I only noticed this with Antigua or magnus, never knew it was part of the blaster lines as well.
Blaster lines are currently the most powerful guns in LD today due to the variations (not overpowered like pulsars were, just powerful, and easily spammable), so I guess this is a good thing?
This is not news to me but nevertheless it's good that someone documented it.
Your video is disgusting and your alt is disgusting.
So people know about this random range thing and they want to remove status weapons from 1v1 duels while keeping blasters and antiguas.
Are there similar effects for swords but just unnoticeble in normal gameplay?
Valtiros,
I really hope you are being sarcastic, but if you're not, I'm sorry for disgusting you.
The spread of the bullets are negligible compared to rng tacking on a status.
Anyone who is worth their rock salt would be able to accommodate.
I see. So hitting someone when you should have missed and missing someone when you should have hit is fair. Sometimes inflicting someone with a status when you hit them with a slightly weaker hit is unfair.
It's pure skill when someone manages to hit you because your bullet decided to not hit them and cause flinch.
I agree with you but we have to deal with the most negligeable elements of luck. I if we want to ban any randomness in the game, we should ban every gun , sentenza/arcana for for this reason, status gun for status, no status driver for the ricoche, and so on .
Same for swords with the hitbox which at times fluctuates.
Range fluctuation on guns is negligible or rather has very little relevance. Most lockdown players will actually fire these guns while being within the minimal range rather than the maximum(or at the very least, I do) meaning it doesn't change the outcome of 1v1s. Also, I like how you put this on the same level as statuses. More notably shock and freeze can effectively kill a person and end the encounter while a blaster/antigua having slightly more range won't end the fight in one lucky hit. They are light years apart on the scale of unfairness.
I feel like this happens to me with my storm driver A LOT. Sometimes it will reach max range but sometimes it just flies like 4-5 squares, and totally disappears.
Tempas,
The fact that certain statuses can do more damage is irrelevant, because the point is to make things less random. Fickle gun range is not overpowered, but it introduces more elements of randomness into a supposedly competitive game. This is also the only reasonable argument you can apply to banning status weapons.
Saying people can shoot at closer range is like saying people can wear status resist armor to guard against statuses. You're not addressing the fundamental problem of randomness.
I can argue with your logic that damage bonus and ASI is unfair because stun-locking someone and killing them in a single swoop "effectively ends the encounter". This is why "true skill" should be tested with full ancient, proto weapons, and no UVs/AT/etc*. For a person to win, they have to consistently be better at landing and evading hits.
*Even then, there's the issue of different latency and jitter.
I was in the process of typing a long post and then I re-read my first post so I realised that I shouldn't even bother to do so. I'll just leave you with this short answer. Random range is negligible in fights in this game while statuses are not. This is the reason why one is banned and the other is not. Also no, you really can't argue with my logic that damage bonus and ASI is unfair.
Villager's turnips are random, therefore Smash isn't competitively viable
Let's take a look at this snippet from Smash Wiki.
"While some randomness that can be controlled and/or has little impact on gameplay is considered acceptable (if undesirable) in competitive play, excessive, uncontrollable randomness is usually considered degenerate to competitive play. The reasoning is that if randomness has too much of an impact on gameplay, the winner of the match could simply win by being luckier with random events, rather than outplaying their opponent. Therefore, to prevent people from winning by being the luckier player and to ensure the more skilled player wins, steps are taken to limit the effect of randomness in competitive play..."
Statuses have too much of an impact on gameplay as decided by the majority of the community, while the slight spread of bullets (which can be negated by not firing from maximum range) is negligible enough to be acceptable by the majority of the community. You're grasping at straws if you seriously believe this is as significant as statuslock.
Random events are fair statistically.
I flip a coin. If it's heads, you lose. You flip a coin. If it's heads, I lose. It's only unfair if I get access the coin flipping while you are forced to beat me with pure skill.
At it's essence, your argument is "I'm okay with random hit boxes, but I'm not okay with statuses." You can make whatever rules you want for your tournament. It's a different matter to say the rule is objectively correct rather than your personal preference.
The same thing applies to AT, but I won't go down that rabbit hole again.
Stuff like this is why I like TF2 (on non random crit servers).....
So, turns out Deleted-Knight is a troll who hides behind poorly worded "logic." Who would've known....oh wait everyone did.
Random elements can exist in competitive games, even in the Pokémon Competitive scene you still have to deal with random crits and attacks with less than 100% accuracy. That being said there are also tiers in which Pokémon are classified on the competitive scene. Stuff like this is to keep the game fair.
If both of you are using status guns and swords then it is fair, if both of you aren't then it is fair. Rules should be laid out before each match and players should be proficient in each style of play whether it is sword only or some other rule.
If there's one thing a troll loves, it's people who think they know better but still end up taking the bait.
My logic is so bad, most of the rebuttals I've gotten so far is denial.
Whimsicality is the only one who actually provided an explanation for the disagreement:
"Statuses have too much of an impact on gameplay as decided by the majority of the community"
I acknowledged his/her point:
"At it's essence, your argument is "I'm okay with random hit boxes, but I'm not okay with statuses." You can make whatever rules you want for your tournament. It's a different matter to say the rule is objectively correct rather than your personal preference."
What would be the response to someone who complains about the rule?
I'm guessing it would be: "You're unskilled and depend on RNG to win for you"
The proper response is: "I made this tournament and I want it to be only for people who are willing to go status-less."
Suppose I made a full Ancient, Proto weapons only, no UVs/AT tournament.
Only a couple people joined, and they are ranked #1 and #2.
Are they somehow better than those who did not join due to the strict rules? Just because people disagree with me about what is "significant impact on the outcome of a fight", can I eliminate them from consideration about who is skilled and unskilled?
I'd make an analogy with dices and lotteries but I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out the rest so I won't bother.
Some guns (notably blasters) have an element of randomness. If you shoot upwards you'll notice they also vary in spread too. Whether this is intentional or not I don't know. I can't say I really like it.
The distance might be something to do with frame times.