mate, you didn't even read my entire post, because you didn't even realize there was a reply to the newest one at the end of it.
apparently I need to allow you to gish gallop aswell...
but no...I'm the one that's intellectually dishonest here...
I made 5 very clear points, you could have responded to those with bullet points.
Instead you chose to respond to almost every sentence I wrote and chopped up the entire thing into tiny bits for the sole purpose of making it harder to reply to you (which IS gish galloping BTW) and being spiteful when I asked you to respond to my points and not the chart (again my points are not individual sentences). I humored you the first time and replied then you did the exact same thing with 1 line responses, no punctuation that were clearly written in haste just to put down some response. I'm not even going to bother wasting my time responding a second time. Make a point or stop replying please. As you put it... "HOW you say things, matter."
It is intellectually dishonest AND gish galloping. The fact you now accuse me of both is hilarious.
Imagine being so salty you took easy bait that you now go full throttle troll mode.
Thank you! I was playing as Freddy last night and I mentioned this to the survivors at the end and they said it's more advantageous to split into teams of two against Freddy. So theres another angle for you, if you like! My thinking with Freddy (or any high mobility killer) is, the more spread out you are the less likely he can just TP to a gen and get you. And if you have 3 gens going while 1 person is being chased, it theoretically go faster.
I'm absolutely open to suggestions and comments though. If my logic doesn't make sense to anyone else, I'd love to hear other suggestions!
It's interesting how you ignore your own skill. Freddy plays himself. A good nurse is a good killer, a good Freddy is... Why should survivors skill matter but not Freddy's skill. I'm not saying that Freddy should be less lethal, I'm saying he should be harder to play. Bad Freddy players should lose to bad survivors,just like a bad Nurse will lose vs bad players.
Instead you chose to respond to almost every sentence I wrote and chopped up the entire thing into tiny bits for the sole purpose of making it harder to reply to you (which IS gish galloping BTW)
I broke down the entire post because otherwise it would be hard to see exactly what I was replying to.
I stopped in the sentences I stopped, because you used that first part as the building blocks for the following parts, so I had to address those before going on.
and also you kept going on and on about how I had to address your entire post instead of focusing on the part I actually had an issue with. So I went all in. normally I wouldn't bother doing it with that many breaks, because it's unnecessary, but I was annoyed at you.
also, I can't gish gallop if you don't let me. this is text. you can reply to every single individual point I make. there's no time limit.
and being spiteful when I asked you to respond to my points and not the chart (again my points are not individual sentences).
they kinda are. each individual sentence is a point or a set up to a point or an example...to summarize, every sentence is helping your point in some way, otherwise they are useless and shouldn't be there.
So it's perfectly fine to address it in that way.
btw if I took entire paragraphs at a time, the reply would be the same, but you would have to keep going back and forth to see which part of the paragraphs I was replying to. So while the way I formated the reply might not be the simplest to reply to, it certainly makes it easy for you to see what I'm addressing at each point.
I humored you the first time and replied then you did the exact same thing with 1 line responses, no punctuation that were clearly written in haste just to put down some response.
you literally did the same, and didn't even have the courtesy of reading my entire post.
english is not my first language, so sorry if my ponctuation isn't to your standards...
I'm not even going to bother wasting my time responding a second time. Make a point or stop replying please. As you put it... "HOW you say things, matter."
you do know this is like our 8th interaction or something right?
I made my point several times already, you just ignored it time and time again.
it does, but HOW I say things doesn't change WHAT I'm saying. I already told you the issues with your post, you refused to address it.
the fact this sentence makes 0 logical sense to be put there is actually fascinating... it's like you just wrote the conclusion without bothering to write the premise.
let's see why you say I'm intellectually dishonest...
1- I'm making this about the chart
2- derailing the thread
3- purposefully making my post in a way that would make it hard to reply to
I believe these are all of them....
1-My first post was actually about you playing the victim card when people disagreed with you.
-then you said you made the title as bait.
-then I replied to a different post, because there were new comments already, and called out how using past charts as support for new charts is not valid. and pointed out that when you use bait, you get fish.(since that was the reply to your previous post)
-then you doubled down on the charts being good. because you interpreted them in a way that they are.
-then I explained to you why the charts don't say what you think they say.
and let me be perfectly clear here... you COULD be right. but the charts don't confirm it. they are too vague.
If I give you a chart of the average of crimes per area of a city, you can say which area has more crimes, but it doesn't say what crimes, who commits them, why, or on who.
Your entire post, is not confirmed by the charts. Your post, is your interpretation of WHY the chart is that way.
logically speaking, your post without the chart part is A, the chart is B.
you should be saying A->B. to put it in another way, 'B is the result of A' or 'the chart is like this because freedy is op'
but you keep trying to say A+B->B.
You want B to both mean that freddy is OP, and to be a premise of the argument for freddy being op. It just doesn't work that way. and I was pointing out this failure in your logic.
-then you triple down on charts being fine without understanding why I say they aren't.
-and we go more and more into the chart thing...
I might have made it about the chart, but it's not how it started.
2- if anything, my first post is the only one unrelated to your first post. because I was making a comment on your reaction to criticism. everything else has been about your first post or at least one of your arguments for freddy being op.
so this doesn't apply.
3- I didn't do it on purpose. but I do see how it can be anoying to reply to it.
but you also made a post in a similar way to mine, and I replied to it. so if I'm guilty of this, so are you.
I don't think you read up to the point where I broke down how our early interactions happened here in general terms... but if you did, you saw how that's not what happened. (you can also read everything if you want, just use my name to find the relevant posts. I already know you don't like reading long post, so I don't think you will read them all, but feel free to prove me wrong)
also, you can't both go into "this is a troll" and "my argument is correct". pick one.
You. Just. Did. It. Again.
"also, I can't gish gallop if you don't let me. this is text. you can reply to every single individual point I make. there's no time limit."
Like you can't be for real with this kind of comment. I'm not MAKING you gish gallop you did that on your own and it's intellectually dishonest. If you really don't think you are gish galloping and being intellectually dishonest with your replies, I honestly have nothing else to say to you. You're not adding anything to the discussion, you're not actually addressing my points or even providing valid counterpoints when you do, you're intentionally trying to trigger me and/or derail the conversation by making it about the charts. Come at me with a reasonable response and we can have a discussion. I'm not playing this bit with you.
why in that order?
why a bad killer should lose to bad survivors?
why bad survivors should beat a bad killer?
if skill is equal, shouldn't it be a coin flip? (not as in luck, as in you shouldn't be able to tell who will win)
I wonder if you noticed the part in my reply where I said you wouldn't read it?
you don't actually wanna have a conversation, you want people to say "yes you are right" and move on.
so in the end, you want the echo chamber you accused these forums of being... ironic isn't it?
This chart also says nerf pig
I wholeheartedly agree with this comment. At the end of the day survivors have 4 people with four sets of perks they can use to help them. A killer is one person. They should be a one man army. I think every killer should be brought up to Freddy's level, maybe not exactly the way he is, but nevertheless. Saying Freddy feels oppressive is silly because he's supposed to be, both from game design of an asymmetrical game where one party is strong and the other is many, and from a lore standpoint where you never know where he is or what he's doing. I also don't include or see the value in one person's data. You say you didn't just use the stats, and I respond with "So?" I play at rank 1 and have had 10 3-4k trapper games in the past two days, I also played Freddy 10 times and got about 2-3k on average. So by how personal data is infallible Trapper should be nerfed and Freddy buffed? At the end of the day you can't have a asymmetrical game where the many are the strong as well. OP I ask this of you, and in doing so, instantly settle this thread
Would you rather Trapper/Wraith/Clown be as strong as Freddy? Or Freddy, Spirit and Nurse be as weak as Trapper?
I did read it, I only quoted that one statement because it's absolutely ridiculous. I'm not going to sit here and feed you.
There are people that disagreed with me and gave valid points. I responded to those points. We had a conversation. What you are doing is not that. Like you said, ONCE AGAIN, it's how you say it ;)
EDIT: Additionally you should stop with this classic troll tactic of "no you". It's getting old.
yes you are right
tends to be the case when the post is something that's on its face, asinine.
I thought this would be a jab at the recent developer stream when OoO was said to be "fine" because it was fine in the stats the devs pulled.
I was disappointed.
You're misreading and not understanding what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say that we need killers who are based off of player skill. What we don't need are killers who are noob stompers.
My question is why are charts put out just for the devs to say “its not accurate”?
This happens all the time.
Fact of the matter is they are accurate you just have to not look at them in a bubble. You need context.
Freddy having the highest kill rate, at both all ranks AND red ranks, for TWO data dumps in a row should be a red flag that something is up. That something being he has too many very strong tools in his base kit. He would be a LOT more balanced and skillful if we took away some of those tools, then added them to his bad add-ons and buffed them slightly (which is basically what I suggest to do at the end of the OP).
But if no one is asleep how would he be able to attack and have them remember him? That's why the timer is ESSENTIAL. If there is no timer then MicroSleep is nonexistent. Which means the characters in game theoretically could not sleep. So Freddy in fact would not be able to attack and in fact NO ONE would ever see Freddy.
So yes it doesn't make sense because it literally doesn't. You need the timer. And he needs them to sleep. Litterally in Freddy's lore (1980's lore and 2010's lore)
I watched every Nightmare on Elm Street, and I have played Old and New Freddy.
Old Freddy was extremely weak and everyone regarded him as "F" Tier.
New Freddy allows for more stronger counterplay to Survivors. Teleportation to Generators is only essential if you left a generator that was 80% done, and needed to return quick.
Dream Pallets are 100% Counterable by dropping all pallets early before Freddy could theoretically hit them.
Dream Snares are avoidable if you are in MicroSleep, not in "Deep Sleep" and you can still loop while impacted by a dream snare. You just have to avoid using easily guessable tactics. Like vaulting into shack or trying to loop a T wall.
Freddy would easily exploit these easily guessable tactics if you got hit by a dream snare. Another way to avoid them is buy forcing the trigger if Freddy is far away from them. Then freddy will walk over (rather than waste a gen teleport) so you have time to escape.
So New Freddy is counterable, it just takes learning.
Old Freddy was just plain weak as hell.
He is still only an M1 killer. Survivors that do the gens spread out will beat him every time. The higher the rank you go, the more you see this. I don't care if a killer can pubstomp scrubs. The scrubs play bad and don't deserve to be rewarded with a weak killer, they should learn how to play (do the gens and stop crouch-walking around the map... rescue someone when they are on the hook and don't just let them die...). Bam, you've just beaten every M1 killer. The higher ranks you go, the more "dirty tricks" you see killers doing to compensate for them not having a chance when playing versus optimal survivors. Stop asking for nerfs, it just exposes you, Mr. OP for being a scrub at the game.
Dude... You're personal experience can't actually be used for data UNLESS YOU HAVE THE NUMBERS. Personal experience is subjective and yours could vary wildly from others. If you want to prove Freddy is OP you are really and I mean really have to spend an inordinate amount of time collecting data across multiple sources. Personal experience is not a valid form of data when you're discussing something that multiple people can use in wildly different ways. I am not trying to dog you but those numbers presented don't mean a lot on their own. Way too many variables that aren't accounted for, etc.
Hag, demogorgon, nurse can all teleport to objectives
Hag and Demo have to spend time setting up and both can be disarmed by the survivors. Nurse has to spend one of her two blink charges and it doesn't cover up the entire map.
Meanwhile Freddy doesn't have that big of a cooldown even while all survivors are awake (which is basically impossible after the early game) and the falling asleep thing is totally passive for him.
Sooo basically he is a good killer and a good choice for killer mains?? Why should killers be weak so survivors will be satisfied?
I never even lost the game to a Freddy main. Moreover, I didn't see them getting more than 2k in any rank. Hell, I don't even sweat while playing against him, Pig makes me more nervous.
They are accurate.