Jump to content


T110's Northern Migration


  • Please log in to reply
19405 replies to this topic

Legiondude #18521 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 05:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,024
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

"You've dug this hole..."

 

"No, YOU'VE dug this hole..."

 

Goodnight everyone, I'm off to consult with an Emperor that doesn't lurk in this Thread



Zergling #18522 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 05:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 7,701
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostAvalon304, on Nov 08 2017 - 13:58, said:

Meh. No real reason to have alts. I'll only ever play a hunter, and sure I could make 2 more hunters, but... why? The story was good, but not good enough to play through twice more. I still havent done everything I can do on my main.

 

Other classes are interesting too, plus having more characters has advantages. Eg, can get faction loot for all factions during faction rallies.

 

Up to you though!


Edited by Zergling, Nov 08 2017 - 05:18.


KilljoyCutter #18523 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 05:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 23,494
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostLife_In_Black, on Nov 07 2017 - 22:54, said:

 

I haven't done anything. You decided that you didn't like what I interpreted from your post written in plain English, and I pointed out how hypocritical that was given your own beliefs on modern interpretations of something written ages ago in plain English. Since then you've gone out of your way to ignore your own hypocrisy. 

 

So you somehow getting an insult against your intelligence and a claim to enlightenment on my part out of  "Of course that's where it's gone, strawman and caricature of anyone who isn't lockstep with the righteous agenda is par for the course, especially for the angry young ones" is identical to getting "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" out of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?   :sceptic:  Especially in light of multiple posts in which you attack a caricature of my position and "beliefs", and engage in wholesale ad hominem. 

 

But it is pretty telling to look at which side's posts in this "discussion" are full of such gems as "braindead piece of sht", and half-formed triumphal screeds about hypocrisy.

 

 

But here's the kicker, you presume that my position is based on the 2nd Amendment and my reading thereof.  Nope.  If we didn't have the 2nd Amendment, my position would still be exactly the same.  The 2nd Amendment doesn't create the right, it enumerates and protects the right.  That's what the Bill of Rights does -- it encodes and protects our rights by making them part of the highest law of the country.   Just like the 1st Amendment doesn't create the right of free speech or assembly, or freedom from government entanglement with religion. That's also part of why the 9th Amendment is there -- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  

 

 

 

View PostLegiondude, on Nov 07 2017 - 23:13, said:

"You've dug this hole..."

 

"No, YOU'VE dug this hole..."

 

Oh, I'll freely admit to having handed him the shovel and watched in amusement as he flung dirt and his own feces.

 

But no one should be surprised, really, this is how he reacts when someone dares to post something he disagrees with regarding pixel tanks, too. 

 


 

 

Oh, here's a little tidbit regarding the earlier silliness that "keep and bear arms" wasn't intended to allow private purchase of firearms. 

 

Congress passed the following act in May of 1792, about 6 months after the 2nd Amendment was adopted along with the other nine Amendments of the original Bill of Rights:

 

"Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

 

Note the part that I bolded... the same people who had been involved in writing and voting on the 2nd Amendment clearly thought that individuals were going to be purchasing and maintaining their own weapons and ammunition.  

 

They also intended this to apply to "the adult free white male citizens"... of course we've expanded a lot of other rights and responsibilities far more broadly than that in the time since, for the better.  The general course of our nation's laws has been to expand and extend the recognition of rights, not to contract and restrict them.  

 

Looking at the Bill of Rights in the language of time and place it was written, and looking at the broader writings and decisions of the people who wrote the Amendments, is pretty fascinating. 

 

 


Edited by KilljoyCutter, Nov 08 2017 - 13:30.


Avalon304 #18524 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 05:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 16842 battles
  • 6,475
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostZergling, on Nov 07 2017 - 21:18, said:

 

Other classes are interesting too, plus having more characters has advantages. Eg, can get faction loot for all factions during faction rallies.

 

Up to you though!

 

Other classes are the same as Destiny 1 for the most part and I hated them there too. Mostly because their jumps are garbage. The rest of the factions are... meh. Their shaders are ugly and their weapons dont look nearly as cool as Dead Orbit. At best, having more characters means more weekly milestones for me... but other than that not much.

 

If and when Bungie gives us the ability to create new characters near level cap, I might create 2 more hunters, but right now, I cant see a good reason for it.



DerViktim #18525 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 05:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 18241 battles
  • 5,902
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostAvalon304, on Nov 07 2017 - 23:25, said:

 

Other classes are the same as Destiny 1 for the most part and I hated them there too. Mostly because their jumps are garbage. The rest of the factions are... meh. Their shaders are ugly and their weapons dont look nearly as cool as Dead Orbit. At best, having more characters means more weekly milestones for me... but other than that not much.

 

If and when Bungie gives us the ability to create new characters near level cap, I might create 2 more hunters, but right now, I cant see a good reason for it.

 

Sorry dude but Titan skate FTW ;)

Daigensui #18526 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 06:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 27251 battles
  • 29,482
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012
Was gifted a Turán III prototípus by an admirer. Any advice on how to farm wins?

Avalon304 #18527 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 06:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 16842 battles
  • 6,475
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View PostDerViktim, on Nov 07 2017 - 21:45, said:

 

Sorry dude but Titan skate FTW ;)

 

Dont know what that is. Assume its related to the jump... which is still garbage as a jump.

 

Also, did the Conway have a concentric bore evacuator or an eccentric one? I need to know... for reasons...


Edited by Avalon304, Nov 08 2017 - 06:39.


Zergling #18528 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 06:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 7,701
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

Oh, forgot one big benefit from multiple characters: more Clan XP. Each of the 3 characters in an account can contribute 5000 clan XP per week.



LittleJoeRambler #18529 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 07:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 23179 battles
  • 3,589
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Nov 07 2017 - 23:24, said:

Congress passed the following act in May of 1892, about 6 months after the 2nd Amendment was adopted along with the other nine Amendments of the original Bill of Rights:

I'm assuming that's supposed to be 1792?



Apache1990 #18530 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 07:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 32699 battles
  • 6,290
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011

View PostLife_In_Black, on Nov 07 2017 - 22:13, said:

Where does it say these people own the firearms? "Keep" doesn't mean they own them, it means they're entrusted with them. Nowhere is the right to buy firearms guaranteed, it doesn't say anything about acquiring said arms at all through any means. All of that was tacked on later by people reading far more into it. You even have to justify the little clause about the militia, even though that's plain English too. Seriously Killjoy, I won't hold it against you that you're a complete hypocrite, just admit it and move on already. Admit that you enjoy modern interpretations of a +200 year old document written in plain English because they suit your views, all while distressing about someone reading more into what you wrote "in plain English" because you don't like their interpretation of your plain English words, and I'll drop the argument right here. But you don't get to have one without the other given it's the exact same thing.

 

It would seem kind of pointless to make a constitutional amendment for the sole purpose of saying 'if you have guns, you can use them.'  That's not a right, that's a grandfather clause.  At least, that's what makes sense from my reading it.



The_Chieftain #18531 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 08:19

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10145 battles
  • 9,594
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

I don't know if Miller got anything particularly wrong, other than the question of whether a sawn-off shotgun has any military utility. Apparently nobody brought up trench guns, but since the appellant was dead by the time it got to oral argument, I guess he can't be blamed for it.

 

It is worth noting that the Federal Constitution is not the only one at hand. 46 States have a right to bear arms in their Constitutions as well; some from the 18th Century such as Pennsylvania's "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned", some are very explicit, such as Delaware's more 20th Century "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use." 

 

Arguments about ownership of the firearms are frivolous. The concept of ancillary rights necessary to the exercise of an enumerated right has been well solidified by the courts. For example, the right to free speech means the right to acquire books, and the right to firearms includes the right to have a place to practice shooting (See Ezell v Chicago, 7th Circuit). If there's a right to bear arms, there's a corollary right to own them.



MajorOffensive #18532 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 09:06

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26731 battles
  • 2,637
  • [THUGZ] THUGZ
  • Member since:
    09-04-2010

I started writing a post about the Bill of Rights and the purpose and concerns around it, but Killjoy and Chief pretty much had that covered. 

 


Daigensui #18533 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 10:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 27251 battles
  • 29,482
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

Anyone remember this old movie?

 

KOKt3zE.png

 

 

Saw it with The Prince of Egypt when both were open in Korea. It's been almost two decade, but I am still reminded of it whenever something major happens.

 

 

1998 Academy Awards Best Original Song Winner:

 

 

 

Also, perhaps the most epic portrayal of the Red Sea:

 



Zergling #18534 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 11:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 7,701
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

Gah, there are some seriously frustrating issues with WoWP.

 

1) High tier games with few human players are often decided by RNG: which team has the best bots. It is REALLY hard to carry a team of bots that are completely useless, when the enemy team has a bunch of bot attackers that can effectively take bomber/rocket bases.

 

2) Squall is just a bad mechanic. A player can keep their plane alive all battle long, but then get unlucky the instant squall starts and then be out of the battle. It isn't even a necessary mechanic; the increasing spawn times for consecutive deaths is more than enough penalty for dying.

At least without squall, a player that keeps their plane alive all battle and then dies in the last few minutes will be rewarded by having only a short respawn time.

 

3) At high tiers, a much larger amount of fighting occurs outside of cap circles, which results in much lower rewards. The circles probably need to be larger at higher tiers, or rewards for kills outside of caps increased.

 

4) Killing bomber flights is one of the most important things a player (especially heavy fighters) can do for their team, but it gives crap XP rewards.

 

5) Plants and Rocket bases requiring attackers to be effectively capped severely punishes teams that don't have attackers. If the team gets a map with those, and it doesn't have the attackers to cap them... then it is basically an automatic loss.

 

6) Balance is, quite frankly, completely awful. There needs to be a drastic balance pass done over nearly every plane in the game.

 


Edited by Zergling, Nov 10 2017 - 12:00.


Onyx #18535 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 11:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7303 battles
  • 3,351
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010

Population is the bigger issue of high tiers.  Players can even out the inconsistency of bots provided they're not terrible, but the bots tend to clump up and basically attack in giant waves.  Said death balls are incredibly friendly to specific types of aircraft (turn-fighting light fighters) but hilariously unfriendly to anything that's a boom and zoomer.

 

Fights taking place out of cap circles is also a huge balance concern, esp. since cap size doesn't change with tier, only relative map size.  The game needs to allow contribution to the nearest base regardless of distance from cap.

 

Bases are too close to the map borders on higher tiers, making it very difficult to run away as a boom and zoomer if your zoom takes you in the direction of a border.

 

The balance isn't atrocious, but it's not good either.  Atrocious is having your planes designed so horribly that the P-47 ends up at BR 3.0 because it has none of its historic speed or survivability and its firepower is randomly useless depending on the patch cycle.

 

This game primarily doesn't reward certain styles of play as well as others.  Light Fighters are still the absolute best at defending bases or mixing it up with enemies.  Heavy fighters are primarily best at scoring safe kills but not really pressuring the enemy one way or the other.  Multirole fighters are primarily best at being bad heavy fighters or light fighters.  Attackers are primarily best at being point pinatas and free kills, occasionally pushing bases.  Bombers are best at trolling the enemy and force multiplying.

 

Within tiers, some planes are just awful.  The P-51A is flat out inferior in every way to the likes of a Spitfire V.  Speed and altitude is not important enough, and it has enough top speed to really screw with heavies or faster light fighters.  Many USSR fighters are in the same boat.  That's the bigger issue with balance when present.


Edited by Onyx, Nov 08 2017 - 11:55.


Zergling #18536 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 12:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 16721 battles
  • 7,701
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

View PostOnyx, on Nov 08 2017 - 20:49, said:

Bases are too close to the map borders on higher tiers, making it very difficult to run away as a boom and zoomer if your zoom takes you in the direction of a border.

 

Oh, that's the thing I couldn't remember. Map borders are waaaaaaay too close to caps.

 

Another thing: collisions are terrible. WoWP isn't even trying to be a realistic game, so they don't need to be in the game. All they do is create frustration (and allow higher tier planes to club lower tiers even harder, because they can just force a head on and win due to superior hit points).

 

EDIT: forgot another thing; there's no indicator for if flaps are set to be up or down. Get a 'flaps extending' message when they are lowered for the first time... but that's it.

 

EDIT 2: the third person camera doesn't 'right itself' nearly as aggressively as I'd prefer. Being stuck with my view upside down when my plane is pulling back to the level shouldn't be happening.

 

EDIT 3: and boost needs to regenerate at a percentage of total amount, instead of a fixed rate for all planes. Planes with higher boost capacity depend on that boost, but they often can't use it more than planes with lower capacity because it regens at the same rate.

 

EDIT 4: it is way too hard to select the plane you want to spectate in spectator view. Only command to change plane you are spectating is left click, which moves to next plane in the list... which also includes Air Defense bots.

At the very least, there needs to be a command to go to previous plane in the list, and AD planes should never be spectated. I'd prefer being able to select player from team list though.

 


Edited by Zergling, Nov 10 2017 - 10:39.


Onyx #18537 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 12:06

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7303 battles
  • 3,351
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010
I don't mind collisions but they feel difficult to dodge when in sniper view (which is better for gunnery in general) and like you lose simply because they game deemed it so.  I've had Zeros ram my Mustang and somehow survive when I had more health, but I die.

Onyx #18538 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 12:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 7303 battles
  • 3,351
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-28-2010
Another point to make:  Bots can take over any plane position, so you can be a tier 6 human in a primarily tier 5 game against tier 6 bots and basically faceroll your way across the map.  That is flat out not fair.  Humans should be matched 1:1 on a tier basis no matter what.

Shrike58 #18539 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 12:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 59327 battles
  • 7,667
  • [SG] SG
  • Member since:
    02-23-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 08 2017 - 02:19, said:

I don't know if Miller got anything particularly wrong, other than the question of whether a sawn-off shotgun has any military utility. Apparently nobody brought up trench guns, but since the appellant was dead by the time it got to oral argument, I guess he can't be blamed for it.

 

It is worth noting that the Federal Constitution is not the only one at hand. 46 States have a right to bear arms in their Constitutions as well; some from the 18th Century such as Pennsylvania's "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned", some are very explicit, such as Delaware's more 20th Century "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use." 

 

Arguments about ownership of the firearms are frivolous. The concept of ancillary rights necessary to the exercise of an enumerated right has been well solidified by the courts. For example, the right to free speech means the right to acquire books, and the right to firearms includes the right to have a place to practice shooting (See Ezell v Chicago, 7th Circuit). If there's a right to bear arms, there's a corollary right to own them.

 

Perhaps the more interesting question is how bearing arms went from being a duty to a right; this work I found rather useful on the topic:

 

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674893077/ref=nosim/librarythin08-20



Apple_Jack #18540 Posted Nov 08 2017 - 12:28

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11675 battles
  • 953
  • Member since:
    01-30-2011

View PostKilljoyCutter, on Nov 08 2017 - 05:24, said:

 

Congress passed the following act in May of 1792(?), about 6 months after the 2nd Amendment was adopted along with the other nine Amendments of the original Bill of Rights:

 

"Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

 

Note the part that I bolded... the same people who had been involved in writing and voting on the 2nd Amendment clearly thought that individuals were going to be purchasing and maintaining their own weapons and ammunition.  

 

They also intended this to apply to "the adult free white male citizens"... of course we've expanded a lot of other rights and responsibilities far more broadly than that in the time since, for the better.  The general course of our nation's laws has been to expand and extend the recognition of rights, not to contract and restrict them.  

 

Looking at the Bill of Rights in the language of time and place it was written, and looking at the broader writings and decisions of the people who wrote the Amendments, is pretty fascinating. 

 

 

 

This is the definition of a "well-regulated militia." Notice that Congress has defined the equipment, even down to the amount of ammunition, and includes details regarding the meeting of militia members. Each state may have its own constitutional limits for personal ownership and use, but the use of the term "militia" I think specifically casts this right into a military context.

 

 






17 user(s) are reading this topic

8 members, 8 guests, 1 anonymous users


    SpectreHD, RitaGamer, cipher12, Taiho, EmpressNero, Avalon304, godofdun