test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Legendary bundle ship stats have been updated



  • kidinthehall#2744 kidinthehall Member Posts: 68 Arc User
    All these changes just to avoid the damn 5/1/1 or 5/2/1 layout for the B'rel.
  • peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,210 Arc User
    LOL, this is how we deal with discussions we don’t want to have now?

    How far sighted because this thread may fade away but the problems it surfaced won’t.
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
    Bring it on
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    wishful thinking is not really a reliable source
  • kurtronkurtron Member Posts: 126 Arc User
    LOL, this is how we deal with discussions we don’t want to have now?

    How far sighted because this thread may fade away but the problems it surfaced won’t.

    That's how it works in STO!
  • kidinthehall#2744 kidinthehall Member Posts: 68 Arc User
    edited February 17
    (flame/troll post/name and shame removed) - darkbladejk
    Post edited by darkbladejk on
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 14,907 Arc User
    This thread actually reminds me of the whole 'Nova class' debacle to be honest.

    Namely, they don't want to hear it, are not interested in it and seem to just want the matter to quietly disappear.

  • kidinthehall#2744 kidinthehall Member Posts: 68 Arc User
    Happened when they altered the Disco beam weapon visuals and made them less screen accurate. Like a 5 page topic and a mod just didn't want to see it anymore. Closed.
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 14,907 Arc User
    edited February 17
    LOL, this is how we deal with discussions we don’t want to have now?

    How far sighted because this thread may fade away but the problems it surfaced won’t.

    Well, since this thread is disappearing into obscurity anyway......

    Actually, they've proven themselves to be quite good at making problems fade away.

    I mean, I certainly won't be making any more threads pertaining to the Nova class again - not considering how Kael came along and made an example of my last Nova class thread, and to some small extent 'me', within that thread. Even more disappointing was his response, and the resulting asskissery of it, spread to Twitter and Reddit, with a tone of 'look what the poor victimised CM has to put up with - what awful people he has to deal with!'.

    So yeah, as I said, they've actually become pretty good at solving some issues. Namely, make the person who raised the issue look and feel unreasonable, in a very diplomatic way, so that they shut up about the issue.

  • kurtronkurtron Member Posts: 126 Arc User
    I'm honestly surprised this hasn't just been thrown into the FCT pit, along side other things they want us to forgets, like Foundry, exploration, in-game calendars that were more accurate than the CM...
  • darkbladejkdarkbladejk Member Posts: 3,113 Community Moderator
    Those are declaratory statements being asserted as fact.

    The question is...so what? I mean, sure it might be silly to think "my opinion = fact", but what FORUM RULE is it breaking?

    That is the part I (and apparently others) don't understand. You seem to be blanking posts that are not actually breaking any describable forum rules.

    You also apparently did something to this thread where it doesn't move when people post in it like every other thread. I mean, what in the world is going on here?
    Since you want to know what specific section it refers to, see below.

    See the subsection regarding flaming/trolling: "You may not post content which contains insults to other users or Perfect World Entertainment Staff, are specifically made to create undue discontent on the forums, disturbances in forum threads, pick fights or otherwise promote unfriendly conversation."

    In asserting one's subjective opinion as objective fact, and basically telling others they're wrong for disagreeing, or basically accusing them of wrongthink or wrongplay, one is falling into territory of the first section there.
    You keep putting up the same text wall that's been addressed.. you're not listening man. You really need someone to frame every single statement with the words 'In my Opinion' or you're going to attack them? Really man?

    If someone says 'that ship sucks,' is it really needed to put 'in my opinion' before it for you to know that it's an opinion? She posted why she feels the ships are not up to standard, as did I. We both posted our reasoning for why we feel that way, a reasoning you don't agree with.. again.. fine. We accept in game testing, mathematical testing of how things preform in game and majority opinion to come to a conclusion that we believe factual. You do not accept that methodology.. again.. fine.

    Context clues are important. When someone says "I don’t think so because the ship is bad at everything you mention your post.
    Have fun getting and playing it. I will have fun not getting and playing it. What I also will have fun at is to continue to point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap in these forums in the future. It’s not remotely worth the price cryptic is asking.," or "saying that a ship is bad based on stats, specialist seats and boff configuration is not subjective, but comes from years of experience, experimentation and trial-and-errors that showed what is or isn't a good ship," they are asserting their subjective opinion as objective fact.

    The bits in bold make clear this is not folks trying to assert an opinion, but them trying to assert what they believe to be an objective fact. If it's "the ship is bad at everything you mention in your post" and "saying a ship is bad based on stats, specialist seats and boff configuration IS NOT SUBJECTIVE" that is NOT pushing an opinion, but declaring in plain black and white that myself and others are objectively wrong for disagreeing with them, and committing wrongthink or wrongplay. When someone clearly says in plain black and white "is not subjective" or "the ship is bad at everything you mention. I will have fun continuing to point out bad joke noob traps in the future," that's NOT giving an opinion. That's trying to push a standard on the entire community based on THEIR experience, THEIR experimentation or similar, and thus crosses into elitism and gatekeeping. Elitism in asserting that folks who disagree are simply wrong. It can't be that different folks play differently and simply have different standards of judging ships, no they're just wrong for daring to disagree. It's also gatekeeping in attempting to declare what is or isn't a "bad joke noob trap." As I said prior, why should their experimentation and experience be given anymore weight than that of anyone else? Who elected them to a position where they get to decide for the ENTIRE COMMUNITY what is and isn't a bad ship? Someone wants to think a ship is bad, as they clearly do, that's fine. Otherwise to assert someone is objectively wrong because they like a ship you don't (general sense of word you and not you specifically), nah that's not going to fly. No one single player or group of players gets to make that decision for the community.

    I accept people saying "the ship is bad for how we like to play based off methodology X". I wholly reject people saying "the ship is objectively bad because of methodology X that we use." Simply because "the majority" agree to something does not make them automatically right or wrong. The "majority" could agree tomorrow that murder, theft, slavery and a host of other evils are no longer morally wrong, and those things would still be evil and wrong. If the majority agreeing on something suddenly makes them automatically right or wrong, then humanity is up the creek without a paddle and no hope of recovery.
    The issue again.. is that you're attacking her personally for this and then you're accusing us of the very crime you're committing yourself. She posts an opinion of the ships, not of people.. of the ships. You then counter and call her an 'Elitist,' an opinion of the player. You then accuse her of 'gatekeeping' for having that opinion.. again an accusation against the player. No one ever said a word against anyone that likes these ships. You turned it personal sir, you started calling people names and listing opinions as forum violations as an excuse to moderate and that is not right.

    Dark, we're not going to agree on this pack. That's cool man.. and if you like the pack, and think it's a good value then by all means buy the pack. No one is judging you or anyone else because you plan to buy it, and I sincerely hope you get your moneys worth from it. Jenny and I think the pack is a poor value, that's how we feel.. obviously that can be debated because you disagree. What needs to stop is attacking people personally for having a different opinion.
    You ever hear the old saying "judge the sin but not the sinner"? In other words you can attack a position one holds without attacking the person. I said the statements made were elitist and gatekeeping, I did not make a statement about them as people. I don't roll that way and believe it's possible to attack a person's position and have passionate debates without it being an attack on the person. By your own logic, if disagreeing with someone counts as a personal attack, then as you said we should shut down the forums and call it a day. Again words have meaning, and when someone suggests in plain black and white "it's not subjective" or "you're wrong" what other way is a person supposed to take that statement other than what they mean? I'm not a Betazoid mind reader, folks either mean what they say or they don't. If they don't mean what they say, then why say it that way? I posted the relevant section of rules above if you want to know the specific violation. Again, posting an opinion is one thing, trying to assert that opinion as objective fact and accuse others of wrongthink or wrongplay essentially is something else entirely. If folks don't like a ship, okay fine they're entitled to that opinion. Otherwise a ship is NOT objectively bad just because they don't like it. At that point it's a ship existing and them being offended it didn't meet THEIR standards of what they thought a ship should be. Not every ship is going to appeal to every person, and not every ship is meant for every kind of build style. That doesn't make a ship bad, it just means you're not the target audience for that particular ship. I'm generally not a science guy, so typically sci heavy ships don't appeal to me. It doesn't make those ships objectively bad, they're just not a good fit for what I like to do normally.

    Having a difference of opinion is fine, and I'm sorry you guys don't like the ships. I hope you guys do get the pack of ships you like in the future. Having a difference of opinion was not the issue. Attempting to assert they are objectively right because of THEIR experience and how they play IS the issue. That is something I will call attention to each and every time. Folks are not wrong for thinking it's poor value or disliking the ships. They ARE however wrong for asserting themselves objectively right on them being bad ships. They are not bad ships, they are just bad for how they personally like to play.
    Disagreeing with a forum moderator on an in game item, process or function is not a forum violation. Thinking something is not worth the money being asked is not Elitism. Comparing similarly priced items and finding one of them lacking is not wrong nor is it in any way a direct judgement on people that think that item is a good value. If someone finds this pack a good value, they should buy it. Those of us that don't will express our opinion why we feel that way and we are not wrong for doing so.

    See above. Disagreeing is fine, voicing different opinions is fine. Complaining about a game function, so long as it doesn't turn into a Cryptic bashing rant, is fine. Saying it's not worth the money is fine. You want to compare value, that's also fine. Folks have disagreed with me hundreds of times on this forum and elsewhere in game, and there was no issue. In fact I've had some pretty heated debates with people on here prior to now and there was little to no issue. Likewise by your line of logic, disagreeing with their opinion does NOT make me objectively wrong about the ships. They're free to think I'm making a bad call. To assert that I am objectively making a bad call however and buying into a "bad joke noob trap" or similarly say "calling a ship bad based on stats and configuration isn't subjective" however IS an issue. Calling that line of logic out for what it is, isn't a personal attack either. You can express your opinions all day long, just don't try to beat people over the head with them and try to assert they are objectively wrong for their opinion differing from yours. It's really that simple.
    "Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations

    Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
  • ikonn#1068 ikonn Member Posts: 1,412 Arc User
    So, it's Cookies, Cake, Pie, Donuts, and Rainbows from this point forward...
    -WB- Warrior's Blood (KDF Armada) / -WB- Qu' raD qulbo'Degh / Project Phoenix
    Join Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
  • ambassadorkael#6946 ambassadorkael Member, Administrator Posts: 2,365 Community Manager
    Hey folks,

    A few people asked me to come and look at this thread, and so I've read the entire thing, including all the "blanked" posts. A couple of things here:

    1) Darkblade was accused of making "personal attacks" by several people. He didn't do that.
    2) He's right, subjective opinions cannot actually be factual. The stats of a ship, just like a movie or a book, can't actually be objectively "good," or "bad." That's just sharing your opinion, and one person's opinion is just as valid as another's. Stating your personal opinion as objective fact is kind of a TRIBBLE move, and definitely off putting.
    3) Buuuuuuut I don't believe it's technically gatekeeping, at least as we intended the rule for this particular forum. (Ok, I think it's *kind* of gatekeepy, but I didn't see anything in the removed posts that violated that rule as we wrote it.) I've already talked to Darkblade about it, so let's just move forward from here.

This discussion has been closed.