Like Sheep to the Slaughter (in General)

three4thsforsaken November 26 2008 4:36 PM EST

Sometimes it feels like people just latch on to the first comments of OP-ness that they see.

As I remember the whole things about AS being overpowered came from one thread. Then BOOM, people believed AS was overpowered. It was a widely accepted fact, the ears closed, no debate.

One person noticed that there are more mages are in the top 10 since the changemonth change. Suddenly it's mageblender, suddenly mages are horribly unbalanced. No one takes in account the growing tank teams, nor the fact that many top players just switched out of tank prior to the change and are unable to change back. Nor do they take in account the few there are or the idea that the top ten doesn't represent the game as a whole.

What does OP mean anymore? I always thought it meant that it allowed people to beat people abnormally higher then them, but with all the recent OP threads, this doesn't even apply. People just hear something that seems OP, and just latch on to the idea, then make threads about them for the heck of it.

It annoys me. All I want is people to think for themselves and to be slightly logical. Is that too much to ask?

Lochnivar November 26 2008 4:38 PM EST

yes it is too much to ask...

I'm sorry to be the one who had to break that to you.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] November 26 2008 4:44 PM EST

If your asking about my nerf idea to ablative shield. Maybe you should read it again, I said a small boost to DM. Not a total nerf. =).

three4thsforsaken November 26 2008 4:48 PM EST

it's not just about you...

But you imply that a boost to DM isn't a nerf to AS. You even stated that you wanted to boost DM solely for AS.

Anyways, that's besides the point... the proposal of a boost of DM doesn't annoy as much as the idea that AS is unbalanced in the first place. One wouldn't ask for a boost for DM if they didn't think AS was fine.

three4thsforsaken November 26 2008 4:51 PM EST

*One wouldn't ask for a boost for DM if they thought AS was fine.

QBJohnnywas November 26 2008 4:51 PM EST

It's always been this way. I've always, always been of the view that there isn't such a thing as overpowered, that it's an overused inappropriate phrase that gets thrown about when something is simply powerful and capable of beating a few people.

And, sometimes that bandwagon mentality you mention has been used by certain individuals. It's very easy to set it in motion by talking in chat or posting an 'X is OP' thread.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 28 2008 7:39 AM EST

Just to make my point clear, I don't think tanks are OP. I in fact think that tanks should be better than they are now, because it's so much easier to use DD.

Ancient Anubis November 28 2008 8:44 AM EST

things work as they should in most cases op status comes about when an individual decides to put half their exp into that stat making it op but then again why shouldn't it be op if its using millions and millions of exp, if u want to beat it spend the same amount of exp i say :)

BootyGod November 28 2008 10:08 AM EST


*tries his best to be as objective as possible*

*grins at the irony*

QBOddBird November 28 2008 11:51 AM EST

"What does OP mean anymore? I always thought it meant that it allowed people to beat people abnormally higher then them, but with all the recent OP threads, this doesn't even apply."

OP means Original Poster.

It also is commonly used in reference to the Chat Ops.

Lochnivar November 28 2008 12:01 PM EST

at least people have cut down on the use of 'uber' as a result...

I'm just glad that the OP isn't and OP because that would be seriously OP!

Cube November 28 2008 12:11 PM EST

I'm sorry I believe I may have started this...

But I remember saying that HP is just as "overpowered". Sort of jokingly, except for the fact that 2/3rds of my xp is in HP and I fight quite high up.

And it's true to an extent, a damage nerf pretty much means HP gives you more bang for your buck. I would say it's more powerful than before, rather than overpowered though.

Phaete November 28 2008 12:42 PM EST

Simple physics of mobs vs individuals.

The IQ of a mob (IQm) is calculated as:
IQm = IQs / n
IQs = the IQ of the stupidest person in the mob, and
n = the total number of people in the mob

The IQ of an individual is simply calculated as:
IQi = IQi
IQi = IQ of an individual

So it is true that a mob almost always has a lower IQ than an individual.

Ernest-Scribbler November 28 2008 12:56 PM EST

I agree

Wizard'sFirstRule November 28 2008 2:36 PM EST

by your definition, IQi is only a case of IQm, where n=1. The general conclusion is that the bigger the mob, the stupider.

AdminTal Destra [C and S Forgery Lmtd.] November 28 2008 2:44 PM EST

no clone its not if you divide it by 1 you get the same number if n=1 but because n=# of mob it shows that it gets stupider with each additional person

Wizard'sFirstRule November 28 2008 3:01 PM EST

Tal, I think its just another case of me not expressing my point clearly, and I agree with your conclusion totally (and in a way better than mine).

Yukk November 28 2008 3:33 PM EST

Yeah, anyway, sheep are way overpowered. They should be nerfed.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] November 28 2008 10:19 PM EST

sheep go heaven, goats go to hell.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002b8B">Like Sheep to the Slaughter </a>