I can't be responsible for replying to counter-arguments to arguments I never made
Well for someone to say that someone else isn't credible on a topic, they themselves have to be credible in some way, therefor it's implied.
Dark (bright) side of the moon fallacy
Sure, then I could reply with "you just have a negative outlook."
No, ch200 is nothing compared to some of the crap in other games, and still significantly better, by virtue of ch200 being so segregated from the rest of AH, than most of the ambient atmosphere in many other games
Relativism
AH is relatively very laid back, humor is much less stressed, temperament of flight sim pile-its is much more relaxed
200 is known for being full of just trash talking most of the time, and none of it seems very relaxed. The only time I really see constant reasonable talk is during the off-hours.
I don't see how you've managed to avoid the same kind of positive chatter we can sometimes get on 200 in other games... I see it all the time.
Where did I say only "not credible"?
You told me that I was not credible, then told mechanic that what he said is "inaccurate" without any defense behind the statement.
I'm not going to thoroughly dig into all the things that factor into what you can expect from playing a game - forums, players, gameplay design, etc - just so I can see if what you say is right or not in this argument. The onus is on you to prove that EVE is proper analogy IE not a flawed analogy, and characteristic IE not a single data point fluke
I offered to pull up threads from the EVE forum.
I'm not going to let you discredit the point I was trying to make. All games have "poor behavior" that people have to adapt to and combat. For instance, while not on the same scale, in AH people have adapted to the HO, and they avoid it.
To me, it seems people don't like the horde because it means they have to move to another base against their will in order to fight like they want.
I expect this leads to an argument on any given game we both have played, where you could pretend things aren't as I pretend. A dead end. Especially considering my instinct telling me we have different standards.
Or one of us might be enlightened. I don't know about you, but if someone proves to me that this horde situation is out of control and needs to be contained, I'll change my mind. I just haven't seen any solid arguments other than it cramps their style.
I feel like the same people that complain about the horde are the same ones that say they don't care about winning the war. So if they just losing bases, why does it bother them so much?
"Massive" in MMOG is not relevant to "human nature" argument. I've played many games (too many to recall off hand) but the gist of my argument stems mainly from experience in games rife with younger players (not negligible proportion of all games). They're childish and the atmosphere is comparable to what you find in a forum like 4chan. Cretinous insistence on trashy standards.
You can do the detective legwork if you like. What you will find is that, probably in no small part due to AH's niche-sized population, AH is a notably homely population. HiTech is spot on saying that a tightly woven community, e.g. via 32-player limited squads, is the fabric of a healthy game. Unlike what you'd expect if you myopically adhered to the MMOG criteria
Saying it's not relevant doesn't make much sense to me. You get a lot of people in a game with a common goal, and human nature rears it's ugly head. I can't see how they don't correlate?
I agree, portions of AH are homely and tightly woven and that does stand out from many MMOG's. But that really doesn't change the fact that humans are humans and you're playing against a lot of them, it just changes that you might know who they are.
My standards could be different, or maybe it's that I am a live and let live type of person. I may not like getting horded, but I'm not going to go and tell them that what they are doing is wrong just because I can't up at the airfield I want to up at.
