Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CanaldoVoid]

Instead post your own lashers somehow beating tesseracts and remnants, like actual enemies you'd find in the game instead of a fake scenario that is not part of the game.

He didnt make the initial statement. You want change based on what you experienced. There has not yet been a single soul that shares your point of view. He is giving you a chance to demonstrate and proove your point. In a setting where you can set the rules. If you dont take that chance your whole argument stands on your experiences alone, which, like i already said, nobody shares and is therefore irrelevant.

Argumentum ad populum.

I don't need a chance of anything, I just need to be right, the lack of arguments is showing.
And as I said, he has not posted any videos of his lashers beating remnants or tesseracts with small weapons yet.

[Yunru]

Attacking others does not constitute defending your point, neither does speaking of unprovable experiences.

When asked if you would be willing to provide proof of your point, you have evaded answering at every point.

Why, then, should we take your suggestion seriously, when you are clearly not confident in the merit of it yourself?

[CanaldoVoid]

Attacking others does not constitute defending your point, neither does speaking of unprovable experiences.

When asked if you would be willing to provide proof of your point, you have evaded answering at every point.

Why, then, should we take your suggestion seriously, when you are clearly not confident in the merit of it yourself?

I missed your argument(?)
Being right isn't reliant of your lack of arguments is it?

[Yunru]

Attacking others does not constitute defending your point, neither does speaking of unprovable experiences.

When asked if you would be willing to provide proof of your point, you have evaded answering at every point.

Why, then, should we take your suggestion seriously, when you are clearly not confident in the merit of it yourself?

I missed your argument(?)
Being right isn't reliant of your lack of arguments is it?

Being right is entirely indiscernible without proof, and you time and time again fail to provide any proof. Back up your point that they are familiar, compete.

Show that your loadout designs are superior to the commonly-held-as-superior ones. Side by side comparisons, where the only variable is the (ships and) loadout. One with your strongest designs, and one with your nay-sayer's strongest designs.

[Tartiflette]

But he says he's right too, if only there was a way to test both your arguments to once and for all know which one is actually true...

[Ira]

Instead post your own lashers somehow beating tesseracts and remnants, like actual enemies you'd find in the game instead of a fake scenario that is not part of the game.

He didnt make the initial statement. You want change based on what you experienced. There has not yet been a single soul that shares your point of view. He is giving you a chance to demonstrate and proove your point. In a setting where you can set the rules. If you dont take that chance your whole argument stands on your experiences alone, which, like i already said, nobody shares and is therefore irrelevant.

Argumentum ad populum.

I don't need a chance of anything, I just need to be right, the lack of arguments is showing.
And as I said, he has not posted any videos of his lashers beating remnants or tesseracts with small weapons yet.

Argumentum ad populum. Srsly? You provide no facts whatsoever ecept your own opinon and still have the audacity to lecture me about argumentative theorie. You have some balls I will give you that.

[Arcagnello]

But he says he's right too, if only there was a way to test both your arguments to once and for all know which one is actually true...

Indeed. Having a practical showcase of both concepts pitt d against the same obstacles to see which one is indeed correct and the other one not so much would save everyone a lot of writing. In short:

Balancedome!
Two opinions enter, one fact leaves!

[CanaldoVoid]

Attacking others does not constitute defending your point, neither does speaking of unprovable experiences.

When asked if you would be willing to provide proof of your point, you have evaded answering at every point.

Why, then, should we take your suggestion seriously, when you are clearly not confident in the merit of it yourself?

I missed your argument(?)
Being right isn't reliant of your lack of arguments is it?

Being right is entirely indiscernible without proof, and you time and time again fail to provide any proof. Back up your point that they are familiar, compete.

Show that your loadout designs are superior to the commonly-held-as-superior ones. Side by side comparisons, where the only variable is the (ships and) loadout. One with your strongest designs, and one with your nay-sayer's strongest designs.

Already made my point, where is the video of you roaming around killing a few hundreds of remnants and tesseracts to prove yours?
After all you're arguing for "lalaland" nonsense, I'm arguing for things you meet inside the game, and ship behavior you can see by just loading up the game and clicking on simulation

Entertaining this nonsense would be similar to lowering oneself to the level of flat earthers to argue their "science", it's a well known fact that these weapons have underperformed for a long time, years even, and that the optimal way to build most ships is by simply not taking any of them most of the time, and that low tech ships, in general, are specially underperforming in the current patch, we're not backtracking that far back, otherwise we may as well start the discussion from the game's state before it was open to the public.

But if you disagree and want to waste time then I will allow you to make your point, go on a high danger system and kill a bunch of ordos with low techs and small mounts, I'll be waiting.

[Yunru]

Attacking others does not constitute defending your point, neither does speaking of unprovable experiences.

When asked if you would be willing to provide proof of your point, you have evaded answering at every point.

Why, then, should we take your suggestion seriously, when you are clearly not confident in the merit of it yourself?

I missed your argument(?)
Being right isn't reliant of your lack of arguments is it?

Being right is entirely indiscernible without proof, and you time and time again fail to provide any proof. Back up your point that they are familiar, compete.

Show that your loadout designs are superior to the commonly-held-as-superior ones. Side by side comparisons, where the only variable is the (ships and) loadout. One with your strongest designs, and one with your nay-sayer's strongest designs.

Already made my point, where is the video of you roaming around killing a few hundreds of remnants and tesseracts to prove yours?
After all you're arguing for "lalaland" nonsense, I'm arguing for things you meet inside the game, and ship behavior you can see by just loading up the game and clicking on simulation

Entertaining this nonsense would be similar to lowering oneself to the level of flat earthers to argue their "science", it's a well known fact that these weapons have underperformed for a long time, years even, and that the optimal way to build most ships is by simply not taking any of them most of the time, and that low tech ships, in general, are specially underperforming in the current patch, we're not backtracking that far back, otherwise we may as well start the discussion from the game's state before it was open to the public.

But if you disagree and want to waste time then I will allow you to make your point, go on a high danger system and kill a bunch of ordos with low techs and small mounts, I'll be waiting.

You made you're point, but you've also done everything in your power to Deflect from proving said point.

[CanaldoVoid]

Attacking others does not constitute defending your point, neither does speaking of unprovable experiences.

When asked if you would be willing to provide proof of your point, you have evaded answering at every point.

Why, then, should we take your suggestion seriously, when you are clearly not confident in the merit of it yourself?

I missed your argument(?)
Being right isn't reliant of your lack of arguments is it?

Being right is entirely indiscernible without proof, and you time and time again fail to provide any proof. Back up your point that they are familiar, compete.

Show that your loadout designs are superior to the commonly-held-as-superior ones. Side by side comparisons, where the only variable is the (ships and) loadout. One with your strongest designs, and one with your nay-sayer's strongest designs.

Already made my point, where is the video of you roaming around killing a few hundreds of remnants and tesseracts to prove yours?
After all you're arguing for "lalaland" nonsense, I'm arguing for things you meet inside the game, and ship behavior you can see by just loading up the game and clicking on simulation

Entertaining this nonsense would be similar to lowering oneself to the level of flat earthers to argue their "science", it's a well known fact that these weapons have underperformed for a long time, years even, and that the optimal way to build most ships is by simply not taking any of them most of the time, and that low tech ships, in general, are specially underperforming in the current patch, we're not backtracking that far back, otherwise we may as well start the discussion from the game's state before it was open to the public.

But if you disagree and want to waste time then I will allow you to make your point, go on a high danger system and kill a bunch of ordos with low techs and small mounts, I'll be waiting.

You made you're point, but you've also done everything in your power to Deflect from proving said point.

Sure did.

Feel free to call me when you can make a point too.
PS: I still don't see the video I allowed you to make to prove your ideas, where is it?

[Yunru]

PS: I still don't see the video I allowed you to make to prove your ideas, where is it?

The burden of proof is not on me, for I wasn't the one to claim that no-one uses small mounts.

[CanaldoVoid]

PS: I still don't see the video I allowed you to make to prove your ideas, where is it?

The burden of proof is not on me, for I wasn't the one to claim that no-one uses small mounts.

Evading I see, I knew you would.

After all you made the ludicrous claim that people would actually use small mounts and that is somehow advantageous, something we've known to be wrong for years, and specially true nowadays since the armor values have been buffed so much that they don't even tickle even HT ships.

But feel free to come back when you can back up your claims with the requested video.

[Hiruma Kai]

Instead post your own lashers somehow beating tesseracts and remnants, like actual enemies you'd find in the game instead of a fake scenario that is not part of the game.

How about a lowtech fleet that fills its smalls with weapons, which is the opening argument, as opposed to just Lashers, which no one has been arguing about in this discussion?

Here's a typical lowtech fleet fight for me against a Remnant fleet.  Unfortunately, I don't have enough officers for every ship, so the Lashers lack officers and thus perform worse than other ships in the fleet which have level 6 officers.  On the other hand, they've got reinforced bulkheads so its basically pocket change to restore them when they build up enough bad d-mods to warrant being fixed.

The ball is in your court to provide what a tuned long range high tech beam spam (Tachyon lances, graviton beams, etc) fleet will do in a similar situation.  Or perhaps explain why my victory was not a victory in this case?  Or are remnants not good enough and I need to show Tesseracts only?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Yunru]

PS: I still don't see the video I allowed you to make to prove your ideas, where is it?

The burden of proof is not on me, for I wasn't the one to claim that no-one uses small mounts.

After all you made the ludicrous claim that people would actually use small mounts and that is somehow advantageous, something we've known to be wrong for years, and specially true nowadays since the armor values have been buffed so much that they don't even tickle even HT ships.

Well now you're just flat out lying. Feel free to quote me saying that or *** off, kthnxbye.

[Arcagnello]

PS: I still don't see the video I allowed you to make to prove your ideas, where is it?

The burden of proof is not on me, for I wasn't the one to claim that no-one uses small mounts.

Evading I see, I knew you would.

After all you made the ludicrous claim that people would actually use small mounts and that is somehow advantageous, something we've known to be wrong for years, and specially true nowadays since the armor values have been buffed so much that they don't even tickle even HT ships.

But feel free to come back when you can back up your claims with the requested video.

Err... I'm pretty sure Yunru is correct.
If you're the one putting out a polarizing statement along the lines of "small mounts may aswell not exist on my ships" then you would also be the one expected to follow it up with cold hard data to back you up.

I've had to write a whole essay to support my "low tech was EH but burn drive and 0.95 turned into ARGH", I'm writing a small Ludd forsaken book just to explain "[Redacted] strong, but also terribly balanced, here is how you win, sometimes, maybe".

If you are not going to back your thoughts, ideas and suggestions with some good old grounding, publicly available information and experimentation of your own, then no one else will do it for you and the whole concept you threw out will be ultimately dismissed regardless of it being right or wrong.

So much writing. The good old Balancedome would've resolved this with a quickness. Two opinions enter, one fact leaves.!