Enlisted's biggest problem

Archive Suggestions - Archive
63

I don’t care what I sound like. I am starting to think you AGAIN are using a red herring because there is nothing wrong with my premise.

In any case, it makes complete sense regardless of if you comprehend it or not and you straw manned me in that quote.
“Adding a currency would not stop any of this, at most it would just be less common, but players that have this advantage will still abuse it.” That was the point, not “It will reduce it a little, but it will increase it”.

I am more interested in honest discourse and the path to truth, hence why I keep asking for the very thing you imply you have (explanation on where I am flawed in premise) but fail to provide.

64

The funny thing is, there’s a dedicated thread, where we discussed this whole idea more or less calmly and I’ve reconsidered, but:

No, you’re not :slight_smile: This is how you argue: anytime there’s something wrong with what you said, you just go: “oh, it obvious I meant something else entirely, of course I meant content. Or context. Or currency. Depends on what fits best right now.”.
Any valid argument is a “red herring” or “dishonest”, or “completely different”. “Nah, I don’t like this argument, give me another one”.
You approach arguments the same way you approached your original suggestion: “I’ll just write a ton of text. Some sentences will conflict each other. You make sense of it, and I will tell you if you’re right. And the only way to be right is to aggree with me”.
And I am not going to entertain you, because this is like playing chess with a pigeon - it will throw all the pieces around, shit on the board and claim: “see, I’m a better chess player”. No thanks.

65

No, you’re not :slight_smile:

Yes I am, nice assertion though.

This is how you argue: anytime there’s something wrong with what you said, you just go: “oh, it obvious I meant something else entirely, of course I meant content. Or context. Or currency. Depends on what fits best right now.”.

This has actually became amusing now. Never did I said X meant entirely something different at any point, nor did I state anything like that. The only time I said “clearly X” was in refence to when I said “Premium context” was “clearly” a typo, with the real meaning being "Premium Currency.

To which you made a laughable response, summarizing, you said the word currency is to interpretation “Clearly “currency” is open to interpretation - could be silver orders, could be bronze orders, could be just time, where your plane just slowly fixes itself over time.”

To which I have made the logical retort “Yes, if you define X with a lose definition, then it will have one. That is exactly why we do not do this and use standard definition in general context unless we specify something…”

This is all stuff you can go back and read, which leads to think you are being dishonest. You haven’t even replied to near anything I have said, but have committed the red herring fallacy at every point. IE: You have not directly replied to near anything I have said in all of our conversations. Even this conversation you have not replied to any of my previous points but to a statement I made.

Any valid argument is a “red herring” or “dishonest”, or “completely different”. “Nah, I don’t like this argument, give me another one”.

No it isn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t be valid. Red herring is swapping focus from a argument to something else, without actually finished that argument to conclusion, such as what you have done. Time and time again, and even in this reply. Please reply to what I have been asking for three replies to your comments.

What is wrong with my premise:
“Premise 1: Airplanes are OP because of they’re nuking AOE potential that can shift balance towards a team’s favor that can be spammed
Your suggestion: Add in currency to limit this
Conclusion: It is still a issue, in fact even more so, because players who could of fought back vs this one game can no longer do that after depleting the currency, making the players who play the game have a even more potent imbalance, and need the same inconsistent counter of using planes, to which the only major change is now sometimes they can not because they may not have the currency needed.”

You approach arguments the same way you approached your original suggestion: “I’ll just write a ton of text. Some sentences will conflict each other. You make sense of it, and I will tell you if you’re right. And the only way to be right is to aggree with me”.

Another assertion that is not true, I have structured everything rather nicely I do think. Your inability to comprehend what I am saying baffles me and I don’t understand why you can’t. I have still yet asked for an explanation you still have not gave.

And I am not going to entertain you, because this is like playing chess with a pigeon - it will throw all the pieces around, shit on the board and claim: “see, I’m a better chess player”. No thanks.

This assertion is again not correct, as said before, you have yet to even reply to my original point. Everything here should be structured even better then the previous points.
Lets be completely honest here though, the reason you have not quoted all of my points and directly confronted them is because you realize they are correct. After all why would you quote and yes, fallaciously, try to go after my character rather then the argument?

66

Well, to bring it back on topic here, this is a problem with no real solution, because part of what makes this game great also makes it bad…

It is often pure bedlam in the game. Explosions all around, body parts flying everywhere, you have planes, tanks, mortars, artillery and quite a few specialist squads with some nasty heavy weapons. Throw in some decent tactics and you have a completely one sided battle.

That is not beyond realism. That is the definition of realism with respect to how real a video game can get when portraying realistic combat.

Include the use of teamspeak against a team that doesn’t have it or isnt using it…well…communication is the key to winning a battle.

War is murder, especially on those that are new to it.

But…this is a game after all. And being such one can’t ignore the very real possibility that players may get turned off early on by the chaos, especially if matched against experienced players.

I believe that players that stick around long enough tend to get hooked on the game, and see past most of its flaws. But getting them to stay long enough is key, and this game just doesn’t do that.

I, personally, am not interested in making vets happy. Vets will generally keep playing. I am interested in keeping the new guy playing.

Proper matchmaking, limits on tank and plane use and a training mode that involves actual combat (with no rewards), as well as a proper tutorial to introduce the progression system is a must. Improving the interface is a must as well.

Just my take on it.

67

post video or it didnt happen and you ned to learn to eim

68
69

Dear Lord.

If War Thunder used that damage model, the playerbase would disappear within a week (to be optimistic).

70

don’t understand…

ghostofishmael said: video or it didn’t happen (about unloading a full clip into a plane and it keep flying)

and I bring him the video.

What do you mean about war thunder? (seriously, don’t understand)

71

I’m used to War Thunder, whose 3D models (as well as damage indicators) were ctrl-C - ctrl-V’d into Enlisted.

While in WT damage models have been changed multiple times over the years, and thus bombers have been swinging from wet paper to steel fortresses and vice versa, never ever have guns been so ridiculously unreliable against planes as they currently are in Enlisted.

What I meant to say is that if in War Thunder planes were so absurdly resistant to damage, WT players would righteously call bullshit and soon leave if things weren’t changed quickly.

No way in the world should an A20 take that amount of hits from a Fw190, and still be in one piece.

72

ah, then absolutely agree with you.