opinion on pin snipe?

[Israel.7056]

@MUDse.7623 said:

@Israel.7056 said:So therefore the question of whether or not you snipe back is simply an issue of desired outcome.correct

as for:

@Israel.7056 said:So hypothetically any means can be justified as long as it's believed to lead to the desired end and it doesn't treat any means or end as apriori better or worse than any other.that sounds a little worse than it actually is. not every mean is justified that leads to a desired end, if it also leads to undesired sideeffects.the issue in gaming is often that people want to win, yet they want do it sportsmanlike, with 'skill' etc. wich means they do not choose the optimal mean to reach the end 'win'. wich is not really an issue, because they still can win to a degree and get pretty far. but that is then not enough for many of those, they want more than they can get by their means. if they option for the means that will make them win the last few fights, then they will as a sideeffect lose their goal to be sportsmanlike, to act with 'skill'. i only want people to really think about what is important to them and achieve it, be happy with it. if you cant beat the ones that only want to win, so be it, thats not the goal you did set for yourself then. but if you realize winning against them is more important to you than being sportsmanlike, then you maybe should for your own good change the way you play.

That's kind of confusing because the "undesired sideffect" of losing honor or playing in a way that feels unsportsmanlike hinges on an external-to-the-game seemingly intuitive human means-based value set that directly contradicts the basic Sirlin ends-focused principle of "play the game on the game's terms." If the game doesn't recognize or reward for "sportsmanlike behavior" or "honorable play" or whatever you want to call it then the purist Sirlinesque position would be to disregard those notions and just focus on winning the game.

But perhaps more to the point the Sirlin approach can't tell you why you should or shouldn't want to win the game only how you should try to approach winning the game if you care only for winning. So to me this is one of the cardinal flaws with a purely pragmatic/scientific ethic; it can only ever be descriptive. Which is to say it can only tell you how to achieve a desired end given available means, it cannot tell you what the desired end should be or why the available means are right or wrong except in relation to realizing the desired end. So I think in that sense it's fair to say that a purely pragmatic viewpoint like Sirlin's doesn't a priori distinguish any means or ends as being inherently better or worse than any other, but rather only a posteriori in relation to the outcome.

[maxwelgm.4315]

Who could imagine this topic is actually a sensitive issue lol. Before reading the above posts I'd say yeah just snipe the dude if you can find him man, now I'm not even sure because of all the drama...

[bq pd.2148]

@Israel.7056 said:

@MUDse.7623 said:

@Israel.7056 said:So therefore the question of whether or not you snipe back is simply an issue of desired outcome.correct

as for:

@Israel.7056 said:So hypothetically any means can be justified as long as it's believed to lead to the desired end and it doesn't treat any means or end as apriori better or worse than any other.that sounds a little worse than it actually is. not every mean is justified that leads to a desired end, if it also leads to undesired sideeffects.the issue in gaming is often that people want to win, yet they want do it sportsmanlike, with 'skill' etc. wich means they do not choose the optimal mean to reach the end 'win'. wich is not really an issue, because they still can win to a degree and get pretty far. but that is then not enough for many of those, they want more than they can get by their means. if they option for the means that will make them win the last few fights, then they will as a sideeffect lose their goal to be sportsmanlike, to act with 'skill'. i only want people to really think about what is important to them and achieve it, be happy with it. if you cant beat the ones that only want to win, so be it, thats not the goal you did set for yourself then. but if you realize winning against them is more important to you than being sportsmanlike, then you maybe should for your own good change the way you play.

That's kind of confusing because the "undesired sideffect" of losing honor or playing in a way that feels unsportsmanlike hinges on an external-to-the-game seemingly intuitive human means-based value set that directly contradicts the basic Sirlin ends-focused principle of "play the game on the game's terms." If the game doesn't recognize or reward for "sportsmanlike behavior" or "honorable play" or whatever you want to call it then the purist Sirlinesque position would be to disregard those notions and just focus on winning the game.

But perhaps more to the point the Sirlin approach can't tell you why you should or shouldn't want to win the game only how you should try to approach winning the game if you care only for winning. So to me this is one of the cardinal flaws with a purely pragmatic/scientific ethic; it can only ever be descriptive. Which is to say it can only tell you how to achieve a desired end given available means, it cannot tell you what the desired end should be or why the available means are right or wrong except in relation to realizing the desired end. So I think in that sense it's fair to say that a purely pragmatic viewpoint like Sirlin's doesn't a priori distinguish any means or ends as being inherently better or worse than any other, but rather only a posteriori in relation to the outcome.

yes i do not play to win the game as such, that would be kinda stupid in gw2 WvW. because as said the coverage disparities invalidate most player decisions that would lead to winning. what i like about sirlins approach is more that it says possible results allways depend on the means used and vise versa. its not about what end you want to reach or what means you want to use, for me the most important think is that you should be aware what means will lead to what ends and what means are needed to achieve wich ends. because if you are not aware of it you will get lost in your attempt to reach a specific end or will get to an end that you did not seek.another half of my posts is more about people trying to nerf stuff they simply dont like, not because it is actually too strong within the mode. either they dont like it or it is too strong in their on goals, for example winning 1 vs 1 fights while this game doesnt even have a mode for that. if they dont like something cause of fun thats fine, but demanding nerfs is just causing drama, asking for neutral changes would be alot better. for example asking condition damage to be more reliable(less cleanse and way less resistance or changed resistance) but less oppressive in extreme situations (for example condi vs no condi clears like a rev) is better then asking to nerf conditions as such

[Strider Pj.2193]

@maxwelgm.4315 said:Who could imagine this topic is actually a sensitive issue lol. Before reading the above posts I'd say yeah just snipe the dude if you can find him man, now I'm not even sure because of all the drama...

It's interesting to see @Israel.7056 view on it as I have seen Coms log out and not because they are sensitive snowflakes, but because the fun was gone. You can sit there and blame them all you want, and pin sniping IS a legitimate tactic, but as most know, many people will not play without a commander they know.

So it drains the pool of active players and by default, good coms.

It really helps no one.

[Shining One.1635]

In recent matchups, a certain guild has run me over several times while solo roaming. I've helped snipe their pin several times in response. Don't expect "honor" in game battles if you display none yourselves.

[Handin.4032]

"pin sniping", "pin watching", "chat watching" all seem fairly rampant in gw2. The latter 2 involving putting alt accounts on other servers and having them load in accounts there to watch. It is a bit obvious when it's happening though - although it's kinda sad...

[Eramonster.2718]

@Sovereign.1093 said:Scenario

For me, we haven't opted to use this for a long time but if an enemy group does it to you, do you do the same?

Missed the scenario in my replies. Yes you can do the same, but to pull it or not at that moment is up to you. It's a viable tactic(works most of the time) therefore one needs to be aware and vigilant. If the enemy group pulled this and the group goes braindead after the commander dies, before I find a reason to blame, I will first try to find a solution. The group presented a weak point and the opponent targeted it.

If the group couldn't hold it together after a tag dies for whatever reason(accident, caught by surprise, self mistake, reckless etc) is the commander merely a driver/mobile ground mark/indicator? I only join a commander's rally that I acknowledged. Not one with the pin/tag/title but without the qualities of leading the group. The group just wouldn't last.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Eramonster.2718 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:Scenario

For me, we haven't opted to use this for a long time but if an enemy group does it to you, do you do the same?

Missed the scenario in my replies. Yes you can do the same, but to pull it or not at that moment is up to you. It's a viable tactic(works most of the time) therefore one needs to be aware and vigilant. If the enemy group pulled this and the group goes braindead after the commander dies, before I find a reason to blame, I will first try to find a solution. The group presented a weak point and the opponent targeted it.

If the group couldn't hold it together after a tag dies for whatever reason(accident, caught by surprise, self mistake, reckless etc) is the commander merely a driver/mobile ground mark/indicator? I only join a commander's rally that I acknowledged. Not one with the pin/tag/title but without the qualities of leading the group. The group just wouldn't last.

hehe i asked this because when we were matched with mag, was enjoying fighting the ban tag. its like 2 to 3 minutes sustained fights and thats rare. like 1once or 2.x a month only. and all those time there was one dh who just does nothing but pull me.

it made me.laugh since i am extremely tanky so it had no effect. and i dont snipe tags, we more.snipe the backline.

i wondered if others would have sniped them if they were me.

how many have i asked for com.snipe?

mmm 3 x. but only in retaliaon to someone badmouthing a friend. hehe. and in na.

[XenesisII.1540]

I play back line, please stop trying to snipe me, it's very unsportspersonlike, thank you.

[oOStaticOo.9467]

For fairness and moral ethics, we all need to stop sniping everybody. Instead we all need to go to the local pub and have a few beers and sing songs.

[Dawdler.8521]

@XenesisII.1540 said:I play back line, please stop trying to snipe me, it's very unsportspersonlike, thank you.

Stop being so deliciously squishy then.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@oOStaticOo.9467 said:For fairness and moral ethics, we all need to stop sniping everybody. Instead we all need to go to the local pub and have a few beers and sing songs.

Can I bring my sword?

[Israel.7056]

It is unfortunate that the most effective tactics are the always the most underhanded.