CCP holds the Caldari's hand so this doesn't happen again.

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

Adipem Nothi wrote:

Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:

Secondly, and I suppose my defence of Kirk here is hardly likely to convince you I'm not just here because my friends are, since you insist on repeatedly bringing it up that quote of Kirk's is taken wildly, wildly out of context. The actual post in question is defending flux grenades. Why are you bashing on someone for defending the breach assault rifle and quoting posts completely unrelated to it? Kirk didn't help himself when he made what would otherwise be an entirely reasonable defence of himself when he explained his viewpoint on the breach AR (which, notably, was not in defence of the old breach AR and even advocated specific nerfs) rather than pointing out how absurdly out of context that post was, I suppose, but given you didn't even bother quoting the actual post but instead quoted someone else taking that post in dubious context you can hardly blame people for misunderstanding.

Adipem Nothi wrote:

Kirk picks a post-patch (and broken) Breach AR, notices he's wrecking face with it at minimal effort and concludes ... I'm really good at Dust. He looks around and notices that a high percentage of other mercs are also wrecking face with Breach ARs. Kirk proceeds to the Forums, sees that people are complaining about a Gallente gun, and begins to defend it tooth-and-nail. When it becomes clear that the Breach AR is not fine, he rallies with other Team Gallente All-Stars to assure us that everything is in fact fine because reasons.

So this is, in fact, a completely unfair and factually incorrect summary of a situation, misquoting a misquote.
It does aggravate me to see such a zealous put-down of someone for reasons that are entirely unjustified, and in part yes, that is one of the reasons I felt the need to vent my disgust with some aspects of this thread.

Above was a gentle characterization offered in response to your question why not Kirk?. Why not? Because he's biased, and he's blind to it. I was more than willing to leave it at that and move on.

I didn't attack his character. I didn't dig up nasty examples of him behaving badly (and there are many). I didn't point out his long history of combative posting, fit throwing and perceived superiority over the community at large. I didn't mention that I think his personality is the polar opposite of what would make for an effective community representative.

Instead, I opted for the gentle characterization. He's Gallente-biased; let's be nice and say something to that effect, I thought to myself. My intent wasn't to set a trap or start a fight; you asked a question about your friend, and I gave you as friendly a truthful response as I could come up with. I'm sorry that you found that disgusting, but what would you have preferred me do? A double-barreled blast of truth would've invited a poopstorm. Which we got anyway.


(Response Complete!)

As long as 5/6 (83%) of infantry AV weapons are Anti Armor based you're never going to achieve vehicle balance CCP

Lucent Echelon Chat Channel is fixed