84 replies to this topic

[Saint_The_Judge]

Now that I'm better (not so better, but ok), I'm trying TDM most of the time, with ocasional DM and MA. I do like the cluster advance of TDM, fights are really intense. And DM for pure skill training.
Have a very good 2013 you all!!!

[The_Silencer]

Actually, I do not have a favourite game mode. It mostly will depend on my mood. Maybe TDM games.. the potential of this game mode is yet to be seen, IMHO. I should play more Missile and Siege matches though. I'll do it, I promise.

[DeVact]

For me that would be MA. Just played a match the other day where the other team was at a skill disadvantage (I ended up something like 29-4) yet still they managed to keep the base armor difference at a stunning 220 (at the end. They took the lead a few times).

[Gagzila]

Quote from Beemann, December 31 2012 - 09:33 AM

Quote

Not a huge fan of any of them, but Missile is currently the least exploitable

LOL, you say this after previously asking me how each of the game modes are exploitable (insinuating they aren't) and then after I provided valid examples, you proceed to extensively argue with me on the matter over 2 pages.

Gagzila, on December 15 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

DarkPulse, on December 15 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

Problem is, as was said, CB2 Siege is just as exploitable.

I get that CBE2 was exploitable, every game mode will always be exploitable in some way and the idea is to minimise that.

Beemann, on December 15 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

gagzilla, could you explain how CTF, quake-style 1v1s and missile assault are exploitable_

---

Regarding the OP, if we were in CBE2 then I would choose Siege as my favourite mode...seeing that we aren't, MA would be my current favourite (if I could get into a match that is). I currently can only play TDM or DM and then not very often (due to boredom of DM/TDM and scarceness of Oceanic players)...so I can't exactly vote at the moment sorry

Cheers,

Gagzila

Edited by Gagzila, January 02 2013 - 06:34 PM.

[Beemann]

Gagzila, on January 02 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Beemann, on December 30 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Not a huge fan of any of them, but Missile is currently the least exploitable

LOL, you say this after previously asking me how each of the game modes are exploitable (insinuating they aren't) and then after I provided valid examples, you proceed to extensively argue with me on the matter over 2 pages.

Gagzila, on December 15 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

DarkPulse, on December 15 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

Problem is, as was said, CB2 Siege is just as exploitable.

I get that CBE2 was exploitable, every game mode will always be exploitable in some way and the idea is to minimise that.

Beemann, on December 15 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

gagzilla, could you explain how CTF, quake-style 1v1s and missile assault are exploitable_

---

Regarding the OP, if we were in CBE2 then I would choose Siege as my favourite mode...seeing that we aren't, MA would be my current favourite (if I could get into a match that is). I currently can only play TDM or DM and then not very often...so I can't exactly vote at the moment sorry

Cheers,

Gagzila

Not exploitable and least exploitable aren't exclusive states
If you have 4 scores of 10, 5, 3 and 0, 0 is the lowest score. It is the "least" of whatever you're trying to measure
And your example was spawncamping, which isn't really an exploit and isn't at all related to the gamemode. It's a map-dependent function
Nice try though

[Gagzila]

Beemann, on January 02 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

Not exploitable and least exploitable aren't exclusive states
If you have 4 scores of 10, 5, 3 and 0, 0 is the lowest score. It is the "least" of whatever you're trying to measure

And as usual how does that relate (in context) to what I have said since I clearly said the idea is to make game modes the least exploitable where you insinuated they were NOT exploitable.

Nice try though...to get out of your clear as day contradiction.

Beemann, on January 02 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

And your example was spawncamping, which isn't really an exploit and isn't at all related to the gamemode. It's a map-dependent function
Nice try though

It CAN be an exploit of poor map design but in this case it is poor game mode design, being that the current version of Siege focuses defending players on the battleship sitting at their base which leads to them being spawn camped (ie. in other words: spawn camping is the result of the other team exploiting this poor game mode design. You can change the map any way you want but you will still have a base that the battleship hovers over and gets shot at by spawning mechs who get camped by the other team. It was a change in the game mode from CBE to OB that brought about this exploit...before that, spawn camping was just the sign of a fuzzy bunny team).

But leave all of that argument out of this thread, because I know you'll just keep running it around in circles if just to draw attention away from your obvious contradiction above and ultimately derail this threads true topic. My initial post that started it all was that each game mode has exploits and the idea is to minimise them as much as possible. You have just agreed with me with what you say in your post above that "MA is the least exploitable", therefore we both agree that there are exploits in all game modes = end of argument (or it should be but I know you won't be able to leave it there).

Cheers,

Gagzila

Edited by Gagzila, January 02 2013 - 06:51 PM.

[Beemann]

If something is not exploitable, it is also the least exploitable
English is your first language yes_ Mutual exclusivity does not apply here

If you want me to continue to explain the difference, feel free to PM me

[Gagzila]

Beemann, on January 02 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

If something is not exploitable, it is also the least exploitable
English is your first language yes_ Mutual exclusivity does not apply here

Right back at ya...

least:
Adjective
Smallest in amount, extent, or significance. (all of these indicate a quantity, 0 is not a quantity)
Used in names of very small animals and plants, e.g., least shrew.
Adverb
To the smallest extent or degree. (again this is a measurable amount, you cannot measure 0 except by its absence)
Synonyms
minimum (as above)

"Least" does not indicate "nothing" / zero except maybe from your own point of view if you use it in this fashion (still incorrectly) and only people that know your individual use of grammar and what you mean by terming it like that would understand it the way you meant it. You did not care to explain the difference in your post (as I'm sure you meant it the way it reads but now you're back pedalling HARD to protect your high and mighty forum status of always being right...eat some humble pie mate).

If you meant to say MA has no current exploits, then you say "I voted MA because it is not exploitable like the other game modes". If you are still of the opinion that the other modes are not exploitable as well then you failed even more as "least" indicates the other options are "more" of whatever it is least off. In this instance, your post is incredibly indefinite.

And I think it's clear questions of understanding English are void and what does it matter if it's not my first language (which it is if you really need to know) if I have a clear and knowledgeable understanding of it_

You can cease with the snide insults now, you only help to hammer more nails home into the coffin that is your argument.

Cheers,

Gagzila

Edited by Gagzila, January 02 2013 - 06:13 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Gagzila, on January 02 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

Beemann, on January 02 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

If something is not exploitable, it is also the least exploitable
English is your first language yes_ Mutual exclusivity does not apply here

Right back at ya...

least:
Adjective
Smallest in amount, extent, or significance. (all of these indicate a quantity, 0 is not a quantity)
Used in names of very small animals and plants, e.g., least shrew.
Adverb
To the smallest extent or degree. (again this is a measurable amount, you cannot measure 0 except by its absence)
Synonyms
minimum (as above)

"Least" does not indicate "nothing" / zero except maybe from your own point of view if you use it in this fashion (still incorrectly) and only people that know your individual use of grammar and what you mean by terming it like that would understand it the way you meant it. You did not care to explain the difference in your post (as I'm sure you meant it the way it reads but now you're back pedalling HARD to protect your high and mighty forum status of always being right...eat some humble pie mate).

If you meant to say MA has no current exploits, then you say "I voted MA because it is not exploitable like the other game modes". If you are still of the opinion that the other modes are not exploitable as well then you failed even more as "least" indicates the other options are "more" of whatever it is least off. In this instance, your post is incredibly indefinite.

And I think it's clear questions of understanding English are void and what does it matter if it's not my first language (which it is if you really need to know) if I have a clear and knowledgeable understanding of it_

You can cease with the snide insults now, you only help to hammer more nails home into the coffin that is your argument.

Cheers,

Gagzila

If one room has 10 people in it, and another room has no people in it, which room has the least people_

[Beemann]

I like how you read the bit where it explained that it was a relative term, and then insisted that it couldn't be used as a relative term using parameters that didn't exist in the definition
Try again

[Gagzila]

We can argue semantics all day long but the fact is saying something has the "least" of something still quantifies a value to what you attribute the word to UNLESS otherwise specified. The room with the least people is the second room BECAUSE there are no people in it...see how I specifically clarified my use of the word "least" here because otherwise it means a measurable value that is the least in the options being measured. THAT is how you use English to convey your meaning to someone and not rely on them to weigh up all the possible meanings when unspecific and pick the closest fitting one (in which case your post still means you agree with me to anyone reading it fresh).

Nice to see you backing your buddy as usual AJK but don't do it out of sheer blind following...it's ok to disagree with your friends and tell them they're wrong.

I know your original meaning Beemann and no amount of squirming and semantic juggling will get you out of it. I must have hit the mark since your arguing so hard again about it and even called in your buddy AJK to lend support.

Cheers,

Gagzila

Edit: The funny thing is, I don't actually care if we disagree on the exploits matter...I already said in that topic that we should just agree to disagree. The fact is you are unable to admit for a moment you made a mistake in either that you do actually agree with me about the exploits but can't go back on your word or that you could have posted "Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that MA has no exploits and is why it's my favourite mode" and stopped it right there, clear and simple. Instead you bandy about trying to muddy the waters and arm wrestle me on what you meant by "least" because you can't stand to have your "superior" opinion challenged.

Edited by Gagzila, January 02 2013 - 06:49 PM.

[Beemann]

Asian found the thread on his own. He's actually been deafened in mumble
Your inability to understand the English language is just entertaining at this point
I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that you're so mad about our previous conversation that you jump at the chance to derail other threads just to take another swing at me

[Gagzila]

Ha ha, out of ammo at last and resorting back to your weak english insults again.

Beemann, on January 02 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

Asian found the thread on his own. He's actually been deafened in mumble

= he's only come here to stop you deafening him. So in essence, you still drew his attention to this thread as you needed "backup".

Take care man, remember to take a nap occasionally if driving somewhere...wouldn't want my posts to cause an accident.

Cheers,

Gagzila

Edited by Gagzila, January 02 2013 - 07:11 PM.

[Beemann]

I'm not sure what else to address when all you're doing is giving the same wrong answer over and over again with an actual definition present pointing out that it's a relative term. If nothing else, you're arguing semantics when it's pretty clear that I don't think that Missile is exploitable in a game-mode sense. Maps are another matter entirely (see: my thoughts on Bazaar)
This conversation is shades of "Just because you specifically mentioned Quake doesn't mean you were talking about Quake"

[Gagzila]

Beemann, on January 02 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

I'm not sure what else to address when all you're doing is giving the same wrong answer over and over again with an actual definition present pointing out that it's a relative term. If nothing else, you're arguing semantics when it's pretty clear that I don't think that Missile is exploitable in a game-mode sense. Maps are another matter entirely (see: my thoughts on Bazaar)
This conversation is shades of "Just because you specifically mentioned Quake doesn't mean you were talking about Quake"

Not sure who's posts you're reading, mine make complete sense. Your quotation above is not anything I have said (implied or in those exact words), something else you failed to specify.

There's nothing to address, I thought it was clear with what I said in my edit above...it's a simple question really: Without using the word "least" or any other relative and subjective term, is MA exploitable or not_ Yes or No_

If you can't definitively say No, then you agree with me and your previous arguments are baseless. If you do say No (without any followup convalution muddying your meaning), then this ends the current argument (although I know it's just a back pedal effort to get out of me showing up your contradiction)

Cheers,

Gagzila

Edit: Don't know if the poll question has changed, but I believe I can vote now as I "like" to play siege...when it's not broken . Cheers!

Edited by Gagzila, January 02 2013 - 07:54 PM.

[Beemann]

I felt I made it pretty clear that MA is not exploitable. I'm not sure how you'd get any other impression from my posts in this thread or in other threads.

[Gagzila]

The thing is (as previously said in the edit), I called you out on a contradiction that meant you agreed with me on something you have previously argued fervently about and instead of just clarifying yourself and ending it there, you continued to argue the semantics of "least" to the Nth degree.

In those actions I believe lies a nugget of truth that you do agree with me to a certain extent on the exploit matter but you can't stand to be seen to bowing the head and admitting it as you think it would be seen as a sign of weakness from the all mighty and knowing Beemann. You can't even bring yourself to admit that your original statement was in fact not clear at all, that you just meant MA is not exploitable...that's what is pretty clear to me.

That's pretty much my issue with you, not the fact you have a difference of opinion on game mode exploits. You're always telling everyone else how it is but can't ever be told yourself. Another way to say it is "you give poo but you can't take it" (I substitued poo in as "fuzzy bunny" would make the saying a bit hard to understand ) relatively speaking about the poo.

Cheers,

Gagzila

[Beemann]

You've gone from spewing logical fallacies to being straight-up delusional
As well, I've had plenty of civil conversations, though primarly with people who don't go out of their way to ignore what I've said, I can only be so patient

[AsianJoyKiller]

Gagzila, on January 02 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

= he's only come here to stop you deafening him. So in essence, you still drew his attention to this thread as you needed "backup".

When Beemann's saying I'm "deafened" he's referring to a function in Mumble that allows a person to turn off all audio from Mumble, effectively muting the entire program so you can't hear anything anyone is saying.

His point being, that I just wandered across this thread by myself and found it interesting that you're completely ignoring the proper definition and what it covers just so it supports your argument better.

I'd like you to answer the question I posed before...
If you have 10 people in a room, and no people in another room, which room has the least people_

[Gagzila]

See, you can't even reply in context to what I just said as that seems it would be a form of admitting to some small extent that I have a point. Instead you post unrelated waffle that has me looking through my responses, thinking "what the hell is he responding to, it certainly doesn't connect with anything I've said"

It's funny when people are on the back defensive foot, they always seem to resort to using "fallacies" / "fallacy" in their arguments....rdKnightmarez did this all the time when pushing his opinions on everyone.

Cheers,

Gagzila