Armonddd Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 TBH you don't have to read it as an insult, he might actually be asking a real question. I never said it was insulting (nor would I care if it was), I just said it was ad hominem. When his argument starts with logical fallacies, I'm not exactly hopeful for the rest of it. Lol, you two even use the same demeaning term for his fairly reasoned post. Welcome to the internet, where textwalls have existed for literally decades. It's not an uncommon term, and it's certainly not demeaning (not by denotation, anyway; it might be by connotation, but I'm sure as hell not going to tell people what connotations they should associate with words, especially on the internet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeLM Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) I never said it was insulting (nor would I care if it was), I just said it was ad hominem. When his argument starts with logical fallacies, I'm not exactly hopeful for the rest of it. I dunno, sounds like a convenient excuse to not address his very valid points when you seize on a throwaway line and ignore the rest. Welcome to the internet, where textwalls have existed for literally decades. It's not an uncommon term, and it's certainly not demeaning (not by denotation, anyway; it might be by connotation, but I'm sure as hell not going to tell people what connotations they should associate with words, especially on the internet). It's maybe a two minute read, "wall of text" is thrown around a bit overmuch. Edited March 15, 2014 by FridgeLM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 I dunno, sounds like a convenient excuse to not address his very valid points when you seize on a throwaway line and ignore the rest. Fallacious fallacies are fallacious. I don't need to waste my time on them; it's not like they're particularly hard to find if I feel like it. It's maybe a two minute read, "wall of text" is thrown around a bit overmuch. It's like half a dozen paragraphs by someone whose opinion I don't particularly respect anyway. I'd need an excuse to read it even if it didn't start with ad hominem. Though you're right, it's significantly less textwall-y than a number of others I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeLM Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Fallacious fallacies are fallacious. I don't need to waste my time on them; it's not like they're particularly hard to find if I feel like it. Could've read it by now. You probably have - his points are pretty hard to argue against, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom_VI Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 I just put him on ignore, and having done that, promptly realized that this thread still had a lot of meaningful discussion left in between all the "this person is on your ignore list" lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Could've read it by now. You probably have - his points are pretty hard to argue against, imo. lol, goading crin, you might just ave a point there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeLM Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 "You're pointing out another guy who is saying things that undermine my stance and I don't want to have the debate, so I'm ignoring you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Streven- Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 I've personally seen lots of TDM this last week or two that wasn't all about bombers and gunships. I've had lots of great dogfights and good matches. I'm also seeing quite a number of strike pilots. I do agree that 3 to 4 gunships all covering each other with bomber support is a tough nut to crack and downright obnoxious if you have a weak group yourself. I also agree that ion rail needs a nerf. Think that's darn near universally agreed on now. I do not however think the game is broken and the whole meta is towards all bombers and gunships. I don't have hard data to go on, only personal experience playing a few times a week on Harbinger. Maybe we have better role balance in general, I don't know. I REALLY don't get the people who think taking a strike means you're nerfing yourself. We need to fly together because either you or I are in desperate need of an education. When flying my strike I hardly ever lose 1v1s to scouts. The ones that do get me are usually carrying rocket pods and I just get lazy or too focused on other targets and just fail to react. My deaths and I'm sure most others posting here are pretty much all from gunships that get the drop on me or from being teamed up on. My pike is a certified gunship annihilator. A lot of the posters who disregard strikes as inferior I think tend to be scout pilots that like fighting in at real close range and don't understand the range advantage of strikes. With the upcoming barrell roll nerf, strikes will get even better since they have all the good missiles. Also these barrel rolling gunships are going to get much easier to kill. One last thought. If you're a scout having trouble with bombers consider sabo probes. Some of my best rounds are on my emp scout with sabos and rapid fire lasers. A build with supposedly inferior components yet I can top the scoreboard with it. It's not a dogfighter but is excellent at trapping gunships and bombers. I run it with max speed and shield to engine converter for practically unlimited boost. So much fun to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts