Liq Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Vernon Merrill said: Liquicity, do you think craftable mods would help this mindset? I too wonder what it would take to change people's mind-set about risking ships... Its maddening. I doubt it.. players had millions worth of both assets and ships before wipe and even then didn't bother to fight in anything even-ish I just hope we can get rid off that when moving to NA Legends.. Personally I didn't play Sea Trials but Ive heard stories of players running even there, where you didn't loose anything..
Prater Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Liquicity said: I doubt it.. players had millions worth of both assets and ships before wipe and even then didn't bother to fight in anything even-ish I just hope we can get rid off that when moving to NA Legends.. Personally I didn't play Sea Trials but Ive heard stories of players running even there, where you didn't loose anything.. Yep, that was very annoying. Expect it to happen. You will have one enemy left and they will be way upwind to where you can't get to them and they are running away, dragging the match to the full length instead of ending in a timely manner. So they added the zone, the circle, but because the wind rotated they could always stay upwind. Edited July 31, 2017 by Prater
BK-KnightRider Posted July 31, 2017 Author Posted July 31, 2017 8 hours ago, Bearwall said: I apologize for making my "rational" reply as comments in your post but it was the easiest way for me to do so. I would request that you took a moment to consider wether you want a more convenient game for you or a realistic game for all? The balance between fun/convenience and realism is a fine one in any game simulating a historical timeframe but in this game the balance between the timesink, the realism and the fun (for all - not just you) is delicate indeed. I've been jumped in my traders right outside Christiansted, I've been killed in my frigate in homewaters and I've been ganked by 12 brits and sunk while my head was symbolically carried through the british possesions in the carribean. This is all part of the game and I will not blame others for taking their pound of fun out of my flesh.. On the contrary - I'll celebrate them for doing so.. Just as long as they accept the same the other way around. Except your reply is not completely rational because of all the logical fallacies and erroneous claims you keep using. Here's why: "The amount of AI is relevant in so far the players are able to "hide" alongside the AI and thereby be protected by the magically present AI bots. Totally realistic because in the age of sails there were just SO many battlefleets sailing around with nothing better to do than protect some lone trader." WOW You never heard of the Coast Guard? You never heard of navy ships patrolling territorial waters? The AI ships only SIMULATE something that really happened throughout history and which continues today. There is nothing "magical" about it. Plus, it isn't as if the AI ships are great at the job they are simulating. Nice try with that exaggeration. You disingenuously act as if AI ships are so plentiful and capable that players can "hide" behind them all the time and thus sale around in almost complete safety. Also, nice try with the line drawing fallacy at the end to create another false dilemma. Realism in a game, especially a game that largely a simulation, is a CONTINUUM - as in realism is NOT a false binary choice of unrealistic vs. 100% realism. The way you people keep trying to fabricate this lame false dilemma is amusing. "The idea that battles should be opened for magically 30 mins or 1 hour is i.e. asking for safer homewaters. The discussion has been had on numerous occasions and while I believe it is important to be able to get help we also need to be aware that all battles function in the timecompression 1-8 and OW timecompression is 20-1 with a magical boost to OW ship speeds. In most cases the battles would be over when a player hears a cry for help in the magic of the chat window (that didn't exist in the 18th century) and get to the battlespot. As the system is now there's actually the ability for the homefleet to camp a battlesite and then hunt the raiders - again not something that was possible in the 18th century. The current timers are a compromise between the need for an ability to call for help and the dynamic that brings and the need for some realism and possibility for raiding PvP. The old system with Battlescreens were thankfully foregone as they were merely used by raiders as magical cloaking devices so now the raiders has to escape and the homefleet actually has to organize a response." ROFL I bet you don't have a clue how much your comment contradicts itself. Battles not closing until after some time frame that you magically (conveniently?) consider too long is NOT magical. Battles closing PERIOD and ships becoming invisible is magical. ROFL Yes, I am suggesting SAFER home waters, but NOT safe home waters. Apparently you have trouble comprehending the distinction. Yes, the current timers are a compromise - AND making some timers longer than others depending upon where they are is ALSO a reasonable compromise. "I play DK/NG on PvP EU and it is in fact one of the smaller nations. It has by no means a safe homewater environment and that is as it should be. Coordination, communication, convoying and grouping up together keeps the traders safe(r) and makes life (a bit) more difficult for raiders. Does this mean that Christiansted is the safest harbor in the carribean? - I can't say. I do however have a very clear impression that raiding in CS waters are a lot more dangerous than say Kingston/Port Royal. The homefleet is better coordinated, more organized, better equipped and usually diligent enough to go hunt for raiders." In other words, all you have is basically, 'Because I say so.' Also, you conveniently ignore the fact that some nations have so few players players that the kind of coordination you describe is impossible. Then of course there is the issue of time zones. So, according to your standard players who can only play at times when they cannot get much if any support are just SOL. "First off - there were no such thing as national waters and international waters. Secondly waters closer to the shores of a nation were safer because patrols regularly patrolled the waters - what I'm arguing is that this responsibility is the players - not some magical AI that goes hunting for those evil players that actually want to do PvP. If you want a safe home environment? - go make it safe." Nice try with the unnecessary literalism to fabricate a lame straw man. Yes, in the LEGAL sense there were no "territorial" waters during this time frame. This legal concept did not formally exist until the middle of the 20th Century when the UN formalized it. However, the fact/truth/reality is that throughout history nations were much more protective of some waters than they were others. The fact/truth/reality is that throughout history nation states have functionally treated some waters as national territorial waters and others as international, especially during peace time. The only thing the UN did was legally formalize what had already been common practice for centuries. "A nations ability to create a safezone for the traders is directly based on that nations ability to motivate its playerbase to make that area safe. If you are levelling up - do as everyone else does. Go to a remote area and do your missions and don't blame someone else for seeking PvP wherever the largest amount of players gather. ALL capitals are trader hotspots in this game and in ANY war it has been a strategic objective to harm, impede or prevent enemy shipping from transporting goods, materials and ressources. So basically - if you want to be left alone go to a place with a scarcity of population. No one in their right minds go hunting in the gulf of mexico - why? No ones there. No one in their right mind goes hunting along the american seaboard on PvP EU.. Why? - No ones there. " Once again you conveniently and disingenuously ignore the issues of the size of nations (i.e. the number of players) and time zones. I have not been able to level up any further for about a year. Once again your comment is humorously self-contradictory because of the way you readily admit that some areas are safer than others. Why put ALL of the inconvenience on the players who are leveling up by making THEM have to sail possibly long distances to find another area to level up? Why can't the players who are seeking PvP be the ones who sail someplace else to seek out PvP? Are players who seek out PvP too stupid to figure out that the farther they search from a nation's capital the more likely they are to find other players who are also seeking out PvP? Are they too stupid to figure out that if they search in international waters just outside of territorial waters, particularly in likely trade routes and just outside of a nation's capital territorial waters, that they are much more likely find other players amenable to if not desirous of PvP? Are players who want if not crave PvP really too stupid to figure how and where to find each other? Again and quite frankly, you come across as a bully who desperately wants to preserve seal clubbing. Yep, resource denial by raiding trade has always been a legitimate and necessary strategic object during war. NOBODY is suggesting the developers put a stop to it. So, nice try with that disingenuous exaggeration to fabricate yet another straw man. The suggestion is to make SOME areas safer than they are - but NOT safe - and so far you have not produced a sound or cogent counterargument. There you go again with another lame stereotype. My playing style and playing preferences are totally IRRELVANT to my suggestion. I have not even mentioned my personal preferences. So, that is a nice bit of projecting there. My suggesting is solely about making some parts/areas of the game more convenient for a greater variety of playing styles instead appealing to only two or three niche styles. My suggestion is solely about making the game more realistic and FUN for everyone AND for as many players as possible. As in MORE players not fewer players. Finally, "Blame" in the context that you present is a lame red herring that has NOTHING to do with my suggestion.
BK-KnightRider Posted July 31, 2017 Author Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Prater said: Actually, I would say you are the one who doesn't understand that this takes place in the 18th and 19th centuries and not 1914 or 1940. There is no radio. There is no radar. There is no help unless someone happens upon you. Heck you can get very close to a ship without knowing its true nationality. The world moves very slowly. Hence the part about cutting out actions. Ships were cut out from ports, precisely because of the "fog of war," even around "territorial waters," that you want absolutely gone when around "territorial waters." This is also one small area of the world. Ships can sail all around it and if need be put in for supplies at the different ports. One ship can cause havoc among hundreds of enemies and in enemy territorial waters. Tell me, when you see a half dozen of sails on the horizon, who is your enemy? You can only go after one so who do you go for? And you can't click on them and see their name or nationality. P.s. It is spelled Caribbean, not Carribean, so stop with the grammar nazi crap. You need to calm down. And your claim at strawman is just an attempt to ignore my points. Well done. There are several rational responses here but you continue with the irrational dismissals and the online equivalent of yelling. Bearwall has a perfect answer. I understand perfectly well the time frame of the GAME. I also understand the GAME is not supposed to be a 100% accurate simulation. More importantly, I also understand that a GAME can and should be fun for as many players as possible with an interest in type of game by appealing to a variety of interests and playing styles. Or, a game can be fun for as few players as possible by appealing to as few niche styles as possible. Considering the nature of the game now and the recent trends they should change the name of the game from "Naval Action" to "Pirate Action" and just get rid of all national concerns and all national territories. This should make the players who care mostly if not only about PvP ecstatic. Everyone else can play something else. "Grammar nazi [sic] crap"? What grammar Nazi crap? Excuse the hell out of me for having the integrity to properly quote someone by following the rules for how to quote someone else. I know the correct spelling of Caribbean, ergo using [sic] to indicate that I am correctly quoting someone else who misspells a word. Oh, btw, spelling and grammar are not the same thing. "Calm down"? ROFL If I were any less calm I would be asleep. EXACTLY what language am I using to indicate that I am not calm? Nice try with that dumb stereotype and ad hominem attack to fabricate a lame genetic fallacy. Me thinks thou doth project too much. Clearly you don't understand what a straw man is nor what the purpose of a straw man. I am not trying to "ignore" any point. By correctly labeling a straw man as a straw man I am explaining why/how a point is weak at best and thus that/how the reasoning behind the point is weak at best. Responses that depend upon logical fallacies and empty "because I say so" claims/opinions as much as your responses use logical fallacies are hardly rational. Indeed, they verge on being the opposite of irrational because they are weak/poor at best. The entire purpose of using logical fallacies as often as you use them is for YOU to avoid a logical and objective consideration of some else's ideas. The entire purpose of using the logical fallacies you use is for you to rationalize exactly what you already believe. Online equivalent of yelling? Really? I am not responsible for how others choose to unreasonably interpret my comments. If they don't understand the important role nonverbal cues play in communication now how to provide substitutes for those cue when writing that is their problem, not mine. Edited July 31, 2017 by BK-KnightRider
HarryButpain Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) I, as well, suggested here: that capital region could use longer 'join timers' for the owners' of the capital region. I was thinking about increased timers in other regions, too, but to be honest, I really do not think that that would help pvp in any way.. Imagine you actually go the extra mile and sail for hours somewhere farther away from the enemy capital only to get surprised by a hoard of defenders thanks to increased join timers.. Like, where is combat allowed to happen? xD When we assume that more players are at the capital, then we can also assume that longer join timers will I) help noobs and II) lead to bigger battles, which is great as far as I am concerned. Edited July 31, 2017 by HarryButpain
BK-KnightRider Posted July 31, 2017 Author Posted July 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Liquicity said: Your suggestion of making battles open for half an hour or even longer will eventually kill off any pvp, as pvp can only be found in enemy waters - Don't kid yourself by saying you should sail in the middle of no nations waters and expect to find anything. There is no reason to be there for noone. But hey maybe that's just me - I'm waiting for Arena at this point anyway. Average player mindset of only engaging when 2-3x the numbers is really getting on my nerves. "Oh hey a surprise! I'm also in a surprise! I could engage him now and have a nice duel! Oooor cry for help in nation chat and wait til I've got a few frigate's backup!" Gameplay at the moment: So the real issue to negotiate over is how much longer to make territorial timers, not IF they should be longer. Got it. Okay then, how about 15 min. and 8 min.?
Prater Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) @BK-KnightRider Dude, ever since you came to pvp you have only complained about the pvp "bullies." Taking that into consideration, maybe you should go back to pve. Naval Action is full loot and full pvp, except in small areas directly in front of capitals, the "territorial waters" that you mention, where other nations can't even attack and battles stay open for 90 minutes. Why should the game be changed because a pve player came from the pve server and doesn't realize how dangerous the world is, finds out how dangerous it is, and wants it changed to fit their narrow vision for the game? This isn't Star Trek Online, which I play and enjoy and is a safe environment. This era was a dangerous era on the seas. Naval Action has a nice balance of gameplay, realism, modern technologies (nation chat, combat noticeboard, teamspeak, outside navigation and crafting tools). What you want is for this or this to be impossible. This happened in French "Territorial Waters" (Martinique). There is no such thing at this point in time, except directly in the port or harbor themselves, and even then you could get up close in certain circumstances. 14 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said: So the real issue to negotiate over is how much longer to make territorial timers, not IF they should be longer. Got it. Okay then, how about 15 min. and 8 min.? That isn't what he is saying, and no, that isn't what is going to happen. We've already been here and tested this stuff. We aren't going back just because you weren't around. edit: Cadiz, Spanish military headquarters, Spanish "territorial waters." Trafalgar took place not far away, Cadiz being the main location at the time for the French and Spanish navy. Edited July 31, 2017 by Prater 2
BK-KnightRider Posted July 31, 2017 Author Posted July 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Prater said: @BK-KnightRider Dude, ever since you came to pvp you have only complained about the pvp "bullies." Taking that into consideration, maybe you should go back to pve. Naval Action is full loot and full pvp, except in small areas directly in front of capitals, the "territorial waters" that you mention, where other nations can't even attack and battles stay open for 90 minutes. Why should the game be changed because a pve player came from the pve server and doesn't realize how dangerous the world is, finds out how dangerous it is, and wants it changed to fit their narrow vision for the game? This isn't Star Trek Online, which I play and enjoy and is a safe environment. This era was a dangerous era on the seas. Naval Action has a nice balance of gameplay, realism, modern technologies (nation chat, combat noticeboard, teamspeak, outside navigation and crafting tools). What you want is for this or this to be impossible. This happened in French "Territorial Waters" (Martinique). There is no such thing at this point in time, except directly in the port or harbor themselves, and even then you could get up close in certain circumstances. That isn't what he is saying, and no, that isn't what is going to happen. We've already been here and tested this stuff. We aren't going back just because you weren't around. In other words, resorting to the yet another dumb stereotype and a childish ad hominem attack so you can fabricate yet another dumb genetic fallacy is the best you can manage. FACT: I am not complaining about anything. That is YOUR highly subjective and self-serving perception. Me thinks thou doth project too much. ROFL I stopped playing on the PvE server after about a week - that was more than 18 months ago. But if believing the stereotype you so desperately resort to provides you with some comfort then more power to you. Your dishonest distortion of my position into wanting "this or this to be impossible" is patently FALSE and yet another dishonest false dilemma and straw man. All this false claim does is show that you have little if any integrity and thus no credibility. Yes, I know that is not what he is literally saying. Because I understand the concepts of implicit meaning and context I also understand that is what his statement means because that is what his statement implies. Whether he intends to imply that is irrelevant.
Prater Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) Oh really, so you haven't said "pvp bullies" (several times no less)? Again, you don't actually address what is said but outright dismiss them because you claim I am not debating in the proper style. I don't care about your proper style. Either address what I say or admit you can't and be done with your nonsense. Address the gameplay debate and don't get stuck on semantics, otherwise admit you are at a loss of how to respond. Edited July 31, 2017 by Prater 2
Vernon Merrill Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said: In other words, resorting to the yet another dumb stereotype and a childish ad hominem attack so you can fabricate yet another dumb genetic fallacy is the best you can manage. FACT: I am not complaining about anything. That is YOUR highly subjective and self-serving perception. Me thinks thou doth project too much. ROFL I stopped playing on the PvE server after about a week - that was more than 18 months ago. But if believing the stereotype you so desperately resort to provides you with some comfort then more power to you. Your dishonest distortion of my position into wanting "this or this to be impossible" is patently FALSE and yet another dishonest false dilemma and straw man. All this false claim does is show that you have little if any integrity and thus no credibility. Yes, I know that is not what he is literally saying. Because I understand the concepts of implicit meaning and context I also understand that is what his statement means because that is what his statement implies. Whether he intends to imply that is irrelevant. In other words, you can't refute the arguments... you just throw around terms like "straw-men", "ad-hominem" and "doth project"... What you stubbornly fail to realize is that this has ALL BEEN TESTED BEFORE... AGAIN, what we have now is CLOSE to what most people feel is a fair compromise between gameplay and realism... THAT was my polite answer. The answer is WANTED to give was: Stop being a dick and assuming your're reasons are more valid than anyone else's for how the game mechanics should be implemented. We tried having "Safe Zones" and it was a cluster... EDIT: Damn, Prater beat me to it..... Edited July 31, 2017 by Vernon Merrill 3
Prater Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, BK-KnightRider said: "Grammar nazi [sic] crap"? What grammar Nazi crap? Excuse the hell out of me for having the integrity to properly quote someone by following the rules for how to quote someone else. I know the correct spelling of Caribbean, ergo using [sic] to indicate that I am correctly quoting someone else who misspells a word. Oh, btw, spelling and grammar are not the same thing. Lol...You are the one who misspelled Caribbean. You changed my quote, in my quote, even that which is quoted in your reply, it is spelled correctly, but when you yourself type out the quote it is misspelled and [sic] is added. You changed it to attempt to negate what I actually bring up because it is misspelled (which if it was, doesn't matter and doesn't need the sic, but it wasn't and you purposefully changed it). Again, actually discuss what is being discussed instead of inventing ways to dodge the actual discussion. Edited July 31, 2017 by Prater 1
Guest Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 1 hour ago, BK-KnightRider said: Once again you conveniently and disingenuously ignore the issues of the size of nations (i.e. the number of players) and time zones. I have not been able to level up any further for about a year. Once again your comment is humorously self-contradictory because of the way you readily admit that some areas are safer than others. Why put ALL of the inconvenience on the players who are leveling up by making THEM have to sail possibly long distances to find another area to level up? Why can't the players who are seeking PvP be the ones who sail someplace else to seek out PvP? Are players who seek out PvP too stupid to figure out that the farther they search from a nation's capital the more likely they are to find other players who are also seeking out PvP? Are they too stupid to figure out that if they search in international waters just outside of territorial waters, particularly in likely trade routes and just outside of a nation's capital territorial waters, that they are much more likely find other players amenable to if not desirous of PvP? Are players who want if not crave PvP really too stupid to figure how and where to find each other? Again and quite frankly, you come across as a bully who desperately wants to preserve seal clubbing. I ignore the size of nations because it is irrelevant. And this entire rant shows only that you have no clue as to how the PvP on the server is generated and are either too emotional to have a rational discussion about game mechanics or too invested in YOUR line of thought to make any coherent argument. The nature of the game is that the players who seek out PvP will congregate at the spots where most players gather. This has been amplified by the reintroduction of the shipyard in order to promote this very effect. To ask players who wants to go PvP'ing to sail long distances for the remote possibility that they might find something to sink is disregarding both the nature of warfare - especially the blockading of enemy ports, and the nature of MMOs. The PvP'ers go out - do PvP and then go home again. The PvE'ers go out - do PvE and then go straight into port to get more missions. It is not relevant for the PvE player where he does the PvE as he can get missions anywhere and therefore is not as limited to the areas he makes them in. If anyone is bothered by the sailing to a peacefull spot on the server to do missions in - then I regret to inform that this person is most likely playing the wrong game. This is a sailing game, and there is a lot of afk sailing to achieve objectives - it is not without a smudge of truth that one player once acclaimed this game to be the game where most people watch netflix while playing. And just to point out a paradox in your more or less incoherent rant - to exclaim the rhertorical question "Are players who want if not crave PvP really too stupid to figure how and where to find each other?" is really reducing the PvP players by an ad hominum argument - just in case you needed a lecture in what really constitutes an ad hominum argument. Another paradox is someone complaining about the approximation to realism in a sailing game set in the 18th century with combat at its core and wants to magically allow players to fly at warp speed to a battle spot (timecompression in OW 1-20 + OW speed buffs) and then enter a battle that should in reality have been done a long time before help magically warped in. What you want is a safezone for doing PvE missions - you may claim you want a safe(r) PvE zone but the effect would be to limit and more or less kill PvP near capitals and it would be based on an argument founded not in realism, nor in gamemechanics but on a desire to limit PvP on a PvP server. Yep, resource denial by raiding trade has always been a legitimate and necessary strategic object during war. NOBODY is suggesting the developers put a stop to it. So, nice try with that disingenuous exaggeration to fabricate yet another straw man. The suggestion is to make SOME areas safer than they are - but NOT safe - and so far you have not produced a sound or cogent counterargument. I think you're missing the point. If you are unable to come up with a coherent, reflected argument then this discussion is going to be reduced to a number of claims about "strawmen", "Disingenuity" and "Ad hominem" that is as far as I'm concerned flawed and besides the points offered to your suggestion. There you go again with another lame stereotype. My playing style and playing preferences are totally IRRELVANT to my suggestion. I have not even mentioned my personal preferences. So, that is a nice bit of projecting there. My suggesting is solely about making some parts/areas of the game more convenient for a greater variety of playing styles instead appealing to only two or three niche styles. My suggestion is solely about making the game more realistic and FUN for everyone AND for as many players as possible. As in MORE players not fewer players. Finally, "Blame" in the context that you present is a lame red herring that has NOTHING to do with my suggestion. If you're unable to discuss game mechanics and merely base your PoV on the situation you currently experience and want the game - and everyone in it - to adapt to your specific understanding of a functioning gamemechanic then I really see no reason to continue the discussion. I take the development of this game serious, most of what you complain about has been discussed endlessly before and probably will again. There has to be a balance between realism and gameplay. Realism would mean no AI fleets (all national efforts produced by and for the players - i.e. if you want safer homewaters - go out and make it so) and no invisibility, no battleswords to mark the spot, no chat to inform where and who attacked you, no teamspeak to cry for help in. Most of the tools to prevent homewaters from being infested by raiders are there. What is missing in most nations are coordination, and a will to remove the raiders. I make no excuses for killing players - and I don't consider it sealclubbing once they can crew a frigatte. Then I consider it a lesson in PvP and most of the times I offer advice as to how either get out of trouble or avoid it entirely - I've even given out some to you but wether you heed them or not is not my responsibility.
Sparkydog Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 There should in fact be concessions to defending 'territorial waters', even in the age of sail --enemy fleets were not invisible-and information travelled faster than the ships did- trading ships, fishing vessels etc. would all report the presence of enemy ships. There should be a timer advantage to defending home waters- if you attack within view of the capitol you should get ganked. And where are our guard boats? i would love to pester some blockaders with cheap 68 lb carros-- now that would be fun.
Vernon Merrill Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 Ahhh. The delicious irony of Swedes and Danes on The EU server complaining about ganks.... Warms my heart, I tell ya...
BK-KnightRider Posted August 1, 2017 Author Posted August 1, 2017 On 7/31/2017 at 1:20 PM, Vernon Merrill said: In other words, you can't refute the arguments... you just throw around terms like "straw-men", "ad-hominem" and "doth project"... What you stubbornly fail to realize is that this has ALL BEEN TESTED BEFORE... AGAIN, what we have now is CLOSE to what most people feel is a fair compromise between gameplay and realism... THAT was my polite answer. The answer is WANTED to give was: Stop being a dick and assuming your're reasons are more valid than anyone else's for how the game mechanics should be implemented. We tried having "Safe Zones" and it was a cluster... EDIT: Damn, Prater beat me to it..... WOW That is some amazing nonsense. In other words, when unable to produce a mature and intelligent comment that can pass for a sound or cogent counterargument you resort to the pathetic tactic of making a childish ad hominem attack. Calling someone stubborn and a dick to fabricate a lame genetic fallacy only shows that you have ZERO integrity and thus no credibility. Once again, me thinks thou doth project too much. (BTW, you do understand that I am paraphrasing Shakespeare, right?) The only dicks here are the people who keep resorting to the pathetic tactic of making childish ad hominem attacks. ROFL Except the FACT is that I am refuting the weak claims/arguments by using those terms you insist I am just throwing around. I am throwing them around because they help explain EXACTLY why/how the other arguments are weak. Clearly you understand NOTHING about using proper logic to engage in effective critical thinking, independent rational thought, or how to refute a weak claim or weak argument with a sound or cogent counterargument. One does not refute a poor argument merely by presenting an opposing empty opinion. Doing that refutes NOTHING. Such empty opinions are worthless. Arguments and counterargument that rely upon the plethora of logical fallacies you people keep using are effectively worthless. Weak/poor arguments that use fallacies are correct ONLY by accident. They are NEVER correct because of the underlying reasoning. Therefore, identifying WHY/HOW someone's argument is weak and thus NOT valid, sound, or cogent is a necessary part of refuting it. I am not simply throwing around terms haphazardly and whimsically merely because I feel like it. Excuse the hell out of my for having an using an excellent education. ROFLMAO Yeah, right, the game has tested EVERYTHING before so it is now impossible for anyone to come up with any new ideas or a variation on an old idea, which is therefore necessarily a new idea. [extreme sarcasm off] Also, nice try with the lame appeal to popularity fallacy (aka an appeal to the majority fallacy). You are smart enough to understand that most people can be wrong, correct? You do have the integrity to admit the fact/truth/reality that most people can be wrong, correct? ROFL There is nothing polite about insisting that someone is stubborn and is wrong because they are stubborn. That kind of poor circular reasoning is laughable. Learn to read better and to think better because I am NOT assuming a damn thing. I am rationally explaining exactly why/how the other reasons are NOT legitimate. They are not and cannot be legitimate because the underlying reasoning is weak/poor, and the underlying reasoning is weak/poor because that reasoning keeps using a variety of logical fallacies. Learn to read better and to think better and then develop a shred of integrity to stop with that dishonest distortion of my position. I am NOT suggesting "Safe Zones." Barfing up a patently FALSE comment like that only shows that you have zero integrity and thus no credibility. I am suggesting SAFER zones, not "Safe Zones." SAFER Zones =/= Safe Zones HOW is it so hard to understand this fact? HOW is it so difficult to admit the truth of this fact?
Vernon Merrill Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 TLDR; I can paraphrase Shakespeare. You are a cave man. Listen to what I have to say even though my arguments are old. Got it. 2
CaptVonGunn Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 On 7/31/2017 at 0:35 AM, BK-KnightRider said: LOL If you don't understand how crucial logistics are to naval operations in general and this game in particular then you understand nothing about long term strategy, logistics, nor this game. Just because this game simulates most of the logistical concerns in the background does not mean logistics don't matter. The idea of logistics goes WAY beyond the overly simplistic issue of the supplies/stores the ships carried at sea. Stop being so unreasonably literal; and nice try with that lame straw man. Yep, ships back then sailed around other countries territories. So friggin what? That does not mean territorial waters were not SAFER than international waters. The concept of territorial waters was just as valid and real back then as it is now. The only real difference was the scale of time and distance, and thus effectiveness. So, nice try with this lame straw man. WHERE/HOW exactly do I say anyting about "cutting out actions...in 'territorial waters'"? I don't say anything of the kind so nice try with that dishonest distortion to fabricate a lame straw man. Your claim that this is "one theatre, the Carribean [sic]," is patently false. Making false claims like that only shows that you have no credibility. Except that we are in the Caribbean in a game that has more 1st rates in some of these fleets sailing around then were EVER in a single battle in history Total. No country had an major numbers operating in this region during the time frame we have ships from.. Lets face it base don ships in game the yer is Really at least 1818.... His comment about cutting out actions in Territorial waters was to point out that it was done more often then people realize and it shows that those waters were Not as safe as people like to believe.. Hell look at the Dutch Raid and Cutting out in the 1600s when they stole the Royal Charles from the British and burned 4 or 5 more warships 1
BK-KnightRider Posted August 1, 2017 Author Posted August 1, 2017 On 7/31/2017 at 1:11 PM, Prater said: Oh really, so you haven't said "pvp bullies" (several times no less)? Again, you don't actually address what is said but outright dismiss them because you claim I am not debating in the proper style. I don't care about your proper style. Either address what I say or admit you can't and be done with your nonsense. Address the gameplay debate and don't get stuck on semantics, otherwise admit you are at a loss of how to respond. Of course I have referred to "'pvp bullies'" as the bullies that they are, several times. I am bluntly honest and I call things as I see them. So friggin what if I call bullies the bullies that they are? How is this the least bit relevant. Except I AM addressing what is said by explaining how/why what is said is illegitimate if not worthless. I AM addressing the game play debate. What is said is illegitimate if not worthless because the underlying reasoning is poor, and so I identify exactly why/how the thinking is poor. STYLE is not the issue here. Proper logic (i.e. strong thinking instead of weak/poor thinking) is the issue. Ideas that use poor thinking are worthless for all practical purposes. Semantics is NOT the issue here - EXCEPT when you distort someone else's comment to misrepresent their meaning. Again, the issue is proper logic and thus strong high quality thinking. As long as you people keep using the plethora of fallacies your poor thinking depends upon your thinking will remain poor and thus your ideas/claims/arguments are not worth accepting. I AM directly addressing what you say and I am explaining exactly why what you say is worthless. If you cannot comprehend this fact/truth/reality then there is nothing more I can do to help. You inability or unwillingness to accept what I explain is your problem, not mine. I am at a loss for how to respond? Seriously? ROFL Clearly the evidence of my comments shows exactly the opposite.
BK-KnightRider Posted August 1, 2017 Author Posted August 1, 2017 On 7/31/2017 at 1:24 PM, Prater said: Lol...You are the one who misspelled Caribbean. You changed my quote, in my quote, even that which is quoted in your reply, it is spelled correctly, but when you yourself type out the quote it is misspelled and [sic] is added. You changed it to attempt to negate what I actually bring up because it is misspelled (which if it was, doesn't matter and doesn't need the sic, but it wasn't and you purposefully changed it). Again, actually discuss what is being discussed instead of inventing ways to dodge the actual discussion. LOL Good freaking grief. Talk about utter nonsense. I didn't intentionally change a damn thing so your magical powers of telepathy need calibration. Again, me thinks thou doth project too much. ROFL Your poor circular reasoning is laughable. Who misspelled what or had the typo is totally irrelevant because whether you did or did not misspell anything has NOTHING to with my point. FACT: For whatever reason I honestly thought/believed you misspelled a word and therefore I correctly indicated that in the quote. The fantasy you invent to rationalize a bogus motivation on my part is a delusion that exists only in your mind. That you dream up this imaginary motivation for me says WAY more about you than it says about me. WOW Again, me thinks thou doth project too much. I AM actually discussing what is being discussed. I am not dodging anything. YOU are the one dodging because YOU are the one who keeps using dumb fallacies at the core of poor thinking. YOU are the one who keeps resorting to the pathetic tactic of making childish ad hominem attacks. YOU are the one dodging by shamefully making a FALSE claim about me intentionally changing something. If you cannot comprehend that/how I am directly discussing the issues and how I am explaining the flaws in your comments then you are beyond any help I can provide. Making FALSE claims about me only shows that you have no integrity and thus no credibility.
Prater Posted August 1, 2017 Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, BK-KnightRider said: LOL Good freaking grief. Talk about utter nonsense. I didn't intentionally change a damn thing so your magical powers of telepathy need calibration. Again, me thinks thou doth project too much. ROFL Your poor circular reasoning is laughable. Who misspelled what or had the typo is totally irrelevant because whether you did or did not misspell anything has NOTHING to with my point. FACT: For whatever reason I honestly thought/believed you misspelled a word and therefore I correctly indicated that in the quote. The fantasy you invent to rationalize a bogus motivation on my part is a delusion that exists only in your mind. That you dream up this imaginary motivation for me says WAY more about you than it says about me. WOW Again, me thinks thou doth project too much. I AM actually discussing what is being discussed. I am not dodging anything. YOU are the one dodging because YOU are the one who keeps using dumb fallacies at the core of poor thinking. YOU are the one who keeps resorting to the pathetic tactic of making childish ad hominem attacks. YOU are the one dodging by shamefully making a FALSE claim about me intentionally changing something. If you cannot comprehend that/how I am directly discussing the issues and how I am explaining the flaws in your comments then you are beyond any help I can provide. Making FALSE claims about me only shows that you have no integrity and thus no credibility. You are ridiculous. Everyone is against you and pointing out how idiotic your debating style is (your style of ignoring the topic at hand) and how you are not discussing the topic but jumping at everything else, purposefully dodging the responses. You sir are the one without credibility. You sir are the one who is attacking style and semantics while ignoring the meat of every response. You sir are the one who is attacking people and brushing off their points. You call pvpers bullies. You admit this. This proves you do not have the right temperament for online competitive interaction and you should probably go back to pve. Your suggestions aren't going to be done anyway and no one is going to take you seriously. Edited August 1, 2017 by Prater 1
BK-KnightRider Posted August 3, 2017 Author Posted August 3, 2017 On 8/1/2017 at 5:59 PM, Prater said: You are ridiculous. Everyone is against you and pointing out how idiotic your debating style is (your style of ignoring the topic at hand) and how you are not discussing the topic but jumping at everything else, purposefully dodging the responses. You sir are the one without credibility. You sir are the one who is attacking style and semantics while ignoring the meat of every response. You sir are the one who is attacking people and brushing off their points. You call pvpers bullies. You admit this. This proves you do not have the right temperament for online competitive interaction and you should probably go back to pve. Your suggestions aren't going to be done anyway and no one is going to take you seriously. The only ridiculous person here is the one who keeps resorting to the pathetic tactic of making childish ad hominem attacks. The only ridiculous person here is the person who keeps posting patently FALSE nonsense (aka lying). ROFL Whether everyone is against me or not is totally irrelevant. "Everyone" can be wrong, so nice try with that lame appeal to the majority fallacy. Learn to read better and to think better because I am not ignoring or dodging a thing. I am explaining EXACTLY why/how responses are worthless (aka wrong). The fact that you cannot comprehend this fact/truth/reality is your problem, not mine. YOU are the one who is not discussing the topic because you keep resorting to the pathetic tactic of making ad hominem attacks. YOU are the one who is not discussing the topic because you keep dishonestly distorting my position to fabricate lame straw men and red herrings. ROFL I am not attacking style. Style is totally irrelevant. I am attacking poor thinking and explaining exactly how/why the thinking is poor. Conclusions and claims that result from poor thinking are not worth accepting. Explaining how/why thinking is poor has NOTHING to do with semantics - except when a semantic game is part of the poor thinking. Explaining how/why your responses are dishonestly distorting my position to fabricate dishonest straw men and red herrings is not an semantic game. Doing that explains how YOU are playing dishonest semantic games by misrepresenting my comments and my position. So, again, learn to think better and learn to read better and develop a shred of integrity. In other words, poor and irrational responses have NO meat. Learn to read better and to think better so you can understand the difference between attacking a COMMENT verses attacking a person. Of course I am brushing off irrational points that depend upon poor thinking, dishonest misrepresentations, and a plethora of logical fallacies. These kinds of points deserve brushing off, which is exactly why I explain why I am brushing them off. I have NEVER said PvPers are bullies. I have NEVER said that because that is NOT what I think/believe. Lying about my comments like this only shows that you have ZERO integrity and thus no credibility. Lying about my comments like this only shows that you see only what you wish to see. My guess is that I struck a nerve so you are taking this personally. ROFLMAO And of course at the end you again resort to the pathetic tactic of making yet another childish ad hominem attack. Clearly you are the one lacking in temperament. If my interest was in PvE then I would not have left the PvE server more than 18 months ago. I have ZERO problem with PvP. I have been playing tactical and strategic war games my whole life. I LOVE PvP. I also loathe and despise bullies. Bullies are among the lowest of the low-lifes. Nice try fabricating that dumb false dilemma.
Prater Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 (edited) On 8/1/2017 at 4:36 PM, BK-KnightRider said: Of course I have referred to "'pvp bullies'" as the bullies that they are, several times. On 7/20/2017 at 5:29 AM, BK-KnightRider said: 2) Players who care only about PvP because they love bullying weaker players and smaller nations. On 7/20/2017 at 5:29 AM, BK-KnightRider said: the developers keep reacting to and placating only the selfish bullies who care solely about bullying and dominating other players in PvP - by ANY means possible If the developers have only reacted to and placated selfish bullies, then all pvpers are bullies, especially solo pvpers, because this is who the developers have listened to. Dominating other players by any means possible in pvp is bullying. This is basically what you have said. The fact of the matter is you have yet to actually respond to someone's post without going off on tangents. Plenty of people have responded with rational and well thought out and researched answers and you only go off on side attacks instead of actually discussing what they are discussing. This is why you won't be taken seriously because no one can have a discussion with you. You don't respond to the meat of someone's points, you call every point you don't agree with irrational and brush it off. They have no meat you say. Well plenty of people have brought forth good stuff, but it isn't what you like so it isn't meat. Yep... That, and to discuss with you, one has to have the debate book memorized, otherwise, again, you go off on tangents. This isn't debate club here. No one cares about your rules or snide remarks. Edited August 3, 2017 by Prater 1
Skully Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 I'll toss in my explanation of OW time dilution again.
BK-KnightRider Posted August 3, 2017 Author Posted August 3, 2017 14 minutes ago, Prater said: If the developers have only reacted to and placated selfish bullies, then all pvpers are bullies, especially solo pvpers, because this is who the developers have listened to. Dominating other players by any means possible in pvp is bullying. This is basically what you have said. The fact of the matter is you have yet to actually respond to someone's post without going off on tangents. Plenty of people have responded with rational and well thought out and researched answers and you only go off on side attacks instead of actually discussing what they are discussing. This is why you won't be taken seriously because no one can have a discussion with you. You don't respond to the meat of someone's points, you call every point you don't agree with irrational and brush it off. They have no meat you say. Well plenty of people have brought forth good stuff, but it isn't what you like so it isn't meat. Yep... That, and to discuss with you, one has to have the debate book memorized, otherwise, again, you go off on tangents. This isn't debate club here. No one cares about your rules or snide remarks. Good freaking grief. Learn to read better and learn to think better. Those quotes do NOT mean what you imagine: "'pvp bullies'" does NOT mean that all PvPers are bullies. In this context PvP functions as an adjective not a noun. In other words, "PvP bullies" refers ONLY to the subset of PvPers who are bullies. Learn something about CONTEXT after you learn to read better and to think better. Ditto for quote #2. And ditto for quote #3. Clearly you see only what you wish to see. Are you really not smart to understand that "by any means possible" includes cheating? Players who need to cheat so they can dominate other players are low life bullies. The way you keep trying to dishonestly distort my comments into referring to all PvPers in general is laughably pathetic. ROFL Explaining exactly why/how someone's thinking is poor is NOT a tangent. That explains why their response deserves rejection. The fact of the matter is your thinking is consistently poor because your thinking constantly uses a variety of logical fallacies. Therefore, the resulting responses deserve nothing but rejection. Clearly you don't understand what qualifies as a rational and well thought out comment/argument. Clearly your standard for what qualifies as rational and well thought out is only whether or not you agree with it. Comments/arguments that use the fallacies you keep using are NOT rational. They are the opposite of well thought out because they are poorly thought out, pretty much by definition. Thinking that relies upon logical fallacies is poor thinking and irrational. Also, comments that dishonestly misrepresent my position and my comments are not rational nor well thought out. Agreement and disagreement are totally irrelevant to me. The only thing that matters to me are facts, truths, and RATIONAL/LOGICAL thinking. The fact of the matter is your thinking is obviously illogical for the reasons I explain. This is why nobody who is capable of engaging in independent rational thought can or will take your comments seriously. The only people who will take you seriously are the people who already agree with you. Plus, the way you keep distorting comments to fabricate straw men and red herrings shows that you have no integrity and no credibility. I have no reason to take someone seriously when they don't have any integrity or credibility.
Prater Posted August 3, 2017 Posted August 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said: Are you really not smart to understand that "by any means possible" includes cheating? Players who need to cheat so they can dominate other players are low life bullies. The way you keep trying to dishonestly distort my comments into referring to all PvPers in general is laughably pathetic. Point to one instance of cheating in Naval Action. There are a few exploits, but those are bugs in code or development issues, and they are quickly fixed. 7 minutes ago, BK-KnightRider said: Agreement and disagreement are totally irrelevant to me. The only thing that matters to me are facts, truths, and RATIONAL/LOGICAL thinking. The fact of the matter is your thinking is obviously illogical for the reasons I explain. This is why nobody who is capable of engaging in independent rational thought can or will take your comments seriously. The only people who will take you seriously are the people who already agree with you. Plus, the way you keep distorting comments to fabricate straw men and red herrings shows that you have no integrity and no credibility. I have no reason to take someone seriously when they don't have any integrity or credibility. Lol...Look at the rating of the post. Look at the rating of your profile. Look at how people are responding to you, and realize, the problem is you. You respond the same way to everyone here. 1
Recommended Posts