[002]
Eyclonus
Current Version
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
{{Gamebreaker}} is another example where a broad YMMV definition falls down. Yes some things can\'t be agreed upon as to whether they\'re GB or not, especially in competitive multiplayer, but isn\'t that what the Metagame exists for? The metagame is where this \
to:
{{Gamebreaker}} is another example where a broad YMMV definition falls down. Yes some things can\\\'t be agreed upon as to whether they\\\'re GB or not, especially in competitive multiplayer, but isn\\\'t that what the Metagame exists for? The metagame is where this \\\"debate\\\" takes place, making GB status a temporary position elected by a community in the case of GBs that fit to the YMMV example, 40k for example is a veritable s***storm of subjective gamebreakers because the community can\\\'t really agree on much and the metagame can shift dramatically after a single tournament.
Gamebreakers can\\\'t be measured on an objective scale, but you can\\\'t say that therefore there can only be subjective gamebreakers: the Black Lotus card or any of the Power Nine in Magic: The Gathering are nowhere near subjective, they\\\'re universally accepted as gamebreakers by everyone.
Applying YMMV for gamebreakers seems like a poor generalised authoritarian approach when compared to simply splitting gamebreakers into the following categories:
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Hard\\\'\\\'\\\' examples that are mechanically broken in a favourable way (Magic\\\'s Power Nine, Pun-Pun),
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Democratic\\\'\\\'\\\' examples that are of a gamebreaker based on community/Metagame perceptions of power rather than mechanical effects that will lead to examples being relevant for a given period of time until a paradigm shift comes along in the relevant work (40k army lists and perceived Codex power tiers, M:tG in general due to its sheer complexity) EDIT: Democratic also conveniently covers anything that is debatable in its status as a gamebreaker.
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Meta-Exploitive\\\'\\\'\\\' examples which are gamebreakers based on exploiting an aspect of the metagame/community that is contrary to existing views that may or may not have a resulted in an existent Democratic example dominating the competitive field (Anti-Latest Cheese/Codex lists in 40k, the AI built fleet that won the 3 Trillion Credit Challenge).
The last one is harder to find examples of as it is rare by definition of going against an entire community, and maybe even the creator\\\'s, definition of powerful.
Gamebreakers can\\\'t be measured on an objective scale, but you can\\\'t say that therefore there can only be subjective gamebreakers: the Black Lotus card or any of the Power Nine in Magic: The Gathering are nowhere near subjective, they\\\'re universally accepted as gamebreakers by everyone.
Applying YMMV for gamebreakers seems like a poor generalised authoritarian approach when compared to simply splitting gamebreakers into the following categories:
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Hard\\\'\\\'\\\' examples that are mechanically broken in a favourable way (Magic\\\'s Power Nine, Pun-Pun),
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Democratic\\\'\\\'\\\' examples that are of a gamebreaker based on community/Metagame perceptions of power rather than mechanical effects that will lead to examples being relevant for a given period of time until a paradigm shift comes along in the relevant work (40k army lists and perceived Codex power tiers, M:tG in general due to its sheer complexity) EDIT: Democratic also conveniently covers anything that is debatable in its status as a gamebreaker.
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Meta-Exploitive\\\'\\\'\\\' examples which are gamebreakers based on exploiting an aspect of the metagame/community that is contrary to existing views that may or may not have a resulted in an existent Democratic example dominating the competitive field (Anti-Latest Cheese/Codex lists in 40k, the AI built fleet that won the 3 Trillion Credit Challenge).
The last one is harder to find examples of as it is rare by definition of going against an entire community, and maybe even the creator\\\'s, definition of powerful.
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
{{Gamebreaker}} is another example where a broad YMMV definition falls down. Yes some things can\'t be agreed upon as to whether they\'re GB or not, especially in competitive multiplayer, but isn\'t that what the Metagame exists for? The metagame is where this \
to:
{{Gamebreaker}} is another example where a broad YMMV definition falls down. Yes some things can\\\'t be agreed upon as to whether they\\\'re GB or not, especially in competitive multiplayer, but isn\\\'t that what the Metagame exists for? The metagame is where this \\\"debate\\\" takes place, making GB status a temporary position elected by a community in the case of GBs that fit to the YMMV example, 40k for example is a veritable s***storm of subjective gamebreakers because the community can\\\'t really agree on much and the metagame can shift dramatically after a single tournament.
Gamebreakers can\\\'t be measured on an objective scale, but you can\\\'t say that therefore there can only be subjective gamebreakers: the Black Lotus card or any of the Power Nine in Magic: The Gathering are nowhere near subjective, they\\\'re universally accepted as gamebreakers by everyone.
Applying YMMV for gamebreakers seems like a poor generalised authoritarian approach when compared to simply splitting gamebreakers into the following categories:
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Hard\\\'\\\'\\\' examples that are mechanically broken in a favourable way (Magic\\\'s Power Nine, Pun-Pun),
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Democratic\\\'\\\'\\\' examples that are of a gamebreaker based on community/Metagame perceptions of power rather than mechanical effects that will lead to examples being relevant for a given period of time until a paradigm shift comes along in the relevant work (40k army lists and perceived Codex power tiers, M:tG in general due to its sheer complexity) and
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Meta-Exploitive\\\'\\\'\\\' examples which are gamebreakers based on exploiting an aspect of the metagame/community that is contrary to existing views that may or may not have a resulted in an existent Democratic example dominating the competitive field (Anti-Latest Cheese/Codex lists in 40k, the AI built fleet that won the 3 Trillion Credit Challenge).
The last one is harder to find examples of as it is rare by definition of going against an entire community, and maybe even the creator\\\'s, definition of powerful.
Gamebreakers can\\\'t be measured on an objective scale, but you can\\\'t say that therefore there can only be subjective gamebreakers: the Black Lotus card or any of the Power Nine in Magic: The Gathering are nowhere near subjective, they\\\'re universally accepted as gamebreakers by everyone.
Applying YMMV for gamebreakers seems like a poor generalised authoritarian approach when compared to simply splitting gamebreakers into the following categories:
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Hard\\\'\\\'\\\' examples that are mechanically broken in a favourable way (Magic\\\'s Power Nine, Pun-Pun),
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Democratic\\\'\\\'\\\' examples that are of a gamebreaker based on community/Metagame perceptions of power rather than mechanical effects that will lead to examples being relevant for a given period of time until a paradigm shift comes along in the relevant work (40k army lists and perceived Codex power tiers, M:tG in general due to its sheer complexity) and
*\\\'\\\'\\\'Meta-Exploitive\\\'\\\'\\\' examples which are gamebreakers based on exploiting an aspect of the metagame/community that is contrary to existing views that may or may not have a resulted in an existent Democratic example dominating the competitive field (Anti-Latest Cheese/Codex lists in 40k, the AI built fleet that won the 3 Trillion Credit Challenge).
The last one is harder to find examples of as it is rare by definition of going against an entire community, and maybe even the creator\\\'s, definition of powerful.
