Andrewbassg

I guess I should have waited a bit more.......:) Update: in all fairness after I leaved and reentered

Ouch......how many citadels?

Update: As much this is funny I can't continue because....I don't want to end up like this:

Good point. But....I can't leave now....

This is getting a bit tedious..... mark 35

Update mark 28.00 Dis one is at least cute

Hmm... in ops is good. Helmed by a 21 pointer Ayboneux ...soo .....is producing.....Oh wait...

Update 22.00 mark......

'Already on it"

Business as usual ?

Update 16.00 mark.......still waiting...

Update : 13.00 mark And people claim around here that there is no general, performance based MM...

Update: 9.04 mark and still no juice...

Well...not in Narai. But yes in PvP.

Comrade....those are dangerous ideas. Balans is working just fine. Remember what happened to your predecessors.....

That's what I've said all along on NA, since the cap re.......khmm..... Introducing Subs will alter the game, forever. And if they cram enough horse...khmm things in game ( Airstrikes, hybrids) it will make the game..."dynamic, enjoyable, fun and engaging". Of course actually it would be a giant pile of...khmm...those things, but hey, so are da Cv's and they are like that for some time now

Quite recently, I would say....

Lolz. But he had a hunch to pursue that.:)

No:) Not at all :) Maybe for you, but if you want to convey information, or to have a debate, or even just a regular conversation....just no. Because : general, performance based MM and general performance based MM have entirely different meanings, especially given the context. You mean like Fleming? :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fleming I can post a whole bunch of the likes of him, along with a lot of successful businessmans :) I mean if you want..... Usually that happens when not enough information is present. Or if the source of the information(s) is.... not 100% trustworthy. If you say so.....

Ah ...now I see what you mean. Still the wording and formulation is waay too vague to effectively convey the intended information It is still very much open to misinterpretation. No offense, but you definitively have to work on that. Quite a LOT:P Edit: Like this: I said, that, when general, performance based MM is active, you have that all the time and that is not limited, performance based MM. I believe in God. Otherwise I know what I know and admit when I don't. But even science is based on observation and on personal experience. One of the most famous of the scientist said something in that direction. :) Oh, I just observe :). Usually 1+1=2, right? :) And we already talked about the relevance of "track record", In the absence of other relevant information. Also the other.... "stuff". And....I could post a "3.5 roentgen" meme :) If you mean RN Cl's...I can't deny :) Especially with Jingles :) Still...

2.You insisted that said conditions can't both be present. Which they very much can. :) Also, that can be assumed and claimed which you do, but...its not a fact. And.... not necessarily if both were active. :) Because the "limited"; will alter/conceal the effects of the "general" :) especially if it is used after it. Edit: Not to mention if other conditions are present. And....tbh...I don't think that qualifies as 'rigging" At worst is an "influence" 4.Oh come on, "why we should always be such a killjoy" :) Its fun. :P :) I don't claim that MM is ..."infallible" :) And I'm having fun actually :) :) Hmm....:) But it proves that using "faulty" metrics is the norm :) :) That is the main problem with Cv's :) I mean the "bunching together" soo many advantages for one class.:) In a Pvp game is just..... Back to topic, the armory is part of the game, as such is a creation of the company and as such is highly relevant, because the metric used is the result of intent and that is the result of motivation. :xD. Actually it goes like this: motivation => intent => action => metric Btw pertinent to our earlier discussion:

2.Which means that is possible to have both general and limited conditions. 4. Hmm ..... :) Debating is about presenting and using arguments to "drive home" or to "make" a point. I do it differently. I drive home the point first and then I assume a strong and superior position to defend it. In wows "terms" is akin to taking a cap and then let the opponent(s) to come. They usually came one by one and we kinda know the outcome of that, so...:) Cruiser play 101 :) I usually don't enter in debates, because adopting this tactic, leaves very little room for the opponent, thus is not really fair. It is akin to jumping straight to the neck or going for the throat. Or playing against "Rambo" ( lolz...) with kids toys . Nevertheless, if I deem it important, I do it, albeit I try to do it rarely. Btw this is nicely related to the next point Well, we can't see neither of those, right? :) I mean..... Mm and the Holy Grail.... Also kinda related to my point above: people who believe in God get ridiculed by the "science crowd". You know those who believe in the Creation vs the 'darwinists"?.The "million years of evolution" vs the seven days? Well...we don't know God's metric so....actually 'million years of evolution" very well could mean even one day for God. You see what's happened there? Every human metric based argument was rendered.... moot. :) My point was about metric. The metric used to evaluate the performance of Cv's is just as faulty as the metric you propose to evaluate the performance of the MM.:) Both Cv's and Mm is part of this game. Yet ..."close ones" ....is?:)

I know........there are many threads, but... it is funny

My bad, I didn't see it.

Oh boy.....for "fun" right? :) Ok. 2.The problem is that you still want to present a singular condition as to how MM "could" work ( again, as the only way) and I'm telling you that's not how it works. At all.:) 4.Why should I be disputing facts?:) I'm not here to claim that the Earth is flat :) Certainly you are implying it. Oh, I beg to differ sir. Especially, given what I have already said about...... different experiences. :) Heck even Weegee insist that Cv's are fine and balanced, when they are...not. Not even remotely. So...whatever metric they use for that...it is flat out wrong. Making comparisons is a valid debating tactic, just like you have already used it.:) I mean.. "close ones"...right? :) So.....try to keep up :) Well putting things in the right and correct context is actually crucial. For example not understanding what role played this :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth in the rise of the Third Reich. will always render any analysis of said event incomplete, thus will substract from its value. But you are correct, it wasn't addressed to me.