Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

BK-KnightRider

Ensign
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

590 profile views

BK-KnightRider's Achievements

Ordinary seaman

Ordinary seaman (2/13)

15

Reputation

  1. Are moderators God so we are guilty purely by accusation? Don't you people train your moderators to provide USEFUL feedback. EXACTLY how can anyone possibly avoid what a moderator subjectively considers improper or abusive comments if a moderator doesn't bother to provide feedback. Telling someone to read a rule number is USELESS. A moderator's highly subjective interpretation of a rule, partly due to cultural differences, can be drastically different from another person's interpretation of the same rule. Then, if a moderator refuses to provide USELFULL feed back when asked that is not helpful. Most people don't like secret interpretations and secret application of rules.
  2. (...) If you think spying is the only thing that players do with alts, and if you think players can't cheat with alts in ways other than spying then you don't have a friggin clue what players can do with alts. Whether the developers tolerate or condone spying is totally irrelevant to whether players are cheating by using alts to spy and do other things. Learn to think outside of the box because limiting cheating to breaking rules is silly. Cheating involves doing things to get and unfair advantage over others REGARDLESS of whether the rules permit it. Using alts is cheating, especially the ways in which some players use alts. (...) - Stick to the point. Everyone. Please. - the moderation team
  3. And these changes will prevent this from happening HOW exactly? Players using alts will still be able to embed themselves in war companies to spy and cheat the same ways they currently embed themselves into other nations and clans, so your point is rather pointless. Players will still be able to cheat with alts in EXACTLY the same ways they can cheat now. These changes do nothing to change what people are currently doing with alts. So, what is your rational explanation for exactly how these changes will prevent players from embedding alts into war companies?
  4. Good freaking grief. Learn to read better and learn to think better. Those quotes do NOT mean what you imagine: "'pvp bullies'" does NOT mean that all PvPers are bullies. In this context PvP functions as an adjective not a noun. In other words, "PvP bullies" refers ONLY to the subset of PvPers who are bullies. Learn something about CONTEXT after you learn to read better and to think better. Ditto for quote #2. And ditto for quote #3. Clearly you see only what you wish to see. Are you really not smart to understand that "by any means possible" includes cheating? Players who need to cheat so they can dominate other players are low life bullies. The way you keep trying to dishonestly distort my comments into referring to all PvPers in general is laughably pathetic. ROFL Explaining exactly why/how someone's thinking is poor is NOT a tangent. That explains why their response deserves rejection. The fact of the matter is your thinking is consistently poor because your thinking constantly uses a variety of logical fallacies. Therefore, the resulting responses deserve nothing but rejection. Clearly you don't understand what qualifies as a rational and well thought out comment/argument. Clearly your standard for what qualifies as rational and well thought out is only whether or not you agree with it. Comments/arguments that use the fallacies you keep using are NOT rational. They are the opposite of well thought out because they are poorly thought out, pretty much by definition. Thinking that relies upon logical fallacies is poor thinking and irrational. Also, comments that dishonestly misrepresent my position and my comments are not rational nor well thought out. Agreement and disagreement are totally irrelevant to me. The only thing that matters to me are facts, truths, and RATIONAL/LOGICAL thinking. The fact of the matter is your thinking is obviously illogical for the reasons I explain. This is why nobody who is capable of engaging in independent rational thought can or will take your comments seriously. The only people who will take you seriously are the people who already agree with you. Plus, the way you keep distorting comments to fabricate straw men and red herrings shows that you have no integrity and no credibility. I have no reason to take someone seriously when they don't have any integrity or credibility.
  5. The analysis and explanation of the problems is spot on. Congratulations for that. I'm not so sure about the solutions, especially the parts that are vague or ambiguous. What does "Nations will close eyes on the privateering activities in the Caribbean region allowing free combat in the region" even mean? Exactly how would we even have a choice? We either can or cannot attack another player depending upon what the game allows us to do. I don't know how we can prevent free combat in the region. Exactly what does "Caribbean region" mean? Should we narrowly interpret this as strictly meaning the territory within and surrounding the Caribbean Sea and thus not the Gulf and not the Atlantic? Or does "Caribbean region" broadly mean the entire map? Can chartered war companies include players from multiple clans allowing players to belong to both a clan and a war company? Or will we have to make an either or choice? If I have to leave my clan to participate in a war company I might as well quite the game now because I will not leave my clan. Will national capitals remain exempt from attack? If not then I might as well quite now because I will NEVER pay taxes to pirates or a foreign power if they can control my national capital. If not, does limiting PB participation to only war companies also apply to defending our national capital? If I cannot help defend my national capital from an attack by a foreign power or pirates then I might as well. If war companies can conquer and control every port on the map then the developers might as well eliminate nations and change the name of the game to "Pirate Action." Frankly, the claim that these changes will eliminate the impact of alts seems ridiculous. I can't see how these changes can or will have a significant impact on alts. Players will still be able to exactly the same things with alts that they do now.
  6. The only ridiculous person here is the one who keeps resorting to the pathetic tactic of making childish ad hominem attacks. The only ridiculous person here is the person who keeps posting patently FALSE nonsense (aka lying). ROFL Whether everyone is against me or not is totally irrelevant. "Everyone" can be wrong, so nice try with that lame appeal to the majority fallacy. Learn to read better and to think better because I am not ignoring or dodging a thing. I am explaining EXACTLY why/how responses are worthless (aka wrong). The fact that you cannot comprehend this fact/truth/reality is your problem, not mine. YOU are the one who is not discussing the topic because you keep resorting to the pathetic tactic of making ad hominem attacks. YOU are the one who is not discussing the topic because you keep dishonestly distorting my position to fabricate lame straw men and red herrings. ROFL I am not attacking style. Style is totally irrelevant. I am attacking poor thinking and explaining exactly how/why the thinking is poor. Conclusions and claims that result from poor thinking are not worth accepting. Explaining how/why thinking is poor has NOTHING to do with semantics - except when a semantic game is part of the poor thinking. Explaining how/why your responses are dishonestly distorting my position to fabricate dishonest straw men and red herrings is not an semantic game. Doing that explains how YOU are playing dishonest semantic games by misrepresenting my comments and my position. So, again, learn to think better and learn to read better and develop a shred of integrity. In other words, poor and irrational responses have NO meat. Learn to read better and to think better so you can understand the difference between attacking a COMMENT verses attacking a person. Of course I am brushing off irrational points that depend upon poor thinking, dishonest misrepresentations, and a plethora of logical fallacies. These kinds of points deserve brushing off, which is exactly why I explain why I am brushing them off. I have NEVER said PvPers are bullies. I have NEVER said that because that is NOT what I think/believe. Lying about my comments like this only shows that you have ZERO integrity and thus no credibility. Lying about my comments like this only shows that you see only what you wish to see. My guess is that I struck a nerve so you are taking this personally. ROFLMAO And of course at the end you again resort to the pathetic tactic of making yet another childish ad hominem attack. Clearly you are the one lacking in temperament. If my interest was in PvE then I would not have left the PvE server more than 18 months ago. I have ZERO problem with PvP. I have been playing tactical and strategic war games my whole life. I LOVE PvP. I also loathe and despise bullies. Bullies are among the lowest of the low-lifes. Nice try fabricating that dumb false dilemma.
  7. LOL Good freaking grief. Talk about utter nonsense. I didn't intentionally change a damn thing so your magical powers of telepathy need calibration. Again, me thinks thou doth project too much. ROFL Your poor circular reasoning is laughable. Who misspelled what or had the typo is totally irrelevant because whether you did or did not misspell anything has NOTHING to with my point. FACT: For whatever reason I honestly thought/believed you misspelled a word and therefore I correctly indicated that in the quote. The fantasy you invent to rationalize a bogus motivation on my part is a delusion that exists only in your mind. That you dream up this imaginary motivation for me says WAY more about you than it says about me. WOW Again, me thinks thou doth project too much. I AM actually discussing what is being discussed. I am not dodging anything. YOU are the one dodging because YOU are the one who keeps using dumb fallacies at the core of poor thinking. YOU are the one who keeps resorting to the pathetic tactic of making childish ad hominem attacks. YOU are the one dodging by shamefully making a FALSE claim about me intentionally changing something. If you cannot comprehend that/how I am directly discussing the issues and how I am explaining the flaws in your comments then you are beyond any help I can provide. Making FALSE claims about me only shows that you have no integrity and thus no credibility.
  8. Of course I have referred to "'pvp bullies'" as the bullies that they are, several times. I am bluntly honest and I call things as I see them. So friggin what if I call bullies the bullies that they are? How is this the least bit relevant. Except I AM addressing what is said by explaining how/why what is said is illegitimate if not worthless. I AM addressing the game play debate. What is said is illegitimate if not worthless because the underlying reasoning is poor, and so I identify exactly why/how the thinking is poor. STYLE is not the issue here. Proper logic (i.e. strong thinking instead of weak/poor thinking) is the issue. Ideas that use poor thinking are worthless for all practical purposes. Semantics is NOT the issue here - EXCEPT when you distort someone else's comment to misrepresent their meaning. Again, the issue is proper logic and thus strong high quality thinking. As long as you people keep using the plethora of fallacies your poor thinking depends upon your thinking will remain poor and thus your ideas/claims/arguments are not worth accepting. I AM directly addressing what you say and I am explaining exactly why what you say is worthless. If you cannot comprehend this fact/truth/reality then there is nothing more I can do to help. You inability or unwillingness to accept what I explain is your problem, not mine. I am at a loss for how to respond? Seriously? ROFL Clearly the evidence of my comments shows exactly the opposite.
  9. WOW That is some amazing nonsense. In other words, when unable to produce a mature and intelligent comment that can pass for a sound or cogent counterargument you resort to the pathetic tactic of making a childish ad hominem attack. Calling someone stubborn and a dick to fabricate a lame genetic fallacy only shows that you have ZERO integrity and thus no credibility. Once again, me thinks thou doth project too much. (BTW, you do understand that I am paraphrasing Shakespeare, right?) The only dicks here are the people who keep resorting to the pathetic tactic of making childish ad hominem attacks. ROFL Except the FACT is that I am refuting the weak claims/arguments by using those terms you insist I am just throwing around. I am throwing them around because they help explain EXACTLY why/how the other arguments are weak. Clearly you understand NOTHING about using proper logic to engage in effective critical thinking, independent rational thought, or how to refute a weak claim or weak argument with a sound or cogent counterargument. One does not refute a poor argument merely by presenting an opposing empty opinion. Doing that refutes NOTHING. Such empty opinions are worthless. Arguments and counterargument that rely upon the plethora of logical fallacies you people keep using are effectively worthless. Weak/poor arguments that use fallacies are correct ONLY by accident. They are NEVER correct because of the underlying reasoning. Therefore, identifying WHY/HOW someone's argument is weak and thus NOT valid, sound, or cogent is a necessary part of refuting it. I am not simply throwing around terms haphazardly and whimsically merely because I feel like it. Excuse the hell out of my for having an using an excellent education. ROFLMAO Yeah, right, the game has tested EVERYTHING before so it is now impossible for anyone to come up with any new ideas or a variation on an old idea, which is therefore necessarily a new idea. [extreme sarcasm off] Also, nice try with the lame appeal to popularity fallacy (aka an appeal to the majority fallacy). You are smart enough to understand that most people can be wrong, correct? You do have the integrity to admit the fact/truth/reality that most people can be wrong, correct? ROFL There is nothing polite about insisting that someone is stubborn and is wrong because they are stubborn. That kind of poor circular reasoning is laughable. Learn to read better and to think better because I am NOT assuming a damn thing. I am rationally explaining exactly why/how the other reasons are NOT legitimate. They are not and cannot be legitimate because the underlying reasoning is weak/poor, and the underlying reasoning is weak/poor because that reasoning keeps using a variety of logical fallacies. Learn to read better and to think better and then develop a shred of integrity to stop with that dishonest distortion of my position. I am NOT suggesting "Safe Zones." Barfing up a patently FALSE comment like that only shows that you have zero integrity and thus no credibility. I am suggesting SAFER zones, not "Safe Zones." SAFER Zones =/= Safe Zones HOW is it so hard to understand this fact? HOW is it so difficult to admit the truth of this fact?
  10. In other words, resorting to the yet another dumb stereotype and a childish ad hominem attack so you can fabricate yet another dumb genetic fallacy is the best you can manage. FACT: I am not complaining about anything. That is YOUR highly subjective and self-serving perception. Me thinks thou doth project too much. ROFL I stopped playing on the PvE server after about a week - that was more than 18 months ago. But if believing the stereotype you so desperately resort to provides you with some comfort then more power to you. Your dishonest distortion of my position into wanting "this or this to be impossible" is patently FALSE and yet another dishonest false dilemma and straw man. All this false claim does is show that you have little if any integrity and thus no credibility. Yes, I know that is not what he is literally saying. Because I understand the concepts of implicit meaning and context I also understand that is what his statement means because that is what his statement implies. Whether he intends to imply that is irrelevant.
  11. So the real issue to negotiate over is how much longer to make territorial timers, not IF they should be longer. Got it. Okay then, how about 15 min. and 8 min.?
  12. I understand perfectly well the time frame of the GAME. I also understand the GAME is not supposed to be a 100% accurate simulation. More importantly, I also understand that a GAME can and should be fun for as many players as possible with an interest in type of game by appealing to a variety of interests and playing styles. Or, a game can be fun for as few players as possible by appealing to as few niche styles as possible. Considering the nature of the game now and the recent trends they should change the name of the game from "Naval Action" to "Pirate Action" and just get rid of all national concerns and all national territories. This should make the players who care mostly if not only about PvP ecstatic. Everyone else can play something else. "Grammar nazi [sic] crap"? What grammar Nazi crap? Excuse the hell out of me for having the integrity to properly quote someone by following the rules for how to quote someone else. I know the correct spelling of Caribbean, ergo using [sic] to indicate that I am correctly quoting someone else who misspells a word. Oh, btw, spelling and grammar are not the same thing. "Calm down"? ROFL If I were any less calm I would be asleep. EXACTLY what language am I using to indicate that I am not calm? Nice try with that dumb stereotype and ad hominem attack to fabricate a lame genetic fallacy. Me thinks thou doth project too much. Clearly you don't understand what a straw man is nor what the purpose of a straw man. I am not trying to "ignore" any point. By correctly labeling a straw man as a straw man I am explaining why/how a point is weak at best and thus that/how the reasoning behind the point is weak at best. Responses that depend upon logical fallacies and empty "because I say so" claims/opinions as much as your responses use logical fallacies are hardly rational. Indeed, they verge on being the opposite of irrational because they are weak/poor at best. The entire purpose of using logical fallacies as often as you use them is for YOU to avoid a logical and objective consideration of some else's ideas. The entire purpose of using the logical fallacies you use is for you to rationalize exactly what you already believe. Online equivalent of yelling? Really? I am not responsible for how others choose to unreasonably interpret my comments. If they don't understand the important role nonverbal cues play in communication now how to provide substitutes for those cue when writing that is their problem, not mine.
  13. Except your reply is not completely rational because of all the logical fallacies and erroneous claims you keep using. Here's why: "The amount of AI is relevant in so far the players are able to "hide" alongside the AI and thereby be protected by the magically present AI bots. Totally realistic because in the age of sails there were just SO many battlefleets sailing around with nothing better to do than protect some lone trader." WOW You never heard of the Coast Guard? You never heard of navy ships patrolling territorial waters? The AI ships only SIMULATE something that really happened throughout history and which continues today. There is nothing "magical" about it. Plus, it isn't as if the AI ships are great at the job they are simulating. Nice try with that exaggeration. You disingenuously act as if AI ships are so plentiful and capable that players can "hide" behind them all the time and thus sale around in almost complete safety. Also, nice try with the line drawing fallacy at the end to create another false dilemma. Realism in a game, especially a game that largely a simulation, is a CONTINUUM - as in realism is NOT a false binary choice of unrealistic vs. 100% realism. The way you people keep trying to fabricate this lame false dilemma is amusing. "The idea that battles should be opened for magically 30 mins or 1 hour is i.e. asking for safer homewaters. The discussion has been had on numerous occasions and while I believe it is important to be able to get help we also need to be aware that all battles function in the timecompression 1-8 and OW timecompression is 20-1 with a magical boost to OW ship speeds. In most cases the battles would be over when a player hears a cry for help in the magic of the chat window (that didn't exist in the 18th century) and get to the battlespot. As the system is now there's actually the ability for the homefleet to camp a battlesite and then hunt the raiders - again not something that was possible in the 18th century. The current timers are a compromise between the need for an ability to call for help and the dynamic that brings and the need for some realism and possibility for raiding PvP. The old system with Battlescreens were thankfully foregone as they were merely used by raiders as magical cloaking devices so now the raiders has to escape and the homefleet actually has to organize a response." ROFL I bet you don't have a clue how much your comment contradicts itself. Battles not closing until after some time frame that you magically (conveniently?) consider too long is NOT magical. Battles closing PERIOD and ships becoming invisible is magical. ROFL Yes, I am suggesting SAFER home waters, but NOT safe home waters. Apparently you have trouble comprehending the distinction. Yes, the current timers are a compromise - AND making some timers longer than others depending upon where they are is ALSO a reasonable compromise. "I play DK/NG on PvP EU and it is in fact one of the smaller nations. It has by no means a safe homewater environment and that is as it should be. Coordination, communication, convoying and grouping up together keeps the traders safe(r) and makes life (a bit) more difficult for raiders. Does this mean that Christiansted is the safest harbor in the carribean? - I can't say. I do however have a very clear impression that raiding in CS waters are a lot more dangerous than say Kingston/Port Royal. The homefleet is better coordinated, more organized, better equipped and usually diligent enough to go hunt for raiders." In other words, all you have is basically, 'Because I say so.' Also, you conveniently ignore the fact that some nations have so few players players that the kind of coordination you describe is impossible. Then of course there is the issue of time zones. So, according to your standard players who can only play at times when they cannot get much if any support are just SOL. "First off - there were no such thing as national waters and international waters. Secondly waters closer to the shores of a nation were safer because patrols regularly patrolled the waters - what I'm arguing is that this responsibility is the players - not some magical AI that goes hunting for those evil players that actually want to do PvP. If you want a safe home environment? - go make it safe." Nice try with the unnecessary literalism to fabricate a lame straw man. Yes, in the LEGAL sense there were no "territorial" waters during this time frame. This legal concept did not formally exist until the middle of the 20th Century when the UN formalized it. However, the fact/truth/reality is that throughout history nations were much more protective of some waters than they were others. The fact/truth/reality is that throughout history nation states have functionally treated some waters as national territorial waters and others as international, especially during peace time. The only thing the UN did was legally formalize what had already been common practice for centuries. "A nations ability to create a safezone for the traders is directly based on that nations ability to motivate its playerbase to make that area safe. If you are levelling up - do as everyone else does. Go to a remote area and do your missions and don't blame someone else for seeking PvP wherever the largest amount of players gather. ALL capitals are trader hotspots in this game and in ANY war it has been a strategic objective to harm, impede or prevent enemy shipping from transporting goods, materials and ressources. So basically - if you want to be left alone go to a place with a scarcity of population. No one in their right minds go hunting in the gulf of mexico - why? No ones there. No one in their right mind goes hunting along the american seaboard on PvP EU.. Why? - No ones there. " Once again you conveniently and disingenuously ignore the issues of the size of nations (i.e. the number of players) and time zones. I have not been able to level up any further for about a year. Once again your comment is humorously self-contradictory because of the way you readily admit that some areas are safer than others. Why put ALL of the inconvenience on the players who are leveling up by making THEM have to sail possibly long distances to find another area to level up? Why can't the players who are seeking PvP be the ones who sail someplace else to seek out PvP? Are players who seek out PvP too stupid to figure out that the farther they search from a nation's capital the more likely they are to find other players who are also seeking out PvP? Are they too stupid to figure out that if they search in international waters just outside of territorial waters, particularly in likely trade routes and just outside of a nation's capital territorial waters, that they are much more likely find other players amenable to if not desirous of PvP? Are players who want if not crave PvP really too stupid to figure how and where to find each other? Again and quite frankly, you come across as a bully who desperately wants to preserve seal clubbing. Yep, resource denial by raiding trade has always been a legitimate and necessary strategic object during war. NOBODY is suggesting the developers put a stop to it. So, nice try with that disingenuous exaggeration to fabricate yet another straw man. The suggestion is to make SOME areas safer than they are - but NOT safe - and so far you have not produced a sound or cogent counterargument. There you go again with another lame stereotype. My playing style and playing preferences are totally IRRELVANT to my suggestion. I have not even mentioned my personal preferences. So, that is a nice bit of projecting there. My suggesting is solely about making some parts/areas of the game more convenient for a greater variety of playing styles instead appealing to only two or three niche styles. My suggestion is solely about making the game more realistic and FUN for everyone AND for as many players as possible. As in MORE players not fewer players. Finally, "Blame" in the context that you present is a lame red herring that has NOTHING to do with my suggestion.
  14. Except when help/reinforcements are 3 min. 1 sec. or more away the reaction time of other players is totally irrelevant. Also, I never suggest "safeness" as in making grinding and trading totally safe. Safer =/= Safe Frankly, if you need me to explain why even bother with making SOME areas safer than other places - but NOT necessarily safe - then I don't think you will get it, or I don't think you will accept it. I bet a lot of the people who have quite playing the game care. For a couple weeks the global server routinely had 325-350 players on at the peak times of the day. Now we are doing good if we have 250. Wanna bet if that trend continues? Wanna do a pool of what the player count will be in two months?
  15. WHERE in the world do I say I don't know what a sailing profile is? This claim is utter nonsense. WHERE in the world do I compare the speed of basic cutter to the speed of an Indiaman? This distortion is also utter nonsense. There is no FEELING to this game. There is only seeing and hearing. I don't see or hear any discernable difference between a ship sailing in the OW with no fleet verses the same ship sailing in the OW with a fleet. Now, on a real ship at sea I most certainly could feel and here the difference between the ship doing a 2/3 bell at 10 knots verses the ship doing a full bell at 20 knots or a flank bell at 25+ knots. I could feel and hear the difference between doing a 1/3 bell at 5 knots verses backing down at 5 knots. And when I was in the engine room I knew what bell we were steaming just from the sounds of the machinery and the vibration of the ship. But in this game I don't "feel" anything and I don't see the imaginary difference you are inventing. A ship sailing alone "feels" exactly the same to me as the same ship "feels" if it has a fleet. BTW, my birthday is 3 JAN 16 and I have 3188 hours playing this game. Nice try with the projecting to fabricate a lame genetic fallacy.
×
×
  • Create New...