So, what takes "skill"?

[imported_HorrorBusiness]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

If someone whines when I use the 203 / gp-30 I'll switch to medic and shock paddle them. I play for fun which to me means winning. I really don't care if someone is crying about how they were killed when they have the same means to get me back. The most skillfull part of this game is putting yourself in the best positions to kill, capturing weak points, and working well with others.

[puglous]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

no. you have noidea and your opinion is so far from the truth its worthless. read my previous posts and try to understand.

So worthless you can't debunk it?

Nice try.

[MooJuice]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

http://forums.totalbf2.com/showthread.php?p=480556#post480556

[glasseye]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

So worthless you can't debunk it?

Nice try.

like i already said, you noidea. if you want to actually get an idea, try reading my previous post. or you can just live happily in ignorance thinking everybody in the world is wrong except you.

i dont need to debunk you because all your pathetic arguments were answered before you made them. you already quoted me, now try to understand me.

i really cannot make it any easier to understand. if you still cannot grasp these simple ideas i pity you.

[puglous]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

i dont need to debunk you because all your pathetic arguments were answered before you made them. you already quoted me, now try to understand me.

Coward's cliche. You could have easily spent the time you did writing that flame explaining to me how my arguments didn't adress yours.

I'm surprised people as stupid as you haven't choked on their own tongues yet (people who think they can pass off with excuses like that).

[glasseye]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

Coward's cliche. You could have easily spent the time you did writing that flame explaining to me how my arguments didn't adress yours.

writing? surely you mean re-writing?

And also, what exactly is "skill".. is it reaction time? Anticipation? Mouse-hand-eye coordination?

all of the above.

And lastly, is winning the game by using whatever means possible (within the boundries of the game itself.. so cheating/exploiting doesnt count) considered a skill in and of itself? Or do people have to adhear to a set of rules of some sort?

no thats not skill.

Edit: One other thing.. why is it that people blame a player for using a certain weapon when it is available for them to use? Isn't this the developer's fault?

because its lame. taking advantage of unbalanced parts of the game isnt skill.

stop saying alls fair in war. bf2 is a game.


tanks are fine. nade launchers are lame.

the problem is two fold: too many ppl need to rely on unbalanced parts of the game in order to have any chance and will rabidly defend what they are doing as skillful AND too many ppl throwing around the terms lame and whore so much that they have lost all context and now the aforementioned lamers can always defend being lame by quoting some idiot as saying something like 'tank whore.'

since i've answered all your questions, maybe you could answer two for me. why is that ppl that cant handle an even game feel the need to try and justify what they do? is it shame?

and do you have some sort of genetic condition that stops you from being able to read previous posts in a thread?

[MooJuice]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

whats an 'even game', glasseye, you stupid little nerd?

seriously thats so damn retarded, you dont see pro boxers after a match like "OMFG WHAT A LAMEASS HE GET HITTIN ME WITH HIS LEFT HOOK THATS SO UNFAIR"

meh sounds to my like someone has a hangup about getting owned in a computer game...ew.

[puglous]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

Well, I'm not going to stoop to your level even though YOU obviously made no effort to understand what I said.

If, for example, you reframe from using a nade launcher because you find it lame, the enemy still may not. This gives the game a different kind of imbalance. Now the enemy team could have an advantage over you. If you stop using the black hawk because it gives the USMC an advantage, then you have NO helicopter, giving the enemy an advantage (because their half-***ed heli is better than nothing).

Oh yeah, and "because it's lame" is hardly an answer.

[|D|-Char-ley_Killa]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

the nade launcher takes skill if u own people from half across the map

[glasseye]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

whats an 'even game', glasseye, you stupid little nerd?

seriously thats so damn retarded, you dont see pro boxers after a match like "OMFG WHAT A LAMEASS HE GET HITTIN ME WITH HIS LEFT HOOK THATS SO UNFAIR"

meh sounds to my like someone has a hangup about getting owned in a computer game...ew.

you have an opinion. if i were you i would stop voicing it until i learned to do so in a way that doesnt make me sound like a child.

If, for example, you reframe from using a nade launcher because you find it lame, the enemy still may not. This gives the game a different kind of imbalance. Now the enemy team could have an advantage over you. If you stop using the black hawk because it gives the USMC an advantage, then you have NO helicopter, giving the enemy an advantage (because their half-***ed heli is better than nothing).

Oh yeah, and "because it's lame" is hardly an answer.

im not getting your point? you're saying that not being lame gives lamers an advantage? doesnt everybody know that?

"because its lame" is an answer, albeit a very short one. i didnt think that i would have to explain why what i called lame is.

[imported_Apostle]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

Do you think, when some guy on one of the thousands of servers, spawn rapes your team, he cares what you feel about that? This is the difference between you and him. That player uses all means possible to kill and defeat the enemy. Skill is of no concern to him.

[Paas]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

Glasseye... you're kidding right?

It's not "Lame" to use a weapon that is coded into the game for the purpose of blowing people up! What are ya' gunna' do with the 203 BUT blow the surface from under the OpFor's feet?!

Cmon' now! Think? That's like calling someone who uses the Ak-101 lame because it does more damage than the M16. Or calling an Anti-Tanker lame because he is the only one who can do effective damage to a tank from a distance; and does so?

I can understand calling blatant exploitations of the game lame, or even Bunny Hopping (Which is not so much an exploitation of the game, but of the games limitations.)

By your logic it's lame to use the sniper rifle because it's the most accurate, and it's lame to use the DAO upclose because it's a shotgun. Let's not forget it's lame to use a Tank because small arms cannot damage it, and it's lame to use a pistol because it's more accurate than the most of the the rifles (Which is odd by the way?) It's also lame to use an APC because cars and tanks can only carry 3 and 2 people. Blackhawks, lame, they can fly. Jets, lame, they can fly fast. Boats, lame, they can float... the list goes on and on and on.

When do you stop? Never; especially if this is your logic.

{WP}Paas

[imported_Apostle]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

Word :yay:

[glasseye]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

Do you think, when some guy on one of the thousands of servers, spawn rapes your team, he cares what you feel about that? This is the difference between you and him. That player uses all means possible to kill and defeat the enemy. Skill is of no concern to him.

if these ppl didnt care i cant help but wonder why they spend so much energy on trying to justify it to others.

Glasseye... you're kidding right?

It's not "Lame" to use a weapon that is coded into the game for the purpose of blowing people up! What are ya' gunna' do with the 203 BUT blow the surface from under the OpFor's feet?!

Cmon' now! Think? That's like calling someone who uses the Ak-101 lame because it does more damage than the M16. Or calling an Anti-Tanker lame because he is the only one who can do effective damage to a tank from a distance; and does so?

I can understand calling blatant exploitations of the game lame, or even Bunny Hopping (Which is not so much an exploitation of the game, but of the games limitations.)

By your logic it's lame to use the sniper rifle because it's the most accurate, and it's lame to use the DAO upclose because it's a shotgun. Let's not forget it's lame to use a Tank because small arms cannot damage it, and it's lame to use a pistol because it's more accurate than the most of the the rifles (Which is odd by the way?) It's also lame to use an APC because cars and tanks can only carry 3 and 2 people. Blackhawks, lame, they can fly. Jets, lame, they can fly fast. Boats, lame, they can float... the list goes on and on and on.

When do you stop? Never; especially if this is your logic.

{WP}Paas

its not lame by my logic to use sniper rifles or daos or tanks or anything like that. clearly you dont understand my position and possibly havent read my previous posts since i already specifically mentioned tanks.

[puglous]

Re: So, what takes "skill"?

you have an opinion. if i were you i would stop voicing it until i learned to do so in a way that doesnt make me sound like a child.

After seeing some of your recent posts (not just in this topic), it's clear you wouldn't (because you haven't).

im not getting your point? you're saying that not being lame gives lamers an advantage? doesnt everybody know that?

"because its lame" is an answer, albeit a very short one. i didnt think that i would have to explain why what i called lame is.

Glasseye, your logic totally eats away at itself. You criticize people for being lame when your own oppinion is lame. That's total hypocrisy! Not to mention you call people who use the M203 lamers while fail to note it is not lame. Don't you ever try to analyze anything before a debate. Hey, cool, I JUST WON THE DEBATE!

Well, go on, explain, otherwise, I don't have to explain how I concluded any of the above.