Ok I did.

 

 

 

What makes you conclude that it can easily do so against a star guard and not a Pike since it clearly says strike fighter implying the whole class not one AC of that class (AC since the variants are in essence advanced classes). With either ship they can only use 1 blaster and 1 secondary at a time so neither striker AC has an inherent advantage over the other when combating distortion field.

 

I honestly don't follow how "may not" translates into "can easily against a star guard (or empire version) but might not want to against a pike." Please clarify how you conclude this as I don't follow you.

 

 

 

I'm honestly not following how this is relevant. I never questioned it being balanced that it is more powerful than the base scout. If I implied that at all I apologize for my miscommunication. Please clarify how being more powerful to the base scout is relevant to the "may not" part you were responding as I sincerely don't see how it is related.

i said that was MY belief im not trying to pass it off as the devs intent as you are with yours.

i said that was MY belief im not trying to pass it off as the devs intent as you are with yours.

and that doesn't answer my questions about how you arrived at certain conclusions to form your opinion of what the in-game text meant.

I wasn't questioning whether it was your opinion or whether you were trying to pass it off as a dev opinion; I was asking how you arrived at the conclusions that led you to form your interpretation of the in-game text because I honestly didn't follow your train of thought.

and that doesn't answer my questions about how you arrived at certain conclusions to form your opinion of what the in-game text meant.

 

I wasn't questioning whether it was your opinion or whether you were trying to pass it off as a dev opinion; I was asking how you arrived at the conclusions that led you to form your interpretation of the in-game text because I honestly didn't follow your train of thought.

im not gonna break down some formula so you can understand how i reached a different opinion than you lol

im not gonna break down some formula so you can understand how i reached a different opinion than you lol

Fine. If you don't want to explain things so I understand your position then you shouldn't be surprised or upset that I don't agree with your accusations of me. Why on earth should I agree with accusations when I don't follow the logic that led to them?

All I ask was for clarification as I don't follow your logic and based on your hostility to explaining your logic it looks like you're just crafting an alternate interpretation for the sake of disagreeing.

And for record some how interpreting "A Flashfire may not compete head-on against a strike fighter" implies the Pike specifically but that it's supposed to do so easily against a Star Guard is also twisting words to make a point.

Fine. If you don't want to explain things so I understand your position then you shouldn't be surprised or upset that I don't agree with your accusations of me. Why on earth should I agree with accusations when I don't follow the logic that led to them?

 

All I ask was for clarification as I don't follow your logic and to me it looks like your twisting words simply for the sake of disagreeing.

 

And for record some how interpreting "A Flashfire may not compete head-on against a strike fighter" implies the Pike specifically but that it's supposed to do so easily against a Star Guard is also twisting words to make a point.

lol so because i dont feel i should have to explain how i reach my own opinion of something that means the "accusations" of you passing off your opinions as facts holds no weight? and you dont need to agree with these "accusations" everyone else can read the thread too and see you trying to pass off your opinions as facts.

well ii guess ill give you a little insight on how i reached MY OPINION, i wasnt trying to put too fine a point on it but one SF is clearly weaker than t he other, which is how i reached that OPINION.

and again i didnt pass that off as a fact or the devs intent, thats what your doing, stop projecting.

lol so because i dont feel i should have to explain how i reach my own opinion of something that means the "accusations" of you passing off your opinions as facts holds no weight? and you dont need to agree with these "accusations" everyone else can read the thread too and see you trying to pass off your opinions as facts.

If I understood you you were using your interpretation to demonstrate how I twisted words to support my opinion then I don't see why you expect me to think they clearly illustrate how I twisted words when I don't understand your logic. I thought the whole twisting of words bit was directed at my interpretation of the meaning of the in-game text not the wording I used to express that opinion so I assumed the alternate interpretation you presented was to refute my interpretation not refute my word choice to express that opinion.

And fine I concede they are my opinion and my opinion only but I don't think it being my personal opinion then automatically invalidates my interpretation when read as personal opinion.

well ii guess ill give you a little insight on how i reached MY OPINION, i wasnt trying to put too fine a point on it but one SF is clearly weaker than t he other, which is how i reached that OPINION.

An honest question as I haven't gotten to fly the Pike yet so perhaps the obvious escapes me here due to not flying it but how exactly is it weaker?

To my knowledge they have the same starting hull health & shield strength. They both have access to the same shield components, the major difference is the Star Guard has access to the reactor component whereas the Pike has access to the armor component. (I'm unsure if these components result in a distinct weakness and since Dulfy's build calculator doesn't factor in additional tiers in a component I can't see how the numbers stack up when a component is mastered). Offensively they have access to the same hull damaging missiles and with the exception of rapid lasers vs light lasers access to the same hull damaging blasters.

So I don't see a distinct weakness offensively since they can equip almost all the same blasters & missiles and can only use 1 of each at a time. Defensively they look like they should have comparable endurance. They look like they should have just about equal chance against a scout in a joust.

So to rephrase: If all possible uses of an ability were anticipated and intended by the devs using your logic how can the players assess whether something may be imbalanced since base stats (ie the ship's capabilities without abilities) cannot be used as a means of determining whether the ability is too strong and allowing a ship to perform beyond what was intended?

This is easy. If there is no reason to ever use a certain component, then it is underpowered. If there is no reason to ever NOT use a component, then it is overpowered.

If I understood you you were using your interpretation to demonstrate how I twisted words to support my opinion then I don't see why you expect me to think they clearly illustrate how I twisted words when I don't understand your logic. I thought the whole twisting of words bit was directed at my interpretation of the meaning of the in-game text not the wording I used to express that opinion so I assumed the alternate interpretation you presented was to refute my interpretation not refute my word choice to express that opinion.

 

And fine I concede they are my opinion and my opinion only but I don't think it being my personal opinion then automatically invalidates my interpretation when read as personal opinion.

no you didnt understand, i flat out said you twisted words to support your claims, i also said how the description lead me to my own opinion. your the one tying my interpretation to my calling you out on your passing off yours as facts. they were 2 different statements. but it also helped to point out that everyone has an opinion that may not be the same as yours.

while we are on the subject how did you come up with your opinion that only the base stats should determine what a ship can or cannot do and that the abilities it has access to should not enter the equation at all?

edit: and no it does not invalidate your opinion, but it does invalidate it as the devs intent which is something you said earlier.

no you didnt understand, i flat out said you twisted words to support your claims, i also said how the description lead me to my own opinion.

Is it correct for me to assume that my word twisting is the difference between "may" and "can't"? I'm asking for clarification here as I want to make sure I'm on the same page as to how I was twisting words before making a further response. It seems that the phrase I'm accused of twisting the words of is "a flashfire may not compete head-on against a strike fighter" so I just want to be clear on what words we're referring to me twisting.

Otherwise I don't see how believing "a striker fighter" refers to all strike fighter types is twisting words as it is my understanding that if you only mean one subgroup you must either 1) refer to them specifically or 2) use qualifying words such as "some types of strike fighters" to exclude the group as a whole.

EDIT: if I'm still not getting it I apologize, I do want to get on the same page as you I just might be a little brain dead at this point because it's getting late in my time zone.

while we are on the subject how did you come up with your opinion that only the base stats should determine what a ship can or cannot do and that the abilities it has access to should not enter the equation at all?

Well I did outline my logic for why (in my opinion) active abilities play second fiddle to passive stats back a few pages ago so I'll pretty much just repost that list.

1) Ships are not stat/role neutral prior to active abilities being chosen and have already had the general capabilities and the role(s) related to those capabilities determined by the passive stats (a gunship fills the role of sniper because of their passive stats not abilities for example). This also creates a general balance between ship types by imposing limitations on them.

2) active abilities either buff strengths or mitigate weaknesses created by said passive stats so they're functioning in a secondary role to passive stats

3) you have a max of 4 active abilities (3 if you discount the generic co-pilot abilities) all of which have CDs and so a good amount of combat will be occurring without them so overall passive stats will have more of an impact during a match

4a) all active abilities aren't restricted to classes and some components are shared with ships that have vastly different playstyles whereas passive stats are specific to that ship class.

4b) because passive stats are exclusive to the ship class they give a much better idea of what a ship is supposed to be capable of than abilities shared with other ship classes. It's possible that a shared ability isn't properly balanced and while it appears to function in a perfectly balanced way when used by one ship class it performs in an unbalanced way when used by another ship class. A non-distortion field related example would be the debate over barrel roll. On a scout it seems pretty balanced since they're already highly mobile so it isn't granting them mobility they don't already have; possible imbalance only becomes visible when used by gunships resulting in some suggesting it is imbalanced because it gives them mobility they would otherwise be incapable of (due to the limitations of base/passive stats).

Is it correct for me to assume that my word twisting is the difference between "may" and "can't"?

that was one instance and maybe it wasnt the best example but there are plenty more in this thread of you quoting someone and twisting there words/meanings to strengthen yours.

 

 

 

Well I did outline my logic for why (in my opinion) active abilities play second fiddle to passive stats back a few pages ago so I'll pretty much just repost that list.

 

1) Ships are not stat/role neutral prior to active abilities being chosen and have already had the general capabilities and the role(s) related to those capabilities determined by the passive stats (a gunship fills the role of sniper because of their passive stats not abilities for example). This also creates a general balance between ship types by imposing limitations on them.

i havnt played one but im to understand that since the GS's ship zoom like a sniper scope and shoot so far is why they are snipers, not because of stats

 

2) active abilities either buff strengths or mitigate weaknesses created by said passive stats so they're functioning in a secondary role to passive stats

distortion does mitigate a weakness left by the scouts passive stats

 

3) you have a max of 4 active abilities (3 if you discount the generic co-pilot abilities) all of which have CDs and so a good amount of combat will be occurring without them so overall passive stats will have more of an impact during a match

that would be true if they werent on such short cd's

 

4a) all active abilities aren't restricted to classes and some components are shared with ships that have vastly different playstyles whereas passive stats are specific to that ship class.

4b) because passive stats are exclusive to the ship class they give a much better idea of what a ship is supposed to be capable of than abilities shared with other ship classes. It's possible that a shared ability isn't properly balanced and while it appears to function in a perfectly balanced way when used by one ship class it performs in an unbalanced way when used by another ship class. A non-distortion field related example would be the debate over barrel roll. On a scout it seems pretty balanced since they're already highly mobile so it isn't granting them mobility they don't already have; possible imbalance only becomes visible when used by gunships resulting in some suggesting it is imbalanced because it gives them mobility they would otherwise be incapable of (due to the limitations of base/passive stats)

not all true, yes passive stats are different between classes but some are also different between ships in those classes, not all but some. pilot skill and components chosen decided what a ship can do more than passive stats.

and the debate going on with the whole GS and barrel roll thing is that they can stop on a dime by zooming in where as other ships just keep going till the affect ends, its not that they shouldnt have an escape its that they shouldnt have the ability to cut it short like that and prevent themselves from running into something. the passive stats of any ship say it cant escape at will but the abilities to restore engine power, or barrel roll, or any other ability that helps escape unfavorable situations do.

.

replies in red, again this is my opinion and while i do understand and respect yours i dont believe your right.

that was one instance and maybe it wasnt the best example but there are plenty more in this thread of you quoting someone and twisting there words/meanings to strengthen yours.

fair enough. At the time it didn't occur to me that the difference between cannot and may not in this context was significant enough to merit close editorial consideration when writing my post. Just so you know I wasn't doing that with malicious intent.

EDIT:

replies in red, again this is my opinion and while i do understand and respect yours i dont believe your right.

fair enough. I may be crazy but your red comments sound incredibly familiar to comments on that list which I replied to earlier in this thread so I think you might have already read the list.

Perhaps not surprisingly I don't agree with all of your comments in red (some I actually agree with as I don't believe they go against that specific point). But in any event I'm content to just agree to disagree with you as I think we've more or less come full circle.

Perhaps not surprisingly I don't agree with all of your comments in red (some I actually agree with as I don't believe they go against that specific point). But in any event I'm content to just agree to disagree with you as I think we've more or less come full circle.

yea weve beaten this subject to death.

i would also like to take this opportunity to thank Eric Musco, a year ago when i quit this game one of the reasons was that i could not express my opinions with any kind of passion or the thread would get closed or my posted deleted or my forum account suspended.

so thank you Eric Musco for not closing this thread and letting us talk out our differences. unlike the former forum moderators.

So to rephrase: If all possible uses of an ability were anticipated and intended by the devs using your logic how can the players assess whether something may be imbalanced since base stats (ie the ship's capabilities without abilities) cannot be used as a means of determining whether the ability is too strong and allowing a ship to perform beyond what was intended?

If you do believe that scouts are overpowered because they can use distortion field when doing a head-on run against a strike fighter, then make a post stating exactly that. You cannot assess whether that particular ability is imbalanced or not, all you can do is present your opinion to the devs(who CAN assess it) and let them sort it out.

You should not speculate what the devs did or did not intend based on something as insignificant as flavor text. The texts are written by different BW employees than the actual developers, often well in advance of the final balancing the craft receives before release.

If you speculate about what devs intended or not it will just make you sound silly (Devs intended scouts to use DS to avoid laser fire, but NOT when a strike fighter is firing at them at certain angle, they totally didn't anticipate that... don't you see how silly that sounds?)

Anyway, i agree with Goose above that this subject has run it's course and we are just talking in circles now. So, have a nice day