Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
4823
   |
Posted - 2014.04.03 05:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cotsy8 wrote:If you want your crutch, maybe it should come with a drawback.. Maybe like a broken leg. There's no drawback to cloaks, no risk, yet it offers the highest of rewards defensively and offensively. You're just a ****** and can't offer any reason for cloaks to be included, maybe you're state school or JUCO education isn't worth the paper it's written on.
If I want MY crutch?
Of the two of us, YOU'RE the one who actually runs cloaks. GG.
Quote:Your not intelligent enough to make an argument for your cloak. In a week no one can provide 5 reasons the cloak should be included in the game. I can provide a detailed list of reasons why it's not required, how its easy mode button, and a crutch for bad players.
Because you use to take the short bus to school. I've even given you some arguments dumbasses can use: "get good", "eyes are OP", "EVE has cloaks", and "I need them to be good". Take your pick Mensa.
There is no "need" for cloaks to exist. There is no "need" for DUST to exist at all. Provide 5 valid reasons why this game is "needed" and you might conceivably have a valid argument when you say that cloaking is unnecessary.
Even then, you can't negate the fact that cloaking is something which is an established part of New Eden, and which is perfectly reasonable to include in a game within this setting, whether it's needed or not. You also can't counter the argument that adding something into a GAME because it's fun is a good reason. GAMES are about FUN, so when something can be FUN, it's a good idea to consider adding that to your GAME.
You're the one claiming cloaks are an OP "crutch" with "no drawbacks" in the face of many others explaining why you're wrong. The burden of proof is on you to prove your minority belief, not on us to prove what everyone else already knows. When you can provide 5 reasons why the cloak is actually unfair to use - NOT including anecdotal evidence, but using hard facts - then you are successfully defending your argument instead of making yourself look like a spoilt brat who's too used to getting his own way and can't handle the possibility that someone else is doing anything other than acceding to your petty demands.
And if you're going to accuse someone else of being stupid, make sure you aren't providing them with basic grammatical errors like using "your" instead of "you're" to turn the tables back on you. It's also "because you used to" not "because you use to", but your familiarity with the concept suggests that maybe that's how you got to school.
Quote:You just are a ***** who has no skill and sees the cloak as your saviour doesn't mean the item is fair, balanced, or required. Seems like you don't have the skill necessary to use a fragile suit without a cloak, so maybe you should consider going to another class.
Again, I DON'T USE THE CLOAK. I COUNTER IT ANYWAY. In Militia Medium Frames as well as my own NON-CLOAKING Scout suit. If YOU can't do well in a Scout suit without a cloak, maybe YOU'RE the one who needs to learn how to play better? And if you can't counter a cloaker without resorting to your own cloak, maybe you need your eyes checked while you're at it.
Quote:And yes, lack of awareness should be punished. Maybe you or your in-bread parents should have signed you up to some philosophy classes, learn how logic and arguments are used to prove or disprove opinions.
Edit: still waiting on your valid points, it's been a week. Having a hard time "thinking"?
You haven't responded to my valid points in any other thread. You've ignored them and ranted with your own lack of validity instead of actually trying to defend yourself. Every time I've posted something prior to your response in this thread, you've either ignored my post and carried on with your barely-coherent unchanging argument without acknowledging the logical counters people have provided, or you've disappeared from the thread, never to return.
You say that cloaking lets players get away with things they should be punished for. Taking a risk running through the open near an enemy should be punished IF the enemy is alert and sees you. And if you're cloaked, it DOESN'T make you invisible enough to negate the fact that an alert enemy WILL see you and WILL PUNISH YOU. It's only when the person you're sneaking past ISN'T alert that you avoid getting punished, at which point, YOU'RE PUNISHING THEIR MISTAKE.
The cloak doesn't stop people from being punished for making mistakes, it makes sure the people who are ACTUALLY making mistakes are punished. I've previously said that I haven't had anyone use a cloak to get by me in a situation where they couldn't have done it without the cloak. That's no longer true. There was a match I was playing last night where I had a cloaked enemy slip past me and get a Shotgun to my back. Why? Did the cloak magically make them more invisible than usual? NOPE. The reason they got past is BECAUSE I WAS DISTRACTED. I let my focus slip away from the game, and I paid for it. As I should. If the enemy hadn't been cloaked, the more obviously visible movement would (probably) have caught my eye and snapped me back to alertness, and I might have gotten away with my lapse and killed someone who fully deserved to kill me because I HADN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION.
Also, it's "inbred" not "in-bread" - unless you're saying that I'm the son of a filled roll? Once again, ad hominem attacks on someone's intelligence are best used without making yourself look like the idiot. I recommend passing a few English papers before you try calling me out on my intelligence again. |