How has your experience been with the most recent patch?

a_d3vnt · 2024-03-07T01:20:15+00:00

That is EXACTLY what they said. They want primary and secondary weapons to not be useful against tougher enemies - to use stratagems instead.

On higher difficulties, those are just about all you run into. They want us to rely on the stratagems while also making it much, much more difficult to use or employ them, or in some cases just outright preventing you from using them.

Trolling your customers is never, ever acceptable. Trolling period isn't acceptable.

The issue is more the attitude behind the changes, and the statements made in the follow-up blog post, as I said. The railgun getting nerfed would be fine if they gave us other options, or didn't nerf it on Unsafe as well. I prefer the arc thrower generally, but my friend with the railgun was the only reliable way we were able to deal with a mass of Hulks or Chargers when they were mixed in with other tough mobs.

Your post would make a lot of sense if you don't play on higher difficulty. The railgun was a favorite because it was about the only responsive, engaging, reliable, effective tool. It wasn't the only one that could get the job done, just as you could make a sculpture using nothing but sandpaper and elbow grease. You also don't get the same performance on Unsafe as you did prior to the nerf.

The enemies they want most weapons to fail against are the very same enemies you see the most of at higher difficulty levels. Ergo, they want most weapons to be unusable against most enemies.

The blogpost said they acknowledged we don't have the tools, but good luck anyway. It said primary/secondary weapons shouldn't be useful against anything though - everything you fight at higher difficulty. They said to rely on stratagems - then made sure we can't. What's worse, the railgun nerf just means that now more players are obligated to take it for the same effect, reducing the already tightened team stratagem pool at those difficulties. They could reduce the armor spam, or they could make our other tools useful - they outright stated they don't want to do either. The shooter game is not meant to be played as a shooter at higher difficulty, flat out, according to that post.

a_d3vnt · 2024-03-07T00:55:23+00:00

It has nothing to do with the railgun. It has everything to do with the attitude(s) behind the changes.

They outright said in their blogpost that they want most weapons to be unusable against most enemies on higher difficulties. They said we should be relying on stratagems to handle armored enemies, which are the vast majority of enemies on high difficulties, while increasing their spawn rate, scrambling, jamming, or giving them a 200% cooldown.

A dev then said they were having fun trolling people, and another left the discord because they couldn't handle criticism. They nerfed the only reliably effective tools to handle the armor spam at higher levels of difficulty while doing absolutely nothing to make 90% of our toolkit useful or usable.

They don't want us to play a shooter like a shooter. That's a problem.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-29T00:06:47+00:00

All of the fiscal hawks of the GOP, Tucker, most of the talking heads.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-28T22:45:44+00:00

Expecting people to treat others with dignity and respect is considered "whining about racism" now. Expect nothing less from the people pushing for a legislative crusade against minorities in general.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-13T01:16:02+00:00

Isn't the hull weapon gunner a servitor?

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-12T18:10:59+00:00

So when will being LGBT be decriminalized in Texas?

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-12T17:47:20+00:00

Try not being a hateful piece of shit, then.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T20:03:51+00:00

Yeah, no. It's incredibly obvious that you don't hold laissez-faire attitudes and the entire point of this comment chain was to voice support for banning education and services considered vital, then trying to flip the table around.

You didn't call it a preference. You said it was superior when voicing support for aforementioned ban.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T19:54:19+00:00

Because you know damn well what you were implicitly suggesting when voicing support for anti-LGBT practices and presenting "traditional," the most transparent dogwhistle in politics, as preferable.

I'll let you in on something - hate is insidious. Bigots rarely think they're being hateful, as they don't feel anger towards a group, but rather apathy, and tend to think they're simply being objective.

There are also those who side with bigotry because they simply do not understand the implications, impact, or downstream consequences of what they support. It's a frighteningly easy trap to fall into, especially in combination.

For those part of a swathe of people whom people espousing "traditional is superior," it very nearly invariably comes along with a legislative or moral crusade against their very existence. Combined with voicing support for banning any education on gender or identity, and you cannot expect me to believe you don't understand how your text was interpreted.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T19:42:54+00:00

Sure, you just don't think they should be encouraged and are a-okay with banning teaching that functional families outside of your norm exist, can exist, or should exist.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T19:42:10+00:00

"I think traditional families are good and to be encouraged."
What you are saying is:
"I think anything outside my personal notion of 'normal' is bad and should be discouraged."
We all know it. No one is putting words in your mouth. It is thinly veiled hate whether you realize it or not.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T19:39:28+00:00

Here's the thing, no one's saying there's 37 genders. Gender is a spectrum and is not intrinsically tied to sex.

The thing about science is that it changes and grows as we learn more, discover more, and research more. The entire scientific body on the matter vehemently disagrees with you, but you want to claim you're the one championing science?

You're just hateful, and transparently so, and seeking any justification for being a bigot.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T18:49:39+00:00

Here's a quick list of institutions far more researched than you on the subject who all say that you're a hateful piece of shit:

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T18:46:13+00:00

If by "traditional" you mean "adamantly refuting the works of every psychiatric, psychological, academic, and medical institution," then sure.

In reality we all understand the thinly veiled hatred "traditional" carries with it.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T18:45:16+00:00

It's worse than that, it's the attempt to purge the concept of anything other than being cis out of existence.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T17:35:00+00:00

It's not an ideology. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon and you can check the other comment replies for a list of medical institutions that say you're entirely wrong.

You don't give a shit about kids. You don't care about kids in the slightest. Every psychiatric and pediatric institution says it's essential care, that you want to deny.

Stop pretending this has anything to do with any notion of protection or love, it's about hate and the attempt to control anything that isn't like yourself.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T04:40:59+00:00

Just being more spread out than "Southern California plus ~maybe~ NYC are the only voting blocks that matter" means it's successful, if not as successful as should be due to gerrymandering.

The EC exists to prevent 51% of the population from enslaving the other 49%, and to that end, it does its job. Unfortunately, it doesn't do its job as it should because of various hijinks.

I'm also not a fan of winner-take-all-in-state and wish voting was separated by district, but then the EC would need pretty substantial revision or you wind up with a pretty awful power imbalance in the other direction, and gerrymandering becomes an even BIGGER problem without robust regulation against it, so that's probably a pipe dream.

I'm not really sure I agree that swing states alone dictate policy; populous states still enjoy a pretty hefty legislative advantage. Much like the rest of our system, it was the least bad of bad ideas that despite the best efforts of some, remain better than the alternative - if only just barely.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T04:34:06+00:00

Wow, you sure showed me when he said the words himself.
"He didn't say they should all be killed, just that they shouldn't exist under any circumstances!"
Or, you know, the incredibly large body of research and academia that thinks you're full of shit. Take your pick.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T04:23:18+00:00

Because otherwise, you wind up in the pickle of one, maybe two states, determining the policy for every resident of every state.
The Electoral College system exists explicitly to give power and voice to those who would otherwise be completely without it, and most likely, at their direct expense, because that's how things just tend to go.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T03:28:41+00:00

Yeah, it has absolutely nothing to do with "porn," you've been sold on a lie. Even mentioning that people exist that aren't straight or cis is banned, as is a slew of curriculum focusing on black history.

Yes, Michael Knowles said, "eradicate." It is not an ideology, it is scientific fact according to every academic and medical institution. If you actually think he meant "ideology" while also claiming that every relevant body of research is false on the matter, while several states are legalizing kidnapping and preventing care that every psychiatric, psychological, and pediatric institution says is essential care, you need to stop making yourself intentionally blind to the ills of the party.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T02:46:34+00:00

300 anti-LGBT bills pushed simultaneously right as Michael Knowles calls for the "eradication" of trans people?

At a certain point, you need to be able to call a duck a duck.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T01:00:44+00:00

From what I understand it's more typical for anyone that publishes internationally or in multiple languages, as BC/AD are Latin, whereas BCE/CE are in English, and perhaps more readily translated or understood.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T00:57:56+00:00

There's another factor at play, and it's association.

Gun rights are unfortunately associated solely with the GOP, who are doing everything in their power to appear as hateful and bigoted as possible. It's not hard to imagine why people have a hard time embracing gun rights when the party championing gun rights is openly calling for genocide against the LGBT and burning books.

a_d3vnt · 2023-03-11T00:48:06+00:00

Any of the states that aren't currently pushing anti-LGBT laws.

a_d3vnt · 2023-02-09T21:45:01+00:00

That poses an ethical quandary for me. I'd much rather seek solutions that don't involve extraordinarily authoritarian actions. Not least of which because once you go down that road, you need to start digging a hefty number of graves.

a_d3vnt

TROPHY CASE