The Infantry Problem 2

[Winter]

My point is I keep getting told one thing then another
I was told to do a poll and then told I can't base anything on it
I was told that I needed to get proof but then that the only why for me to would not work
I was told that screens meant nothing and then told that this video was proof
I wish you guys would stick to the rules you lay out for me

I think the issue is primarily reading comprehension.  It isn't the screenshots, it is the thing you are trying to prove with the screenshots.  For the others, I have not yet seen someone say that the poll does not matter (entirely possible that I just missed it) and I'm not sure what you mean about the evidence thing, unless you are again referring to the Legionnaire getting top kills in which case please refer to previous posts about it. A screenshot of a Legionnaire having the most kills only proves that a Legionnaire got the most kills. Please provide quotes as evidence when accusing others of being inconsistent. If they are being inconsistent, it is *very* easy to prove through quotes.

---

OK it's the end of NI
Someone said Infantry is above average...
It's the end
Doom is here

Disco and Midren are some of my favorite trolls.  Even if they were 100% serious, I don't think that two votes outweigh the twenty-six saying that infantry could use some work, even when added to the eleven saying infantry is fine as it is.

Even if they were 100% serious AND the majority of players agreed that infantry is fine as it is, a thread like this (but better managed) would be nice for discussing what people think is wrong and ways to fix it, even if those ways were just a change in playstyle and mentality.

[TerrorBite]

My point is I keep getting told one thing then another
I was told to do a poll and then told I can't base anything on it
I was told that I needed to get proof but then that the only why for me to would not work
I was told that screens meant nothing and then told that this video was proof
I wish you guys would stick to the rules you lay out for me

I think you're assuming extremes are still relevant to what is said. 

Evidence supports an argument but does not prove it, especially if the argument is not sound to begin with.
The poll is evidence of whatever the options are, you cannot assume anything more. At the moment it is only a general indicator of the views of forum players, which tells us the infantry problem is not just a problem for 2 or 3 people.
About being told to get proof, i think kaas wanted evidence before evaluating the rationale because he doesn't want to waste time. Even getting the evidence doesn't mean you're right in his eyes though, it's just one step closer. 

If you don't get what I'm saying just assume nothing, and consider the very specific things people say and who (how many people) says it etc

[DR.]

This thread is focusing way too much about infantry classes with late tier gear.

Well it is a good way of thinking as it's the max of what that class could do. Do you want to start a puzzle in the middle or at the corner? Add the fact it's convenient as most people are on gothic etc.. here.

Do you want to finish a puzzle without the middle part?

Most people are on gothic is quite the assumption and I really want to see that be proven.

I think is eg Legacy is 100% of what Zwei can do with a 2h eg so the crafted ones are what 70-80 or whatever % etc.. My point is start the puzzle at the top and work your way down. Once the top lvl (100%) is done then the 99-1% is easyer rather than starting at 1% and working your way up to hell.  

Yea most people are not at gothic sure but most people here fapping away are. Even if they are not they do have some good idea of what that lvl of armour feels like.

Also can't blame me for going with "Infantry needs some small changes" as the other options don't show how I feel about it. If I was to vote for something "Infantry needs some BIG changes" Do I think "Infantry is underpowered" Nop just could be better by being more different but on the same ish lvl of "op"

[Sir Baron]

Now it's gone as far as to be OP
OH Deer

---

What I'm trying to say is
To get a buff big enough to make a change would not be a few small changes
To make as much of a change as is being talked about would be to double HP or even more
Maybe it's just me but that seems like a big change

[DR.]

That's perfect thx

[Kaasovic]

(...)
What I'm trying to say is
To get a buff big enough to make a change would not be a few small changes
To make as much of a change as is being talked about would be to double HP or even more
Maybe it's just me but that seems like a big change

"To get a buff big enough to make a change would not be a few small changes". I don't know what this is based on, but it seems wrong to me. Just a slight incoming damage mitigation for certain waves on certain modes could mean a lot while it still being a small change. I don't think I have anyone seems posting that infantry needs double the hp, or more, then it currently has.

Also it is yet to be proven that by increasing the hit points of infantry will make them overpowered. We could do an experiment like Woody did, reference to the videos, to draw conclusions.

At the moments this is just a thread all based on assumptions where few people actually have proven their points.

[Bobo]

Too much semantics and logic it all became, too little focus on the topic. The poll says 31/49 think infantry is strong, ok or small changes are needed. 18/49 said it is underpowered. Maybe it's just that the infantry is more difficult to play than spamming projectiles, the score is low and there's much higher risk of death for it that it is not so entertaining, funny and rewarding. If that is the problem then inf will always be felt underpowered and not worth it by some (many?) players. But it's just the nature of this class to fight in close quarters with whatever negatives it involves.

The problem is Nords often advance in numbers and there's single inf against many enemies situation. To handle it easily the class would have be made crazy op. Just think about 1 vs 1 scenario and that says more about the power the class has. Also, if anyone thinks about soloing bosses then I'd say bosses are designed to be damn strong and I believe there shouldn't be any class or any gear able to deal against bosses alone. What bosses would they be then? (yeah I know ranged can do this if manage to stay away but that's about kitting and in theory one can kite anything on a proper map, let's leave it alone here).

PS. I can imagine the runs with all op inf one-hit slaying whatever comes near and then the threads begging for making ranged stronger for none plays them anymore. If you wanna try it join beginner, with good armour you can just stand among enemies and smile. Really boring.

[Winter]

Too much semantics and logic it all became, too little focus on the topic. The poll says 31/49 think infantry is strong, ok or small changes are needed. 18/49 said it is underpowered. Maybe it's just that the infantry is more difficult to play than spamming projectiles, the score is low and there's much higher risk of death for it that it is not so entertaining, funny and rewarding. If that is the problem then inf will always be felt underpowered and not worth it by some (many?) players. But it's just the nature of this class to fight in close quarters with whatever negatives it involves.

Logic is the best way to approach a problem. This thread isn't getting anywhere due to lack of logic, imho. The way you are separating the poll, for example, is illogical and slanted in favor of the point you want to make. It would make more sense to group those saying infantry needs small changes with the group saying infantry is underpowered/the worst than it is to group them with those saying everything is fine. In that case, it is 28/49 saying infantry needs to be changed as a class, 12/49 saying it is fine as it is (I am not including the 3 trolls for obvious reasons, but feel free to add that yourself, it makes little difference ), and 6/49 think Wall Barricades are the cause of the problem.

I don't think leaving it at "Infantry is more difficult to play" and that is why people don't like it is a sufficient answer. The classes should all be inviting for players of all skill levels to play. I'm not a fan of elitist players saying their class is only for skilled players in other games, and I'm not a fan of it here. I think it is sufficient to say that in the hands of a skilled player with adequate equipment, any class can achieve very high scores. As Kaasovic keeps saying, think of all infantry players, not just the outliers. Balance should not be based on the best case scenarios. Archers would be having an awful time if the class was balanced (nerfed repeatedly) so that Tsuki wouldn't get top kills almost every game.

The problem is Nords often advance in numbers and there's single inf against many enemies situation. To handle it easily the class would have be made crazy op. Just think about 1 vs 1 scenario and that says more about the power the class has. Also, if anyone thinks about soloing bosses then I'd say bosses are designed to be damn strong and I believe there shouldn't be any class or any gear able to deal against bosses alone. What bosses would they be then? (yeah I know ranged can do this if manage to stay away but that's about kitting and in theory one can kite anything on a proper map, let's leave it alone here).

I don't think anyone is advocating for handling large groups of Nords easily. It seems more that they want a class that keeps being referred to as a tank to be able to tank more hits than the other classes on waves where it actually matters. It is odd to simultaneously hold the view that infantry is the "tank" class but then say it shouldn't be able to survive significantly (more than one) more hits than other classes. Maybe I am wrong and no one holds this position, but it seems to be the idea being used to throw out any ideas of buffing the survivability of infantry, along with slippery slopes and strawmen of infantry becoming invincible and OP.

PS. I can imagine the runs with all op inf one-hit slaying whatever comes near and then the threads begging for making ranged stronger for none plays them anymore. If you wanna try it join beginner, with good armour you can just stand among enemies and smile. Really boring.

As funny as it is to imagine, I don't think this is what anyone is asking for.

I think the arguing of "semantics and logic" are to keep people from being intellectually dishonest by misrepresenting the views of those they disagree with and skewing stats to support their position.

---

By the way, this is important:

Kip has stated that the way the percentage reduction code is written it will always round up. This means that the damage reduction, which is applied AFTER the regular armor values, will never contribute to an attack bouncing. This means that the damage reduction can be adjusted for different classes and armors and will not contribute to bouncing or make players invincible, just effectively adjust their hit point pool by changing the percentage of incoming damage after all other values are applied that actually gets through.

[TerrorBite]

I think the arguing of "semantics and logic" are to keep people from being intellectually dishonest by misrepresenting the views of those they disagree with and skewing stats to support their position.

+1 

It feels like every 2nd post is correcting the lack of logic in the last one, but it is necessary not to let an argument stand if it's based on flaws. 

Any chance we can transfer future posts which are not relevant, substantial in argument magnitude, and based on evidential reasoning to a junk thread until corrected? Otherwise all the bs posts feel like they're getting in the way of progress.

eg. Boho - "The poll says 31/49 think infantry is strong, ok or small changes are needed."
This is not incorrect, but the grouping of the 'infantry is strong', and 'ok', with 'small changes' gives this statistic no summary value, nor is it used in the following argument. If this is the case it is not substantial in argument magnitude and should be removed.
If it were to be considered to be used (objectively was not used though?), it would have violated evidential reasoning through dishonesty, through the grouping bias, causing deception. 

The issue with these comments remaining is that even if they make useful points elsewhere, the issues must be addressed, which wastes time and causes a bunch more posts.

---

Oh wait, walls being removed and inf strength are not mutually exclusive, so it should be 31/43

[Sir Baron]

Hmm
Aside from Winter's post that it's not a good argument no one has said anything to deny my post
It takes skill but how much?
There is danger but is there any more for a new player then if they where peeking?
I feel that no amount of armor will save you if you lack skill
It's not a elitist stance
It's a blunt opinion
Any player can get the skill it takes
But most at least of those posting here don't seem to want to
Before I get told off because I have the best gear in game Woody and Kaas have better
Now some of you may remember Eyleen
She was the Master at playing cav and she had AB and pretty much all else was tier 4
Armor is not all there is and never will be
Who you are thinking about in that light is shielder