369 replies to this topic

[AsianJoyKiller]

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Again, no evidence. Also, how does reading comprehension have anything to do with him his "multiple instances of making assertions without claim"_

The evidence exists in this very thread.
Reading comprehension is relevant because with proper use of it, you could find the obvious examples of "multiple instances of making assertions without claim" without having it spoon-fed to you like a child.

I'm probably a little baby yeah, but where I come from, people back up their own claims.

https://yourlogicalf...burden-of-proof

Dude. The evidence is sitting right in front of you, in this very thread.
I do not need to provide proof because the proof is already here. I'm sorry you are either too lazy to look through a few pages or that you do not have the reading comprehension skills to understand that.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, March 16 2013 - 03:30 PM.

[Beemann]

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Beemann, on March 16 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

1:You can't prove him wrong. It's not possible .
2: This whole thread is about whether or not it's an advantage or not. Most people so far say it's not. Any advantage gained is minimal at best and does not warrant the effort of changing the game.

1. Well we don`t have to now that he proved himself wrong
2. Except the initial defense of the chassis-swap mechanic was that it added deception. The only way that deception can exist is as an advantage

1: As I said, he could only prove himself wrong if this was implemented and he then failed to live up to his claims. This is impossible. Judging a screenshot is not the same as judging this in-game (if it were implemented). It's just impossible to prove it.


2: I can easily imagine situations where this deception would backfire. What if someone overestimates you and then continues to unload his detonator on you, as compared to fighting you normally where he wouldn't_ Just one possible scenario, we could talk about possible situations for a long time to see who is correct, if you'd like.

Edit: I should add: there is no consensus on the "benefits" of this deception.

1. What needs to be implemented for him to be able to ID mechs based on weapons_ He claims he can already do that and has yet to prove it. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to prove in this instance, particularly when he can't even judge the weight class of a mech from a screenshot taken at mid-range

2. It doesnt matter if it backfires, it matters if it can work. Additionally, having someone blow a cooldown on you means they wont have it later when they need it, which can be a net gain for your team

[Holykriger]

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Again, no evidence. Also, how does reading comprehension have anything to do with him his "multiple instances of making assertions without claim"_

The evidence exists in this very thread.
Reading comprehension is relevant because with proper use of it, you could find the obvious examples of "multiple instances of making assertions without claim" without having it spoon-fed to you like a child.

I'm probably a little baby yeah, but where I come from, people back up their own claims.

https://yourlogicalf...burden-of-proof

Dude. The evidence is sitting right in front of you, in this very thread.
I do not need to provide proof because the proof is already here. I'm sorry you are either too lazy to look through a few pages or that you do not have the reading comprehension skills to understand that.

http://en.wikipedia....g_comprehension

Reading comprehension is the ability to understand the text and message at the same time, this is what you have been referring to last couple of posts. Reading your last few posts, I'd have to agree with the guy above you, that you don't realize what reading comprehension means.. you should also read the fallacy "burden of proof" since you would probably understand what exactly he is talking about when he is saying you need to provide proof.

[Akaon]

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Again, no evidence. Also, how does reading comprehension have anything to do with him his "multiple instances of making assertions without claim"_

The evidence exists in this very thread.
Reading comprehension is relevant because with proper use of it, you could find the obvious examples of "multiple instances of making assertions without claim" without having it spoon-fed to you like a child.

I'm probably a little baby yeah, but where I come from, people back up their own claims.

https://yourlogicalf...burden-of-proof

Dude. The evidence is sitting right in front of you, in this very thread.
I do not need to provide proof because the proof is already here. I'm sorry you are either too lazy to look through a few pages or that you do not have the reading comprehension skills to understand that.

So you make my point then follow it up with a personal attack. Yay. I'm also fairly certain you have no clue what reading definition means, so here: http://en.wikipedia....g_comprehension
You want to make a point_ Back it up. Stop asking others to provide the evidence for your own claims. And don't call me lazy or childish for refusing to do your dirty work. The level of your posts is dropping fast.

Beemann, on March 16 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Beemann, on March 16 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

1:You can't prove him wrong. It's not possible .
2: This whole thread is about whether or not it's an advantage or not. Most people so far say it's not. Any advantage gained is minimal at best and does not warrant the effort of changing the game.

1. Well we don`t have to now that he proved himself wrong
2. Except the initial defense of the chassis-swap mechanic was that it added deception. The only way that deception can exist is as an advantage

1: As I said, he could only prove himself wrong if this was implemented and he then failed to live up to his claims. This is impossible. Judging a screenshot is not the same as judging this in-game (if it were implemented). It's just impossible to prove it.


2: I can easily imagine situations where this deception would backfire. What if someone overestimates you and then continues to unload his detonator on you, as compared to fighting you normally where he wouldn't_ Just one possible scenario, we could talk about possible situations for a long time to see who is correct, if you'd like.

Edit: I should add: there is no consensus on the "benefits" of this deception.

1. What needs to be implemented for him to be able to ID mechs based on weapons_ He claims he can already do that and has yet to prove it. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to prove in this instance, particularly when he can't even judge the weight class of a mech from a screenshot taken at mid-range

2. It doesnt matter if it backfires, it matters if it can work. Additionally, having someone blow a cooldown on you means they wont have it later when they need it, which can be a net gain for your team

1: It's funny that you should say that you are not sure what you're supposed to prove in this instance: you're the one who started about having proof to begin with. He made a claim that cannot be proven to be true or false. Why are you so obsessed with proving it wrong anyway_ Why can't you leave it at that_

2: If it can work, and how much it can work, is something that is vague at best. There is no consensus on that whatsoever. And the situation you sketch now could also be interpreted as: you die because you got hit by an additional detonator that normally would not have been used, giving their team a benefit. Meaning a net loss for your team. There is a lot of room for interpretation on both sides.

[Akaon]

Holykriger, on March 16 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Again, no evidence. Also, how does reading comprehension have anything to do with him his "multiple instances of making assertions without claim"_

The evidence exists in this very thread.
Reading comprehension is relevant because with proper use of it, you could find the obvious examples of "multiple instances of making assertions without claim" without having it spoon-fed to you like a child.

I'm probably a little baby yeah, but where I come from, people back up their own claims.

https://yourlogicalf...burden-of-proof

Dude. The evidence is sitting right in front of you, in this very thread.
I do not need to provide proof because the proof is already here. I'm sorry you are either too lazy to look through a few pages or that you do not have the reading comprehension skills to understand that.

http://en.wikipedia....g_comprehension

Reading comprehension is the ability to understand the text and message at the same time, this is what you have been referring to last couple of posts. Reading your last few posts, I'd have to agree with the guy above you, that you don't realize what reading comprehension means.. you should also read the fallacy "burden of proof" since you would probably understand what exactly he is talking about when he is saying you need to provide proof.

Haha! Guess you had the same idea with the link to reading comprehension .

[Kerc_Kersa]

Tomino_sama, on March 16 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

N0stalgia, on March 15 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Thank you AJK.
See the screenshot for my alternative. It's probably easier to implement.

Hawken-Screenshot-12.jpg

^^^ This option also make more sense and give those with greivance a towel to dry their eyes with

I Support This!

1. Less Dev Time
2. No more Whining
3. This becomes a non-issue again. As it should be

I originally suggested something very close to this and very few people saw it... :/

HawkEyE_, on March 14 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Having read into the topic several pages, I decided to add my suggestion. Perhaps instead of having an option to force default chassis, you could make it show you the mech's true silhouette on one of the unused screens in the cockpit. In most of the screenshots that AJK posted, he was looking either at or close to an enemy mech. Perhaps it will only show you the silhouette of the last mech that you looked at. This way, you could tell what it was w/o having an option and by keeping both cosmetics and fairness at the same time.

Your thoughts_

It may not be the perfect solution, but it should help in making both sides happy at least to some extent.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

So you make my point then follow it up with a personal attack. Yay. I'm also fairly certain you have no clue what reading definition means, so here: http://en.wikipedia....g_comprehension
You want to make a point_ Back it up. Stop asking others to provide the evidence for your own claims. And don't call me lazy or childish for refusing to do your dirty work. The level of your posts is dropping fast.

You have asked me to provide proof, and I have pointed you to the evidence.
It is not my failure that you will not read Tomino's posts, or that you lack the reading comprehension skills to understand where his arguments don't follow logical reasoning. It is not my job to do your critical thinking for you.

[Alastor_Crow]

This thread has been derailed badly.

OT:
I've been seeing more and more people who are using the Fred chassis on their SS for strategic purposes. Of course, people can always see the sabot sticking out as well as checking out the scoreboard but in the heat of battle, some people might mistake these SS for CRT mechs.

[RedVan]

I'm assing they want me to prove I can I'd mechs based on weapon type, may as well give it up arguing, because I don't give a fuzzy bunny what they think lol. Fact is, I do it all the time and am a better player for it.

Alastor_Crow, on March 16 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

This thread has been derailed badly.

OT:
I've been seeing more and more people who are using the Fred chassis on their SS for strategic purposes. Of course, people can always see the sabot sticking out as well as checking out the scoreboard but in the heat of battle, some people might mistake these SS for CRT mechs.

I see people using Fred for SS all the time, makes your uneducated game think they don't need to worry about range. But the significantly different looking guns are a dead give away. Only fools get fooled by it.

Edited by RedVan, March 16 2013 - 06:24 PM.

[Beemann]

RedVan, on March 16 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

I'm assing they want me to prove I can I'd mechs based on weapon type, may as well give it up arguing, because I don't give a fuzzy bunny what they think lol. Fact is, I do it all the time and am a better player for it.

"Even though I've proven my inability to ID mech weight classes, I still stand by my unsupported assertion that I can ID a specific mech type based on weapons at any given distance and will continue to talk trash"

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

1: It's funny that you should say that you are not sure what you're supposed to prove in this instance: you're the one who started about having proof to begin with. He made a claim that cannot be proven to be true or false. Why are you so obsessed with proving it wrong anyway_ Why can't you leave it at that_

2: If it can work, and how much it can work, is something that is vague at best. There is no consensus on that whatsoever. And the situation you sketch now could also be interpreted as: you die because you got hit by an additional detonator that normally would not have been used, giving their team a benefit. Meaning a net loss for your team. There is a lot of room for interpretation on both sides.

1. So... I'm supposed to, in a discussion, sit quiet while people make unsupported statements that they themselves hurt the validity of_ And his claim can be proven false.. or rather, the null hypothesis in this case is that he can't do what he says he can until he proves he can, and he hasn't even come close to proving it

2. You dont need unanimous agreement for something to be correct (or considered correct as far as our information goes)
If you did, then we'd basically have no real basis for knowledge, as not everyone agrees that you can know something
Within THIS topic, we have people on both sides either openly admitting that an advantage is gained, or utilizing language that suggests that an advantage is gained... and that includes the people who suggest there's no advantage
Furthermore, the advantage needn't be ever-present. It just needs to come up

[Climatic]

@eating_popcorn
#crack_a_beer#

[Tomino_sama]

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

It is not my failure that you will not read Tomino's posts, or that you lack the reading comprehension skills to understand where his arguments don't follow logical reasoning. It is not my job to do your critical thinking for you.

More pretentious behaviour does nothing for your reputation. Also you keep referencing the definition of things while not reading them yourself. It seems your Hypocracy towards those not sharing your views knows no bounds on this issue.

I called this a non-issue. I decided to do some real world testing in game. Everybody was screaming that I had nothing to back up my claims. Well watch ANYONE play Hawken is my answer. It's not Chess. I can gain deception without using Head swaps. Ever heard of radar scramble and infiltrator class. Legit deception exists. You are opting out of an accepted mechanic that has been in the game for the whole OB at least.

We found that in most engagements you cannot see the mech properly to identify it by silouette or visual means. In most cases you have a red square around your target. Of course if you turned off all the effects to gain an advantage, you cannot complain when the game is tailored to those who did not OPT OUT from things like grain, depth of field, FOV tweaks, particle effects, textures and lighting.

If you turned all that stuff off then mechs are way more visible than in the "uncut" version of Hawken.

In most cases you can use a simple process of elimination. Using the sounds of weapons, the visual effects of different weapon firing, the movement of "red dots" on the radar and other advanced techniques.

In nearly all engagements, you are often set upon by more than one target at a time, making identification useless. Unless you play SS or maybe to a lesser extent Reaper, this sort of thing is a waste of time. When you have the time to sit back and decide/wait for targets to shoot at, maybe you are able to play this game of "guess that Mech loadout".

Don't worry though, I brought you some evidence to disseminate. Taken from a live stream so we could not be accused of editing the footage to suit own end of the debate. Your in it Too AJK We saw you were obviously testing your side_ That was my guess anyway.


As a Mechanic that is already in the Game, 3 months into Open Beta seems a little late in the day. In any case, as Pilots we should prepare for any possibility that is in the Game. HEAD/BODY swapping is one of those things you have to watch out for. I think more people are playing with Swapped parts than those who think its P2W, however ridiculous the claim is, than you give credit.

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 03:30 PM, said:

Dude. The evidence is sitting right in front of you, in this very thread.

The Haken Serengeti (Live) With Gamehunters Beefsweat & Tomino_sama


All I know is, through all of this I am certain at least one person has purchased lots of Mech Parts recently so I am glad I could help Funding the game in this way

Edited by Tomino_sama, March 17 2013 - 03:07 AM.

[Tomino_sama]

Also AJK and Beemann - this thread has most likely caused a surge in Pilots employing the strategies you criticise. I am sure we will see more of this now.

HawkEyE_, on March 16 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

I originally suggested something very close to this and very few people saw it... :/

There have been many excellently thought out and constructive solutions to this issue, thing is OT wants it done his way, so they are ignored or attacked. Shocking. Most of them would be easier to implement from the Dev's Perspective. IMHO nothing is broken.

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

It is not my job to do your critical thinking for you.

I pose this supposition. If that is not true, then why rebut every post disagreeing with your position_

Tomino_sama, on March 16 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

as for the advantage gained before the firing. If you do not fire first you are at a disadvantage greater than this issue you blow out of proportion. So logically you fire first and identify later. I find I choose my dodging pattern based on what he returns fire with.

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

Except you are ignoring the fact that you may be unable or not want to fire first.

this is expected in a real fight, deal with it.

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

If you are engaged with another target, then you likely will not be able to fire first.

so you think we should be able to win 2v1 when already engaged with another good pilot_ again, deal with it.

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

If you only caught a glance at them before then entered cover you will not be able to fire first.

a glance is enough, although you can try moving to a better position.

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

If you are out of optimal range, you may not want to fire right off the bat because you'll give yourself away, however knowing what mech affects how you may engage them or if you will even engage them at all.

If a mech it outside my optimal, I move in, around, with Bro's or prioritise the nearest enemy. So all that is irrelevant to everyone except Snipers.

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

Firing first and reacting is not the smart way to play.

In. your. Opinion.

for SS I agree. If you want kills, wait for the A class to be damaged, then Alpha strike for Maximum Damage! Easy kills from so far away!


You said you won't fire first "because you'll give yourself away" it's actually a great Deception tactic, it's also commonly known as the "Distraction" I'm sure you can find that definition somewhere....


For the record, I have no problem with you personally AJK, why would I_ We are just playing a game. However if Forums are to turn into some kind of College Debate Club, don't assume that everyone else is an fuzzy bunny becuase you have been here a long time. As this game expands it will collect more Analytical Thinkers like yourself and they may not sing to the same tune either.

I like your Passionate defence of your stance, however belittling people through understanding of the English Language will not work on everyone. Your Screenshot test was unsafe because:

1. The game is displayed at 30FPS, you displayed one frame.
2. Although you say they were 1920x1080 resolution you presented a Scrapbook of cropped Mechs.
3. There is no reference for perspective
4. The images are grainy and blurred.

All this proves is that you can only guess the Mech type based on

• Size
  
• Speed

As you cannot determine speed from a still and the other 3 points, the test is declared unsafe.


Try using a process of elimination to determine the Weapons. I will hold your hand and walk you through a simple example using an unknown A class.

Example:

• Enemy sighted is small and fast = A class
  
  
• Did a Tow shoot or a GL_ = Tow
  
  
• Flak/EOC/mini Flak or AR / Sub / Point D _ = easy to hear the difference between a rifles and a shotgun really.

^ so above you see it is easy to establish weaponry and within one exchange of Fire.

Edited by Tomino_sama, March 17 2013 - 03:18 AM.

[Magnastar]

I think all you did with that video is prove how thoroughly you do not understand what AJK's argument is.

[Holykriger]

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

You have asked me to provide proof, and I have pointed you to the evidence.
It is not my failure that you will not read Tomino's posts, or that you lack the reading comprehension skills to understand where his arguments don't follow logical reasoning. It is not my job to do your critical thinking for you.

you keep using that word.. i don't think it means what you think it means also as he have stated a couple of times before, you are the person burdened by the burden of proof, you are the person who are suppose to give us the specific instances you are talking about.

[Akaon]

AsianJoyKiller, on March 16 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

So you make my point then follow it up with a personal attack. Yay. I'm also fairly certain you have no clue what reading definition means, so here: http://en.wikipedia....g_comprehension
You want to make a point_ Back it up. Stop asking others to provide the evidence for your own claims. And don't call me lazy or childish for refusing to do your dirty work. The level of your posts is dropping fast.

You have asked me to provide proof, and I have pointed you to the evidence.
It is not my failure that you will not read Tomino's posts, or that you lack the reading comprehension skills to understand where his arguments don't follow logical reasoning. It is not my job to do your critical thinking for you.

Still haven't escaped the burden of proof. Still not making making a good argument. Not to mention, you avoid everything we have said to you in the process, it sounds to me like you're just here to troll at this point by repeating yourself over and over regardless of what people say. Another funny thing is, I showed that you're using a fallacious argument with the burden of proof. You react with another one: tu quoque, by deflecting all criticism with "It is not my failure that you will not read Tomino's posts, or that you lack the reading comprehension skills to understand where his arguments don't follow logical reasoning. It is not my job to do your critical thinking for you." - This doesn't even contain any actual arguments, just personal attacks (at hominem much_)
3 fallacies, wow, in one post.
https://yourlogicalf....com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalf...s.com/tu-quoque
https://yourlogicalf...burden-of-proof

Just stop posting if you're done with this discussion. At least that way you can leave with your head held up high.

Beemann, on March 16 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

RedVan, on March 16 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

I'm assing they want me to prove I can I'd mechs based on weapon type, may as well give it up arguing, because I don't give a fuzzy bunny what they think lol. Fact is, I do it all the time and am a better player for it.

"Even though I've proven my inability to ID mech weight classes, I still stand by my unsupported assertion that I can ID a specific mech type based on weapons at any given distance and will continue to talk trash"

Akaon, on March 16 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

1: It's funny that you should say that you are not sure what you're supposed to prove in this instance: you're the one who started about having proof to begin with. He made a claim that cannot be proven to be true or false. Why are you so obsessed with proving it wrong anyway_ Why can't you leave it at that_

2: If it can work, and how much it can work, is something that is vague at best. There is no consensus on that whatsoever. And the situation you sketch now could also be interpreted as: you die because you got hit by an additional detonator that normally would not have been used, giving their team a benefit. Meaning a net loss for your team. There is a lot of room for interpretation on both sides.

1. So... I'm supposed to, in a discussion, sit quiet while people make unsupported statements that they themselves hurt the validity of_ And his claim can be proven false.. or rather, the null hypothesis in this case is that he can't do what he says he can until he proves he can, and he hasn't even come close to proving it

2. You dont need unanimous agreement for something to be correct (or considered correct as far as our information goes)
If you did, then we'd basically have no real basis for knowledge, as not everyone agrees that you can know something
Within THIS topic, we have people on both sides either openly admitting that an advantage is gained, or utilizing language that suggests that an advantage is gained... and that includes the people who suggest there's no advantage
Furthermore, the advantage needn't be ever-present. It just needs to come up

At the first point and your reply to redvan: you're mocking him again, like I commented on earlier. There are things that simply cannot be proven, as I said, true or false. You just refuse to accept the idea of him making a claim that you can't prove wrong (even if it's not possible for you to do so). I'm starting to suspect that this has more to do with redvan himself and i'm starting to suspect you just don't like him.
2: I never said things require a unanimous agreement to be true. But there is no consensus here and that means you can't assume you're right anyway.
This made me laugh though: "Within THIS topic, we have people on both sides either openly admitting that an advantage is gained, or utilizing language that suggests that an advantage is gained... and that includes the people who suggest there's no advantage"
So what you're saying is: there's people who openly admit an advantage is gained, people "utilizing language that suggests an advantage is gained" which includes people who say there is none.
I agree there are people who say there is an advantage, like you and AJK.
The second group is completely suggestive and vague, and it sounds like you assumed there was a possibility they may have meant to say that there is SOME advantage.
The third group is people who say there is NO advantage and yet you include this group in the group that says there is some advantage_

So what you're saying here, is that EVERYONE agrees there is an advantage, even the people who say there is none.

Are you serious_

[FussyBadger]

I'd like it as a private server option, which it may be for all I know. Not a pub option, though.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Tomino_sama, on March 16 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

:V "must be an OP P2W feature that adds nothing to the competitive scene"

A gross misrepresentation of what’s been said.
It has not been claimed that the advantage is overpowering, calling it P2W is highly subjective due to the lack of a solid definition of what Pay-to-win really is. Point in case, I would not argue it’s P2W because I don’t think it provides a large or insurmountable advantage that cannot be overcome by skill.
Remember, you are the one who first implied was actual Pay to WIN. Up till that point, the only real implication was that you could gain small advantage that added needless complexity for money, not a game-breaking advantage.

:Response to being unfair to New Players:

They are new Players. They suffer more at the hands of Elites due to their lack of experience in playing Hawken. This is a very small issue, blown out of all proportion by a few members.

Identifiable chassis and a poor separation of skilled and unskilled players are two separate issues.
Yes, it is a small issue in comparison, but it is the issue being discussed in this thread.
You’re free to express that since you feel it’s a small issue, it doesn’t require the devs consideration, but don’t try to repeatedly shut down conversation by dismissing it as a small issue.

It is a pity this is turning into some kind of strange popularity contest. None of the countered Points have been answered. Simply brushed under the carpet if they don't all sing to the same tune.

Guess what_
Winning debates that have equally valid points (and even sometimes when the points aren’t equally valid) often requires your side of the argument to be the popular one.

Also, many of the counter points have been answered. However, you have chosen to ignore that on several occasions.

The only pilots that are affected by this are SS and they are OP anyway. I hope SS is nerfed soon personally.

Except it affects more than just the SS.
Feel free to prove me wrong by identifying the mechs and the weapons they are using in the test I provided. Most of them are sitting at mid-close range, so you should have no problem IDing them, right_

Where is the basis for this assumption that Swapping parts somehow helps a player_
Start rereading the entire thread. There’s plenty of people in here who can attest to the concept that swapping chassis can cause confusion. The fact that it can cause confusion on part of the opponent, means that you have gained an advantage.

There’s also the visual test I provided. If it’s as easy to ID mechs as you claim, you should have no trouble IDing a majority of them correctly.

I fail to see the hyprocracy when you Guys are the ones supporting the "evidence" although baseless, that Hawken Head Swapping can provide a  pilot an inherent advantage over another player without $5 to buy a few.

It’s not a baseless claim.
If you look through the thread, there are many players both for and against my proposal that agree that chassis swapping can provide an advantage.

You call them "high quality" jeebus. It's all out of context in an attempt to support an argument AND all from the SS POV / long range only. I called BS then and it's still BS now. There is no way that looking at a silouette head or otherwise that you should instantly know what loadout he has. All you have is suspicion based on experience. After that point most of these arguments saying it gives an advantage are completely nullified.

That’s a complete lie.
First, those screenshots are taken at the 1920x1080 resolution that the game allows, on Ultra/Ultra settings. You can debate their quality all you want, but that is exactly what you would see in game. I even went to the effort of uploading them on a site where .jpeg artifacting would not become a problem.

Second, all the screenshots were taken from the perspective of a RAIDER. And if you bother to use the reference image for scale, you can tell that most of those screenshots are taken at MID-RANGE.

Third, nobody is arguing that you’ll know the exact loadout. That is another assumption you’ve made. However, the fact is, if you can identify by default chassis, you will be able to know what secondary is being used, which is critical information. Unless you want to argue that you can fight against all secondaries the same way with equal effectiveness_

Fourth, I have more than suspicion based on experience. There are over 40 people who are backing this claim, and not even all of them are in support of my proposal. There are people against the proposal who admit that it is an issue.

If you think you lost because of a head swap, think again swallow your egos, you just lost to a better pilot or he had another advantage of which there are many that offer way more swing that a head swap.. I would wager if he had not used the head swap you would had still died.

Again, another thing that you've just made up. This doesn't even classify as a strawman, because it’s a complete fabrication.

If you need every Mech to look "the same" then yes that is a crutch. I play many games where a model offers you nothing in the way of telling you what it has fitted.

And how many of those are fast paced, class based shooters_

You cannot prove it. There is no way to say "we did a fair test and we can say that if you wear a raider head on your beserker you will win more games" without attributing the advantage to luck, poor matchmaking, the maps actual design and Pilot Skill.

With 40+ people on both sides of the debate saying it is something that happens, and more than a few of them admitting to taking advantage of it, I’d say it’s already been proven.
And the whole “you’ll win if you switch heads” is yet another one of your gross exaggerations of what’s actually been said.

You guys seem to be getting all hyped up over this eSports Scene, While getting all snooty to the rest of us about it. It doesn't even exist yet_!
All I can say id I hope you at least think you are getting some money from being involved else you are taking this all way too seriously.

So Tomino, you know those tournaments that have already been held_ And you know all of us competitive players_ Yeah_
Hi. Yeah. Hawken eSports already exists. It’s not just some myth.
Just because Hawken is really eSports ready at the moment, doesn’t mean the scene isn’t here.

Nobody has actually Proven anything. I would Pay a Prize if you want. $10 on Paypal. Hell if nobody claims it I'll double it. Like the Wheel that turns forever with no Power source, I feel this will never get paid out. Why is that_ because it simply cannot be proven.

Nothing has been proven, but only if you’re willing to ignore over 40 people on both sides of the fence saying otherwise, and instances like RedVan not even being able to identify weight class from a static screenshot.

If you are skilled, you do not need to know what the enemy has. All you need to know is the Class. That is apparent by it size and/or speed. You can determine a lot from the radar. If it is fast - probably a raider or A class. hmmm. indentifying Mech types is actually a waste of time.

So are you telling me that it’s a waste of time to know whether you’re dealing with a TOW, a GL, a MIRV, Hellfires or a Sabot_
Are you saying that knowing what secondary you are facing isn't important_

But honestly guys this is quite embarrassing to be part of this community who needs Fairness to the Nth degree. It is beyond a Joke and it make you "pro" eSports advocate look like a bunch of crybabies who need the game changed becasue they get confused when a mech doesn't look right. That is not what I am saying you are, It is how it looks from the outside. I am pretty sure MWOL fans are rolling around on the floor over this.

Could you ad hominem any harder_

Looking at games like Eve Online and Dust 514. Two great games I play. You cannot tell what the opponent has until he starts shooting or unless you get so close you can see / hear. In Dust there are 4 main classes so you can guess that much. In Eve there are so many ships it is hard to remember them all and no way you will know whats fitted till its too late.

On the other hand EVE is a significantly different game, with significantly different combat that has a significantly different pace.

Also I have not made any personal attack on you Beemann or any other Pro-eSports-change-the-game supporter.

I’m fairly sure you threw around some personal attacks, but I’m definitely sure you've thrown in quite a few general insults. Not to mention you displayed the same dismissive behavior that you criticize me for, long before I called you on it.

Tomino_sama said:

“Seriously get some skill!!”
http://community.pla..._60#entry228551

“Please you sound more like the troll here than I do AJK.”
http://community.pla..._60#entry228623

“Well in that case Pilots need to get some [skill].”
http://community.pla...100#entry229097

“Changing the game so you can't be confused in this way is a weak move, from a critical thinker like yourself.”
http://community.pla...100#entry229097

“Please do not encourage hippy progaganda.”
http://community.pla...100#entry229103

“Yeah, they do that for Kids. It's called Dumbing it down.”
http://community.pla...100#entry229119

“Just play the damn game. If you try really hard I am sure you will find even more obscure examples of "the game being unfair" but with this you are all scraping the bottom of the barrell.”
http://community.pla...120#entry229827

“...but frankly all these claims it provides an advantage "because I don't know what he really is" reeks of Pilot Error.”
http://community.pla...140#entry229839

“Still No Proof of Any Claims here.

• YAWN.”

http://community.pla...180#entry230580

“those screenshots are worthless and you know it.”
http://community.pla...180#entry230599

“maybe you need to mann up!”
http://community.pla...280#entry232681

"AJK's theory, proven bull@#$%"

Yes.
Clearly you are free of sin and a model forum member.

I’ll address your new laughable “test” eventually.

However, I'd like to point out you are still not understanding the circumstances in which chassis swapping provides an advantage.

Think of it as something similar to the Infiltrator's Cloak. The instant you fire, the advantage it gives you is lost. That's why continuing to argue on the basis of "you should be able to recognize what they're shooting at you with" or "you should know the sound of a TOW" is logically fallacious. It is a strawman argument.
When you start talking about that, you are no longer discussing the issue. You are discussing something else.
Please keep that in mind.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, March 17 2013 - 05:10 AM.

[Akaon]

The fact that when you fire the advantage is lost, is most definitely part of the discussion and the argument. I cannot comprehend your logic behind this.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Akaon, on March 17 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

The fact that when you fire the advantage is lost, is most definitely part of the discussion and the argument. I cannot comprehend your logic behind this.

Tomino is arguing about how swapping chassis doesn't help you ID during active combat, after you've already engaged, and that it doesn't provide any advantage because of that.
However, he has repeatedly ignored the part about what happens before you engage.