test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

I don't understand the "let it rot" theory of design

2»

Comments

  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 9,019 Arc User
    edited February 24
    mattingly1 wrote: »
    There's a kind of desperation in your post patterns that's really... telling. I've noticed that, when compared to the reddit, there are an inordinate number of people present on these forums that are attempting to "win" threads, and you're probably the chief culprit. You need to learn to stop trying to dominate people, and start actually communicating.
    I don't care about dominating people. I just dislike when people lie about things I said.

    Its also hard to communicate with someone like GrandNagus, who has shown no desire for real communication, and instead just wants to claim everything is some grand conspiracy to get people to pay for things.
  • mattingly1mattingly1 Member Posts: 172 Arc User
    mattingly1 wrote: »
    There's a kind of desperation in your post patterns that's really... telling. I've noticed that, when compared to the reddit, there are an inordinate number of people present on these forums that are attempting to "win" threads, and you're probably the chief culprit. You need to learn to stop trying to dominate people, and start actually communicating.
    I don't care about dominating people. I just dislike when people lie about things I said.

    Its also hard to communicate with someone like GrandNagus, who has shown no desire for real communication, and instead just wants to claim everything is some grand conspiracy to get people to pay for things.

    Fair. I'll stay out of it.
  • jennycolvinjennycolvin Member Posts: 863 Arc User
    edited February 24
    mattingly1 wrote: »
    mattingly1 wrote: »
    There's a kind of desperation in your post patterns that's really... telling. I've noticed that, when compared to the reddit, there are an inordinate number of people present on these forums that are attempting to "win" threads, and you're probably the chief culprit. You need to learn to stop trying to dominate people, and start actually communicating.
    I don't care about dominating people. I just dislike when people lie about things I said.

    Its also hard to communicate with someone like GrandNagus, who has shown no desire for real communication, and instead just wants to claim everything is some grand conspiracy to get people to pay for things.

    Fair. I'll stay out of it.

    I will not. And enough is enough. This thread has barely started and not only you managed to derail it *entirely*, but you've also ignored any and all posts from people trying to talk about the topic *around* your posts.
    I don't wanna be mean, but @thegrandnagus1: I know you can conduct a discussion in much better ways than this, so please, let it go.
    We just had a thread like this, do we *really* want a TRIBBLE repeat?!

    I didn't think so. So, getting back on topic:
    discojer wrote: »
    If you think the game is easy, consider starting a new account and starting completely from scratch.

    That is a very good point. I have and boy, do I feel the difference.
    It takes time and effort to do things "easily" and it would even more so without knowing the game as well as I do.
    Considering that STO does a really, truly poor job of explaining *anything*, newer players have to mitigate that lack of knowledge on top of trying to put enough effort in game to be somewhat efficient.

    So, while for veteran players this game may seem extremely easy, for newer players it may not be.
    And claiming that it all boils down to "they didn't make the effort to build their ships properly" is, quite frankly, short sighted.

    As for the OP: I understand what you're going for, and it ties in somewhat with people wanting their favourite ships to be brought up to T6 level, but from a purely "economic" point of view, so to speak, I doubt Cryptic will do anything to update older stuff *unless* it's through the release of a new version of a console/ship/whatever-else-you-can-think-of to sell to people.
    kv1Ohsx.png
    Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.

    Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
    - quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;

    Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
    Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 4,225 Arc User
    edited February 24
    kiralyn wrote: »
    (and remember - Space Barbie Is Endgame™. I'd much rather fly a Europa than a Gagarin.)

    That's true for many of us :) . My captains fly ships and select gear based on their theme, not based on maximizing DPS. My Liberated Borg Romulan flies a Tal Shiar ship with plasma beams and Borg consoles regardless of DPS. The "assimilate a ship you blow up" console isn't meta, but it's Borg so into a slot it goes. Kinetic Cutting Beam and console? Borg, so they're equipped.

    This is what I do too. I couldn't give a hoot about the new 'meta' that gives you an extra 5DPS! I build thematically for the fun of it.

    @mattingly1 The Europa and the Gagarin are practically the same age, and neither are 'out of date'. There's actually very few T6's that MIGHT need a balance pass, but all-in-all, ship choice is a personal choice, not an absolute requirement that you must have 'X'. Ships actually play very little part in overall DPS, that's down to your equipment. I ran the T5U Kar'fi on my KDF main for many years, and never once found myself struggling because it lacks that extra 5 or 10 subsystem power to 'X' or that it didn't have a Spec seat. If you make all ships too similar, then that will hit sales they need to keep the game running and them in a job. The very fact there's so much diversity in ships and ship builds is what makes this game so great.
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,175 Arc User
    Well, the OP isn't completely wrong, but took the wrong take on it. To use Europa and Gagarin aren't a good comparison because Europa isn't even full command. They also have fundamentally different seating.

    However, ignoring the specifics, there is a balance problem with this game in that old specs like command and to a degree intel, do not perform well (and were never designed well either) outside of a handful of powers that work for a handful of builds. That does need changed and updated.

    As others have stated, updating the ships is not realistic nor a good idea. BOFF powers need tweaking and updating, and that would do far more to level the playing field than not. If command powers were as useful, and not necessarily for straight DPS, as miracle worker, then people would have a harder time to choose, on the pure power level.
  • joshmauljoshmaul Member Posts: 327 Arc User
    I confess I'm in the "ooh, shiny", fit-my-personal-preference crowd myself. My three Disco-Fed characters fly appropriate ships, and yes, I have the legendaries for the Crossfield, Disco-Connie and Walker, among others; last year's legendary pack was the last "nice thing" I got before my world went straight to hell. But I digress.

    That being said, the OP is right up to a point, that certain ships have been consigned to sit in obsolescence, primarily by the ready availability of T6 ships right off the bat (or at least right after the tutorial). The long-desired Nova, the T3 heavy cruiser (which included the Constellation as a C-Store alternative), most of the Klingon Bird-of-Prey variants, so on. Some of these do indeed call for updates or T6 versions - I mean, Lord knows there's been a clamoring for an updated Nova for long enough. Others will most likely not get them. Alas, as much as we like to believe in that long-disproven canard about how the customer is always right, it's not up to us.

    I do agree, however, with somtaawkhar (God help me) that T5s can be viable - again, up to a point. I have thus far not been able to get my hands on a T6 D7/K't'inga yet; I am leaning in that direction for the new event thing (although regular or Disco, I haven't decided yet). For the moment, I use the T5 fleet version, and... I think I only upgraded it to T5-U, but it works out okay. Not spectacular, but not bad. And with the recent Lobi sale, my liberated Borg Romulan has also joined the fleet of the adapted battlecruisers with Borg plasma weapons and assimilator console, heh heh.

    More often than not, it's less about how the game says (or doesn't say) it works and more about how you make it work.
    i2G6X0u.jpg
    "Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily follow that we must do that thing."
    - Federation President Ra-ghoratreii, Khitomer Conference opening ceremony, 2293

    Real Join Date: October 2010
  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 4,225 Arc User
    joshmaul wrote: »
    I confess I'm in the "ooh, shiny", fit-my-personal-preference crowd myself. My three Disco-Fed characters fly appropriate ships, and yes, I have the legendaries for the Crossfield, Disco-Connie and Walker, among others; last year's legendary pack was the last "nice thing" I got before my world went straight to hell. But I digress.

    That being said, the OP is right up to a point, that certain ships have been consigned to sit in obsolescence, primarily by the ready availability of T6 ships right off the bat (or at least right after the tutorial). The long-desired Nova, the T3 heavy cruiser (which included the Constellation as a C-Store alternative), most of the Klingon Bird-of-Prey variants, so on. Some of these do indeed call for updates or T6 versions - I mean, Lord knows there's been a clamoring for an updated Nova for long enough. Others will most likely not get them. Alas, as much as we like to believe in that long-disproven canard about how the customer is always right, it's not up to us.

    I do agree, however, with somtaawkhar (God help me) that T5s can be viable - again, up to a point. I have thus far not been able to get my hands on a T6 D7/K't'inga yet; I am leaning in that direction for the new event thing (although regular or Disco, I haven't decided yet). For the moment, I use the T5 fleet version, and... I think I only upgraded it to T5-U, but it works out okay. Not spectacular, but not bad. And with the recent Lobi sale, my liberated Borg Romulan has also joined the fleet of the adapted battlecruisers with Borg plasma weapons and assimilator console, heh heh.

    More often than not, it's less about how the game says (or doesn't say) it works and more about how you make it work.

    T5U's aren't just 'viable...to a point', that's a fallacy. Apart from a little less power, 1 less Boff power and no spec seating, they are as effective as T6's. There isn't that quantum leap between T5U and T6 that people keep assuming. Go check out the stats between a T5U Intrepid and a T6, and you'll be surprised that there's actually very little difference.

    And for the umpteenth time, the Dev's have said that ALL T5's WILL get a T6 variant. There's no need to keep demanding that 'X' gets one.
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 14,377 Arc User
    leemwatson wrote: »
    joshmaul wrote: »
    I confess I'm in the "ooh, shiny", fit-my-personal-preference crowd myself. My three Disco-Fed characters fly appropriate ships, and yes, I have the legendaries for the Crossfield, Disco-Connie and Walker, among others; last year's legendary pack was the last "nice thing" I got before my world went straight to hell. But I digress.

    That being said, the OP is right up to a point, that certain ships have been consigned to sit in obsolescence, primarily by the ready availability of T6 ships right off the bat (or at least right after the tutorial). The long-desired Nova, the T3 heavy cruiser (which included the Constellation as a C-Store alternative), most of the Klingon Bird-of-Prey variants, so on. Some of these do indeed call for updates or T6 versions - I mean, Lord knows there's been a clamoring for an updated Nova for long enough. Others will most likely not get them. Alas, as much as we like to believe in that long-disproven canard about how the customer is always right, it's not up to us.

    I do agree, however, with somtaawkhar (God help me) that T5s can be viable - again, up to a point. I have thus far not been able to get my hands on a T6 D7/K't'inga yet; I am leaning in that direction for the new event thing (although regular or Disco, I haven't decided yet). For the moment, I use the T5 fleet version, and... I think I only upgraded it to T5-U, but it works out okay. Not spectacular, but not bad. And with the recent Lobi sale, my liberated Borg Romulan has also joined the fleet of the adapted battlecruisers with Borg plasma weapons and assimilator console, heh heh.

    More often than not, it's less about how the game says (or doesn't say) it works and more about how you make it work.

    T5U's aren't just 'viable...to a point', that's a fallacy. Apart from a little less power, 1 less Boff power and no spec seating, they are as effective as T6's. There isn't that quantum leap between T5U and T6 that people keep assuming. Go check out the stats between a T5U Intrepid and a T6, and you'll be surprised that there's actually very little difference.

    And for the umpteenth time, the Dev's have said that ALL T5's WILL get a T6 variant. There's no need to keep demanding that 'X' gets one.

    87e629d234417c33c52e864c9f02543f.jpg


  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 4,225 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    leemwatson wrote: »
    joshmaul wrote: »
    I confess I'm in the "ooh, shiny", fit-my-personal-preference crowd myself. My three Disco-Fed characters fly appropriate ships, and yes, I have the legendaries for the Crossfield, Disco-Connie and Walker, among others; last year's legendary pack was the last "nice thing" I got before my world went straight to hell. But I digress.

    That being said, the OP is right up to a point, that certain ships have been consigned to sit in obsolescence, primarily by the ready availability of T6 ships right off the bat (or at least right after the tutorial). The long-desired Nova, the T3 heavy cruiser (which included the Constellation as a C-Store alternative), most of the Klingon Bird-of-Prey variants, so on. Some of these do indeed call for updates or T6 versions - I mean, Lord knows there's been a clamoring for an updated Nova for long enough. Others will most likely not get them. Alas, as much as we like to believe in that long-disproven canard about how the customer is always right, it's not up to us.

    I do agree, however, with somtaawkhar (God help me) that T5s can be viable - again, up to a point. I have thus far not been able to get my hands on a T6 D7/K't'inga yet; I am leaning in that direction for the new event thing (although regular or Disco, I haven't decided yet). For the moment, I use the T5 fleet version, and... I think I only upgraded it to T5-U, but it works out okay. Not spectacular, but not bad. And with the recent Lobi sale, my liberated Borg Romulan has also joined the fleet of the adapted battlecruisers with Borg plasma weapons and assimilator console, heh heh.

    More often than not, it's less about how the game says (or doesn't say) it works and more about how you make it work.

    T5U's aren't just 'viable...to a point', that's a fallacy. Apart from a little less power, 1 less Boff power and no spec seating, they are as effective as T6's. There isn't that quantum leap between T5U and T6 that people keep assuming. Go check out the stats between a T5U Intrepid and a T6, and you'll be surprised that there's actually very little difference.

    And for the umpteenth time, the Dev's have said that ALL T5's WILL get a T6 variant. There's no need to keep demanding that 'X' gets one.

    87e629d234417c33c52e864c9f02543f.jpg

    I entirely would agree, if they weren't making a point of pointing it out on nearly every livestream that it's become a running joke about 'T6 Nova When!?'. It's coming....end of.
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 14,377 Arc User
    edited February 24
    leemwatson wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    leemwatson wrote: »
    joshmaul wrote: »
    I confess I'm in the "ooh, shiny", fit-my-personal-preference crowd myself. My three Disco-Fed characters fly appropriate ships, and yes, I have the legendaries for the Crossfield, Disco-Connie and Walker, among others; last year's legendary pack was the last "nice thing" I got before my world went straight to hell. But I digress.

    That being said, the OP is right up to a point, that certain ships have been consigned to sit in obsolescence, primarily by the ready availability of T6 ships right off the bat (or at least right after the tutorial). The long-desired Nova, the T3 heavy cruiser (which included the Constellation as a C-Store alternative), most of the Klingon Bird-of-Prey variants, so on. Some of these do indeed call for updates or T6 versions - I mean, Lord knows there's been a clamoring for an updated Nova for long enough. Others will most likely not get them. Alas, as much as we like to believe in that long-disproven canard about how the customer is always right, it's not up to us.

    I do agree, however, with somtaawkhar (God help me) that T5s can be viable - again, up to a point. I have thus far not been able to get my hands on a T6 D7/K't'inga yet; I am leaning in that direction for the new event thing (although regular or Disco, I haven't decided yet). For the moment, I use the T5 fleet version, and... I think I only upgraded it to T5-U, but it works out okay. Not spectacular, but not bad. And with the recent Lobi sale, my liberated Borg Romulan has also joined the fleet of the adapted battlecruisers with Borg plasma weapons and assimilator console, heh heh.

    More often than not, it's less about how the game says (or doesn't say) it works and more about how you make it work.

    T5U's aren't just 'viable...to a point', that's a fallacy. Apart from a little less power, 1 less Boff power and no spec seating, they are as effective as T6's. There isn't that quantum leap between T5U and T6 that people keep assuming. Go check out the stats between a T5U Intrepid and a T6, and you'll be surprised that there's actually very little difference.

    And for the umpteenth time, the Dev's have said that ALL T5's WILL get a T6 variant. There's no need to keep demanding that 'X' gets one.

    87e629d234417c33c52e864c9f02543f.jpg

    I entirely would agree, if they weren't making a point of pointing it out on nearly every livestream that it's become a running joke about 'T6 Nova When!?'. It's coming....end of.

    Yeah. " Its coming" - an empty 'promise' we've been fed for the past seven years.

    My point stands - and I REALLY don't wish to get into a discussion about this after what happened the last time.


  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 1,957 Arc User
    im like a few here and play for "fun" with certain builds and how i want a toon to go thru their service with the respected alliance. (kdf or fed) so for meta, or dps, meh, could care less.

    now, that aside, i am going to toss out a few things for some feedback.

    back in the day, when a toyota camry was the high end of that line, they came out with lexus LS versions. same shell different interior (for the most part). chevy and GM do this, ford and lincoln did it too. (yeah, there may have been a few tweeks, but overall it was a shell with better interior and ride...yadda yadda)

    so, with that, why cant the devs use the layout of say, a t6 cruiser with the added benefit of any consoles etc, and slap a t6 miranda shell on it?

    isnt one separate from another? i for one like the miranda (no i dont fly it now), but wouldnt this help in getting lower tier and older ships up to par until a complete update could be completed?

    any why not allow any lower ship to get to t6 anyway? why does a miranda have to stay t1?
    meh

  • theanothernametheanothername Member Posts: 1,458 Arc User
    Cryptic doesn't have to spend hundreds of hours re-texturing models, nor do they have to tackle the massive pile of antiquated boats all at once - just pick one or two dated ships a month, move a few consoles around, check the boffs, add or exchange a mechanic or two, and call it good.

    Cryptic can't remove any existing feature from old ships because players will scream "fraud", "I paid good money for 5 engineering consoles", "My build counts on 3 tac seats and just ensign eng and sci", "rabble rabble rabble"

    About all that cryptic could do is change seats to universal, add or increase a specialization level (e.g. Lt C => Commander), add a console slot, etc. anything removed or changed will fire up the lynch mob.

    Power creeping would be OK, rebalancing ships where someone loses something would not.

    That said, I agree in general that power creeping some old ships wouldn't be a bad thing. Make a seat universal to fix excessively tac heavy seating, add a hangar or extra pet buffs to true carriers so they have a reason to exist, ...?

    All that arguing after this post is kind of silly IMO. I don't see a better way to tackle this either. No one want to log in just to get nannied about a ship/build they where happy with for years.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 4,529 Arc User
    edited February 24
    mattingly1 wrote: »
    There's a kind of desperation in your post patterns that's really... telling. I've noticed that, when compared to the reddit, there are an inordinate number of people present on these forums that are attempting to "win" threads, and you're probably the chief culprit. You need to learn to stop trying to dominate people, and start actually communicating.
    I don't care about dominating people. I just dislike when people lie about things I said.

    Its also hard to communicate with someone like GrandNagus, who has shown no desire for real communication, and instead just wants to claim everything is some grand conspiracy to get people to pay for things.

    Yeah, you're definitely confused. Just so we're clear, here are a couple of your previous statements that are problems:

    STO is a game so easy that even a T5 ship, with MK12 gear, is able to smoke pretty much all of the content with ease.

    So, there are at least 2 opinions in that statement:

    1: STO is an "easy" game.

    2: T5 ships with Mk12 gear can "smoke pretty much all of the content with ease".

    To be clear, there is nothing wrong with either of the above opinions. They are completely valid. The problem comes next, after I told you that the above comments were just an opinion:

    You can do it, that is fact.

    See, now you are claiming that your valid opinions (that STO is "easy" and that X ships with X gear can "smoke content with ease) are actually FACTS, not opinions.

    Here is the thing: @darkbladejk recently made a very big point that people CANNOT present their opinions as if they are facts. So as long as you are willing to acknowledge that what you are posting is JUST your opinion and means NO more than anyone else's, then great. But what you can't do (per dark) is call your opinions "facts" and act like your opinion can actually prove someone else's opinion wrong.

    You can absolutely disagree with the OP that old ships need updating. But you will never, ever, be able to prove his opinion wrong using your opinion.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 4,225 Arc User
    Cryptic doesn't have to spend hundreds of hours re-texturing models, nor do they have to tackle the massive pile of antiquated boats all at once - just pick one or two dated ships a month, move a few consoles around, check the boffs, add or exchange a mechanic or two, and call it good.

    Cryptic can't remove any existing feature from old ships because players will scream "fraud", "I paid good money for 5 engineering consoles", "My build counts on 3 tac seats and just ensign eng and sci", "rabble rabble rabble"

    About all that cryptic could do is change seats to universal, add or increase a specialization level (e.g. Lt C => Commander), add a console slot, etc. anything removed or changed will fire up the lynch mob.

    Power creeping would be OK, rebalancing ships where someone loses something would not.

    That said, I agree in general that power creeping some old ships wouldn't be a bad thing. Make a seat universal to fix excessively tac heavy seating, add a hangar or extra pet buffs to true carriers so they have a reason to exist, ...?

    All that arguing after this post is kind of silly IMO. I don't see a better way to tackle this either. No one want to log in just to get nannied about a ship/build they where happy with for years.

    Exactly. 'Meta' arguments have zero influence on my playstyle. I fly whatever takes my fancy.
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • alcyoneserenealcyoneserene Member Posts: 2,230 Arc User
    The game's off balance and has been, probably since delta rising expansion and maybe before that too. But it's a complicated task to even know what to suggest.

    I am sure the game at inception established some sort of balance point between the very basics: movement, hitpoints, damage, healing, condition objectives (and whatever other basic gameplay mechanisms I'm probably missing).

    Those basics have to be in proportion to each other, while partially accounting for some range of variation along certain dimensions: number of allies/enemies, total potential of allies/enemies, condition objective requirements (again, I'm probably missing some here too).

    Those need to be properly addressed, at least with some smart mechanism that dynamically adjusts difficulty based on performance (NOT just DPS, but every single total potential, including individual player skill, level difficulty, etc.), alongside a sweeping balance change - not nerfs just to sweep away to power sell back later, but bringing all abilities in line with each other, along all basic axes.

    A final problem that I find universal for online games is the great variance in player skill and in-game progression, along with the ability/inability to work as a team, or even find others to team with depending on what they're doing.

    I don't have answers to these hard problems, hence why I stick with PVP games I enjoy, since those either provide some measure of balance or fail altogether, and they solve a lot of the Pv'X' complexity and failures by bypassing most of it altogether: no real difficulty sliders, no real searching for players/enemies/missions, no real hard-coded repetition as every encounter/gameplay event is always unique. Even the meta is self-correcting, since everyone catches on whatever's OP, and everyone does it to the point it becomes stale, so game devs rebalance things out to provide enough variety to keep things interesting, challenging, and fun.
    Y945Yzx.jpg
    · ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
    «» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
    ﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
  • nikephorusnikephorus Member Posts: 2,730 Arc User
    edited February 24
    mattingly1 wrote: »
    There's a kind of desperation in your post patterns that's really... telling. I've noticed that, when compared to the reddit, there are an inordinate number of people present on these forums that are attempting to "win" threads, and you're probably the chief culprit. You need to learn to stop trying to dominate people, and start actually communicating.
    I don't care about dominating people. I just dislike when people lie about things I said.

    Its also hard to communicate with someone like GrandNagus, who has shown no desire for real communication, and instead just wants to claim everything is some grand conspiracy to get people to pay for things.

    Yeah, you're definitely confused. Just so we're clear, here are a couple of your previous statements that are problems:

    STO is a game so easy that even a T5 ship, with MK12 gear, is able to smoke pretty much all of the content with ease.

    So, there are at least 2 opinions in that statement:

    1: STO is an "easy" game.

    2: T5 ships with Mk12 gear can "smoke pretty much all of the content with ease".

    To be clear, there is nothing wrong with either of the above opinions. They are completely valid. The problem comes next, after I told you that the above comments were just an opinion:

    You can do it, that is fact.

    See, now you are claiming that your valid opinions (that STO is "easy" and that X ships with X gear can "smoke content with ease) are actually FACTS, not opinions.

    Here is the thing: @darkbladejk recently made a very big point that people CANNOT present their opinions as if they are facts. So as long as you are willing to acknowledge that what you are posting is JUST your opinion and means NO more than anyone else's, then great. But what you can't do (per dark) is call your opinions "facts" and act like your opinion can actually prove someone else's opinion wrong.

    You can absolutely disagree with the OP that old ships need updating. But you will never, ever, be able to prove his opinion wrong using your opinion.

    Not really sure why you or anyone else here even bothers responding to this guy anymore.
    Tza0PEl.png
  • darkbladejkdarkbladejk Member Posts: 2,814 Community Moderator
    since it seems most of you agree this has gone off course. /closed
    "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
This discussion has been closed.