open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM Candidate] Goumindong
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

Author Topic

jaffer cake
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.12 00:51:00 - [181]
 

Dude, in each of those threads you lose the argument. What you trying to prove by linking them? You act like an arrogant guy and get out-argued and then you start crying about Ad homiwhatsit attacks and begging for pity? I don't think you know much about this game you don't even know what interceptors are for lol Twisted Evil


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 00:58:00 - [182]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2008 00:58:51
Originally by: jaffer cake
Dude, in each of those threads you lose the argument. What you trying to prove by linking them? You act like an arrogant guy and get out-argued and then you start crying about Ad homiwhatsit attacks and begging for pity? I don't think you know much about this game you don't even know what t]interceptors are for lol Twisted Evil




Read the entire threads.

Also. Interceptors have always been designed as fast attack ships. This is what the CCP design lead at the time defined them as when talking about their roles along side of assault frigates[which were designed as 'escort ships']. We now have two types of interceptors. Combat inties and tackling inties. The Crusader is a combat inty, not a tackling inty. If inties were only for tackling then why do the taranis, crow, crusader, and claw exist?

Even if it were, there would be no reason to give the ship only one viable fitting[since a vagabond is actually a better tackler than the Sader]. Which is bad for the game in and of itself because the game relies on people making fitting choices for their ships that have different advantages and disadvantages.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 01:49:00 - [183]
 

Originally by: "Forkul"
With that aside, yes, nano-ships can simply fix themselves through alternative methods which don't necessarily involve changing the ships themselves. Everyone uses nano-capabilities some time or another, especially solo-ists like myself, to do something... whether it be combat or hauling. The idea that we should simply eliminate it all together or nerf it to unusability completely is absurd.


No, they cannot. You must address the ability of the ships to disengage or you cannot solve the problem. Nano-ships have no strategic use at the moment. That means they have no specific benefit over other types of ships. They are powerful exclusively based on their risk reduction. Making it easier to attack[which means giving nano-ships more power] cannot possibly have any negative effect on their use, since their risk reduction is still so high.

You will also notice that no one is suggesting eliminating them all together or nerfing to uselessness but taking appropriate steps to reduce the ability of these ships to disengage.[this specific type of argument you are using is also a logical fallacy. You are putting up a different argument that is similar enough to be believed, knocking it down and then claiming victory]

Quote:

Do you seriously have to start every response to an opposing view-point with a hollow "stop making ad-hom" attacks? This is quite ironic when you're the one who keeps suggesting this, and all I said was that I found it laughable that you kept suggesting it. I never said that your or Jade's character had anything to do with my decision in who I decided to support, therefore no ad-hominem attack or anything similar was involved. You're only hurting yourself with these kinds of remarks and bringing attention, immediately, at the beginning of your post, away from the issue.


An ad hominem argument is one where you claim that your position is right because of some character defect in the other person. I will only discuss an ad hom attack when someone makes it. Specifically Jade consistently says we are wrong because we are in large alliances, or whatever laundry list of attack she wants to come up with today.

When someone discusses without using logical fallacies will be the instant i will not bring up their disingenuous tactics. To not point out that the argument used was fallacious would be foolish and dishonest, because a fallacious argument points towards the truth value of the conclusion reached.

There is ample evidence of this all over the board. When posts are towards point and when people are putting up arguments that aren't fallacious i will go after the argument, there simply will be no fallacy to bring to light. When arguments are fallacious i will go after the fallacy and any other problems, because they are problems with the argument.


Mike Yass
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.12 02:47:00 - [184]
 

Do you actually intend to represent the playerbase or do you really intend to spout your ****ty game design ideas?

I'd like to apologize for supporting you internally, because I actually read your posts (I have you on ignore), and I was reminded of how bad your posting is, and how bad your ideas are.

Anas Damona
The Orthography Commandos
Posted - 2008.05.12 03:34:00 - [185]
 

I think this needs to be asked: Goumindong, why are you in GoonSwarm?

Hrin
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.12 04:08:00 - [186]
 

We don't kick people just because we don't like them.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 05:20:00 - [187]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2008 05:21:46
Originally by: Anas Damona
I think this needs to be asked: Goumindong, why are you in GoonSwarm?


I fly with a bunch of guys who only care about two things. The task at hand and having fun. I would have left MRCHI or the game if it were not for SUAS.

Originally by: Mike Yass
Do you actually intend to represent the playerbase?


I plan on fulfilling the duties of the CSM as layed out in the document. That means representing the player base and advocating for what I think is best. In some cases that may be an idea i came up with in other cases it probably isn't.

Erotic Irony
0bsession
Posted - 2008.05.12 12:48:00 - [188]
 

I wanted some elaboration on some black ops compromises based on your great CSM white paper.

If you could give me some feedback on my reading of the black ops role and attribute crisis I'd be obliged as well. Do you think my module based idea would be attractive or inconsistent in gameplay terms assuming they some baseline fitting & cap gains?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:06:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: Erotic Irony
I wanted some elaboration on some black ops compromises based on your great CSM white paper.

If you could give me some feedback on my reading of the black ops role and attribute crisis I'd be obliged as well. Do you think my module based idea would be attractive or inconsistent in gameplay terms assuming they some baseline fitting & cap gains?



Before reading your black-ops thread. I will say that i think the largest problems with Black-ops BS at the moment revolves around the current covert cyno mechanics.

The complaint about blackops attributes doesn't hold water imo. These ships are not mean't to compete with main battleships and their stats reflect that. Giving them Cov-ops cloaks and buffing their resistances is simply over the top for what already is a very strong ability. The main reason that stealth bombers are not valuable is because they pop so easily[I.E. its still a frigate]. With black-ops you do not have this weakness and as well are looking at much higher DPS as a whole. A module based idea might work, but is pre-mature at this point.

The reason that Black-ops BS are really weak as I see it is because their advantage is removed by another mechanic that has an unintended effect. Cyno jammers are meant to keep caps out of systems so that cap/sov based combat is dynamic and does not just consist of moving capitals up to a station systems then sieging. But at the same time, these cyno jammers, meant to make moving capital ships an adversarial game instead of something you pretty much can't prevent, are stopping non-capital ships from using the method of travel.

The first step is to let covert cynos be lit in cyno-jammed systems, the second step is to lighten up on the iso requirements, increase the cargo bay, or change the fuel requirements to a compressed[that is to say, more isk/m^3, less m^3/jump] material, and the third step is to increase the distance you can jump.

I would be very wary about making a high slot module that would let your ship jump to a covert cyno, as this would then be the method of moving pretty much all fleets around and would bypass one of the primary choke point mechanics in the game that forces fights. As well it would be a really large advantage for alliances/forces which could afford such tools to move their fleet consistently while a very large detriment to those who could not. It would only be a slight increase in cost and would be a boost to middle sized alliances, but still a penalty for smaller raiding gangs etc.

I think we could keep conventional forces using jumpgates and only let covert ships through the cyno.

posteroid
im right your wrong
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:42:00 - [190]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2008 05:21:46
Originally by: Anas Damona
I think this needs to be asked: Goumindong, why are you in GoonSwarm?


I fly with a bunch of guys who only care about two things. The task at hand and having fun. I would have left MRCHI or the game if it were not for SUAS.




Apparently having fun in eve for you does not really involve pvping much as 285 kills since 2006 is not something to make anybody consider you as a authority on anythingLaughing.

If you actually spent half the time actually pvping that you spend posting about how the game and pvp should be you would actually know what your talking about but then your opinions would differ as well so........

Erotic Irony
0bsession
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:57:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: Goumindong

The complaint about blackops attributes doesn't hold water imo. These ships are not mean't to compete with main battleships and their stats reflect that. Giving them Cov-ops cloaks and buffing their resistances is simply over the top for what already is a very strong ability. The main reason that stealth bombers are not valuable is because they pop so easily[I.E. its still a frigate]. With black-ops you do not have this weakness and as well are looking at much higher DPS as a whole. A module based idea might work, but is pre-mature at this point.


I never mentioned giving them covert cloaks and buffing their resistances excessively but I do think there needs to be more parity between recons and black ops. I don't see why any tech two amarr ship, if nothing else, should have the same cap as its tech one counterpart for example. Things like this don't strike me as deliberate design decisions as much as rushed ship design--all I'm interested is a bare minimum of statistical gain so they are worth building and flying. Right now, fitting the bridge means no tank and I have a hard time justifying flying this when I have so much to lose for comparatively little gain.

Quote:

I would be very wary about making a high slot module that would let your ship jump to a covert cyno, as this would then be the method of moving pretty much all fleets around and would bypass one of the primary choke point mechanics in the game that forces fights. As well it would be a really large advantage for alliances/forces which could afford such tools to move their fleet consistently while a very large detriment to those who could not. It would only be a slight increase in cost and would be a boost to middle sized alliances, but still a penalty for smaller raiding gangs etc.

I think we could keep conventional forces using jumpgates and only let covert ships through the cyno.


I'm with you on the philosophy of cyno jammers and the logic behind it but, realistically, what can you do with the covert bridge when tasked with recons? You bridge some recons into a system, lets say your gang is 6 + a black ops. Under the umbrella of small gang gameplay you have no serious gameplay options barring camping the station or catching someone in the belt on entry. You can't do noticeable damage to even the weakest station service and you're certainly not going to tangle with even a small POS.

The recons that could warp cloaked could have just as easily flown to the target system anyway begging the question why try to bridge and go through the hassle of tremendous fuel cost and session change timers when its not needed or advantageous? This gang will lose to a dominix or two to say nothing of a more competent gang having accomplished nothing. Alternatively, you hit the system, you have the advantage but as time goes by their gang gets so large you can't realistically engage so again, while you didn't lose any ships, you didn't inflict any damage and they deterred you. You couldn't feint or really surprise anyone.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:12:00 - [192]
 

Originally by: posteroid


Apparently having fun in eve for you does not really involve pvping much as 285 kills since 2006 is not something to make anybody consider you as a authority on anythingLaughing.

If you actually spent half the time actually pvping that you spend posting about how the game and pvp should be you would actually know what your talking about but then your opinions would differ as well so........


This is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack. Note that the argument is "you are wrong because of this character defect" where the character defect is that i have "only" 285 kills since 2006.[note, that number is also very wrong, and while it pings a few kills i took part in before sept 07, most of them not related to gs are not listed, which is roughly a 10 month period]

My arguments stand on their own. If you don't have valid argument to present there is likely a reason for it.

posteroid
im right your wrong
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:25:00 - [193]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: posteroid


Apparently having fun in eve for you does not really involve pvping much as 285 kills since 2006 is not something to make anybody consider you as a authority on anythingLaughing.

If you actually spent half the time actually pvping that you spend posting about how the game and pvp should be you would actually know what your talking about but then your opinions would differ as well so........


This is a perfect example of an ad hominem attack. Note that the argument is "you are wrong because of this character defect" where the character defect is that i have "only" 285 kills since 2006.


Interesting that you ignore this bit:


If you actually spent half the time actually pvping that you spend posting about how the game and pvp should be you would actually know what your talking about but then your opinions would differ as well so........

I highlighted the relevant part that clearly states that if you had played a lot that you would not have such stupid ideas and they do not stand on their own.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:32:00 - [194]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2008 14:37:37
Originally by: posteroid

Interesting that you ignore this bit:


If you actually spent half the time actually pvping that you spend posting about how the game and pvp should be you would actually know what your talking about but then your opinions would differ as well so........

I highlighted the relevant part that clearly states that if you had played a lot that you would not have such stupid ideas and they do not stand on their own.


Yes, you highlighted the part of the argument which makes it an ad hominem fallacy and not just an insult. Good, now that you have caught up, make an argument towards each that is not fallacious and we can start talking.

posteroid
im right your wrong
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:48:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2008 14:37:37
Originally by: posteroid

Interesting that you ignore this bit:


If you actually spent half the time actually pvping that you spend posting about how the game and pvp should be you would actually know what your talking about but then your opinions would differ as well so........

I highlighted the relevant part that clearly states that if you had played a lot that you would not have such stupid ideas and they do not stand on their own.


Yes, you highlighted the part of the argument which makes it an ad hominem fallacy and not just an insult. Good, now that you have caught up, make an argument towards each that is not fallacious and we can start talking.



Why bother???? the link to your threads provide all the rebuttals and proof of how clueless you are. If you had more ingame xp you would not have posted them in the first place.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:59:00 - [196]
 

Originally by: posteroid

Why bother???? the link to your threads provide all the rebuttals and proof of how clueless you are. If you had more ingame xp you would not have posted them in the first place.


Why bother making rational arguments? Seriously?

How about "because if we don't we will be making the game worse not better"

posteroid
im right your wrong
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:11:00 - [197]
 

Edited by: posteroid on 12/05/2008 15:12:51
Edited by: posteroid on 12/05/2008 15:12:01
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: posteroid

Why bother???? the link to your threads provide all the rebuttals and proof of how clueless you are. If you had more ingame xp you would not have posted them in the first place.


Why bother making rational arguments? Seriously?




Hey look a deliberate misinterpretation from a wanna be candidate lol.

Your problem is that you already have opinions about everything as your many threads show, but those threads are full of ppl telling and showingthat you are wrong or that they disagree (considerably more ppl are against you than support you).

So how does that make you a good rep of ppls opinions?.

Answer:

It does notugh.

PPl want representatives that guess what?? Actually represent them not argue personal opinions and ignore them.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:25:00 - [198]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2008 15:27:34
When they bring rational arguments i always address the arguments. If i have not, would you please point out where I have not?

I do not believe that we should be cow-towing to people who do not make rational arguments and are not willing to have discussions on the subjects.

Quote:

Your problem is that you already have opinions about everything as your many threads show, but those threads are full of ppl telling and showingthat you are wrong or that they disagree (considerably more ppl are against you than support you).


That last part in parenthesis is incorrect. It is also a logical fallacy. Something is not right because the majority of the people support it[argument ad populum]. It is right based only on its merits.

The part before that I address in those threads. Sometimes they are right, and then i change my position to be right. Sometimes they are not, and then i do not change my position.

E.G.

The "majority" of people supported not changing I-stabs and mwd/ab speed rigs. But nerfing them was still a good idea.

edit: I would think that people would want someone who will logically and rationally look at proposals before them and not someone who will bend over and do what those who are screaming the loudest want.

We are to be a council, we are not to be a polling booth.

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:29:00 - [199]
 

I think pretty much everyone who is going to vote for me already has by now, so I'll just crosspost this reply from scrapheap.

To be honest, I wouldn't really mind it if Goumindong made it to the CSM. I mean, he's got ideas that just don't sit well with me, and he often tries to communicate ideas to others in a way that is just awful, and he's usually an argumentative ****head, and he tends to not back down from an argument, even if it's a bad one.

But on the other hand, he is very good at math, and if given direction could be put to very good use. As someone said a couple pages back (in this particular scrapheap thread from which I am crossposting), he'd be a bad leader but an excellent assistant.

Therefore, if he was on the CSM, people (like me) could direct him to do useful things like make DPS graphs and analyze possible fittings after adjustments to grid/CPU and stuff, all while making sure he doesn't [un]intentionally skew the results or start pursuing something not worthwhile. And if I am there at the CSM, I'll be able to give him a noogie and dump him upside-down in a garbage can if he starts getting snippy.

So, this isn't necessarily me endorsing Goumindong. I'm just saying he could be useful as a part the CSM, and I'd pick him over just about any of the empire carebears without a second thought.

posteroid
im right your wrong
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:33:00 - [200]
 

Edited by: posteroid on 12/05/2008 15:34:03

And how do you base your decision on weather ppl are right or wrong?...oh thats right you do it from your own nonexistent experience.

Its not your place to decide if what is right or wrong, its your place to represent the majority and their ideas even if you do not agree with them.

But you do not you argue with them and finally ignore them even though they outnumber and out experience you.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:46:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: posteroid
Edited by: posteroid on 12/05/2008 15:34:03

And how do you base your decision on weather ppl are right or wrong?...oh thats right you do it from your own nonexistent experience.

Its not your place to decide if what is right or wrong, its your place to represent the majority and their ideas even if you do not agree with them.

But you do not you argue with them and finally ignore them even though they outnumber and out experience you.




No, right or wrong is determined by the validity of the arguments not based on "experience" or any other quality of your opponent you want to harp on. The arguments must be examined independently of the arguer. That last "point" is terribly disingenuous. I do not ignore them, and as you can see am even taking the time to educate you as to how people ought to examine and judge proposals and arguments.

It is not my place to represent "the majority" it is my place to provide effective and correct council to CCP on the issues that are brought up by the people.

As i said earlier. None of us are here to be a ballot box, we are not here to count votes and then tell CCP what that came out as. If this was to be a ballot box then we would just vote on each issue individually and then implement that. Clearly, as this was not implemented as such, it is not to be that.


posteroid
im right your wrong
Posted - 2008.05.12 16:56:00 - [202]
 

Edited by: posteroid on 12/05/2008 16:56:38
See its like talking to a brick wall ffs, you say its your job to "provide effective and correct council to CCP on the issues that are brought up by the people".

But you decide what to say to ccp and what is correct depending on what you consider to be right, your not doing this for anybody else but yourself and your crappy idea of how eve should be from your totally limited experience.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:04:00 - [203]
 

Originally by: posteroid
Edited by: posteroid on 12/05/2008 16:56:38
See its like talking to a brick wall ffs, you say its your job to "provide effective and correct council to CCP on the issues that are brought up by the people".

But you decide what to say to ccp and what is correct depending on what you consider to be right, your not doing this for anybody else but yourself and your crappy idea of how eve should be from your totally limited experience.


1. No, that is what CCP says is the job of the CSM.

2. You're

3. No I am doing this because it will make the game better. And everyone benefits from that.


Sniggerdly Hater
Skunkwerx Manufacturing
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:11:00 - [204]
 

Edited by: sniggerdly Hater on 12/05/2008 17:12:02
Originally by: Goumindong
Quote:
But you decide what to say to ccp and what is correct depending on what you consider to be right, your not doing this for anybody else but yourself and your crappy idea of how eve should be from your totally limited experience.


1. No, that is what CCP says is the job of the CSM.


arguing for your crappy ideas formed out of no experience with the subject, like the alpha thread or the minmatar thread in which you ended admitting you didn't fly them and it was all eft?
Originally by: Goumindong

2. You're


lol
Originally by: Goumindong

3. No I am doing this because it will make the game better.

better according to your criteria of which you stubbornly won't move and will twist whatever you have at hand to remain. that is another ccp right there. you too have the ability of creating humongous threads.

Sniggerdly Hater
Skunkwerx Manufacturing
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:21:00 - [205]
 

Edited by: sniggerdly Hater on 12/05/2008 17:21:29
Originally by: Goumindong
That last "point" is terribly disingenuous. I do not ignore them, and as you can see am even taking the time to educate you as to how people ought to examine and judge proposals and arguments.


no you brush them aside with something on the lines of "if you can't convince me i'm not right, i'm right, and i can't be convinced of not being right because i'm right"
Originally by: Goumindong

It is not my place to represent "the majority" it is my place to provide effective and correct council to CCP on the issues that are brought up by the people.


"effective" and "correct" council on the issues brought up by the "people". so you'll again ignore whatever you don't like and bunker up on your opinions. you are not the keeper of the holy truth.

iow, "let them eat cake"

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:28:00 - [206]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2008 17:33:32
Originally by: sniggerdly Hater

arguing for your crappy ideas formed out of no experience with the subject, like the alpha thread or the minmatar thread in which you ended admitting you didn't fly them and it was all eft?



The alpha thread where i made a logical argument, and then changed my mind because the evidence as presented was more in favor of the opposing side? Where we hashed out a number of reasonable changes that can get on its way to fixing the issue? That Alpha thread?

Or the minmatar thread where nearly everyone supports my original idea? That minmatar thread?

Not flying them has nothing to do with it. You do not need to fly a ship to balance it, you only need to fly a ship to be competent in piloting it. These are two very different things.

I don't fly titans, and neither does Bane Glorius. And neither does the majority of the playerbase. But that does not mean we are unable to determine whether or not the mechanics they use are bad for the game.

Originally by: sniggerdly Hater

no you brush them aside with something on the lines of "if you can't convince me i'm not right, i'm right, and i can't be convinced of not being right because i'm right"



I do not use circular logic. I might have said something to the effect of "I am always right, because when I am not, i change my position until I am", but i do not justify anything based on anything but its merits.

Quote:

"effective" and "correct" council on the issues brought up by the "people". so you'll again ignore whatever you don't like and bunker up on your opinions. you are not the keeper of the holy truth.


No, I will argue against things i do not like and argue for things I do. I will present the pros and cons of both for CCP. I am not the keeper of the holy truth, but I do not claim to be. I simply claim to be good at looking at issues logically instead of emotionally.

Sniggerdly Hater
Skunkwerx Manufacturing
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:50:00 - [207]
 

Edited by: sniggerdly Hater on 12/05/2008 17:50:10
Originally by: Goumindong
I simply claim to be good at looking at issues logically instead of emotionally.

and how it comes to the rest of us is that you cling on things that you can directly see and build hypothetical situations around them to support them even. so people tell you they had a red apple and you tell them its impossible because the apple catalog only has green ones. or that it must be green but that the light can sometimes make stuff look in other colors. etc.

not that i'm saying you're always wrong. but you have too much of a closed mind and bunker without considering other stuff because you think (your) logic is infallible, until the bunker is nuked and reduced to dust. and then its a ok maybe.

anyone can check your threads and make their own mind about it.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.12 18:18:00 - [208]
 

Originally by: sniggerdly Hater
Edited by: sniggerdly Hater on 12/05/2008 17:50:10
Originally by: Goumindong
I simply claim to be good at looking at issues logically instead of emotionally.

and how it comes to the rest of us is that you cling on things that you can directly see and build hypothetical situations around them to support them even. so people tell you they had a red apple and you tell them its impossible because the apple catalog only has green ones. or that it must be green but that the light can sometimes make stuff look in other colors. etc.

not that i'm saying you're always wrong. but you have too much of a closed mind and bunker without considering other stuff because you think (your) logic is infallible, until the bunker is nuked and reduced to dust. and then its a ok maybe.

anyone can check your threads and make their own mind about it.



Yes, when people claim things like "My arty muninn killed a nano zealot on sisi" i will tell them that that occurrence has nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not nano-ships are balanced or not. And when someone says "I'm uber and I killed an x in a y" i will explain to them that it doesn't matter due to the many variables likely involved.

When someone says "look this is the actual effect of alpha on fleet battles as currently on sisi" i will say "Oh hey, i guess you're right" as I did. And when someone says "he what about off grid weapons platforms" i might say "that could be a really good idea, especially if it was with dreads and not AoE". And when someone says "hey, we could use a planet based mechanic to give more small gang roles while removing the logistic burden on alliances" i say "sure, so long as you don't totally remove it from POS". And when someone says "Active tanking is a lot better than we have thought due to overloading, drugs, and cheaper implants" i will say "O.K. that is really handy". If you've got an argument or an idea, i will look at it, and if its good, as i have in the past, i will likely agree.

As i've said before. Many of the ideas that i have put up here have not been my own[though unless its fairly ubiquitous or part of a whole, i give credit]. Including moving some AFs to gang mod production, the simple pos spam solution, or the bonus stacking changes on RSDs.

I am under no illusion that I am perfect or that I don't make mistakes. But I will not buckle when people are unwilling to put up logical arguments and will advocate the position because doing so is valuable to the whole.

Mr Friendly
The Lost and The Damned
Posted - 2008.05.13 08:09:00 - [209]
 

Originally by: Bane Glorious
I think pretty much everyone who is going to vote for me already has by now, so I'll just crosspost this reply from scrapheap.

To be honest, I wouldn't really mind it if Goumindong made it to the CSM. I mean, he's got ideas that just don't sit well with me, and he often tries to communicate ideas to others in a way that is just awful, and he's usually an argumentative ****head, and he tends to not back down from an argument, even if it's a bad one.

But on the other hand, he is very good at math, and if given direction could be put to very good use. As someone said a couple pages back (in this particular scrapheap thread from which I am crossposting), he'd be a bad leader but an excellent assistant.

Therefore, if he was on the CSM, people (like me) could direct him to do useful things like make DPS graphs and analyze possible fittings after adjustments to grid/CPU and stuff, all while making sure he doesn't [un]intentionally skew the results or start pursuing something not worthwhile. And if I am there at the CSM, I'll be able to give him a noogie and dump him upside-down in a garbage can if he starts getting snippy.




That was me :P

Of course, I was then attacked because I dared to include my RL conclusions without also including my CV and letting eveyone call my references. Whatever.

The basic point is Goum is very good at crafting arguments and extraordinarily poor at bringing those ideas to fruition. From experience, I can affirm that all ideas that succeed are imperfect, are compromises and are used by real people in real situations that don't fit the bill from theorycrafting. That's Goum's problem. His solutions assume everything works properly. Lol.

Which is why I won'yt ever vote for people like Goum. I've worked with them, for them, asnd tried my hand at it too.

The problem is IT DOESN'T WORK. Theory is neat and tidy. Eve (and RL) isn't.

I couldn't care less if X makes a ship better for sniping on paper than Y. If RL/Eve situations preclude X from showing its benefits over Y, who cares?

Further, I'm tired of 'best on paper solutions'. Might as well craft prefect gang setups that don't take into account busy-system lag or the problems with ships out of their 'best' setups. Useless.

Eve is hamstrung by lag, not by setups. Lag is out of the control of CSMs, so why spend pages of analysis on them?

I won't vote for Goum (or Bane :P ) but I would very much like to have them on my staff.

Roll on reality, say I.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 08:35:00 - [210]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 13/05/2008 08:50:31
I do not ignore reality. Though i will ignore factors that are extraneous to the problem. Mainly skill point differentials, and idiocy. I will only ignore lag when its not a factor that makes a difference.

Quote:

I couldn't care less if X makes a ship better for sniping on paper than Y. If RL/Eve situations preclude X from showing its benefits over Y, who cares?


Eve will only preclude that when there are other factors involved. Sometimes we can look at them, sometimes we cannot. But if we don't have an ideal and can't quantify it we will not be able to see when things are going wrong in the real world.

Think of it as a matter of statistics. On average you will see no variation in specialization between different pilots[or rather, you will see this variation even out]. So on average you should see your expected ideal results with some outliers.

Does that mean since we cannot predict everything every time that we cannot have ideals? No, it means we cannot let our arguments be waylaid by anecdotes as you are trying to do.

Eve is not a company. Eve is not an economic model. Eve is a computer program. It receives inputs and produces outputs. It is the goal of a designer to take input and get to a desired output. It is not their job to throw their hands in the air, say they can't possibly model all the variables, and give up before deciding which variables they can ignore, which variables they must ignore et all.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only