DSCAN Skills?

[Renge_Ukyo]

@Archer_en_Tilavine

To the contrary, the other thread in question is comprised of everyone poking holes at your proposal, which is categorically inferior to the status quo in each and every single conceivable fashion. This is not an insult, this is objective truth.

EVIDENCE? None yet…

@Archer_en_Tilavine

Indeed! Here you are talking behind our backs

@Archer_en_Tilavine

@Brun_Warbear

[Renge Ukyo]'s chosen method of debate is to attack people, try to shame people, demand evidence when the burden of proof is his. He’s used complete red herring arguments to detract from his inability to actually counter points made and instead tried to undermine folk’s entitlement to make discussion by arbitrarily setting standards for contribution.

Indeed! Here you are talking behind our backs - yet another bout of unwarranted personal attacks, of which there have been many directed at the most level-headed and nicest of the forum regulars. It’s interesting that so much effort is expended making insults and shaming others (bringing up topic-irrelevant killboards in an alt-centric game to “shame” their non-PVP characters, for example) and accusing them of logical fallacies and violating rules of argumentation when they are not (though several examples exist in which you are - and they have been called out as such) instead of addressing the concerns raised by others. I do not know why you are accusing others of doing what you doing orders of magnitude both more often and purposefully. (Evidence of the preceding claims is ample through the other thread.)

Hardly an unwarranted criticism of your public behavior. And yet again, you are accusing me of your behavior and not my own. Use facts, bring evidence.

@Archer_en_Tilavine

As for this proposal… just like the other one, this proposal:

• does not address a need
• does not enhance the game
• introduces unnecessary complexity
• makes the game less enjoyable
• is categorically inferior to the status quo
• that the idea is “interesting” does not merit serious consideration any more than putting propellers on a lunchbox does.

(The other proposal had additional faults.)

If you’d been reading you’d see that’s not uniformly the case either. Instead for unwarranted harassment because you refuse to bring facts and evidence.

@Archer_en_Tilavine

All of the above truths are self-evident to any knowledgeable and experienced EVE player. (I should point out that, as a rule of thumb, newbies, particularly those which admit themselves to be such, have no business making game wrecking suggestions when they do not understand or appreciate the implications of such changes, their consequences, or in this case lack of benefits.)

Ah yes, that healthy wee stint in EVE I mentioned in the other thread OP. You are again lacking facts. I’ve been active for 7 years out of the 10 I’ve had this account. A newbie? Again - verify your claims before making them. While I may not be as knowledgeable as some or as experienced as others - I wouldn’t say that I lack either knowledge or experience with EVE. While anyone reading this can easily surmise you feel differently it doesn’t mean that your emotions are correct regarding the critical reality.

@Archer_en_Tilavine

I further point out that just because it would technically “work” (quantitatively ) doesn’t mean it would work well regarding game balance or be enjoyable for the game (qualitatively). I’ve said that in the other thread and I’ll say it here yet again.

I suspect that is the only consistently true statement you’re ever going to make to me. However, this idea - as with any idea I’ve put to the forums thus far (or would be willing to submit to public scrutiny), may work swimmingly. We won’t know unless they are implemented - which would be flattering to say the least.