|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2008.04.29 18:59:00 -
[1]
Jade, how can support destroyable outposts when you also claim to support "dynamism" and "the little guy". Destroyable outposts hurt smaller alliances who wish to play in the 0.0 sovereignty game.
This is because large alliances will destroy outposts of their competitors, and anyone wishing to enter space must build their own. These outposts must be defended and it will always be very hard for a small defender to defend against a larger one. The attacker then destroys the outpost and leaves and if the small alliance wants that space they have to put up another outpost.
But if the outpost cannot be destroyed then they do not have to furnish the cost a second time[or first time if they are going after one already built] they attack. And the larger alliance has to commit forces in order to keep that outpost out of enemy hands[instead of just destroying it and then coming back to destroy it if they put up another].
How can you reconcile your positions when they are mutually exclusive.? Or do you simply not care about small players and instead care about pushing your corporations agenda for the game?
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 20:56:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Jade Constantine
Eve status quo as it is now allows these "lazy powers" to pretty much ignore the activities of smaller groups because they know "at some point in the future" they can just come back and reclaim what they have lost. Make it possible to destroy outposts and suddenly war becomes real and threat's significant - eve 0.0 changes from sim-city to civilization and gets truly dynamic again.
No, the "Lazy Powers" simply won't hold the space. They will instead simply destroy the stations and then not bother to defend it because if anyone puts anything up[a daunting task], they can just come back and blow it up again.
All the benefits of denying space to your enemies and none of the work.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 15:56:00 -
[3]
Are you going to answer my questions or ignore me like you do anytime someone blows on your house of cards?
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:59:00 -
[4]
It would be more broken. Large alliances like ours would just burn anything we couldn't defend indefinitely to the ground. Which would include most of the stations we take. Then, not only would you need the forces to take and defend your station from hostile assault to make it in 0.0 you would need the isk to put your own station down and the forces to take and defend the system as well as the extra forces necessary to defend the system from the increased numbers of hostiles who are about since they have less space to defend.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:36:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Cyno-Jammers actually mean that only one side gets to have capital ships in the Cyno-Jammer assault phase of the POS battle.
Only if the capitals are already there. If they are not then it requires them to down the jammer which, if you're attacking it gives you time to bring them in[or requires the defender has precognition]
No jammers mean that there is no fight that can't be a capital fight. It means that sovereignty warfare has no overarching capital strategy and only consists of "move capitals up to station system, siege, repeat"
Jammers are good. The only problem is how hard it is to take them down. Just like all other strategic infrastructure there is no strategy in a war without them. No strategic infrastructure means no intermediary objectives. No intermediary objectives means there is nothing that can be accomplished with anything but full force.
Ideally, Jammers, and bridges, and generators should be spread all over the place, and relatively easy to destroy/disable. This means a host of objectives for small gangs that tie directly into the overarching campaign.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.21 19:20:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Tecam Hund
Originally by: Dramaticus
446 words to say thanks.
Yeah this council is going nowhere.
Don't be so sour. There is a Goonswarm rep on the council.
Jade's there because stupid people voted.
Congratulations Jade! 
FYP
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.21 19:40:00 -
[7]
Originally by: H'aulana
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Tecam Hund
Originally by: Dramaticus
446 words to say thanks.
Yeah this council is going nowhere.
Don't be so sour. There is a Goonswarm rep on the council.
Jade's there because stupid people voted.
Congratulations Jade!
FYP
I seriously agree with some of the stats you produce and some of the general ideas regarding balancing, but you are so damn abrasive that there is really not that many ppl that could vote for you. Arent you the one screaming ad-hominem at each and every response? I still think Id prefer you over jade in csm, but you sure do work hard to come off as a pretentious douche
An ad hominem is when you say that someone is wrong because of some character defect. I only mention it because in those cases the argument against my logic was "you are stupid and suck at pvp and therefor you are wrong".
My post was not an ad hom there was no argument that had its inference hinging on the competency or actions of the the person arguing.
Also, not bitter.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 00:31:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Xofii
one must be stupid to vote for jade,
That is exactly what i was implying. But that does not make it ad hom. Ad hom is an argument, not a statement. That was a statement. I will say that stupid people vote for Jade because Jades platform hinges on people not understanding what will happen if you implement her ideas. In short, they are voting against their interest to have a more fun game because they do not have the capacity to know that Jades ideas will make the game less fun(if they did have that capacity they would clearly have not voted for Jade unless they were acting completely irrational, which would then qualify them for the first group anyway).
The conclusion is "stupid people voted for Jade". The argument is nothing of the sort.
The argument(the inference) alone determines validity(the state where the conclusion must be true if the premises are true), the premises and validity determine cogency(where the premise is true and the inference is valid). But the conclusion determines nothing. When attacking an argument you must either attack the premise, or the validity. If there is no fault to be found in either then the argument is cogent. If the argument is cogent the conclusion must be true.
Now, i will say that the above argument is not necessarily cogent. It hangs on an "unproven" premise[that Jades ideas are bad for the game, and unproven is in quotes, because its simply not been proven in this thread, while it has been proven elsewhere many times], but the argument is valid, and it is not an ad-hominem.
To put it simply:
Ad hominem does not mean "he said something mean to me". Ad hominem means "You are wrong because its you laying out the argument". Notice how "you laying out the argument" is not part of the premise. Nor is it part of the inference. That is why it is a logical fallacy.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
|
|
| |
|