It means nothing to the game cause they didnt respect the established lore. So when they need something it just gets made up with no thought. The mamba being a fine example. Trying to cling on to your personal opinion of what the lore is as a reason to tell others they cant have their fun back is pretty weak and completely meaningless.
In the Beta Spirit...
- Thread starter MadDogMurdock
- Start date
- Status
It means nothing to the game cause they didnt respect the established lore. So when they need something it just gets made up with no thought. The mamba being a fine example. Trying to cling on to your personal opinion of what the lore is as a reason to tell others they cant have their fun back is pretty weak and completely meaningless.
Three variations of the same module, one of which had infinite range? There was no difference in function, it was just a difference in rating. You could do just "choose" to do bad, better, or infinity. Real hard choice there.
Despite now not needing to formally equip a scanner at all, opening up a whole internal slot so realistically that's more choices available.
Claiming that the Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced Discovery Scanner were better because you could choose to use a low-performance module is a... weak argument, to be generous. I'm sorry you thought otherwise.
You know, I have to call attention to the fact that there's a lot of speaking for other people being done by those who like the FSS. It goes both ways.
The only way you can know for certain is to conduct polls (good ones, not misleading for example) and ask people.
Personally, most people I talked with who do mainly explore, and more than the global average, don't like the FSS, and I'm fairly confident that if we did conduct a poll among such players, the results would reflect my guess. There's one way to find out.
Unfortunately, polls are no longer allowed on these forums. Besides, if you were to poll ED players only, your sample would end up with a majority of non-explorers, because most players don't explore. It's a niche activity. (And going off the beaten paths into the deep galaxy is even more of a niche in it.) If "I don't explore" were an option to choose, that would almost certainly win out in such a poll.
In the meantime, we do have data to turn to, both in-game and from third party utilities. The fact remains that exploration activity has halved after DW2 ended. Thousands gave it a long, fair try, and found the Chapter Four update lacking. I'm not saying that's due to the FSS only, because if the new content and interactions were good, then the overall reception would have been much better. But they weren't.
It was a choice nonetheless!
I didn't claim that... you just made that up on your own!
Decidedly not, as you've made some real doozy claims that assume people don't know what words mean.
This contradicts your next point, because you're using these visual details to make these decisions.
So it was "not detailed", ignoring your previous claim that you used the information from it to make decisions. Despite that you could tell the gravitational configuration, body type, size, color, number of bodies, and unique identifiers such as GGGs and Earthlikes, you're claiming it's not "detailed".
Sure, this works as long as you ignore the definition of "detail".
And again, next we see you claim it "did too much" - so which is it? Up next you claimed that you wanted to "black out" the bodies, but why? I thought they didn't provide any details? If it wasn't detailed why would you need to remove the details?
And here, as stated right above, you contradict the ol' "not detailed" claim by wanting to get rid of the images, because they provided indication of body type through some (pick a word that's synonymous with details).
Oof, that would be nice if all three statements were wrong. I mean, three contradictory statements can all be wrong - disagreeing with something that's wrong doesn't immediately make one right. So your call-out of "childish" ring a bit ironic (actually it's packed with irony), since you're actually putting things in a black-and-white state by thinking that you can only contradict a black (false) statement with a white (true) one.
That aside, I did not indicate that all of your statements were false. I indicated that they contradicted one another. This rolls around back around to the "not in an argument, just disagreeing with people" thing I mentioned earlier. Yes, the ADS did too much; however, your other statements contrast with this because you were focused on pushing back on disagreement than having a consistent stance.
Frankly speaking, you claimed the ADS wasn't detailed, and the relied on the ADS giving details for both of your other points. You can try to bend the definition of "detailed" around your own words, but the context of those other arguments invalidates such attempts.
I made up your quote on my own? That's a bit reaching.
Does it, though? I mean, I at least quoted a reference - you know, your post - but you're just saying a thing. More vague references to support your claim? Makes your response rather insubstantial.
Your lame attempts to reinterpret them do not change the meaning of my words.
For example, for some reason you've italicized visual details as if to claim that I actually said that was the criteria I used to make my decisions when I actually said that I used the map.
If it were the case that the images were the most important factor, then why would I be willing to give them up in a Black Body solution.
You can keep this up as long as you like - you're only making yourself look daft.
Much as I might enjoy your self-ridicule, I'm not convinced anyone else does.
Seems like a recurring theme.
Y’all are still going eh?
Yes, it does. For example, not that long ago, Max Factor said that plenty of people were in favour of the FSS around its introduction and only a few were against it. When I quoted several threads where plenty of people disagreed, he said he meant that only a few were against it because only a few people of the player base post on the forums. To be precise, let's see... "There were plenty praising [the FSS], a few that were not.", and some posts later, "A few in relation to the games population." (Conveniently ignoring that if you talk in relation of the game's population, every view is only expressed by a few, as only a small percentage of any game's player base uses forums or other external sites.) The same as what you wrote: ""A lot" of people, "plenty of" explorers, "many" of the players."
There you go then. You used one example to underscore your point, I used one too. I'm sure we could both find more if we wanted to spend more time on this. (I'm not terribly keen on doing that more when the main point of my earlier post wasn't even this.) My point in that first sentence was that it goes both ways, while you appear to argue that one side doesn't. A holier-than-thou approach.
Oh, another thing. Originally, I thought you were talking more generally and not me specifically, but your second reply seems to say otherwise. So, just to be certain, when you were talking about making up people, did you mean to accuse me of doing that? ("So much referencing this unseen crowd of people who agree and using that as a platform to claim some argumentative high ground. It must be very convenient to be able to just make up people and situations to support an argument. Making up people who agree with you is just about the same as making another account to like your own posts on social media.")
Maybe because I was emphasizing details in response to a claim of a lack of detail, hmm?
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with what contradiction is. Your argument here that you're saying two things that don't agree with one another, that's what that is.
I'm pointing at these statements and saying they do not agree and are not consistent and you're just noticing that now. Amazing.
With hard hitting questions like "why would you emphasize the details when pointing out details exist" and "why would things that are contrary to one another be contradictions" coming from you in just this one post, I don't think your estimation of competence is something worth concerning myself over.
Hey remember how you were like "why would I say this when it disagrees with wanting Black Bodies" in response to me pointing out how the statements contradict one another? What were you saying about self-ridicule?
That is what I said.
You seem to be setting an argument up about things that you said not me.
Go back and read the post,
: it doesn't mention function, that was you,
: it doesn't mention range, that was you,
: it doesn't mention rating, that was you,
: it doesn't mention performance, again, that was you!
Putting words I didn't say into quotation marks doesn't assign the meaning you've given them to the actual things I said.
You really are making a fool of yourself, and wasting everyone elses' time.
There's a reason these threads get a bad rep, people like you.
You're comparing a reference to a reference of specific instance from MaxFactor to just blanket claiming that people agree with you in general. It was also rather specifically referencing interactions on the forum, not just nebulous agreement by people who cannot be measured but are claimed to exist.
Referencing an actual reaction that can be observed is one thing. Vague statements of agreement by "many people" is another. And regardless, it doesn't justify leaning so grossly on such a fallacy.
Was that unclear? I specifically quoted your post and specifically referenced your words, in that quote, as clear examples of nebulously speaking for supposed others. I literally used your post as an example.
That's one paragraph, filled with argumentum ad populum.
I see you keep confusing lore with your opinion.
You literally referenced the three Discovery Scanners, their differences being rating, range, and performance. I mentioned function by saying there was no difference in function. I am not restricted by your vocabulary when making my posts.
Are you pretending that the choice (your exact word) between the ADS and BDS has nothing to do with range? Just because you didn't say the word "range"?
- Status