jdc55 wrote:I never said you did mention rockets. I'm just clearing that space to save time, before you start using that as another argument.
So you weaken your own argument further by using it as another straw man.
jdc55 wrote:Well, if it isn't rockets, then what is it? Lol. There's no other map type that is qualified for competitive
Yes, because simply saying that there's no other map type that's qualified means there truly is no other map type that can be competitive.
There are map types that can be competitive, just not in the way a competition like this one would be. Saw maps for example in one way can be competitive if used as a speedrun contest, but it wouldn't be competitive in a combative league. This really just depends on the "competition" in question, but we don't seem to be talking about specifics here. Are there other types of maps that are competitive? Yes, there are. Are those maps suitable enough for a league similar to this one? No, but this doesn't change the fact other map types can be competitive if you see it from a broad perspective.
Since you erroneously brought up an entire counterargument for rocket maps, I'll use that as an example, because rocket launchers like any other weapon in this game do have a skill curve attached to it. A lot of general skills just happen to overlap with basic game skills to a point where it seems like rocket launchers aren't skillful weapons. If there's a skill curve to utilize, then skill can be measured using that skill curve. A competitive league, again, is a measure of skill; rockets in turn can become competitive because of this. This is putting aside variables like players being knowledgeable in rocket maps and anything like that because intrinsic skill curves attached to weapons are independent from those variables.
jdc55 wrote:This is you trying to create new arguments, then probably turning them into false causes. Just saying how I see it.
Says the one creating straw man arguments one after another and arguing random points I never said as if there was a third person here arguing with you.
jdc55 wrote:The only words that came out my mouth were "what PL did was throw game type categories out the window, and just made every single map random no matter the game type." Nowhere in there did I say "I was for this system".
The point is that the way you worded your "explanation" made your argument both for and against the system at the same time. If you would literally just read for once, you would probably get it sooner or later.
jdc55 wrote:Randomization is the slight difference in our proposing systems. And I'm not saying that the slight difference isn't worth a lot.
You're the one saying that I'm agreeing to your system but also saying that I'm agreeing to a variation of your system, the variation being "randomization." Those two aren't the same thing. It doesn't matter if the difference is minor or major; the presence of that difference matters, and it's the fact that difference is there that you can't say I agree to your system because it's literally not your system I'm agreeing to.
jdc55 wrote:A slight difference may not make them exactly the same, but it can make them basically the same.
A similarity shared between two things doesn't make those things equal; it makes those two things comparable.
"Basically the same" isn't the same as "being the same."
jdc55 wrote:Well you definitely need to mention if your Pro-Best of 5 or Pro-Best of 3.
No I don't. It's a straw man argument that I never made so why should I stick to your fallacious counterargument?
jdc55 wrote: Because when you say things like "Who says it has to be best of 3?", does that not imply that you are "AGAINST" Best of 3?
When I asked "who said it had to be best of 3," it wasn't implying that I was taking a position. It was literally just a straightforward question that you twisted to make the straw man argument that you still keep using.
I asked who said it because I wanted to know who said it, not to take a position of some kind.
jdc55 wrote:You can't be for Best of 6, because that's simply excessive, and there are literally no other competitive map types that would fit a 3v3 league format. Can't be best of 7, because if you believe that, then you are just simply clueless and would prove you don't know how this works. And I know you aren't clueless. So it has to be Best of 5.. Because best of 5 is the best format for a competitive league that has 5 Competitive Map types. You can stay neutral on this if you want. I don't really care. Don't respond to this comment for all I care, I'm not here to prove people wrong and make them feel bad. (p.s I'm not throwing any shade, I'm genuinely being truthful).
You're still stuck on this "best of X" straw man argument that it's just sad at this point lol