The simple fact of the matter is that it does not matter how many players each faction has when we are speaking of factional balance. Balance the factions and there might be more of a population balance as well. Keep shafting the KDF and RRF and the imbalance in population is not likely to be ameliorated. Surely you grasp that, but perhaps you simply prefer to revel in the greater opportunities and privilege available to the Feds.
"revel in the greater opportunities and privilege available to the Feds"
You know you're not really a Romulan, right? Throw in the maniacal laugh and all of that makes a nice evil speech.
"Balance the factions and there might be more of a population balance as well."
You made a nice speech about fallacy in decisions a bit ago, so in case you don't know...hope is not a strategy either.
And just to add...there was 5 television shows and a score of movies based on the Federation and that is the experience a majority of players want. You could say without the Federation side...there wouldn't even be a game, so yes there IS imbalance. Just one semi-popular Klingon movie or Romulan television show could change that, but I doubt that will happen.
The biggest failing made in this thread is implying that Cryptic is somehow obligated to give the factions equal time and development. They've made it clear they feel no such obligation and you're not going to convince them to feel it by sneaking your entitled whining in on the tail end off a 1 sentence compliment.
Well, okay, that is the second biggest failing, the biggest failing is the poster who tried to use Animal Farm to equate the development of this for-profit MMO to the moral failings and corruptions of the suppossedly egalitarian communist Russia. But that was just funny in both how it assumed Cryptic had ever claimed that all the factions were equal, they haven't, and how it showed a hilarious lack of perspective concerning that novel and its social context.
The failing worth talking about though is the one that is repeated they most, and that's this idea that Cryptic should treat the factions equally. They don't share this view and passive aggressive barbs tacked on the back of fluff is not going to convince them. Far far FAR more productive would be to simply suggest additions to your faction that you would like to see and then hope that when the developers do expend effort on your faction, it is in a direction you'd like. If only because implying that the developers are unfair is likely to get you ignored.
You seem to believe that if Cryptic spends resources to make a ship, it doesn't matter whether they make it a Starfleet vessel or a KDF vessel or a Romulan vessel, they will make the same amount of money?
Because I strongly suspect that you are wrong. If it was irrelevant for the return on investment what faction Cryptic made a ship for, then they would in fact treat all factions equal with ship releases.
Erm, you know that i agree with you, right? lol. I mean, i know that they will try to make money no matter what, so i completely understand why they basically only focus on starfleet. But then again, how can you expect people to play other factions if these players "feel" like those factions are half-borked?. You dont need to be an engineer to realize this..
The biggest failing made in this thread is implying that Cryptic is somehow obligated to give the factions equal time and development. They've made it clear they feel no such obligation and you're not going to convince them to feel it by sneaking your entitled whining in on the tail end off a 1 sentence compliment.
Well, okay, that is the second biggest failing, the biggest failing is the poster who tried to use Animal Farm to equate the development of this for-profit MMO to the moral failings and corruptions of the suppossedly egalitarian communist Russia. But that was just funny in both how it assumed Cryptic had ever claimed that all the factions were equal, they haven't, and how it showed a hilarious lack of perspective concerning that novel and its social context.
The failing worth talking about though is the one that is repeated they most, and that's this idea that Cryptic should treat the factions equally. They don't share this view and passive aggressive barbs tacked on the back of fluff is not going to convince them. Far far FAR more productive would be to simply suggest additions to your faction that you would like to see and then hope that when the developers do expend effort on your faction, it is in a direction you'd like. If only because implying that the developers are unfair is likely to get you ignored.
Agreed, if people really want KDF stuff.... they should BUY KDF stuff. Ranting about how they refuse to buy inferior garbage speaks volumes. It tells the developers that the ranters are insincere, and don't really want KDF stuff. This is in large part because the devs listen when people vote with their wallets. If Fed ship sales are 20x KDF ship sales then it says a lot about how much the KDF players want new ships.
Agreed, if people really want KDF stuff.... they should BUY KDF stuff. Ranting about how they refuse to buy inferior garbage speaks volumes. It tells the developers that the ranters are insincere, and don't really want KDF stuff. This is in large part because the devs listen when people vote with their wallets. If Fed ship sales are 20x KDF ship sales then it says a lot about how much the KDF players want new ships.
¿? KDF players want ships, and most of em im pretty sure that want just 1 single pure science ship. You seem to not understand how this works. If they dont have access to any of that, of course they will never buy any ship. I mean, it is not so difficult to understand. Cryptic just use the "excuse" of low sells but the fact is, the less material you have to buy, the lower the sell numbers are going to be. Common sense. They are selling as much as starfleet , but because klingons and rommies have less content to buy, of course starfleet is more profitable.
You cant say that this faction dont sell because people dont buy, thats stupid. I will buy asap a science ship if they give me one that i like. I bought almost every single klingon T4+ ship from the cstore. Why i wouldnt?? if you play KDF, you like kdf so i dont see the reason to not buy klingon stuff. Again, the problem is cryptic is turning around the real problem that is making kdf and rommies so abandoned, and that problem is, that there is not enough stuff released for em. Plain and simple. If they release more stuff, people will buy more, and eventually we will have sells in every single faction. Of course cryptic is lazy (everybody knows that) so, if they say kdf dont sell, you just need to stick with it. But that is not a fact lol.
The failing worth talking about though is the one that is repeated they most, and that's this idea that Cryptic should treat the factions equally. They don't share this view and passive aggressive barbs tacked on the back of fluff is not going to convince them. Far far FAR more productive would be to simply suggest additions to your faction that you would like to see and then hope that when the developers do expend effort on your faction, it is in a direction you'd like. If only because implying that the developers are unfair is likely to get you ignored.
Agreed, if people really want KDF stuff.... they should BUY KDF stuff. Ranting about how they refuse to buy inferior garbage speaks volumes. It tells the developers that the ranters are insincere, and don't really want KDF stuff. This is in large part because the devs listen when people vote with their wallets. If Fed ship sales are 20x KDF ship sales then it says a lot about how much the KDF players want new ships.
¿? KDF players want ships, and most of em im pretty sure that want just 1 single pure science ship. You seem to not understand how this works. If they dont have access to any of that, of course they will never buy any ship. I mean, it is not so difficult to understand. Cryptic just use the "excuse" of low sells but the fact is, the less material you have to buy, the lower the sell numbers are going to be. Common sense. They are selling as much as starfleet , but because klingons and rommies have less content to buy, of course starfleet is more profitable.
You cant say that this faction dont sell because people dont buy, thats stupid. I will buy asap a science ship if they give me one that i like. I bought almost every single klingon T4+ ship from the cstore. Why i wouldnt?? if you play KDF, you like kdf so i dont see the reason to not buy klingon stuff. Again, the problem is cryptic is turning around the real problem that is making kdf and rommies so abandoned, and that problem is, that there is not enough stuff released for em. Plain and simple. If they release more stuff, people will buy more, and eventually we will have sells in every single faction. Of course cryptic is lazy (everybody knows that) so, if they say kdf dont sell, you just need to stick with it. But that is not a fact lol. [/quote]
The Feds might have more ships but they're hideous to look at. Also, if I am not mistaken, can't factionally aligned Roms use those ships as well? I don't know because my Rom is 17 and haven't tried yet. So if that's the case that means Roms get 22/27 ships to pick and choose from. If not, well they're the only faction that can put SROs in all seats AND have the only BoFFs with multiple space traits.
With the exception of the word "FedBrats" (and even then I understand why you said it) the voice of reason and balance is obvious. And what does the opposition have? Name calling and a clip from South Park. In the case of Matlock v. Cartman, It's a default decision
He opens with a faulty syllogism, then precedes to beat a strawman to death. Meanwhile he ironically rails against logical fallacies, implies the person he is talking to doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is, and ofcourse insults the majority of the playerbase.
You cant say that this faction dont sell because people dont buy, thats stupid. I will buy asap a science ship if they give me one that i like. I bought almost every single klingon T4+ ship from the cstore. Why i wouldnt?? if you play KDF, you like kdf so i dont see the reason to not buy klingon stuff. Again, the problem is cryptic is turning around the real problem that is making kdf and rommies so abandoned, and that problem is, that there is not enough stuff released for em. Plain and simple. If they release more stuff, people will buy more, and eventually we will have sells in every single faction. Of course cryptic is lazy (everybody knows that) so, if they say kdf dont sell, you just need to stick with it. But that is not a fact lol.
I'd bolded the clarifier that leads him to think you're insincere.
I've underlined the section that leads me to think you're 12.
But since at least one person wants to let you drink despite your age I suppose this should be addressed. Just playing devils' advocate for a moment, what if Cryptic is actively choosing to make sure that the KDF and Romulan factions have inferior science vessels in the same way they are actively choosing to make sure the Federation has inferior raiders and limited cloaking capabilities? Hypothetically, what if your only option for a KDF science vessel was another ship that would be inferior to the Federation's offerings, would you stake your reputation on that one flying off the shelves?
Availability as mentioned above is the biggest culprit of the uneven profits cryptic espouses. I'm not going to be technical. I dont think i should have to be. Over the years i've had all kinds of characters in each faction. I currently have three feds and three klinks. Two are rom, one human etc. But i digress..
If i go to the store for my fed, i can buy all kinds of ships, no problem there. I can buy a myriad of bridge modules ( i own all the fed stuff ) and uniforms ( own all them too ) and ya know, it all looks pretty frikkin fantastic.
If i go to the store for my klink. There arent as many as there are for the feds. Their designs are less than aesthetic and most look downright stupid. Theres a few bridge modules, all bathed in red light and rusted falling apart construction. I can buy my klink, one uniform; the academy uniform.. But heyyy, i can buy it, so i did..
I go to the store for my roms. There are something you can call ships there.. Not many, and frankly, flying most of them is an experiment in sorrow. They suck.. I'll put a stock miranda against a stock daehl any day. so the ships are low quality just like the klink ships. I can buy zero bridge modules. Thats because theres only one interior for all the rom ships except the scimi which gets a single room.. I go to buy uniforms and i get something out of the 23rd century with poofy sleeves like a bed spread, or a 60's revisionist look at skin tight mini skirts.. Outside of that, all rom uniforms look as if they just came out of good will's trash bin..
Its frikkin ridiculous. Of course no one is going to buy when the selection is limited ( and of poor quality and looks horrible ) No one does it in real life and no one does it here.
Cryptic can say all it wants about how no one has bought ( their one ) klingon uniform ( which sucks ) but all kinds of people have bought their myruiad of fed uniforms, or ships, or bridges. The fact is, they just dont give a TRIBBLE about the player base. They never have and they never will.. PWE/ARC has a ton more games they want everyone to play today. Tomorrow they want you to go to another brand new game and spend all your money there..
With the exception of the word "FedBrats" (and even then I understand why you said it) the voice of reason and balance is obvious. And what does the opposition have? Name calling and a clip from South Park. In the case of Matlock v. Cartman, It's a default decision
He opens with a faulty syllogism, then precedes to beat a strawman to death. Meanwhile he ironically rails against logical fallacies, implies the person he is talking to doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is, and ofcourse insults the majority of the playerbase.
You cant say that this faction dont sell because people dont buy, thats stupid. I will buy asap a science ship if they give me one that i like. I bought almost every single klingon T4+ ship from the cstore. Why i wouldnt?? if you play KDF, you like kdf so i dont see the reason to not buy klingon stuff. Again, the problem is cryptic is turning around the real problem that is making kdf and rommies so abandoned, and that problem is, that there is not enough stuff released for em. Plain and simple. If they release more stuff, people will buy more, and eventually we will have sells in every single faction. Of course cryptic is lazy (everybody knows that) so, if they say kdf dont sell, you just need to stick with it. But that is not a fact lol.
I'd bolded the clarifier that leads him to think you're insincere.
I've underlined the section that leads me to think you're 12.
But since at least one person wants to let you drink despite your age I suppose this should be addressed. Just playing devils' advocate for a moment, what if Cryptic is actively choosing to make sure that the KDF and Romulan factions have inferior science vessels in the same way they are actively choosing to make sure the Federation has inferior raiders and limited cloaking capabilities? Hypothetically, what if your only option for a KDF science vessel was another ship that would be inferior to the Federation's offerings, would you stake your reputation on that one flying off the shelves?
The clip may have been childish but it had several underlying points. First of all, unlike most people here I don't take the game too seriously. Secondly, I respond to people in their own language. As you aptly pointed out he was being childish and idiotic so my response was tailored to that.
Finally and perhaps most specifically, it's a backhanded way of showing as much disrespect for the person and their views as possible, being Klingon you'd think they would appreciate that.
Unless a person demonstrates the general characteristics of a decent human being, I'm inclined to treat them all as the garden variety trolls that they are.
Availability as mentioned above is the biggest culprit of the uneven profits cryptic espouses. I'm not going to be technical. I dont think i should have to be. Over the years i've had all kinds of characters in each faction. I currently have three feds and three klinks. Two are rom, one human etc. But i digress..
If i go to the store for my fed, i can buy all kinds of ships, no problem there. I can buy a myriad of bridge modules ( i own all the fed stuff ) and uniforms ( own all them too ) and ya know, it all looks pretty frikkin fantastic.
If i go to the store for my klink. There arent as many as there are for the feds. Their designs are less than aesthetic and most look downright stupid. Theres a few bridge modules, all bathed in red light and rusted falling apart construction. I can buy my klink, one uniform; the academy uniform.. But heyyy, i can buy it, so i did..
I go to the store for my roms. There are something you can call ships there.. Not many, and frankly, flying most of them is an experiment in sorrow. They suck.. I'll put a stock miranda against a stock daehl any day. so the ships are low quality just like the klink ships. I can buy zero bridge modules. Thats because theres only one interior for all the rom ships except the scimi which gets a single room.. I go to buy uniforms and i get something out of the 23rd century with poofy sleeves like a bed spread, or a 60's revisionist look at skin tight mini skirts.. Outside of that, all rom uniforms look as if they just came out of good will's trash bin..
Its frikkin ridiculous. Of course no one is going to buy when the selection is limited ( and of poor quality and looks horrible ) No one does it in real life and no one does it here.
I think you got your cause and effect mixed up there son. There's also a bit of not knowing the difference between subjective taste and objective statements of quality, but we won't worry about that yet. There are fewer options available because the KDF is less profitable than the Federation. The KDF is less profitable, not because there are fewer options, but because for every 1 Klingon character that may want to buy a uniform that you think is ugly, there are between 8 and 9 Federation characters that may want to buy a uniform that you think is ugly. This leads to the developers doing cost benefit analysis on development that favors the Federation by a factor of 8 or 9 and leads to the Federation getting somehow only twice the development when cold hard greed would actually have them getting 100% of the development.
But since at least one person wants to let you drink despite your age I suppose this should be addressed. Just playing devils' advocate for a moment, what if Cryptic is actively choosing to make sure that the KDF and Romulan factions have inferior science vessels in the same way they are actively choosing to make sure the Federation has inferior raiders and limited cloaking capabilities? Hypothetically, what if your only option for a KDF science vessel was another ship that would be inferior to the Federation's offerings, would you stake your reputation on that one flying off the shelves?
Limited cloaking capabilities?? lol who cares about cloaking. That was almost only useful in pvp, and since pvp is dead, cloaking is not important stuff anymore. And since almost none of the cloaking boosters / traits / skills works, im surprised you even talk about cloaking.
You seem to not understand that we are not talking about just a few things here and there. we are talking about a huge lack of content compared with starfleet.
About a science ship, i dont care if the ship is inferior to others, i play for fun (some of you seem to play for other motives, i know) and the only thing i want is an opportunity to build a science ship with science focused play. I dont care if it is 0,10% inferior to the best science ship out there. The problem of some of you cant play without the newer shiny , you are used to think that way, but some of us prefer fun instead everything else.
But since at least one person wants to let you drink despite your age I suppose this should be addressed. Just playing devils' advocate for a moment, what if Cryptic is actively choosing to make sure that the KDF and Romulan factions have inferior science vessels in the same way they are actively choosing to make sure the Federation has inferior raiders and limited cloaking capabilities? Hypothetically, what if your only option for a KDF science vessel was another ship that would be inferior to the Federation's offerings, would you stake your reputation on that one flying off the shelves?
Limited cloaking capabilities?? lol who cares about cloaking. That was almost only useful in pvp, and since pvp is dead, cloaking is not important stuff anymore. And since almost none of the cloaking boosters / traits / skills works, im surprised you even talk about cloaking.
You seem to not understand that we are not talking about just a few things here and there. we are talking about a huge lack of content compared with starfleet.
About a science ship, i dont care if the ship is inferior to others, i play for fun (some of you seem to play for other motives, i know) and the only thing i want is an opportunity to build a science ship with science focused play. I dont care if it is 0,10% inferior to the best science ship out there. The problem of some of you cant play without the newer shiny , you are used to think that way, but some of us prefer fun instead everything else.
I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you actually think you responded to the question you were asked. Unfortunately the answer you gave me was for a question that I wasn't interested in asking so I'll go ahead and explain and then ask again.
In an earlier post you claimed that most KDF players want 1 pure science ship, a claim with no evidence. I was asking if you thought most KDF players want 1 pure science ship that is intentionally inferior to the Federation's science ships.
Sorry but if you dont understand why kdf players eventually will want 1 science ship at least, im not going to extend. I prefer to just stop here.
You're welcome to stop, I'll go on and keep talking, and since you were unable to answer what should have been a relatively simple question to facilitate a dialogue, a failure you compounded by rudely assuming incorrect things about me that had nothing to do with what you were being asked, I'll even pretend like we're still talking so when you inevitably read my post while checking to see what else is being said in this thread you'll have to either grit your teeth and pretend to ignore it, or respond and look foolish.
Here are the reasons why you are unbelievably wrong to assume that most KDF players, your own words from an earlier post, will want 1 science ship at least. First and foremost, most people don't like science vessels. I'd dare say that, between the core ship classes of cruiser, escort and science vessel, science vessels come in solidly last. So, we are at best talking about maybe a quarter of players total that would want to use a science vessel, of them you can assume the majority get their fix from playing a Federation alt, so you're left with the slim minority of KDF players who refuse to play Federation alts and so who have no other option but the Varanus, Wells, Tholian Orbweaver, or any other lockbox ship, which takes us down to reason two.
There's going to be a Tier-6 Science Vessel in a lockbox eventually. Hell, I'm out of touch enough that there might be one already that I just don't know about. It'll be harder to get, sure, but for the Klingon player who truly wants a top tier science vessel, the option will be there, which is more than we can say for the Federation only player who wants a battle cloak. Sorry buddy, maybe roll a Romulan?
Thirdly, Science Vessels as a ship classification are becoming less and less relevant as more popular ship classifications gain access to their most powerful abilities and force game balancing to work around those most powerful abilities being paired with the most powerful abilities of another hybrid skill class. Just as an example, the T-6 Peghqu Heavy Destroyer can field a Lieutenant Commander Science officer with a Lieutenant Commander Command officer and a Command tactical officer. All that sweet science-y magic without having to sacrifice for it.
So no, I'm afraid a Tier-6 KDF science vessel has always seemed like the thing malcontents ask for simply because they can not have it. And as a KDF player, and apparently a better one than you, I have much greater respect for those requesting a Tier-6 Bird of Prey or a Tier-6 carrier and before I see the developers wasting resources on a Tier-6 science vessel that nobody much will use, I'd want to see the staples of KDF gameplay, the ships that have been represented in the top tier since launch, get Tier-6 representation.
And also, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand so I was going to ignore it but since your obnoxious assumption that you get to speak for me and the rest of the KDF made me feel the need to flex my KDF muscles, here goes. Coming out of cloak gives you a 15% damage boost stacked on top of what should be your alpha strike. If you're playing a cloaking vessel and you aren't cloaking every time you need to take more than 5 seconds to shift your ships position to the next objective, you're wasting a powerful buff and most likely you're wasting the rest of your ship. When you say a cloak is only useful in PVP you are outing yourself as poorly informed about game mechanics core to the Klingon experience and I can only hope a Klingon player much nicer than me will some day take you under their wing and help you learn how to play a ship from this faction.
With the exception of the word "FedBrats" (and even then I understand why you said it) the voice of reason and balance is obvious. And what does the opposition have? Name calling and a clip from South Park. In the case of Matlock v. Cartman, It's a default decision
He opens with a faulty syllogism, then precedes to beat a strawman to death. Meanwhile he ironically rails against logical fallacies, implies the person he is talking to doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is, and ofcourse insults the majority of the playerbase.
The Southpark clip was childish, but appropriate.
First of all, I'm not a he. It would be courteous for those posting to not make the sexist assumption that "there are no women on the internet" and when they do not know the gender of the person to whom they are referring instead make use of gender-inclusive or gender-neutral language, like "he/she" or the rapidly-increasing-in-popularity "they." Rail against the latter if you like, but proscriptive grammar is pointless due to the fact that language is a living thing and will necessarily change over time, so "they" will eventually be accepted by all grammarians but the most reactionary (and already is accepted in descriptive grammars).
Second, an if>then statement (My statement: "If we are ever to have anything remotely akin to factional balance, then we should be on a par with the FedBrats.") is not remotely a syllogism. It is a "conditional statement" in Propositional Logic, or in Predicate Logic, and not a syllogism or even particularly common in Syllogistic Logic (since the rules of inference for syllogistic logic simply cannot accommodate Modus Ponens).
Third, that statement was not even part of an argument, but simply an assertion, so attempting to characterize it as "a syllogism" ("faulty" or otherwise) demonstrates that you like to use big words without knowing what they mean. In "Aristotelean" or "Syllogistic" Logic, a syllogism is a full argument, consisting of more than a single statement, so obviously a single statement cannot "a syllogism" make.
Fourth, there is no Straw Man involved in pointing out something which even a single Dev has admitted to be the case (my statements, not Straw Man, and certainly not "beaten to death" as your hyperbole would have it, were: 'Claiming that "x doesn't sell, so we won't make anymore x" is a self-fulfilling prophecy and circular reasoning; it doesn't sell because they don't make it! And Taco has himself admitted that it's circular reasoning.'), so again, apparently you have no idea what the term means. For it to be a Straw Man, it would have to be a mischaracterization of the argument of an opposing view. When a Dev himself has admitted it to be the case, my pointing it out is anything BUT a mischaracterization.
And finally, my "ironic" railing against fallacies was not directed at anyone reading this except the Dev team, if they even bother to read it, because admitting that circular reasoning is behind a corporate decision lays bare the utter cluelessness of whomever made that decision. A fallacy is an incorrect inference form, but perhaps I need to put that in simpler language for you, jermbot, lest you start tossing that phrase around too as if you know what it means. It means "faulty reasoning." It means "illogical." It means "this is a bad basis for decision-making." Get it?
Go troll someone else. I know what I'm talking about and I don't appreciate your insolent attempts at propaganda by not even bothering to quote me in your post, lest someone reading what you said see what I actually said, and then totally mischaracterizing everything that I did say in an effort to make yourself seem smart. And lsegn's clip was childish, yes, but it was also simply another of his/her attempts to engage in flamebaiting, and by no means "appropriate" in any way.
With the exception of the word "FedBrats" (and even then I understand why you said it) the voice of reason and balance is obvious. And what does the opposition have? Name calling and a clip from South Park. In the case of Matlock v. Cartman, It's a default decision
He opens with a faulty syllogism, then precedes to beat a strawman to death. Meanwhile he ironically rails against logical fallacies, implies the person he is talking to doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is, and ofcourse insults the majority of the playerbase.
The Southpark clip was childish, but appropriate.
First of all, I'm not a he. It would be courteous for those posting to not make the sexist assumption that "there are no women on the internet" and when they do not know the gender of the person to whom they are referring instead make use of gender-inclusive or gender-neutral language, like "he/she" or the rapidly-increasing-in-popularity "they." Rail against the latter if you like, but proscriptive grammar is pointless due to the fact that language is a living thing and will necessarily change over time, so "they" will eventually be accepted by all grammarians but the most reactionary (and already is accepted in descriptive grammars).
Second, an if>then statement (My statement: "If we are ever to have anything remotely akin to factional balance, then we should be on a par with the FedBrats.") is not remotely a syllogism. It is a "conditional statement" in Propositional Logic, or in Predicate Logic, and not a syllogism or even particularly common in Syllogistic Logic (since the rules of inference for syllogistic logic simply cannot accommodate Modus Ponens).
Third, that statement was not even part of an argument, but simply an assertion, so attempting to characterize it as "a syllogism" ("faulty" or otherwise) demonstrates that you like to use big words without knowing what they mean. In "Aristotelean" or "Syllogistic" Logic, a syllogism is a full argument, consisting of more than a single statement, so obviously a single statement cannot "a syllogism" make.
Fourth, there is no Straw Man involved in pointing out something which even a single Dev has admitted to be the case (my statements, not Straw Man, and certainly not "beaten to death" as your hyperbole would have it, were: 'Claiming that "x doesn't sell, so we won't make anymore x" is a self-fulfilling prophecy and circular reasoning; it doesn't sell because they don't make it! And Taco has himself admitted that it's circular reasoning.'), so again, apparently you have no idea what the term means. For it to be a Straw Man, it would have to be a mischaracterization of the argument of an opposing view. When a Dev himself has admitted it to be the case, my pointing it out is anything BUT a mischaracterization.
And finally, my "ironic" railing against fallacies was not directed at anyone reading this except the Dev team, if they even bother to read it, because admitting that circular reasoning is behind a corporate decision lays bare the utter cluelessness of whomever made that decision. A fallacy is an incorrect inference form, but perhaps I need to put that in simpler language for you, jermbot, lest you start tossing that phrase around too as if you know what it means. It means "faulty reasoning." It means "illogical." It means "this is a bad basis for decision-making." Get it?
Go troll someone else. I know what I'm talking about and I don't appreciate your insolent attempts at propaganda by not even bothering to quote me in your post, lest someone reading what you said see what I actually said, and then totally mischaracterizing everything that I did say in an effort to make yourself seem smart. And lsegn's clip was childish, yes, but it was also simply another of his/her attempts to engage in flamebaiting, and by no means "appropriate" in any way.
Well it should of been obvious this was an Emo teen on her period... Our bad for the mix-up.
First of all, I'm not a he. It would be courteous for those posting to not make the sexist assumption that "there are no women on the internet" and when they do not know the gender of the person to whom they are referring instead make use of gender-inclusive or gender-neutral language, like "he/she" or the rapidly-increasing-in-popularity "they."
Since English is lacking a gender neutral 3rd party pronoun I was taught to use He as a default. And while I appreciate a growing popularity in use of the word "they" neither popularity or common use rise to the status of grammatical rule. Now, of course you are welcome to be offended because I default to the use of the pronoun he as a gender neutral 3rd party pronoun. Just as I am welcome to laugh at you and not take you seriously because of the stupid TRIBBLE you find insulting.
Rail against the latter if you like, but proscriptive grammar is pointless due to the fact that language is a living thing and will necessarily change over time, so "they" will eventually be accepted by all grammarians but the most reactionary (and already is accepted in descriptive grammars).
No railing, but thank you for being aware that we aren't there yet. Now, for you to assume I'm being discourteous you'd either have to believe that your personal rule is the standard by which to grade manners, an arrogant position that I think you both possess the necessary education and lack the necessary intelligence to reach. Or you'd have to assume something about my motives which you couldn't possibly know and are invariably wrong about. Either way, thanks to this paragraph, my opinion of you has dropped, which was a mean feat given how you started off.
Second, an if>then statement (My statement: "If we are ever to have anything remotely akin to factional balance, then we should be on a par with the FedBrats.") is not remotely a syllogism. It is a "conditional statement" in Propositional Logic, or in Predicate Logic, and not a syllogism or even particularly common in Syllogistic Logic (since the rules of inference for syllogistic logic simply cannot accommodate Modus Ponens).
The syllogism was implicit in the context of your paragraph and the position that you were holding. If you will remember you have stated a few times that the KDF must be given things for there to be faction balance. You'd reach this via a syllogism as follows.
The factions must be balanced.
For the factions to be balanced, we must be on par with the Fedbrats.
The KDF must be given stuff to put us on part with the Fedbrats.
It's false in it's first and second premise, factions being balanced is not a necessity. We have no reason to believe, and many reasons not to believe, that putting the KDF on par with the 'Fedbrats" will not have the desired effect. Would it have been easier to say you were sadly guilty of bad reasoning based on faulty premises that you could never support because you lack the necessary information to do so? Sure, but when you wouldn't have had to dig out your text book from freshmen logic to copy and paste.
Fourth, there is no Straw Man involved in pointing out something which even a single Dev has admitted to be the case (my statements, not Straw Man, and certainly not "beaten to death" as your hyperbole would have it, were: 'Claiming that "x doesn't sell, so we won't make anymore x" is a self-fulfilling prophecy and circular reasoning; it doesn't sell because they don't make it! And Taco has himself admitted that it's circular reasoning.'), so again, apparently you have no idea what the term means. For it to be a Straw Man, it would have to be a mischaracterization of the argument of an opposing view. When a Dev himself has admitted it to be the case, my pointing it out is anything BUT a mischaracterization.
But removing it from the context and larger explanation you were, in fact, mischaracterizing what the developer had said. I'm glad you found your way to this one on your own.
Go troll someone else. I know what I'm talking about and I don't appreciate your insolent attempts at propaganda by not even bothering to quote me in your post, lest someone reading what you said see what I actually said, and then totally mischaracterizing everything that I did say in an effort to make yourself seem smart. And lsegn's clip was childish, yes, but it was also simply another of his/her attempts to engage in flamebaiting, and by no means "appropriate" in any way.
Lets go ahead and take a moment, while you're acting both more indignant than you have a right to be and far better educated than you are to remember exactly what you said.
More than we're due? Do you have any clue how insulting you are being? We are factions. If we are ever to have anything remotely akin to factional balance, then we should be on a par with the FedBrats. Claiming that "x doesn't sell, so we won't make anymore x" is a self-fulfilling prophecy and circular reasoning; it doesn't sell because they don't make it! And Taco has himself admitted that it's circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a fallacy. Do you know what fallacy means? Do you know why fallacy is a poor basis for decision-making?
Note the scorn held either the person you're speaking with, or the people actually responsible for making this game. Note the casual implication that you, an unemployed art major who moved back in with your parents, are more qualified to make these decisions than the developers with an understanding of their development resources, development systems, and customer habits. Why, because when you quote mine a single developer you can find them maybe engaged in circular reasoning. And that's ofcourse ignoring the glib way you insulted the majority of the player base, not because of any particular hatred for them, but because you want the support of KDF players and the "Fedbrats" are the enemy.
Sorry kid, for fear that someone might actually mistake YOU as a spokesperson for MY faction, I will continue to respond to your offensive ignorance at need.
First of all, I'm not a he. It would be courteous for those posting to not make the sexist assumption that "there are no women on the internet" and when they do not know the gender of the person to whom they are referring instead make use of gender-inclusive or gender-neutral language, like "he/she" or the rapidly-increasing-in-popularity "they."
Since English is lacking a gender neutral 3rd party pronoun I was taught to use He as a default. And while I appreciate a growing popularity in use of the word "they" neither popularity or common use rise to the status of grammatical rule. Now, of course you are welcome to be offended because I default to the use of the pronoun he as a gender neutral 3rd party pronoun. Just as I am welcome to laugh at you and not take you seriously because of the stupid TRIBBLE you find insulting.
Rail against the latter if you like, but proscriptive grammar is pointless due to the fact that language is a living thing and will necessarily change over time, so "they" will eventually be accepted by all grammarians but the most reactionary (and already is accepted in descriptive grammars).
No railing, but thank you for being aware that we aren't there yet. Now, for you to assume I'm being discourteous you'd either have to believe that your personal rule is the standard by which to grade manners, an arrogant position that I think you both possess the necessary education and lack the necessary intelligence to reach. Or you'd have to assume something about my motives which you couldn't possibly know and are invariably wrong about. Either way, thanks to this paragraph, my opinion of you has dropped, which was a mean feat given how you started off.
Second, an if>then statement (My statement: "If we are ever to have anything remotely akin to factional balance, then we should be on a par with the FedBrats.") is not remotely a syllogism. It is a "conditional statement" in Propositional Logic, or in Predicate Logic, and not a syllogism or even particularly common in Syllogistic Logic (since the rules of inference for syllogistic logic simply cannot accommodate Modus Ponens).
The syllogism was implicit in the context of your paragraph and the position that you were holding. If you will remember you have stated a few times that the KDF must be given things for there to be faction balance. You'd reach this via a syllogism as follows.
The factions must be balanced.
For the factions to be balanced, we must be on par with the Fedbrats.
The KDF must be given stuff to put us on part with the Fedbrats.
It's false in it's first and second premise, factions being balanced is not a necessity. We have no reason to believe, and many reasons not to believe, that putting the KDF on par with the 'Fedbrats" will not have the desired effect. Would it have been easier to say you were sadly guilty of bad reasoning based on faulty premises that you could never support because you lack the necessary information to do so? Sure, but when you wouldn't have had to dig out your text book from freshmen logic to copy and paste.
Fourth, there is no Straw Man involved in pointing out something which even a single Dev has admitted to be the case (my statements, not Straw Man, and certainly not "beaten to death" as your hyperbole would have it, were: 'Claiming that "x doesn't sell, so we won't make anymore x" is a self-fulfilling prophecy and circular reasoning; it doesn't sell because they don't make it! And Taco has himself admitted that it's circular reasoning.'), so again, apparently you have no idea what the term means. For it to be a Straw Man, it would have to be a mischaracterization of the argument of an opposing view. When a Dev himself has admitted it to be the case, my pointing it out is anything BUT a mischaracterization.
But removing it from the context and larger explanation you were, in fact, mischaracterizing what the developer had said. I'm glad you found your way to this one on your own.
Go troll someone else. I know what I'm talking about and I don't appreciate your insolent attempts at propaganda by not even bothering to quote me in your post, lest someone reading what you said see what I actually said, and then totally mischaracterizing everything that I did say in an effort to make yourself seem smart. And lsegn's clip was childish, yes, but it was also simply another of his/her attempts to engage in flamebaiting, and by no means "appropriate" in any way.
Lets go ahead and take a moment, while you're acting both more indignant than you have a right to be and far better educated than you are to remember exactly what you said.
More than we're due? Do you have any clue how insulting you are being? We are factions. If we are ever to have anything remotely akin to factional balance, then we should be on a par with the FedBrats. Claiming that "x doesn't sell, so we won't make anymore x" is a self-fulfilling prophecy and circular reasoning; it doesn't sell because they don't make it! And Taco has himself admitted that it's circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a fallacy. Do you know what fallacy means? Do you know why fallacy is a poor basis for decision-making?
Note the scorn held either the person you're speaking with, or the people actually responsible for making this game. Note the casual implication that you, an unemployed art major who moved back in with your parents, are more qualified to make these decisions than the developers with an understanding of their development resources, development systems, and customer habits. Why, because when you quote mine a single developer you can find them maybe engaged in circular reasoning. And that's ofcourse ignoring the glib way you insulted the majority of the player base, not because of any particular hatred for them, but because you want the support of KDF players and the "Fedbrats" are the enemy.
Sorry kid, for fear that someone might actually mistake YOU as a spokesperson for MY faction, I will continue to respond to your offensive ignorance at need.
There's nothing like a good put-down but sometimes utterly destroying them on their own terms is even more entertaining! I doff my cap to you sir, I'm gonna go find more popcorn while you prepare your next move.
Can always count on the insults, whether smack in your face, or an attempted clever put-down. And as a bonus a grammer lesson. Nowhere else can you learn so much on a game forum. I am honored to be part of this mighty endeavor.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
And we're done. Flaming isn't allowed on the forums nor are insults.
Yes, I'm that Askray@Batbayer in game. Yes, I still play. No, I don't care. Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker. Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
Comments
I'm an Arc user? Yeah, right..I'd rather eat a chainsaw, blade first
"revel in the greater opportunities and privilege available to the Feds"
You know you're not really a Romulan, right? Throw in the maniacal laugh and all of that makes a nice evil speech.
"Balance the factions and there might be more of a population balance as well."
You made a nice speech about fallacy in decisions a bit ago, so in case you don't know...hope is not a strategy either.
And just to add...there was 5 television shows and a score of movies based on the Federation and that is the experience a majority of players want. You could say without the Federation side...there wouldn't even be a game, so yes there IS imbalance. Just one semi-popular Klingon movie or Romulan television show could change that, but I doubt that will happen.
Well, okay, that is the second biggest failing, the biggest failing is the poster who tried to use Animal Farm to equate the development of this for-profit MMO to the moral failings and corruptions of the suppossedly egalitarian communist Russia. But that was just funny in both how it assumed Cryptic had ever claimed that all the factions were equal, they haven't, and how it showed a hilarious lack of perspective concerning that novel and its social context.
The failing worth talking about though is the one that is repeated they most, and that's this idea that Cryptic should treat the factions equally. They don't share this view and passive aggressive barbs tacked on the back of fluff is not going to convince them. Far far FAR more productive would be to simply suggest additions to your faction that you would like to see and then hope that when the developers do expend effort on your faction, it is in a direction you'd like. If only because implying that the developers are unfair is likely to get you ignored.
I could never decide, there are soo many of em.. lolz.
Erm, you know that i agree with you, right? lol. I mean, i know that they will try to make money no matter what, so i completely understand why they basically only focus on starfleet. But then again, how can you expect people to play other factions if these players "feel" like those factions are half-borked?. You dont need to be an engineer to realize this..
My character Tsin'xing
¿? KDF players want ships, and most of em im pretty sure that want just 1 single pure science ship. You seem to not understand how this works. If they dont have access to any of that, of course they will never buy any ship. I mean, it is not so difficult to understand. Cryptic just use the "excuse" of low sells but the fact is, the less material you have to buy, the lower the sell numbers are going to be. Common sense. They are selling as much as starfleet , but because klingons and rommies have less content to buy, of course starfleet is more profitable.
You cant say that this faction dont sell because people dont buy, thats stupid. I will buy asap a science ship if they give me one that i like. I bought almost every single klingon T4+ ship from the cstore. Why i wouldnt?? if you play KDF, you like kdf so i dont see the reason to not buy klingon stuff. Again, the problem is cryptic is turning around the real problem that is making kdf and rommies so abandoned, and that problem is, that there is not enough stuff released for em. Plain and simple. If they release more stuff, people will buy more, and eventually we will have sells in every single faction. Of course cryptic is lazy (everybody knows that) so, if they say kdf dont sell, you just need to stick with it. But that is not a fact lol.
¿? KDF players want ships, and most of em im pretty sure that want just 1 single pure science ship. You seem to not understand how this works. If they dont have access to any of that, of course they will never buy any ship. I mean, it is not so difficult to understand. Cryptic just use the "excuse" of low sells but the fact is, the less material you have to buy, the lower the sell numbers are going to be. Common sense. They are selling as much as starfleet , but because klingons and rommies have less content to buy, of course starfleet is more profitable.
You cant say that this faction dont sell because people dont buy, thats stupid. I will buy asap a science ship if they give me one that i like. I bought almost every single klingon T4+ ship from the cstore. Why i wouldnt?? if you play KDF, you like kdf so i dont see the reason to not buy klingon stuff. Again, the problem is cryptic is turning around the real problem that is making kdf and rommies so abandoned, and that problem is, that there is not enough stuff released for em. Plain and simple. If they release more stuff, people will buy more, and eventually we will have sells in every single faction. Of course cryptic is lazy (everybody knows that) so, if they say kdf dont sell, you just need to stick with it. But that is not a fact lol. [/quote]
Give this guy some bloodwine! none less than 2309
He opens with a faulty syllogism, then precedes to beat a strawman to death. Meanwhile he ironically rails against logical fallacies, implies the person he is talking to doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is, and ofcourse insults the majority of the playerbase.
The Southpark clip was childish, but appropriate.
I'd bolded the clarifier that leads him to think you're insincere.
I've underlined the section that leads me to think you're 12.
But since at least one person wants to let you drink despite your age I suppose this should be addressed. Just playing devils' advocate for a moment, what if Cryptic is actively choosing to make sure that the KDF and Romulan factions have inferior science vessels in the same way they are actively choosing to make sure the Federation has inferior raiders and limited cloaking capabilities? Hypothetically, what if your only option for a KDF science vessel was another ship that would be inferior to the Federation's offerings, would you stake your reputation on that one flying off the shelves?
If i go to the store for my fed, i can buy all kinds of ships, no problem there. I can buy a myriad of bridge modules ( i own all the fed stuff ) and uniforms ( own all them too ) and ya know, it all looks pretty frikkin fantastic.
If i go to the store for my klink. There arent as many as there are for the feds. Their designs are less than aesthetic and most look downright stupid. Theres a few bridge modules, all bathed in red light and rusted falling apart construction. I can buy my klink, one uniform; the academy uniform.. But heyyy, i can buy it, so i did..
I go to the store for my roms. There are something you can call ships there.. Not many, and frankly, flying most of them is an experiment in sorrow. They suck.. I'll put a stock miranda against a stock daehl any day. so the ships are low quality just like the klink ships. I can buy zero bridge modules. Thats because theres only one interior for all the rom ships except the scimi which gets a single room.. I go to buy uniforms and i get something out of the 23rd century with poofy sleeves like a bed spread, or a 60's revisionist look at skin tight mini skirts.. Outside of that, all rom uniforms look as if they just came out of good will's trash bin..
Its frikkin ridiculous. Of course no one is going to buy when the selection is limited ( and of poor quality and looks horrible ) No one does it in real life and no one does it here.
Cryptic can say all it wants about how no one has bought ( their one ) klingon uniform ( which sucks ) but all kinds of people have bought their myruiad of fed uniforms, or ships, or bridges. The fact is, they just dont give a TRIBBLE about the player base. They never have and they never will.. PWE/ARC has a ton more games they want everyone to play today. Tomorrow they want you to go to another brand new game and spend all your money there..
The clip may have been childish but it had several underlying points. First of all, unlike most people here I don't take the game too seriously. Secondly, I respond to people in their own language. As you aptly pointed out he was being childish and idiotic so my response was tailored to that.
Finally and perhaps most specifically, it's a backhanded way of showing as much disrespect for the person and their views as possible, being Klingon you'd think they would appreciate that.
Unless a person demonstrates the general characteristics of a decent human being, I'm inclined to treat them all as the garden variety trolls that they are.
/end derail
I think you got your cause and effect mixed up there son. There's also a bit of not knowing the difference between subjective taste and objective statements of quality, but we won't worry about that yet. There are fewer options available because the KDF is less profitable than the Federation. The KDF is less profitable, not because there are fewer options, but because for every 1 Klingon character that may want to buy a uniform that you think is ugly, there are between 8 and 9 Federation characters that may want to buy a uniform that you think is ugly. This leads to the developers doing cost benefit analysis on development that favors the Federation by a factor of 8 or 9 and leads to the Federation getting somehow only twice the development when cold hard greed would actually have them getting 100% of the development.
Limited cloaking capabilities?? lol who cares about cloaking. That was almost only useful in pvp, and since pvp is dead, cloaking is not important stuff anymore. And since almost none of the cloaking boosters / traits / skills works, im surprised you even talk about cloaking.
You seem to not understand that we are not talking about just a few things here and there. we are talking about a huge lack of content compared with starfleet.
About a science ship, i dont care if the ship is inferior to others, i play for fun (some of you seem to play for other motives, i know) and the only thing i want is an opportunity to build a science ship with science focused play. I dont care if it is 0,10% inferior to the best science ship out there. The problem of some of you cant play without the newer shiny , you are used to think that way, but some of us prefer fun instead everything else.
I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you actually think you responded to the question you were asked. Unfortunately the answer you gave me was for a question that I wasn't interested in asking so I'll go ahead and explain and then ask again.
In an earlier post you claimed that most KDF players want 1 pure science ship, a claim with no evidence. I was asking if you thought most KDF players want 1 pure science ship that is intentionally inferior to the Federation's science ships.
You're welcome to stop, I'll go on and keep talking, and since you were unable to answer what should have been a relatively simple question to facilitate a dialogue, a failure you compounded by rudely assuming incorrect things about me that had nothing to do with what you were being asked, I'll even pretend like we're still talking so when you inevitably read my post while checking to see what else is being said in this thread you'll have to either grit your teeth and pretend to ignore it, or respond and look foolish.
Here are the reasons why you are unbelievably wrong to assume that most KDF players, your own words from an earlier post, will want 1 science ship at least. First and foremost, most people don't like science vessels. I'd dare say that, between the core ship classes of cruiser, escort and science vessel, science vessels come in solidly last. So, we are at best talking about maybe a quarter of players total that would want to use a science vessel, of them you can assume the majority get their fix from playing a Federation alt, so you're left with the slim minority of KDF players who refuse to play Federation alts and so who have no other option but the Varanus, Wells, Tholian Orbweaver, or any other lockbox ship, which takes us down to reason two.
There's going to be a Tier-6 Science Vessel in a lockbox eventually. Hell, I'm out of touch enough that there might be one already that I just don't know about. It'll be harder to get, sure, but for the Klingon player who truly wants a top tier science vessel, the option will be there, which is more than we can say for the Federation only player who wants a battle cloak. Sorry buddy, maybe roll a Romulan?
Thirdly, Science Vessels as a ship classification are becoming less and less relevant as more popular ship classifications gain access to their most powerful abilities and force game balancing to work around those most powerful abilities being paired with the most powerful abilities of another hybrid skill class. Just as an example, the T-6 Peghqu Heavy Destroyer can field a Lieutenant Commander Science officer with a Lieutenant Commander Command officer and a Command tactical officer. All that sweet science-y magic without having to sacrifice for it.
So no, I'm afraid a Tier-6 KDF science vessel has always seemed like the thing malcontents ask for simply because they can not have it. And as a KDF player, and apparently a better one than you, I have much greater respect for those requesting a Tier-6 Bird of Prey or a Tier-6 carrier and before I see the developers wasting resources on a Tier-6 science vessel that nobody much will use, I'd want to see the staples of KDF gameplay, the ships that have been represented in the top tier since launch, get Tier-6 representation.
And also, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand so I was going to ignore it but since your obnoxious assumption that you get to speak for me and the rest of the KDF made me feel the need to flex my KDF muscles, here goes. Coming out of cloak gives you a 15% damage boost stacked on top of what should be your alpha strike. If you're playing a cloaking vessel and you aren't cloaking every time you need to take more than 5 seconds to shift your ships position to the next objective, you're wasting a powerful buff and most likely you're wasting the rest of your ship. When you say a cloak is only useful in PVP you are outing yourself as poorly informed about game mechanics core to the Klingon experience and I can only hope a Klingon player much nicer than me will some day take you under their wing and help you learn how to play a ship from this faction.
First of all, I'm not a he. It would be courteous for those posting to not make the sexist assumption that "there are no women on the internet" and when they do not know the gender of the person to whom they are referring instead make use of gender-inclusive or gender-neutral language, like "he/she" or the rapidly-increasing-in-popularity "they." Rail against the latter if you like, but proscriptive grammar is pointless due to the fact that language is a living thing and will necessarily change over time, so "they" will eventually be accepted by all grammarians but the most reactionary (and already is accepted in descriptive grammars).
Second, an if>then statement (My statement: "If we are ever to have anything remotely akin to factional balance, then we should be on a par with the FedBrats.") is not remotely a syllogism. It is a "conditional statement" in Propositional Logic, or in Predicate Logic, and not a syllogism or even particularly common in Syllogistic Logic (since the rules of inference for syllogistic logic simply cannot accommodate Modus Ponens).
Third, that statement was not even part of an argument, but simply an assertion, so attempting to characterize it as "a syllogism" ("faulty" or otherwise) demonstrates that you like to use big words without knowing what they mean. In "Aristotelean" or "Syllogistic" Logic, a syllogism is a full argument, consisting of more than a single statement, so obviously a single statement cannot "a syllogism" make.
Fourth, there is no Straw Man involved in pointing out something which even a single Dev has admitted to be the case (my statements, not Straw Man, and certainly not "beaten to death" as your hyperbole would have it, were: 'Claiming that "x doesn't sell, so we won't make anymore x" is a self-fulfilling prophecy and circular reasoning; it doesn't sell because they don't make it! And Taco has himself admitted that it's circular reasoning.'), so again, apparently you have no idea what the term means. For it to be a Straw Man, it would have to be a mischaracterization of the argument of an opposing view. When a Dev himself has admitted it to be the case, my pointing it out is anything BUT a mischaracterization.
And finally, my "ironic" railing against fallacies was not directed at anyone reading this except the Dev team, if they even bother to read it, because admitting that circular reasoning is behind a corporate decision lays bare the utter cluelessness of whomever made that decision. A fallacy is an incorrect inference form, but perhaps I need to put that in simpler language for you, jermbot, lest you start tossing that phrase around too as if you know what it means. It means "faulty reasoning." It means "illogical." It means "this is a bad basis for decision-making." Get it?
Go troll someone else. I know what I'm talking about and I don't appreciate your insolent attempts at propaganda by not even bothering to quote me in your post, lest someone reading what you said see what I actually said, and then totally mischaracterizing everything that I did say in an effort to make yourself seem smart. And lsegn's clip was childish, yes, but it was also simply another of his/her attempts to engage in flamebaiting, and by no means "appropriate" in any way.
Well it should of been obvious this was an Emo teen on her period... Our bad for the mix-up.
Since English is lacking a gender neutral 3rd party pronoun I was taught to use He as a default. And while I appreciate a growing popularity in use of the word "they" neither popularity or common use rise to the status of grammatical rule. Now, of course you are welcome to be offended because I default to the use of the pronoun he as a gender neutral 3rd party pronoun. Just as I am welcome to laugh at you and not take you seriously because of the stupid TRIBBLE you find insulting.
No railing, but thank you for being aware that we aren't there yet. Now, for you to assume I'm being discourteous you'd either have to believe that your personal rule is the standard by which to grade manners, an arrogant position that I think you both possess the necessary education and lack the necessary intelligence to reach. Or you'd have to assume something about my motives which you couldn't possibly know and are invariably wrong about. Either way, thanks to this paragraph, my opinion of you has dropped, which was a mean feat given how you started off.
The syllogism was implicit in the context of your paragraph and the position that you were holding. If you will remember you have stated a few times that the KDF must be given things for there to be faction balance. You'd reach this via a syllogism as follows.
The factions must be balanced.
For the factions to be balanced, we must be on par with the Fedbrats.
The KDF must be given stuff to put us on part with the Fedbrats.
It's false in it's first and second premise, factions being balanced is not a necessity. We have no reason to believe, and many reasons not to believe, that putting the KDF on par with the 'Fedbrats" will not have the desired effect. Would it have been easier to say you were sadly guilty of bad reasoning based on faulty premises that you could never support because you lack the necessary information to do so? Sure, but when you wouldn't have had to dig out your text book from freshmen logic to copy and paste.
But removing it from the context and larger explanation you were, in fact, mischaracterizing what the developer had said. I'm glad you found your way to this one on your own.
Lets go ahead and take a moment, while you're acting both more indignant than you have a right to be and far better educated than you are to remember exactly what you said.
Note the scorn held either the person you're speaking with, or the people actually responsible for making this game. Note the casual implication that you, an unemployed art major who moved back in with your parents, are more qualified to make these decisions than the developers with an understanding of their development resources, development systems, and customer habits. Why, because when you quote mine a single developer you can find them maybe engaged in circular reasoning. And that's ofcourse ignoring the glib way you insulted the majority of the player base, not because of any particular hatred for them, but because you want the support of KDF players and the "Fedbrats" are the enemy.
Sorry kid, for fear that someone might actually mistake YOU as a spokesperson for MY faction, I will continue to respond to your offensive ignorance at need.
There's nothing like a good put-down but sometimes utterly destroying them on their own terms is even more entertaining! I doff my cap to you sir, I'm gonna go find more popcorn while you prepare your next move.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker.
Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113