Is this serious? You expect anyone in their right mind to guesstimate the number of enemies who will or will not up to defend, then adjust our plane choice and load-outs accordingly just so the other side feels good about almost not losing a base... The point is to take the base, not drop flowers and valentines to the Rook/Nits.
So there's nothing to argue about, you plainly say you don't care if the other side gets zero gameplay out of your missions. Making the other side feel good = strawman
Its our fault you can organize a proper defense.
Doesn't sound like that's what you meant to write. I can't tell what you mean.
Since we don't fight you should be able to bring 5 Spit 16's and have us cleared in no time.
If you have no escort? Sure. Yes "I" have killed plenty of "guys like you". I've done a few tours where I had three figure kill tallies against bombers. You're wrong if you think I'm motivated for this argument because I've got something to prove. It's not about me and not really about you in particular either.
1v1 boxing isn't even close to the same thing as this game.
Prolly no such thing as a perfect analogy. Analogies only emphasize a particular similarity. The boxing analogy only illustrates one thing: victory without peril, base capture without a fight, people sitting in front of their computers effectively as spectators.
And if you think those boxers treat their fight like you want to treat AH you really are nuts.
Doesnt sound like you understand my argument. I don't want you to do anything, I'm only arguing the pros and cons of different scenarios. Your impression that I'm a furballer is mostly ok, and what do furballers do? They kill players, not buildings. As far as I'm privately concerned the you guys are just targets, but like I said this isn't about what
I like. The objective is to clear up some misunderstandings on both sides even if I'm probably a little biased towards detailing the tactical side.
If Boxer A beats the snot out of Boxer B in 45 seconds in a pay per view fight the commentators don't blame Boxer A because he didn't give people their moneys worth and then proceed to lecture him on how he could have not used his right jab until the 6th round,
Non sequitur, or how to warp an analogy's meaning
or unless Boxer B started to hit him to much, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING WE DO. The commentators call Boxer B unprepared and unworthy to have fought Boxer A and without questions will say that Boxer B didn't deserve to win the fight.
More derailed analogy and back to square one, you're essentially saying the game is all about you, and that you're ok with waging war against unoccupied buildings and conquering empty territory, that getting a fight while racking up the real estate is not an objective. I did say you guys had the strategic side down pat but I guess it's too hard to take a compliment at face value.
And if the game was all about tactical gameplay we'd only be allowed to fly one plane, and only 1v1, and only bomb while being shot at.
Yes obviously. I didn't say strategic had no place in the game, only that you couldn't (not yet anyway) expect to not rub a non negligible chunk of the players the wrong way if you basically deny them any tactical answer to your strategic action. I also said and say that big uncontested missions are boring but that's just some opinionated coloring to my actual arguments
True, but you don't hear us crying because people are fooling around in TT or furballing and not wanting to roll in the missions. We don't care how you want to play or what you want to do. Wanna come with us, cool nice to see you. Wanna fight all by yourself, we'll give you a WTG when you land kills.
I'd appreciate the WTG and I mostly agree with the sentiment but it just hides the misunderstanding at the root of this argument: Players like me don't care about names in lights - it's not the destination but the road that matters to us. We don't care if you win the war or if we beat you. We just want to have a good fight out of it. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on who you ask) we don't have any hierarchy like you guys. So in that respect you're preaching to the choir - we don't want to tell others what to do, even less than you do. That's not true about all "furballers" but there's a good number of us and if you make the argument personal you ought to know that.
"Crying" = strawman
"fooling around" :
What... And
you're not fooling around in front of your computer?
It's not that we don't understand it,
In fact you don't
we think it's crap for him or anyone else to tell us how and under what circumstances we 'should' play.
Where did I pretend to have such authority? I'm not concerned with crap or how much esteem you have for me, only what makes sense. I'm just reasoning that you would still have your strategic success if you changed the plan a little so that there was some actual air combat involved instead of a colonization swarm. You could allow some tactical resistance while still denying any significant strategic attempts. If you pull the rug from under the feet of an oppfor that's disorganized because e.g. it's nothing but players who don't know each other, you're not gonna get much tactical level resistance and consequently definitely nothing at strat level.
Yes this is basically mostly a tragedy of the commons argument. But youll miss the mark if you ignore mine and others arguments and tunnel vision on the abstract ethics of 'tragedy of the commons'
But like I said if you see nothing wrong with conquering territory with zero resistance, that's fine too. I think you're pooping where you eat, even if only a little, but it's your call.
their just as deep seated in thier views as us.
but they cant look over the fence and see what anyone else is talkin about.
January 2009.
I never argue with M00t, he uses too many big words 
Less words = sooner to the point
. This is the thing tho: There are a fair number of people who could care less whether a victory comes from a challenging fight, or from a simple execution of afk/outnumbered/taxiing plane. If they stay here long enough, they start to care about that difference
So you basically have the same pov as me, only you're not quite making it so forcefully. But in my experience if you don't make it clear like that the discussion starts picking up baggage in misunderstandings and soon enough you're spending as much time clearing up misunderstandings as actually arguing the meat of the matter
I think that may be the biggest misconception a lot of you guys that live for 'fair fights' have. I firmly believe there is a good portion of people that don't evolve beyond that, because either it makes them happy or they don't want to make the game like 'work' to move beyond that. They either continue on doing what they do, or they wind up moving on to the next game when they get bored.
Wiley.
I personally don't want a fair fight. I just want a good fight. I can't really argue for an unfair fight though, not if I'm speaking for more than just myself.
Ten was just being a little cocky but I got his point. What's yours?
That he's already missing the point with his first reply.
FYI: this "furballers vs toolsheders" debate's had more episodes than I remember. And I'm not even one of the oldest players here, I only started in 2000. Take this at face value, not as some thinly veiled smack talk: If you've only been here since this last november, you're missing that historical context, regardless how good or bad the points you make. And yes history in the game is almost totally irrespective to someone's credibility. But just FYI on the context here.
