Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I've seen it done too. What I haven't seen is any stats (and I seriously doubt there are) on how often or how successfull it is, or if was actually effective in detering/preventing pking.
It wasn't successful enough to prevent most players from moving to Trammel.
That's assuming it was the only factor in people making that decision. I'm really sick of pointing out the rules of BASIC LOGIC to people in this thread. It seems like the majority of my posts are just explaining why something somebody said doesn't even make sense.
Probably because often you are arguing something that was not said, twisting something around till it is not reflective of what was said, ignoring parts of arguments that counter what you said, or making assumptions about what people would do.
You don't seem to have a grasp of logic or basic argument.
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread. ESPECIALLY you. I don't ignore points, you do. I've pointed out to you arguments that you've ignored from small posts so you couldn't have possibly missed them. I'm the one that's constantly having his points ignored. Show me what points I've ignored.
Your feelings are just hurt because I'm currently exposing how silly and stubborn you're being in our other discussion. For instance, in this particular instance, am I wrong in pointing out the lapse of logic? If I am, try and explain why. If I'm not wrong then why are you even responding to this post, if not being you're so obviously affected by our other discussion? Which is it?
No. You make assumptions, you argue about things that were never said, you twist till it is not refelctive, ignore parts of arguments.
Yes you are wrong in pointing a lapse of logic, there was no lapse in logic, except on your part.
My feelings aren't hurt at all. Really, getting emotionally involved over statements about video games on an internet forum is kinda silly.
I'm responding because I'm engaged in the conversation. Not because I'm affected or emotionally involved in it.
See, there is another assumption on your part: I can only rspond if I'm affected. There are many many many reasons to be involved in a discussion.
Anyway - I'm done here. You have moved beyond arguing the topics or issues and have now resorted to personally attacking the posters, which is, as well all know (well maybe not you) the last resort of an unsuccessfull argument. So good luck playing.. er arguing with yourself. See you in another topic.
I didn't assume that the only way you could respond is if you're affected. I made a logical deduction based on the things you've said. That's not an assumption, that's an assessment of the situation. Do I have to tell you the difference? I probably do, but I'm not gonna waste my time on you. It takes several volleys back and forth to explain BASIC LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES to you and you still don't admit it when the answer is literally laid out to you in a form that a child could understand... I'm not doing it again.
If I'm personally attacking you it's because you're being deliberately stubborn. That doesn't mean I've lost anything. I've showed you clear as day the error in your logic, and you simply WILL NOT concede the point because you're being stubborn.
Or because you are just flat out wrong. Obviously your idea of logic and my idea of logic are very different. You haven't pointed out any logical inconsistenices, only areas that you think are logical inconsistencies, which is very wrong.
Darn it, sucked in again. Now I'm out.
Well, you being the person who is WRONG in this case I'm sure you'd like it if logic were more subjective than it is. Unfortunately this isn't some complex issue that you can wriggle out of. You said "because X, that must mean Y". And I said bullshit, other things could be the cause of X. This isn't hard!
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread.
How interesting...
Why? Do you disagree? When I respond to posts, I often parse it out point by point and don't delete anything, responding to everything. This website's quote feature is pretty awful so sometimes I can't do that, but I respond to each thing point-by-point. You can claim otherwise if you want, but I'd be interested in example of me ignoring things.
See? By that one tiny phrase you 'assume' it was about one thing. One could also insinuate that (by the specific part I quoted) you believe yourself more thorough in a debate than the rest of us that have posted in this thread.
So, is your statement fact or assumption?
LOL Dude, I ASKED you why. What do you mean I assumed it was about one thing? You said a cryptic phrase that is often meant to be a passive aggressive way of disagreeing. However, I didn't jump to any conclusions, I asked why and then elaborated on my reasoning, offering you the chance to disagree but telling you that I'd want examples of where I was wrong. What's wrong with that reasoning?
To answer your question: Yes, I believe I'm (far) more thorough in a debate than almost everybody I've argued with in this thread. Basically every argument I've had has been filled with people ignoring my points, insulting my playstyle in games (which they don't know anything about), logical fallacies, etc.
'Why' is not 'what'. Also, your perception of it being passive aggressive is on you. It's how you reacted to it. Not asking what was meant by it and therefor not wondering what i meant. You immediately thought I was implying you didn't respond point-by-point. It was in the same post as the why...so it's an assumption.
It's all perspective, I only chimed in the convo because I perceived that statement had a hint of condescension in it and wanted clarification.
There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, Age of Wushu etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
What you should state is that we don't need more poorly produced PvP attempts in the industry. EQ2s pvp example was just open field PK and then finally, generic battlegrounds where yet again we find our fantasy heroes slaying the same mirrored class race combinations. This is lackluster at best and appeals to a very overserviced and under challenged community.
Then there's the rest of us. So yeah, I say if you ARE going to institute pvp - put it on it's own server so the pve EQ fans still have a place to enjoy the game, and give it some quality so that folks who WILL be playing Elder Scrolls Online and Camelot Unchained, those of us who expect siege warfare and more complex, purposeful pvp where our enemies (drum roll) AREN'T the same as the people in our alliance...
Alas I dream. I have yet to see SoE produce articulate pvp, let alone most of the industry.
I respond more thoroughly than the vast majority of people on the internet and probably more thoroughly than just about everybody in this thread.
How interesting...
Why? Do you disagree? When I respond to posts, I often parse it out point by point and don't delete anything, responding to everything. This website's quote feature is pretty awful so sometimes I can't do that, but I respond to each thing point-by-point. You can claim otherwise if you want, but I'd be interested in example of me ignoring things.
See? By that one tiny phrase you 'assume' it was about one thing. One could also insinuate that (by the specific part I quoted) you believe yourself more thorough in a debate than the rest of us that have posted in this thread.
So, is your statement fact or assumption?
LOL Dude, I ASKED you why. What do you mean I assumed it was about one thing? You said a cryptic phrase that is often meant to be a passive aggressive way of disagreeing. However, I didn't jump to any conclusions, I asked why and then elaborated on my reasoning, offering you the chance to disagree but telling you that I'd want examples of where I was wrong. What's wrong with that reasoning?
To answer your question: Yes, I believe I'm (far) more thorough in a debate than almost everybody I've argued with in this thread. Basically every argument I've had has been filled with people ignoring my points, insulting my playstyle in games (which they don't know anything about), logical fallacies, etc.
'Why' is not 'what'. Also, your perception of it being passive aggressive is on you. It's how you reacted to it. Not asking what was meant by it and therefor not wondering what i meant. You immediately thought I was implying you didn't respond point-by-point. It was in the same post as the why...so it's an assumption.
It's all perspective, I only chimed in the convo because I perceived that statement had a hint of condescension in it and wanted clarification.
What are you even talking about? "Why" as in "why is it interesting?" I'm seriously confused. It seems like you're just trying to pick a fight for no reason, you haven't even made a point yet.
You said "Not asking what was meant by it and t herefor not windering what I meant" BUT I DID ASK YOU! I asked you like 3 times. I said "Why?" Then I said "Do you disagree?" Then at the end of my post I said "You can claim otherwise if you want, but I'd be interested in example of me ignoring things."
How is that not asking what you meant by it?
It's not just my perception that it's passive aggressive. Historically it's a passive aggressive thing to simply say "How interesting..." when somebody claims something. Also, it doesn't matter because I didn't jump to any conclusions. I asked you why it was interesting at the beginning of my post and then gave you a chance to explain yourself at the end of my post. Seriously don't know what the problem is here man.
There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, Age of Wushu etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
What you should state is that we don't need more poorly produced PvP attempts in the industry. EQ2s pvp example was just open field PK and then finally, generic battlegrounds where yet again we find our fantasy heroes slaying the same mirrored class race combinations. This is lackluster at best and appeals to a very overserviced and under challenged community.
Then there's the rest of us. So yeah, I say if you ARE going to institute pvp - put it on it's own server so the pve EQ fans still have a place to enjoy the game, and give it some quality so that folks who WILL be playing Elder Scrolls Online and Camelot Unchained, those of us who expect siege warfare and more complex, purposeful pvp where our enemies (drum roll) AREN'T the same as the people in our alliance...
Alas I dream. I have yet to see SoE produce articulate pvp, let alone most of the industry.
They can make the game however they want but just so you know, having a pve server and a pvp server is not giving everybody what they want. If there's a game that is even capable of having seperate pve and pvp servers, that means one of those servers is PROBABLY gonna suck. It means either the pvp is tacked on and not meaningful or the game will be boring without it. If they're making a pvp version of the game and a pve version of the game that can both stand on their own in different ways, then they might as well just be different games.
What are you even talking about? "Why" as in "why is it interesting?" I'm seriously confused. It seems like you're just trying to pick a fight for no reason, you haven't even made a point yet.
You said "Not asking what was meant by it and t herefor not windering what I meant" BUT I DID ASK YOU! I asked you like 3 times. I said "Why?" Then I said "Do you disagree?" Then at the end of my post I said "You can claim otherwise if you want, but I'd be interested in example of me ignoring things."
How is that not asking what you meant by it?
It's not just my perception that it's passive aggressive. Historically it's a passive aggressive thing to simply say "How interesting..." when somebody claims something. Also, it doesn't matter because I didn't jump to any conclusions. I asked you why it was interesting at the beginning of my post and then gave you a chance to explain yourself at the end of my post. Seriously don't know what the problem is here man.
Firstly, asking twice in one post and not waiting for a response before going on about what you thought it meant is kinda 'jumping to conclusions'.
Secondly, I would LOVE to know where you got that saying 'How interesting..' is historically accurate in being passive-aggressive. It was in psychology parodies all the time and not passive-aggressive in nature.
I will concede though that the statement was vague, but not to start a fight. Rather to show the nature of how things can be perceived, as in why I posted it in the first place. Didn't care about how you debated, just whether or not you actually thought you were better at debating.
What are you even talking about? "Why" as in "why is it interesting?" I'm seriously confused. It seems like you're just trying to pick a fight for no reason, you haven't even made a point yet.
You said "Not asking what was meant by it and t herefor not windering what I meant" BUT I DID ASK YOU! I asked you like 3 times. I said "Why?" Then I said "Do you disagree?" Then at the end of my post I said "You can claim otherwise if you want, but I'd be interested in example of me ignoring things."
How is that not asking what you meant by it?
It's not just my perception that it's passive aggressive. Historically it's a passive aggressive thing to simply say "How interesting..." when somebody claims something. Also, it doesn't matter because I didn't jump to any conclusions. I asked you why it was interesting at the beginning of my post and then gave you a chance to explain yourself at the end of my post. Seriously don't know what the problem is here man.
Firstly, asking twice in one post and not waiting for a response before going on about what you thought it meant is kinda 'jumping to conclusions'.
Secondly, I would LOVE to know where you got that saying 'How interesting..' is historically accurate in being passive-aggressive. It was in psychology parodies all the time and not passive-aggressive in nature.
I will concede though that the statement was vague, but not to start a fight. Rather to show the nature of how things can be perceived, as in why I posted it in the first place. Didn't care about how you debated, just whether or not you actually thought you were better at debating.
No problem, really.
I didn't jump to conclusions. I elaborated on the most likely point you thought was "interesting." That way you could take back whatever it was you were going to say. Why would I waste time when I already have a decent idea of what you probably mean? Jumping to conclusions would be not asking you at all and arguing with you as if you explicitly said it.
And dude I'm gonna be honest with you, I am not about to get into a discussion with you about the way people perceive the phrase "How interesting...." I just took a quick poll of people in the room with me and the result was unanimous that if somebody simply replies to something you've said with "How interesting...." that person PROBABLY takes issue with something you've said but isn't outright confronting you.... being passive aggressive.
I didn't jump to conclusions. I elaborated on the most likely point you thought was "interesting." That way you could take back whatever it was you were going to say. Why would I waste time when I already have a decent idea of what you probably mean? Assuming it would be not asking you and aggressively arguing with you as if you explicitly said it.
And dude I'm gonna be honest with you, I am not about to get into a discussion with you about the way people perceive the phrase "How interesting...." I just took a quick poll of people in the room with me and the result was unanimous that if somebody simply replies to something you've said with "How interesting...." that person PROBABLY takes issue with something you've said but isn't outright confronting you.... being passive aggressive.
Funny you should say poll for this, I just found this:
vote no and you'll see. You have your poll I have mine. No clear winner (except in our heads)
You still didn't get my point though about how to perceive things so I'll let it go.
Oh and BTW .." I elaborated on the most likely point you thought was "interesting" is...without knowing exactly what I meant.. jumping to conclusions since I had not replied as of yet. No other way to put it really.
Anyway, I'm out. Have yourself a good night, and don't worry about this.
I didn't jump to conclusions. I elaborated on the most likely point you thought was "interesting." That way you could take back whatever it was you were going to say. Why would I waste time when I already have a decent idea of what you probably mean? Assuming it would be not asking you and aggressively arguing with you as if you explicitly said it.
And dude I'm gonna be honest with you, I am not about to get into a discussion with you about the way people perceive the phrase "How interesting...." I just took a quick poll of people in the room with me and the result was unanimous that if somebody simply replies to something you've said with "How interesting...." that person PROBABLY takes issue with something you've said but isn't outright confronting you.... being passive aggressive.
Funny you should say poll for this, I just found this:
vote no and you'll see. You have your poll I have mine. No clear winner (except in our heads)
You still didn't get my point though about how to perceive things so I'll let it go.
Oh and BTW .." I elaborated on the most likely point you thought was "interesting" is...without knowing exactly what I meant.. jumping to conclusions since I had not replied as of yet. No other way to put it really.
Anyway, I'm out. Have yourself a good night, and don't worry about this.
I'm sure we'll meet again.
Ummm.... doesn't the poll itself agree with me? It grants the premise that 90% of the time the phrase "how interesting" is received as sarcasm. I agree that sarcasm isn't technically included in those words, but that's how people perceive it... as the poll indicates. And people perceive it as such because that's how people often mean it. And because people often mean it like that, it seemed like that's how you meant it. But since there was a chance you didn't mean it sarcastically, that's why I asked you a couple of times to explain. Again, I don't disagree that there's nothing inherently wrong with the phrase "How interesting...." that's why I explicitly said that's how it's historically perceived. I said that for a reason.
Again, jumping to conclusions (as a negative) would be to assume you meant something without asking for clarification. There's nothing wrong with asking you, and in the meantime (since this isn't voice chat), elaborating on the more controversial point that you'd PROBABLY take issue with.
Ummm.... doesn't the poll itself agree with me? It grants the premise that 90% of the time the phrase "how interesting" is received as sarcasm. I agree that sarcasm isn't technically included in those words, but that's how people perceive it... as the poll indicates. And people perceive it as such because that's how people often mean it. And because people often mean it like that, it seemed like that's how you meant it. But since there was a chance you didn't mean it sarcastically, that's why I asked you a couple of times to explain. Again, I don't disagree that there's nothing inherently wrong with the phrase "How interesting...." that's why I explicitly said that's how it's historically perceived. I said that for a reason.
Again, jumping to conclusions (as a negative) would be to assume you meant something without asking for clarification. There's nothing wrong with asking you, and in the meantime (since this isn't voice chat), elaborating on the more controversial point that you'd PROBABLY take issue with.
Ummm.... doesn't the poll itself agree with me? It grants the premise that 90% of the time the phrase "how interesting" is received as sarcasm. I agree that sarcasm isn't technically included in those words, but that's how people perceive it... as the poll indicates. And people perceive it as such because that's how people often mean it. And because people often mean it like that, it seemed like that's how you meant it. But since there was a chance you didn't mean it sarcastically, that's why I asked you a couple of times to explain. Again, I don't disagree that there's nothing inherently wrong with the phrase "How interesting...." that's why I explicitly said that's how it's historically perceived. I said that for a reason.
Again, jumping to conclusions (as a negative) would be to assume you meant something without asking for clarification. There's nothing wrong with asking you, and in the meantime (since this isn't voice chat), elaborating on the more controversial point that you'd PROBABLY take issue with.
Now you can poll your 'surroundings' as to how this question really asks what it asks, then we can debate that.
You're confused. What I asked the people in the room is not what you're asking in your poll. I'm asking if people perceive the phrase "How interesting..." to be sarcastic. You're asking if it's fair that people perceive it as such. Your poll includes as a predetermined premise the thing I'm trying to argue for lol.
I agree that it may be unfair, but that doesn't mean I can be faulted for thinking that's how you meant it. Most people mean it as such, so blame the people who use it incorrectly, don't blame me for taking it in a way it's most commonly used. Also, again, I didn't even assume anything or jump to any conclusions. If I had, I wouldn't have asked you if you actually disagree with me.
To me, assuming and jumping to conclusions are kind of the same. You haven't proven anything yet, especially not the 'far' more thorough debater.
Ok, but I didn't do either. You seem to be confused again. Do you think I said I was assuming something but not jumping to conclusions?
I thought you were being sarcastic when you said "How interesting....", so I asked you to clarify and then went on to explain myself on the point that you were most likely to take offense at. And how have I not shown myself to be the more thorough debater when I'm responding to almost every line in your posts directly?
Ummm.... doesn't the poll itself agree with me? It grants the premise that 90% of the time the phrase "how interesting" is received as sarcasm. I agree that sarcasm isn't technically included in those words, but that's how people perceive it... as the poll indicates. And people perceive it as such because that's how people often mean it. And because people often mean it like that, it seemed like that's how you meant it. But since there was a chance you didn't mean it sarcastically, that's why I asked you a couple of times to explain. Again, I don't disagree that there's nothing inherently wrong with the phrase "How interesting...." that's why I explicitly said that's how it's historically perceived. I said that for a reason.
Again, jumping to conclusions (as a negative) would be to assume you meant something without asking for clarification. There's nothing wrong with asking you, and in the meantime (since this isn't voice chat), elaborating on the more controversial point that you'd PROBABLY take issue with.
Now you can poll your 'surroundings' as to how this question really asks what it asks, then we can debate that.
You're confused. What I asked the people in the room is not what you're asking in your poll. I'm asking if people perceive the phrase "How interesting..." to be sarcastic. You're asking if it's fair that people perceive it as such. Your poll includes as a predetermined premise the thing I'm trying to argue for lol.
I agree that it may be unfair, but that doesn't mean I can be faulted for thinking that's how you meant it. Most people mean it as such, so blame the people who use it incorrectly, don't blame me for taking it in a way it's most commonly used. Also, again, I didn't even assume anything or jump to any conclusions. If I had, I wouldn't have asked you if you actually disagree with me.
To me, assuming and jumping to conclusions are kind of the same. You haven't proven anything yet, especially not the 'far' more thorough debater.
Ok, but I didn't do either. You seem to be confused again. Do you think I said I was assuming something but not jumping to conclusions?
I thought you were being sarcastic when you said "How interesting....", so I asked you to clarify and then went on to explain myself on the point that you were most likely to take offense at. And how have I not shown myself to be the more thorough debater when I'm responding to almost every line in your posts directly?
You're REALLY stretching here, by the way.
There is no way you can say that the majority can believe that, even if the poster said %90. It's not possible. Anyone who says 'most' 'all' or even a high % number without any factual data starts off with a false premise (yes even the poster), so the conclusion cannot be true as no one can know for a fact that most people takes that phrase as sarcasm.
I was bringing that link as a joke, showing how silly it is for either side attempting to debate such premises. The fact you believe in it dictated your reaction to it, initially. You admitted you thought I was being sarcastic, to which I can honestly say I was not. I was bemused by the statement, the following debate being rather circular in nature that I found even more amusing. For this I apologize for taunting you the way I did.
In this very thread, where I was debating the topic with Dihoru, you interjected but not fully understanding our discussion. You eventually asked for clarification, and got it. Perspective is no small thing, especially when arguing and trying to use 'absolutes' like 'everyone', 'most' like we see too often here.
Personally, I have not really seen or heard 'How interesting..' used other than in cartoons or comedies where the shrink is bored or some such to bring a laugh or two. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No. Of course not. Can I say it rarely happens and still be right? Because even in this, you have shown no proof that it is the majority that think this way, and I can assure you, you'll be hard pressed to. This is my opinion from my experience just your is to you, though I respect it.
Again, apologies for baiting you as I did. See you in another debate..
None of those "sandbox" games are AAA. We don't have a single decent AAA sandbox (EVE is good but not really my style) and if one doesn't have PvP I will probably have to pass (unless the PvE is just insanely good).
None of those "sandbox" games are AAA. We don't have a single decent AAA sandbox (EVE is good but not really my style) and if one doesn't have PvP I will probably have to pass (unless the PvE is just insanely good).
Insanely good in my book would mean AI smarter than EVE's second generation Sleeper AI but that would make people cry in a trinity game because critters controlled by the Sleeper AI will make a B-line for anything hitting them harder than the rest and will also pay extreme amounts of attention to healers... imagine something even smarter than that... would stun lock tanks with part of its group and use the rest to kill the squishy guys o.o...
Sinaku though is right, there are no AAA PVP sandboxes, not even EVE classes as one because it started off with a budget of under 5 million euros with marketing whereas its long time counterpart WoW had (last I heard) had around 20 times that with marketing.
None of those "sandbox" games are AAA. We don't have a single decent AAA sandbox (EVE is good but not really my style) and if one doesn't have PvP I will probably have to pass (unless the PvE is just insanely good).
Insanely good in my book would mean AI smarter than EVE's second generation Sleeper AI but that would make people cry in a trinity game because critters controlled by the Sleeper AI will make a B-line for anything hitting them harder than the rest and will also pay extreme amounts of attention to healers... imagine something even smarter than that... would stun lock tanks with part of its group and use the rest to kill the squishy guys o.o...
Sinaku though is right, there are no AAA PVP sandboxes, not even EVE classes as one because it started off with a budget of under 5 million euros with marketing whereas its long time counterpart WoW had (last I heard) had around 20 times that with marketing.
Yes, as good a game as it is (although not a game for me) a AAA funded version would probably have flopped from having too many features and too much glitz. The budget CCP had constrained the development to give it just right features and gritiness to appeal to a niche that it has occupied and allowed it to continue to grow.
The mistakes made with the Incarna update forced CCP to focus more on player expectations and this combined with the small size of the publisher has kept the game tight and well supported by its community.
None of those "sandbox" games are AAA. We don't have a single decent AAA sandbox (EVE is good but not really my style) and if one doesn't have PvP I will probably have to pass (unless the PvE is just insanely good).
Insanely good in my book would mean AI smarter than EVE's second generation Sleeper AI but that would make people cry in a trinity game because critters controlled by the Sleeper AI will make a B-line for anything hitting them harder than the rest and will also pay extreme amounts of attention to healers... imagine something even smarter than that... would stun lock tanks with part of its group and use the rest to kill the squishy guys o.o...
Sinaku though is right, there are no AAA PVP sandboxes, not even EVE classes as one because it started off with a budget of under 5 million euros with marketing whereas its long time counterpart WoW had (last I heard) had around 20 times that with marketing.
Yes, as good a game as it is (although not a game for me) a AAA funded version would probably have flopped from having too many features and too much glitz. The budget CCP had constrained the development to give it just right features and gritiness to appeal to a niche that it has occupied and allowed it to continue to grow.
The mistakes made with the Incarna update forced CCP to focus more on player expectations and this combined with the small size of the publisher has kept the game tight and well supported by its community.
Well as an Incarna protester I can tell you it wasn't that we wanted something in particular, it's that we were seeing CCP neglecting what made EVE, EVE, IE ship to ship combat, which ignited pretty badly when that leaked internal letter showed the devs playing around with the notions of P2W games (even if in jest they still dun goofed). Also if Incarna was more feature complete (IE that damn door in the CQ actually opened onto a station) and didn't make some peoples GPUs run so hot you could make an omelette on it the backlash might've been more minor but as was back in the summer of 2011... people were pissed... really pissed... I saw incursion running ships orbiting the Jita 4-4 monument and shooting it (incursion runners make money by running incursions which in fleets takes about 4-5 minutes a pop but you need to layer em fast one on top of the other to get good profits, to see those people there in those ships, most of which were hella expensive to boot to, was a sign in and of itself how annoyed people were with the status quo). But as a fun fact with the following expansion hitting the community's G-spot and every subsequent one doing the same sub numbers not only went back up to pre-incarna levels they actually kept going up.
Ummm.... doesn't the poll itself agree with me? It grants the premise that 90% of the time the phrase "how interesting" is received as sarcasm. I agree that sarcasm isn't technically included in those words, but that's how people perceive it... as the poll indicates. And people perceive it as such because that's how people often mean it. And because people often mean it like that, it seemed like that's how you meant it. But since there was a chance you didn't mean it sarcastically, that's why I asked you a couple of times to explain. Again, I don't disagree that there's nothing inherently wrong with the phrase "How interesting...." that's why I explicitly said that's how it's historically perceived. I said that for a reason.
Again, jumping to conclusions (as a negative) would be to assume you meant something without asking for clarification. There's nothing wrong with asking you, and in the meantime (since this isn't voice chat), elaborating on the more controversial point that you'd PROBABLY take issue with.
Now you can poll your 'surroundings' as to how this question really asks what it asks, then we can debate that.
You're confused. What I asked the people in the room is not what you're asking in your poll. I'm asking if people perceive the phrase "How interesting..." to be sarcastic. You're asking if it's fair that people perceive it as such. Your poll includes as a predetermined premise the thing I'm trying to argue for lol.
I agree that it may be unfair, but that doesn't mean I can be faulted for thinking that's how you meant it. Most people mean it as such, so blame the people who use it incorrectly, don't blame me for taking it in a way it's most commonly used. Also, again, I didn't even assume anything or jump to any conclusions. If I had, I wouldn't have asked you if you actually disagree with me.
To me, assuming and jumping to conclusions are kind of the same. You haven't proven anything yet, especially not the 'far' more thorough debater.
Ok, but I didn't do either. You seem to be confused again. Do you think I said I was assuming something but not jumping to conclusions?
I thought you were being sarcastic when you said "How interesting....", so I asked you to clarify and then went on to explain myself on the point that you were most likely to take offense at. And how have I not shown myself to be the more thorough debater when I'm responding to almost every line in your posts directly?
You're REALLY stretching here, by the way.
There is no way you can say that the majority can believe that, even if the poster said %90. It's not possible. Anyone who says 'most' 'all' or even a high % number without any factual data starts off with a false premise (yes even the poster), so the conclusion cannot be true as no one can know for a fact that most people takes that phrase as sarcasm.
Do you understand how bad it is to just resort to the "YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT" defense? Of course I can't prove that most people take it as such, but it's pretty obvious. I think so, the people I polled thought so, the poll you linked thought so, hell even you probably think so considering you've been making the point that it's unfair that most people take it that way.
I was bringing that link as a joke, showing how silly it is for either side attempting to debate such premises. The fact you believe in it dictated your reaction to it, initially. You admitted you thought I was being sarcastic, to which I can honestly say I was not. I was bemused by the statement, the following debate being rather circular in nature that I found even more amusing. For this I apologize for taunting you the way I did.
Yes, I thought you were being sarcastic. But I wasn't sure so I ASKED you and calmly reiterated my position. Again, what exactly did I do wrong? I didn't jump to any conclusions or make any assumptions. Like I said, assuming/jumping to conclusions would mean I didn't ask you for clarification and just went with it based on the premise that you were in FACT being sarcastic, but that's not what I did.
In this very thread, where I was debating the topic with Dihoru, you interjected but not fully understanding our discussion. You eventually asked for clarification, and got it. Perspective is no small thing, especially when arguing and trying to use 'absolutes' like 'everyone', 'most' like we see too often here.
Why are you so cryptic?
Personally, I have not really seen or heard 'How interesting..' used other than in cartoons or comedies where the shrink is bored or some such to bring a laugh or two. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No. Of course not. Can I say it rarely happens and still be right? Because even in this, you have shown no proof that it is the majority that think this way, and I can assure you, you'll be hard pressed to. This is my opinion from my experience just your is to you, though I respect it.
Again, apologies for baiting you as I did. See you in another debate..
So wait.... you're saying that you don't think people usually take that phrase to be sarcastic?
By the way, you can't make a bunch of arguments and then say goodbye. If you want to leave the debate, don't try to get the last word in.
Do you understand how bad it is to just resort to the "YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT" defense? Of course I can't prove that most people take it as such, but it's pretty obvious. I think so, the people I polled thought so, the poll you linked thought so, hell even you probably think so considering you've been making the point that it's unfair that most people take it that way.
lol The whole point of a debate is to present premises that make sense and can be corroborated. So much fallacy in what you said there. You didn't present anything, just you saying you polled. Irrelevant and unsubstantiated.
Yes, I thought you were being sarcastic. But I wasn't sure so I ASKED you and calmly reiterated my position. Again, what exactly did I do wrong? I didn't jump to any conclusions or make any assumptions. Like I said, assuming/jumping to conclusions would mean I didn't ask you for clarification and just went with it based on the premise that you were in FACT being sarcastic, but that's not what I did.
You didn't do anything wrong, I told you it wasn't sarcastic on my part yet here again you state I was. Let that bone go. I even apologized for goading you, can you not
In this very thread, where I was debating the topic with Dihoru, you interjected but not fully understanding our discussion. You eventually asked for clarification, and got it. Perspective is no small thing, especially when arguing and trying to use 'absolutes' like 'everyone', 'most' like we see too often here.
Why are you so cryptic?
Cryptic? Failure at understanding? Your perspective is that you thought I was being sarcastic when I wasn't, it wasa vague phrase that set you off and you still justify your defensiveness. What's cryptic is your inability to make such obvious connections.
Personally, I have not really seen or heard 'How interesting..' used other than in cartoons or comedies where the shrink is bored or some such to bring a laugh or two. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No. Of course not. Can I say it rarely happens and still be right? Because even in this, you have shown no proof that it is the majority that think this way, and I can assure you, you'll be hard pressed to. This is my opinion from my experience just your is to you, though I respect it.
Again, apologies for baiting you as I did. See you in another debate..
So wait.... you're saying that you don't think people usually take that phrase to be sarcastic?
I just said that didn't i? Other than tv or movies I have yet to hear anyone say it.
By the way, you can't make a bunch of arguments and then say goodbye. If you want to leave the debate, don't try to get the last word in.
LOL I just wanted to go to bed, you read too much into things. I ended it with an apology. I'm done here, I will not entertain your circular logic of beating around the same dead horse. I'm done. Feel free to post something after this to 'get the last word'. As if that makes an inkling of difference in the way you debate things.
Do you understand how bad it is to just resort to the "YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT" defense? Of course I can't prove that most people take it as such, but it's pretty obvious. I think so, the people I polled thought so, the poll you linked thought so, hell even you probably think so considering you've been making the point that it's unfair that most people take it that way.
lol The whole point of a debate is to present premises that make sense and can be corroborated. So much fallacy in what you said there. You didn't present anything, just you saying you polled. Irrelevant and unsubstantiated.
So serious question time, is english your first language? I'm honestly not sure because you seem to have a really hard time making any sense whatsoever. The poll you linked agrees with me. The people I asked agreed with me. Even YOU seemed to agree with me when you argue that it's unfair that people take the phrase "How interesting..." to be sarcastic. How again are you denying that people generally view that phrase as being sarcastic?
Yes, I thought you were being sarcastic. But I wasn't sure so I ASKED you and calmly reiterated my position. Again, what exactly did I do wrong? I didn't jump to any conclusions or make any assumptions. Like I said, assuming/jumping to conclusions would mean I didn't ask you for clarification and just went with it based on the premise that you were in FACT being sarcastic, but that's not what I did.
You didn't do anything wrong, I told you it wasn't sarcastic on my part yet here again you state I was. Let that bone go. I even apologized for goading you, can you not
Where did I say you were being sarcastic? PLEASE show me. I said I thought you were being sarcastic (BECAUSE THAT'S HOW PEOPLE TYPICALLY VIEW THE PHRASE "HOW INTERESTING...."!!), but I even played it safe and didn't jump to any conclusions. I asked you to explain yourself and in the meantime I explained MYself. That's somehow unreasonable to you?
In this very thread, where I was debating the topic with Dihoru, you interjected but not fully understanding our discussion. You eventually asked for clarification, and got it. Perspective is no small thing, especially when arguing and trying to use 'absolutes' like 'everyone', 'most' like we see too often here.
Why are you so cryptic?
Cryptic? Failure at understanding? Your perspective is that you thought I was being sarcastic when I wasn't, it wasa vague phrase that set you off and you still justify your defensiveness. What's cryptic is your inability to make such obvious connections.
Cryptic as in you say weird things with hidden meanings. You've yet to make any real point, yet you're saying a lot of stuff.
Yes, my perspective is that I thought you were being sarcastic. You used a phrase that is commonly used in a sarcastic way. And by the way, it didn't "set me off." I was in complete control the entire time which is why I had 3 instances of confirmation in my response. I asked why it was interesting, if you actually disagreed with me and then at the end of my post I said you can disagree if you want but I'd want example. I never assumed or jumped to conclusions and started arguing. I was purposely and deliberately apprehensive precisely BECAUSE I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. Jumping to conclusions would be me responding as if you explicitly said you disagreed with me, but instead If responded cautiously.
Personally, I have not really seen or heard 'How interesting..' used other than in cartoons or comedies where the shrink is bored or some such to bring a laugh or two. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No. Of course not. Can I say it rarely happens and still be right? Because even in this, you have shown no proof that it is the majority that think this way, and I can assure you, you'll be hard pressed to. This is my opinion from my experience just your is to you, though I respect it.
Again, apologies for baiting you as I did. See you in another debate..
So wait.... you're saying that you don't think people usually take that phrase to be sarcastic?
I just said that didn't i? Other than tv or movies I have yet to hear anyone say it.
Now you're giving me shit for asking you clear something up before I respond to it? You're impossible to please and you've so obviously been trying to pick a fight with me from the very beginning, you've even admitted it.
So tell me, before you give me shit about preemptively responding to the thing I thought you might mean, now you sarcastically answer me when I ask you a question and let you respond before I give my response? Make up your mind. So pointless arguing with you. You contradict yourself, you make no real arguments or even points, you fail to grasp basic definitions of terms (assuming, jumping to conclusion, etc).
Seriously, what's your overall point here? That I misunderstood you when you said "How interesting..."?? You yourself have admitted that this was just some stupid 'experiment' to get me to react to it. Not only that, I responded more reasonably than most people would. I answered in a cautious manner and gave you a chance to explain yourself. This whole debate is just really fucking weird.
By the way, you can't make a bunch of arguments and then say goodbye. If you want to leave the debate, don't try to get the last word in.
LOL I just wanted to go to bed, you read too much into things. I ended it with an apology. I'm done here, I will not entertain your circular logic of beating around the same dead horse. I'm done. Feel free to post something after this to 'get the last word'. As if that makes an inkling of difference in the way you debate things.
Peace
Don't blame it on wanting to go to bed. You can say "I'm going to bed so I'll respond to whatever you say tomorrow." But instead you said "see you in another debate." By the way, that's not the first time you tried to end the debate either. If you want to get out of a debate, fine. But don't try to get the last word before doing so. That's cowardly.
Also, please don't poke fun at how I debate. You've made your incompetence here very clear, starting with some weird bait to try to get me to misunderstand you and then chastising me for misunderstanding you? Or something? And then trying to leave a debate at the end of a post responding (poorly) to a bunch of my points? Seriously?!
Insanely good in my book would mean AI smarter than EVE's second generation Sleeper AI but that would make people cry in a trinity game because critters controlled by the Sleeper AI will make a B-line for anything hitting them harder than the rest and will also pay extreme amounts of attention to healers... imagine something even smarter than that... would stun lock tanks with part of its group and use the rest to kill the squishy guys o.o...
Sinaku though is right, there are no AAA PVP sandboxes, not even EVE classes as one because it started off with a budget of under 5 million euros with marketing whereas its long time counterpart WoW had (last I heard) had around 20 times that with marketing.
Wow had $60M in budget + marketing but they originally spent a small sum on it, it wasn't until almost a year after launch that they started to spend money on that.
But you are right, it ain't AAA. The only western sandbox I can think of with an AAA budget of it's time was Ultima online, and possibly SWG ($12M in 2003, not much compared to Wow but it might still be AAA). Then again, both CCPs WoDO and Undead labs Class 4 are AAA and they will eventually come out.
Sandbox games have been seriously underfunded for a long time.
Insanely good in my book would mean AI smarter than EVE's second generation Sleeper AI but that would make people cry in a trinity game because critters controlled by the Sleeper AI will make a B-line for anything hitting them harder than the rest and will also pay extreme amounts of attention to healers... imagine something even smarter than that... would stun lock tanks with part of its group and use the rest to kill the squishy guys o.o...
Sinaku though is right, there are no AAA PVP sandboxes, not even EVE classes as one because it started off with a budget of under 5 million euros with marketing whereas its long time counterpart WoW had (last I heard) had around 20 times that with marketing.
Wow had $60M in budget + marketing but they originally spent a small sum on it, it wasn't until almost a year after launch that they started to spend money on that.
But you are right, it ain't AAA. The only western sandbox I can think of with an AAA budget of it's time was Ultima online, and possibly SWG ($12M in 2003, not much compared to Wow but it might still be AAA). Then again, both CCPs WoDO and Undead labs Class 4 are AAA and they will eventually come out.
Sandbox games have been seriously underfunded for a long time.
Neither WoDO or Class 4 are AAA, they're higher up the ladder than their predecessors ( EVE respective State of Decay) but they use similar engines and aren't being built on massive budgets (Class 4 will by what I know be a retooled State of Decay with the backend reworked to allow MMO persistent world, a larger game world, more options, NPCs will either get slashed or reduced in number and the world will just be enhanced over all in options, tools, etc). The only games I can think of which are AAA and might be sandboxes are EQN and possibly Project Titan (the recent reset suggests they shifted from a themepark to something completely different).
Comments
Well, you being the person who is WRONG in this case I'm sure you'd like it if logic were more subjective than it is. Unfortunately this isn't some complex issue that you can wriggle out of. You said "because X, that must mean Y". And I said bullshit, other things could be the cause of X. This isn't hard!
'Why' is not 'what'. Also, your perception of it being passive aggressive is on you. It's how you reacted to it. Not asking what was meant by it and therefor not wondering what i meant. You immediately thought I was implying you didn't respond point-by-point. It was in the same post as the why...so it's an assumption.
It's all perspective, I only chimed in the convo because I perceived that statement had a hint of condescension in it and wanted clarification.
What you should state is that we don't need more poorly produced PvP attempts in the industry. EQ2s pvp example was just open field PK and then finally, generic battlegrounds where yet again we find our fantasy heroes slaying the same mirrored class race combinations. This is lackluster at best and appeals to a very overserviced and under challenged community.
Then there's the rest of us. So yeah, I say if you ARE going to institute pvp - put it on it's own server so the pve EQ fans still have a place to enjoy the game, and give it some quality so that folks who WILL be playing Elder Scrolls Online and Camelot Unchained, those of us who expect siege warfare and more complex, purposeful pvp where our enemies (drum roll) AREN'T the same as the people in our alliance...
Alas I dream. I have yet to see SoE produce articulate pvp, let alone most of the industry.
What are you even talking about? "Why" as in "why is it interesting?" I'm seriously confused. It seems like you're just trying to pick a fight for no reason, you haven't even made a point yet.
You said "Not asking what was meant by it and t herefor not windering what I meant" BUT I DID ASK YOU! I asked you like 3 times. I said "Why?" Then I said "Do you disagree?" Then at the end of my post I said "You can claim otherwise if you want, but I'd be interested in example of me ignoring things."
How is that not asking what you meant by it?
It's not just my perception that it's passive aggressive. Historically it's a passive aggressive thing to simply say "How interesting..." when somebody claims something. Also, it doesn't matter because I didn't jump to any conclusions. I asked you why it was interesting at the beginning of my post and then gave you a chance to explain yourself at the end of my post. Seriously don't know what the problem is here man.
They can make the game however they want but just so you know, having a pve server and a pvp server is not giving everybody what they want. If there's a game that is even capable of having seperate pve and pvp servers, that means one of those servers is PROBABLY gonna suck. It means either the pvp is tacked on and not meaningful or the game will be boring without it. If they're making a pvp version of the game and a pve version of the game that can both stand on their own in different ways, then they might as well just be different games.
Firstly, asking twice in one post and not waiting for a response before going on about what you thought it meant is kinda 'jumping to conclusions'.
Secondly, I would LOVE to know where you got that saying 'How interesting..' is historically accurate in being passive-aggressive. It was in psychology parodies all the time and not passive-aggressive in nature.
I will concede though that the statement was vague, but not to start a fight. Rather to show the nature of how things can be perceived, as in why I posted it in the first place. Didn't care about how you debated, just whether or not you actually thought you were better at debating.
No problem, really.
He didn't have to it is obvious :P
I didn't jump to conclusions. I elaborated on the most likely point you thought was "interesting." That way you could take back whatever it was you were going to say. Why would I waste time when I already have a decent idea of what you probably mean? Jumping to conclusions would be not asking you at all and arguing with you as if you explicitly said it.
And dude I'm gonna be honest with you, I am not about to get into a discussion with you about the way people perceive the phrase "How interesting...." I just took a quick poll of people in the room with me and the result was unanimous that if somebody simply replies to something you've said with "How interesting...." that person PROBABLY takes issue with something you've said but isn't outright confronting you.... being passive aggressive.
Funny you should say poll for this, I just found this:
http://www.amirite.com/706965-its-unfair-how-90-of-the-time-the-phrase-how-interesting-is-received-as-sarcasm-as
vote no and you'll see. You have your poll I have mine. No clear winner (except in our heads)
You still didn't get my point though about how to perceive things so I'll let it go.
Oh and BTW .." I elaborated on the most likely point you thought was "interesting" is...without knowing exactly what I meant.. jumping to conclusions since I had not replied as of yet. No other way to put it really.
Anyway, I'm out. Have yourself a good night, and don't worry about this.
I'm sure we'll meet again.
Ummm.... doesn't the poll itself agree with me? It grants the premise that 90% of the time the phrase "how interesting" is received as sarcasm. I agree that sarcasm isn't technically included in those words, but that's how people perceive it... as the poll indicates. And people perceive it as such because that's how people often mean it. And because people often mean it like that, it seemed like that's how you meant it. But since there was a chance you didn't mean it sarcastically, that's why I asked you a couple of times to explain. Again, I don't disagree that there's nothing inherently wrong with the phrase "How interesting...." that's why I explicitly said that's how it's historically perceived. I said that for a reason.
Again, jumping to conclusions (as a negative) would be to assume you meant something without asking for clarification. There's nothing wrong with asking you, and in the meantime (since this isn't voice chat), elaborating on the more controversial point that you'd PROBABLY take issue with.
It asks It's unfair how 90% of the time, the phrase "How interesting," is received as sarcasm as opposed to actually expressing your interest on the subject. WHY CAN'T WE JUST BE INTERESTED IN SOMETHING WITHOUT BEING ATTACKED,amirite? I am the one who said it, why can't I just be interested in something without being attacked AmIrite? To which the majority said 'Yes' The majority voted that I should be able to say it without the result of being 'attacked'. To which the %90 is obviously made up, this one is more concrete.
Now you can poll your 'surroundings' as to how this question really asks what it asks, then we can debate that.
To me, assuming and jumping to conclusions are kind of the same. You haven't proven anything yet, especially not the 'far' more thorough debater.
You're confused. What I asked the people in the room is not what you're asking in your poll. I'm asking if people perceive the phrase "How interesting..." to be sarcastic. You're asking if it's fair that people perceive it as such. Your poll includes as a predetermined premise the thing I'm trying to argue for lol.
I agree that it may be unfair, but that doesn't mean I can be faulted for thinking that's how you meant it. Most people mean it as such, so blame the people who use it incorrectly, don't blame me for taking it in a way it's most commonly used. Also, again, I didn't even assume anything or jump to any conclusions. If I had, I wouldn't have asked you if you actually disagree with me.
Ok, but I didn't do either. You seem to be confused again. Do you think I said I was assuming something but not jumping to conclusions?
I thought you were being sarcastic when you said "How interesting....", so I asked you to clarify and then went on to explain myself on the point that you were most likely to take offense at. And how have I not shown myself to be the more thorough debater when I'm responding to almost every line in your posts directly?
You're REALLY stretching here, by the way.
There is no way you can say that the majority can believe that, even if the poster said %90. It's not possible. Anyone who says 'most' 'all' or even a high % number without any factual data starts off with a false premise (yes even the poster), so the conclusion cannot be true as no one can know for a fact that most people takes that phrase as sarcasm.
I was bringing that link as a joke, showing how silly it is for either side attempting to debate such premises. The fact you believe in it dictated your reaction to it, initially. You admitted you thought I was being sarcastic, to which I can honestly say I was not. I was bemused by the statement, the following debate being rather circular in nature that I found even more amusing. For this I apologize for taunting you the way I did.
In this very thread, where I was debating the topic with Dihoru, you interjected but not fully understanding our discussion. You eventually asked for clarification, and got it. Perspective is no small thing, especially when arguing and trying to use 'absolutes' like 'everyone', 'most' like we see too often here.
Personally, I have not really seen or heard 'How interesting..' used other than in cartoons or comedies where the shrink is bored or some such to bring a laugh or two. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No. Of course not. Can I say it rarely happens and still be right? Because even in this, you have shown no proof that it is the majority that think this way, and I can assure you, you'll be hard pressed to. This is my opinion from my experience just your is to you, though I respect it.
Again, apologies for baiting you as I did. See you in another debate..
None of those "sandbox" games are AAA. We don't have a single decent AAA sandbox (EVE is good but not really my style) and if one doesn't have PvP I will probably have to pass (unless the PvE is just insanely good).
Insanely good in my book would mean AI smarter than EVE's second generation Sleeper AI but that would make people cry in a trinity game because critters controlled by the Sleeper AI will make a B-line for anything hitting them harder than the rest and will also pay extreme amounts of attention to healers... imagine something even smarter than that... would stun lock tanks with part of its group and use the rest to kill the squishy guys o.o...
Sinaku though is right, there are no AAA PVP sandboxes, not even EVE classes as one because it started off with a budget of under 5 million euros with marketing whereas its long time counterpart WoW had (last I heard) had around 20 times that with marketing.
Yes, as good a game as it is (although not a game for me) a AAA funded version would probably have flopped from having too many features and too much glitz. The budget CCP had constrained the development to give it just right features and gritiness to appeal to a niche that it has occupied and allowed it to continue to grow.
The mistakes made with the Incarna update forced CCP to focus more on player expectations and this combined with the small size of the publisher has kept the game tight and well supported by its community.
Well as an Incarna protester I can tell you it wasn't that we wanted something in particular, it's that we were seeing CCP neglecting what made EVE, EVE, IE ship to ship combat, which ignited pretty badly when that leaked internal letter showed the devs playing around with the notions of P2W games (even if in jest they still dun goofed). Also if Incarna was more feature complete (IE that damn door in the CQ actually opened onto a station) and didn't make some peoples GPUs run so hot you could make an omelette on it the backlash might've been more minor but as was back in the summer of 2011... people were pissed... really pissed... I saw incursion running ships orbiting the Jita 4-4 monument and shooting it (incursion runners make money by running incursions which in fleets takes about 4-5 minutes a pop but you need to layer em fast one on top of the other to get good profits, to see those people there in those ships, most of which were hella expensive to boot to, was a sign in and of itself how annoyed people were with the status quo). But as a fun fact with the following expansion hitting the community's G-spot and every subsequent one doing the same sub numbers not only went back up to pre-incarna levels they actually kept going up.
Do you understand how bad it is to just resort to the "YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT" defense? Of course I can't prove that most people take it as such, but it's pretty obvious. I think so, the people I polled thought so, the poll you linked thought so, hell even you probably think so considering you've been making the point that it's unfair that most people take it that way.
Yes, I thought you were being sarcastic. But I wasn't sure so I ASKED you and calmly reiterated my position. Again, what exactly did I do wrong? I didn't jump to any conclusions or make any assumptions. Like I said, assuming/jumping to conclusions would mean I didn't ask you for clarification and just went with it based on the premise that you were in FACT being sarcastic, but that's not what I did.
Why are you so cryptic?
So wait.... you're saying that you don't think people usually take that phrase to be sarcastic?
By the way, you can't make a bunch of arguments and then say goodbye. If you want to leave the debate, don't try to get the last word in.
LOL I just wanted to go to bed, you read too much into things. I ended it with an apology. I'm done here, I will not entertain your circular logic of beating around the same dead horse. I'm done. Feel free to post something after this to 'get the last word'. As if that makes an inkling of difference in the way you debate things.
Peace
So serious question time, is english your first language? I'm honestly not sure because you seem to have a really hard time making any sense whatsoever. The poll you linked agrees with me. The people I asked agreed with me. Even YOU seemed to agree with me when you argue that it's unfair that people take the phrase "How interesting..." to be sarcastic. How again are you denying that people generally view that phrase as being sarcastic?
Where did I say you were being sarcastic? PLEASE show me. I said I thought you were being sarcastic (BECAUSE THAT'S HOW PEOPLE TYPICALLY VIEW THE PHRASE "HOW INTERESTING...."!!), but I even played it safe and didn't jump to any conclusions. I asked you to explain yourself and in the meantime I explained MYself. That's somehow unreasonable to you?
Cryptic as in you say weird things with hidden meanings. You've yet to make any real point, yet you're saying a lot of stuff.
Yes, my perspective is that I thought you were being sarcastic. You used a phrase that is commonly used in a sarcastic way. And by the way, it didn't "set me off." I was in complete control the entire time which is why I had 3 instances of confirmation in my response. I asked why it was interesting, if you actually disagreed with me and then at the end of my post I said you can disagree if you want but I'd want example. I never assumed or jumped to conclusions and started arguing. I was purposely and deliberately apprehensive precisely BECAUSE I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. Jumping to conclusions would be me responding as if you explicitly said you disagreed with me, but instead If responded cautiously.
Now you're giving me shit for asking you clear something up before I respond to it? You're impossible to please and you've so obviously been trying to pick a fight with me from the very beginning, you've even admitted it.
So tell me, before you give me shit about preemptively responding to the thing I thought you might mean, now you sarcastically answer me when I ask you a question and let you respond before I give my response? Make up your mind. So pointless arguing with you. You contradict yourself, you make no real arguments or even points, you fail to grasp basic definitions of terms (assuming, jumping to conclusion, etc).
Seriously, what's your overall point here? That I misunderstood you when you said "How interesting..."?? You yourself have admitted that this was just some stupid 'experiment' to get me to react to it. Not only that, I responded more reasonably than most people would. I answered in a cautious manner and gave you a chance to explain yourself. This whole debate is just really fucking weird.
Don't blame it on wanting to go to bed. You can say "I'm going to bed so I'll respond to whatever you say tomorrow." But instead you said "see you in another debate." By the way, that's not the first time you tried to end the debate either. If you want to get out of a debate, fine. But don't try to get the last word before doing so. That's cowardly.
Also, please don't poke fun at how I debate. You've made your incompetence here very clear, starting with some weird bait to try to get me to misunderstand you and then chastising me for misunderstanding you? Or something? And then trying to leave a debate at the end of a post responding (poorly) to a bunch of my points? Seriously?!
Are you good for anything other than out of context potshots?Wow had $60M in budget + marketing but they originally spent a small sum on it, it wasn't until almost a year after launch that they started to spend money on that.
But you are right, it ain't AAA. The only western sandbox I can think of with an AAA budget of it's time was Ultima online, and possibly SWG ($12M in 2003, not much compared to Wow but it might still be AAA). Then again, both CCPs WoDO and Undead labs Class 4 are AAA and they will eventually come out.
Sandbox games have been seriously underfunded for a long time.
Stop leaving yourself so open to them.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Neither WoDO or Class 4 are AAA, they're higher up the ladder than their predecessors ( EVE respective State of Decay) but they use similar engines and aren't being built on massive budgets (Class 4 will by what I know be a retooled State of Decay with the backend reworked to allow MMO persistent world, a larger game world, more options, NPCs will either get slashed or reduced in number and the world will just be enhanced over all in options, tools, etc). The only games I can think of which are AAA and might be sandboxes are EQN and possibly Project Titan (the recent reset suggests they shifted from a themepark to something completely different).
Do you know what out of context means? It's not my problem if somebody twists words to make up something that isn't there.