I play Garden Warfare 1 competitively with a group of local players similar to fighting game meetups. I regularly do the best and consider myself one of the best Garden Warfare players I've encountered. If you think you're somehow more qualified to speak about the game because you're worse at it than me then I don't see where you're coming from. I have more time, experience, and understanding of the game than you do so I don't see why your knee jerk criticisms should hold more weight than someone like myself that has actual reason to be listened to.
Right, a local, competitive garden warfare community. I have heard it all. The experiences from one individual from an isolated, and apparently local competitive community are supposed to give value to your argument in what way exactly? How do we know of the ability of those you are playing with? Isolated local communities are typically terrible, and as there is no money to play for in this game it seems very unlikely that the highest levels of play have ever shown themselves. More of the problem would be that this community is apparently, unseen though. It hardly suggests a competitive atmosphere is likely to be present if 99% of the people playing the game, are not invited or even aware of said, local competitive community.
Additionally, how do you even set this game up locally? you cannot even do private games as far as I know? and you can't do LAN... so how do you guys even play?
As for me, I didn't say if I was good or bad at the game you've inferred that onto me. You've assumed I'm worse than you because that's what your ego affords, though of course, we have nothing to suggest whether that's true, or not. Either way you've already suggested you possess an awareness that everyone here is worse at the game than you, so there's no purpose in me arguing it. I don't know if I'm worse, or better at the game than you, but I certainly don't perform poorly on the online multiplayer.
I've been asking people what classes they're having trouble with so I can help them out and save them the frustration of trial and error experimenting as you did with the Imp. There is a class with means for taking out each class, so people shouldn't jump straight to claiming characters are broken before understanding that they aren't broken, they have pros and cons that balance them properly and there is already a method in place for dealing with them in the form of counter classes.
Every class has a means of taking out each class, telling people to play another class that has a hard counter isn't exactly helping them. The Cactus that keeps getting killed by the Imp doesn't have a hard counter, but he probably does have something fundamental to his playstyle that affords the imp that persistent advantage (i.e he probably needs to adjust his playstyle to orientate himself away from the front-lines and flanks that the imps frequent).
You're choosing to take something that isnt a personal situation as something personal. Just because people like myself are quicker to adapt to this particular game doesnt mean I think everyone else is automatically shit. It means that I can get to the point of understanding the meta game sooner than other people, so if a typical player in the beta only has the option of playing strategic/tactical game modes and has to get a hang of the game before understanding how to counter specific enemies, they wont be having fun until the game clicks for them when playing game modes that rely on understanding the meta. All im saying is that the game will click for everyone once you get the hang of it, but if people go head first into a mode that requires a particular strategy and disregard that necessary strategy, of course they wont do well and wont have fun. I'm not frustrated that people are "bad at learning" because they aren't, I'm frustrated that people are writing it off before giving it a fair shot.
You made the assumption that you are quicker to adapt and better at learning that everyone else here, no one said that they didn't like something because they were having trouble adapting, you inferred that onto their opinion as a way of discrediting it. Sorry we're not as good as your local competitive garden warfare community.
I didn't make anything personal, you chose to bring in arbitrary, unrelated personal facts to support your argument, and now you're complaining that I'm making it personal? Don't be so silly.
Absolutely not, in fact the opposite is true. Because I'm good at the game I can understand the deep array of possibilities for each character and see the potential that others quickly disregard. That potential is there and achievable for any player that enjoys the game and sticks around to learn the depth of the meta.
I think it's important to place consideration on the thoughts of all perspectives, from all types of players. It's a shame that you cannot see that. Just because every character might have the potential to do something doesn't always mean that that utility is as accessible as it perhaps should be (depend-ending on the particular context we're discussing).
Personally, I find it hard to discern gameplay balance sometimes in a game where half of the audience appear to have difficulty retaining a grasp of the controller, let alone their in-game character. Relating back to my example, my first perception is that the Zen Cactus is a little overpowered, but I'm aware that that perception is partially influenced by the fact that the majority of the community are either disorientated or not especially good at the game. So then, how does one discern balance? The Zen Cactus certainly is overpowered in an environment where most players either stand still, or run around like a headless chicken, with little tact in between but in a competitive environment where characters are played to their potential as you suggest, the outcome of any particular character is unclear, and all you can do is infer your ideas of performance within such an environment. Yet, despite such a necessitated process of inference rather than real testing at a high level of play, your own, individual thoughts are purported as infallible.
Man, I don't know why Popcap bothered with this beta. They should have just hired you instead, rolled out a new trailer, and let you and your competitive, local PVZ community play the game in isolation. None of us incapable learners deserve this experience.
You mean like by offering to help anyone that's having issues, as I have been? Or by writing up a long list of the pros/cons of everything I've encountered in the beta once its over as I told you I would back here?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=192382847&postcount=562
You haven't done that yet though, all you have done is say ever so matter of factually that that there are "no significant balance issues in the beta". As if you are some form of authority on the topic. Then instead of placing consideration on their opinions, you effectively told them that they were wrong, and should seek your advice if they want consultancy on playing the game.
Also have to say it's funny that you accuse me of "spending my time attempting to invalidate other opinions on the basis of being 'better at the game'" while you spend your time attempting to invalidate my opinion for that very reason instead of spending your time learning the game so you can have a clue of what you're talking about.
I didn't attempt to invalidate your opinion on the game. I don't know where you got this from. I told you that there is value in everyone's opinion and your unsupported claims of being the only 'competitive garden warfare player here' and being 'better at learning' than everyone that disagrees with you, does not make your opinion more significant than everyone else. You are welcome to form your own opinion, but in mine, discrediting on the basis of them being 'worse than you', doesn't fly. At best it's merely rude, at worst it's counter condusive to a creating a thread that supports a diverse array of perspectives and thoughts on the game, stifles stimulating discussion and is actively toxic to this threads existence.