Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Noaani Oh? Is that Fuppoheadhunter there in the siege video from the recent livestream? If you were paying attention, I specifically said that just because it is in the game now, doesn't mean anything. A player in alpha now is more likely to belive that this toggle will be in the final game than someone not in alpha due to the fact that it is in alpha right now (see previous posts), even though we have no reason to assume it will be in the game. So yes, still just some random guy.
Sathrago wrote: » Noaani Oh? Is that Fuppoheadhunter there in the siege video from the recent livestream?
Sathrago wrote: » Why should I believe your words over him?
Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Why should I believe your words over him? I've never said you should believe me, I said you should believe Steven. He has given us a complete list of the ways they intend players to become combatants in the final version of the game, and until he says otherwise, that is what we should assume is still the intention. If we are not going to work on the assumption that what Steven has told us is valid until he tells us otherwise, then that means we basically can't discuss the game at all because we are all able to make what ever assumptions we want about the game. I mean, if we had not been given that list, then we would be having a debate on whether or not it is a good idea. Since we have that list, you are arguing that the best information we have from Steven is invalid. I am simply saying that we have a list from Steven, and you are chosing to believe "some guy". That guy may be testing in alpha and telling you that there is a toggle there, but as we have said, there is a toggle in alpha for a very good reason. And yes, compared to the creative director of Ashes, the person you are talking about literally is just some guy. There is nothing in there at all about slippery words or anything. I am saying that Steven is who we should be assuming is correct, you are saying that some random guy is - it is you that is trying to justify the totally illogical position here, not me.
Sathrago wrote: » You talk of assumptions and illogical crap when someone testing the game has confirmed there is a toggle. Anything else you say is pointless rambling and self-rationalization.
Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » You talk of assumptions and illogical crap when someone testing the game has confirmed there is a toggle. Anything else you say is pointless rambling and self-rationalization. We were told about 2 years ago that there will be a toggle in alpha 1, because the plan was to implement the corruption system later on - either alpha 2 or beta 1.
Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » You talk of assumptions and illogical crap when someone testing the game has confirmed there is a toggle. Anything else you say is pointless rambling and self-rationalization. We were told about 2 years ago that there will be a toggle in alpha 1, because the plan was to implement the corruption system later on - either alpha 2 or beta 1. Convenient if you can't prove that.
Noaani wrote: » You know how I do these kinds of things. I'll wait a few weeks for you guys to get even deeper in to it, and then give you the video.
daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » You know how I do these kinds of things. I'll wait a few weeks for you guys to get even deeper in to it, and then give you the video. Which is why people see you as a troll. If you were willing to save four or five pages of discussion by showing a quote or a link, then people might have a little more respect for what you post!
Noaani wrote: » I'll wait a few weeks for you guys to get even deeper in to it, and then give you the video.
Atama wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » You know how I do these kinds of things. I'll wait a few weeks for you guys to get even deeper in to it, and then give you the video. Which is why people see you as a troll. If you were willing to save four or five pages of discussion by showing a quote or a link, then people might have a little more respect for what you post! It's not a matter of seeing a person as a troll, that is openly being a troll. The definition of a troll is someone who posts to intentionally get a rise out of people. Making strong statements and withholding evidence to back up those statements in a deliberate attempt to upset people is blatant troll behavior. Noanni makes me really lament the lack of an ignore feature on this forum. We have enough trouble here without people intentionally causing trouble because they are bored.
Noaani wrote: » Atama wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » You know how I do these kinds of things. I'll wait a few weeks for you guys to get even deeper in to it, and then give you the video. Which is why people see you as a troll. If you were willing to save four or five pages of discussion by showing a quote or a link, then people might have a little more respect for what you post! It's not a matter of seeing a person as a troll, that is openly being a troll. The definition of a troll is someone who posts to intentionally get a rise out of people. Making strong statements and withholding evidence to back up those statements in a deliberate attempt to upset people is blatant troll behavior. Noanni makes me really lament the lack of an ignore feature on this forum. We have enough trouble here without people intentionally causing trouble because they are bored. To be fair, I only do that when people argue rather than question. If I mention something that was said in a livestream or interview many years ago, that has not been documented otherwise, I don't expect people to just take my word for it - but if they are going to argue and say that it is not how things are or was never what was said - rather than saying they must have missed that livestream or interview (which is what reasonable people would do), then yeah, I'm not going to spend an hour or two searching through to find it (again, it is an otherwise undocumented comment). If the person replying is reasonable and says they must have missed it, but would I be able to find it, then when I have a few hours free, I likely would - but that has not happened yet, so...
Noaani wrote: » To be fair, I only do that when people argue rather than question. If I mention something that was said in a livestream or interview many years ago, that has not been documented otherwise, I don't expect people to just take my word for it - but if they are going to argue and say that it is not how things are or was never what was said - rather than saying they must have missed that livestream or interview (which is what reasonable people would do), then yeah, I'm not going to spend an hour or two searching through to find it (again, it is an otherwise undocumented comment). If the person replying is reasonable and says they must have missed it, but would I be able to find it, then when I have a few hours free, I likely would - but that has not happened yet, so...
Sathrago wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Atama wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Noaani wrote: » You know how I do these kinds of things. I'll wait a few weeks for you guys to get even deeper in to it, and then give you the video. Which is why people see you as a troll. If you were willing to save four or five pages of discussion by showing a quote or a link, then people might have a little more respect for what you post! It's not a matter of seeing a person as a troll, that is openly being a troll. The definition of a troll is someone who posts to intentionally get a rise out of people. Making strong statements and withholding evidence to back up those statements in a deliberate attempt to upset people is blatant troll behavior. Noanni makes me really lament the lack of an ignore feature on this forum. We have enough trouble here without people intentionally causing trouble because they are bored. To be fair, I only do that when people argue rather than question. If I mention something that was said in a livestream or interview many years ago, that has not been documented otherwise, I don't expect people to just take my word for it - but if they are going to argue and say that it is not how things are or was never what was said - rather than saying they must have missed that livestream or interview (which is what reasonable people would do), then yeah, I'm not going to spend an hour or two searching through to find it (again, it is an otherwise undocumented comment). If the person replying is reasonable and says they must have missed it, but would I be able to find it, then when I have a few hours free, I likely would - but that has not happened yet, so... This is you literally asking people to kiss your angelic feet so that you will grace us with your "magnanimous" words of wisdom. Yeah.... No. Not gonna happen.
