[OOC] Arena Chat Thread

[Darth]

I've been looking at the gun problems in America, and I was thinking why don't you all just do what Britain does? If no one has guns no one needs guns.

Because it didn't really work for Britain; gun crime went up 89% from 1999 to 2009. On the flipside, gun-related crime in America has been going down since the early/mid 90s. There was a small uptick from like 2006-2008, but it has since gone down. I can't find numbers for 2010-2015, but point being, America's "gun problem" isn't nearly the issue that people make it out to be, and what's more, the UK's solution has been anything but. Last I read, London is statistically a more violent city than NYC, for instance.

There's also the fact that, geographically, the UK and the US are nothing alike. The UK is an island that is several times smaller than most states, surrounded by a natural barrier on all sides. It has a population of 60-odd million people, whereas the US is somewhere in the 300 millions. The bottom line is that a policy that works for a geographically small, enclosed nation with (functionally speaking, since the border with Ireland is akin to the border with Canada) no national borders, doesn't work for a country several times it size with several times its population. It's much easier to control things like urban centers and immigration in a country where you can drive from the east coast to the west coast and back again in a single day.

I mean, plus? Jaurez and Tijuana are both within figurative spitting distance of the US, both are rife with cartels, and Jaurez has/had a death toll not dissimilar to some wars. So it's not as though there aren't outlets for illegal guns to come into the country. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tighter restrictions on owning guns (psych eval, more rigorous background checks, etc), but there's a difference between regulation and banning.

tldr banning guns hasn't worked for the UK, and cannot work in any way, shape, or form for the US. It sounds great on paper - no guns, no gun crime! - but all evidence at present points to the contrary.

[MelonHead]

Can people stop debating my analogy and completely missing the point, lol.

Actually continue, it's kind of funny.

[Descartes]

Everybody should have a character that uses guns. My dude has three.

[Impaqt]

Guns in Roleplay. I should say Guns in the Arena just feel really out of place to me. I don't like using them and I don't really care for others that use them.

[DJAtomika]

Everybody should have a character that uses guns. My dude has three.

@Descartes

All of my characters have guns. Part of their loadout. XD

[GreivousKhan]

<Snipped quote by GreivousKhan>

I think being a speedster would cover even more bases than flying though. Wind's character was indeed powerful, but it didn't move -that- fast and so could be pretty easily taken down with a powerful (or more importantly) quick enough ranged attack. Unless they have the ability to negate certain ranged attacks upon them like a character I encountered in the first round of the most reason tournament.

When you're talking potent ranged attacks, being in the air can actually be a weakness, there isn't much to hide behind in the sky.

@MelonHead

That's the thing though, you could fight on a pretty even playing field. Assuming you even had a ranged ability. Though flying does not leave you as open as one might think. When you factor in things like clouds, smog, tall buildings, and of course the sun, all of which can disrupt line of sight, which is counts as cover on it's own. A archer type relying on speed is at the mercy of his primary means of locomotion, the ground. In which case there are any number of ways of countering him, be it shock-waves, AOE attacks, earth manipulation, fire, ice, water, etc

There are countless ways of countering a speedster, (never mind the arena in my experience has yet to even see a true speed type character anyway.) the only means of combating a flying character is ranged weapons, or air manipulation, or gravity powers. That's it, plus those can also be used to combat a ground based speedster. All in all, anyone wanting to win would never choose a flying character over a ground based one. Cause even if you rely on melee attacks you at least have the chance of hurting the guy. Not so with the flyer, unless he comes down for some reason, leaving the vast majority of PC's unable to fight him aside from running and hiding somewhere. Speedster ranged character just so happens to be the only one who can fight such a character on anything resembling an even footing. Which gives the illusion it is the most OP character type.

Guns in Roleplay. I should say Guns in the Arena just feel really out of place to me. I don't like using them and I don't really care for others that use them.

@Impaqt

To be fair archer types are a legit character type for people to use. Imo their the least skilled oriented type and I prefer avoiding them whenever possible, but nothing inherently wrong in using them. New players need a easy entry type after all.

<Snipped quote by Descartes>

All of my characters have guns. Part of their loadout. XD

@DJAtomika

And almost every battle I've seen they have to leave their gun behind. :K

[ImportantNobody]

Evvie gets taken out of the sky quite handily, but usually on her own volition to try and melee her opponent. Either that or guns or throwing rocks.

[Skallagrim]

Dj used his operator before with the firearms. There really is nothing inherently wrong with a firearms character. Just requires different strategy.

[Rilla]

What is this strange strategy you people speak of? Is headlong bashing just not enough?!

[GreivousKhan]

What is this strange strategy you people speak of? Is headlong bashing just not enough?!

@Rilla

I know right?

[Skallagrim]

What is this strange strategy you people speak of? Is headlong bashing just not enough?!

@Rilla

And you wonder why you get picked on at school . . .

[Impaqt]

@GreivousKhan I disagree. Not so much now, but more so when the arena was more melee oriented than it is now, playing an Archer took much more skill. Specifically with people that felt like they could dodge every arrow with absurd skill. Archers still do take a much more tactical approach, IMO. Maybe not quite as much 'skill' in the sense of using weaponry, but it definitely has its 'drawbacks'. Lol

[GreivousKhan]

@GreivousKhan I disagree. Not so much now, but more so when the arena was more melee oriented than it is now, playing an Archer took much more skill. Specifically with people that felt like they could dodge every arrow with absurd skill. Archers still do take a much more tactical approach, IMO. Maybe not quite as much 'skill' in the sense of using weaponry, but it definitely has its 'drawbacks'. Lol

@Impaqt

By Archer type keep in mind I'm including firearms and explosives in the mix as well. Generally you'd need even greater skill level to survive a ranged onslaught than being the one dissing it out. The inherent advantage of fire arms is their ease of use and training after all. Which is what I'm referring to.

[ImportantNobody]

I don't have any archers, come to think of it. A perfect Mary Sue plot would be the daughter of katniss and Legolas, which I'm sure someone has done before in all seriousness. People would tend to dodge arrows a lot if it all possible, so I need some sort of ability to make up for this.

[Impaqt]

I don't have any archers, come to think of it. A perfect Mary Sue plot would be the daughter of katniss and Legolas, which I'm sure someone has done before in all seriousness. People would tend to dodge arrows a lot if it all possible, so I need some sort of ability to make up for this.

@ImportantNobody

Pretty much, but rather than trying to find something to counter that silliness, I just like to get clever with how I use my arrows.

[MelonHead]

@GreivousKhan I disagree. Not so much now, but more so when the arena was more melee oriented than it is now, playing an Archer took much more skill. Specifically with people that felt like they could dodge every arrow with absurd skill. Archers still do take a much more tactical approach, IMO. Maybe not quite as much 'skill' in the sense of using weaponry, but it definitely has its 'drawbacks'. Lol

@Impaqt

I don't really see what the draw-back is with even the most basic form of ranged attack, a bow. You fire off a few volleys while someone runs at you, oh noe they're at close range (and I'm unable to outrun them? Usually a bow character is wearing lighter equipment or otherwise more agile) I'll just drop my bow and pull out a sword.

Ultimately it's just an extra and far more flexible form of attack, which is far harder to defend against than a melee strike which can be re-directed or stopped at the source more easily.

[GreivousKhan]

<Snipped quote by ImportantNobody>

Pretty much, but rather than trying to find something to counter that silliness, I just like to get clever with how I use my arrows.

@Impaqt

For example, using the environment to rebound your shot off the wall so it comes back around from an angle you opponent can't realistically see coming.

The trouble is most people are pretty straight forward in strategies they use. By which I mean they don't use any. Most tend to to the same thing over and over again hoping for change.

Which is the definition of insanity.

[MelonHead]

<Snipped quote by Impaqt>

For example, using the environment to rebound your shot off the wall so it comes back around from an angle you opponent can't realistically see coming.

The trouble is most people are pretty straight forward in strategies they use. By which I mean they don't use any. Most tend to to the same thing over and over again hoping for change.

Which is the definition of insanity.

@GreivousKhan

Which when you think about it isn't actually flawed at all. Why not do the same thing over and over again against a biological individual, they are fallible and grow more fallible as they grow fatigued, essentially resulting in a favourable result after enough time.

Hell, it's the very definition of attrition warfare, which although shitty definitely works.

[GreivousKhan]

Good talk.

Also anyone available for for a ranked match? I want to test out a new character, a monster hunter.

[MelonHead]

Good talk.

Also anyone available for for a ranked match? I want to test out a new character, a monster hunter.

@GreivousKhan

Depends how strong they are, I could match them with Adrian.