The ADS affecting your immersion.
That’s the only conclusion I can draw from your post.
In the Beta Spirit...
- Thread starter MadDogMurdock
- Start date
- Status
The ADS affecting your immersion.
That’s the only conclusion I can draw from your post.
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
Kindly refrain from taking shots at each other, if you can't discuss the topic and hand and not each other, then you can have a break from posting here. I don't want to have to close the thread because of it!
This right here is the real crux of the issue. Your inability to understand the counter arguments doesn’t mean they are weak; it’s a failure on your part.
Railing against FDev for making a decision you don’t like is one thing, but ignoring the reasoning behind it does not equate to there not being a valid reason.
It's not in the game, so how can it affect my immersion?
Look above.
But that’s your argument for not bringing it back.
FD didn’t give any reasoning behind the decision - they just said ‘detrimental’ without saying why.
It’s not my understanding of the counter arguments that is weak, it’s the arguments themselves that are weak.
Speak for yourself. What I referenced was fairly plainly stated, I suppose I can be bothered to point them out to you.
And then:
2+2=4, even if you don't want to be.
No qualification, just saying "no", not a strong argument at all. I was pretty clear in my statement. Apparently your standards for your responses are rather low.
There's that again! I thought immersion was so important? Or is it just when it's yours?
A lot of flawed and incorrect assumptions loaded into that statement with your choice of language. I guess let's jab at the use of the word "concession", which is wrong. The FSS was a design choice made by FD, not forced upon them. What you want is a "concession", so using the word in such a negative way is a bit lacking in self-awareness on your part.
Again, your comprehension is not the benchmark by which an argument is measured. Just because one doesn't understand calculus doesn't make it "nonsense".
Yup. You don't seem to understand the rather easy trap I laid for you to fall into.
Their immersion is a perfectly valid reason and have already said so in this very thread.
As I said. It seems someones immersion is a perfectly valid issue if it's inline with your own feelings/thoughts on the ADS, but you completely dismiss my own because it doesn't fall inline with your view point.
Anyway, it's an easy fix for the FSS. Just have it to get a tag, you have to select or zoom in on a planet. The ADS is certainly not needed for that.
That's very clever... well done, now off to bed!
You may well be projecting other people’s arguments on to me.
Immersion came up again in this thread largely because of autotagging and is also often stated as a reason not to bring the ADS back.
Autotagging is a bit meh, but I don’t really have strong feelings on that.
My argument has never been about immersion, I just don’t enjoy having to use the FSS all the time.
I’d much prefer it if there was a layer of useful information available before using it, so that I could choose whether to use it. The ADS would provide that info and could easily be restored.
That’s pretty much all it is.
Sure, you really got me by undermining your own argument.
Again, your lack of knowledge of the reasoning does not equate to there not being a reason
As Big Mike said earlier, it’s highly likely that FDev want us to actually work for that coveted system map, rather than getting it for nothing. Until they themselves say otherwise, I think that’s a pretty reasonable conclusion.
It’s their game, and they can do what they like. A handful of malcontents doesn’t make a significant enough financial impact to warrant action. Therefore they have no real reason to go against their own decision.
Speculation about FD’s reasoning doesn’t make it ‘highly likely’.
Also, ignoring that the map is not ‘complete’ after an ADS honk.
It is FD’s game, they can do what they want.
But when they make a bad decision, they should expected to keep hearing about it until they put it right.
You’ll either need to back that up or retract it.
What reasoning would that be? Mind you, I'm not interested in your reasoning so please provide a citation.
This might blow your mind, but everyone doesn't have an agenda that they seemingly must adhere to, some people are actually having an honest discussion. The fact that you think acknowledging what other players want undermines an argument says a lot.
Hey do me a favor and look up "burden of proof", and consider which of us made a claim, and which of us challenged it.
Fun fact: it was you making a claim! I hope you learned something today, though I doubt it.
Your subjective view of their decision is irrelevant. Software companies make decisions that upset one person or another all the time. One person’s bad decision is another person’s good one.
The very software company you claim to work for hacked me off when they removed the fun little “blank slate” manned scenarios from Take On Mars when it hit full release. Do I nag them constantly about it? No. Why? Because it would be immature to do so.
That's the thing. I didn't undermine my own argument.
- Status