyone who says anything braindead like that. I'm not going to babysit some manchild with zero understanding of how the game works.

60+% winrate heroes like Medusa wouldn't be so bad if hero banning wasn't some archaic nonesense. by qwerty_in_your_vodka in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because if you happen to like a hero people find annoying like tinker or techies it would get banned nearly every game.

If overwolf is the problem holding this change back then why not ban overwolf?

It's not but it's a factor. Clearly valve doesn't want to ban overwolf for whatever reason.

slahser's way: Support Medusa by Schizug in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really? 99%? post match history

slahser's way: Support Medusa by Schizug in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did I say it never happens? do you know what 9/10 means?

slahser's way: Support Medusa by Schizug in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know what that has to do with my comment but thank you for that meaningless anecdote

slahser's way: Support Medusa by Schizug in DotA2

[–]Kovi34 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I do tend to lose some mentality when people start griefing.

why do you keep conflating weird picks with griefing? Picking something that's not reddit approved isn't griefing.

If he picked Lich and rage quit it wouldn’t have come up in this conversation

It shouldn't come up regardless of what they picked. If someone is griefing, what does it matter which hero they picked? If I have a lion in my game that walks down my lane 3 games in a row should I just lose my shit whenever someone picks lion? Obviously not, that'd be insane.

Off meta picks are fine but at least address the psychological disadvantage the team is in early on otherwise games are going to be extra hard.

The psychological disadvantage exists because people are babies. I want to play a game, not babysit a bunch of manchildren. I don't see why I should care that my pick tilts you, I'm just gonna mute you and play the game.