BFG:R Vote 57: Battlefleet Bakka Ships

[afterimagedan]

Ok, my bad. 

[Sigoroth]

My position was and still is that if they're going to have them, they should balanced the same as every other weapon, and not written to deliberately punish the player for taking them.  Making noob traps and deliberately bad options is not good game design.

The solution then is obvious; don't give them any at all.

The Cardinal is worse than the Jovian.

That's quite an assertion.

I'm glad you think so.

Minor detail, that's not official fluff, that's what the HA came up with to explain their compromise between previous rules and your demand for total removal. 

Yes, you're right, that is just what the HA came up with and is not "official". However I think you seriously overestimate my influence on the HA. I think the hardest thing they had to cope with concerning me was how to ignore me politely. The did a stellar job.

But even if my role as agent provocateur did cause this shift in thinking, is it unreasonable? We're talking a level of tech not enjoyed by regular IN. The only example outside of the IN that is close is the Tau. If we're not talking Bakka being in bed with the AM then how are they managing it?

Considering how many times you've been dressed down by others for bullying, or that fact I get fan mail from several people now every time I stand up to you...

Haha, fan mail. Priceless. Anyway, you avoided the issue raised, which is your agendas. You do have them, I do not. I merely have a process.

As to my bullying ... Well, I can see how it comes across like that. What I actually want is reasoned responses to the points I raise. I will very often go through a very well thought out argument, raising counter-arguments and in turn countering them. I then post it and wait to see what I have missed, what the rest of the community will point out to me, only to then have my post either summarily ignored or countered with arguments I've already raised and countered. So when I "bully" people, it's actually an effort to get them to acknowledge and account for the argument I have raised. If they don't then there is no way to move forward.

For example, the "no unrestricted carriers + turret upgrade" vs "2AC/500 + carrier variety + FDT (+ turret upgrade?)" issue has, eventually, boiled down to the desire for carrier variety. Now I'm just waiting on a reason for the inclusion of said carriers into Bakka (may be posted but I haven't read that far yet). But this got bogged down because I was not getting the right responses. I had already provided grounds for why I think Bakka shouldn't get a lot of different carriers, why I thought the FDT was bad and what I disliked about a rigid AC restriction. In return I had only had explanation of one of the alternatives (ie, dislike of the notion that a Bakka player could still get a moderate amount of AC). Why we needed the FDT and how it can be rationalised have not as yet been provided. Why Bakka needs a variety of carriers and/or access to unrestricted carriers has not yet been provided (so far as I've read today).

So yes, until I get all the answers I need I'm going to keep beating my head against a brick wall and I'm going to keep "bullying" people into accounting for my arguments. This is a matter of process though, not agenda. My one and only agenda came in the form of MMS Eldar and that is far more about fixing a terrible game mechanic than anything else. The Eldar from that document still do not come close to the Eldar of my agenda.

I think that a certain amount of compromise is possible.  However, I also hold up that I can generally disagree with others without calling the things they like 'crap' or otherwise disparaging them.

I can't. I've got Crap Tourettes. If I see crap I just automatically scream it out. As for compromise, the only possibility is on assumptions, not argument.

[Sigoroth]

Yeah, he was the number one objection from the Admins at Dark Reign when I pitched the idea of holding the committee meetings there rather than here.  Which is what that link is, btw.  I set up a special thread in DR's BFG section for the committee to hold meetings someplace the mods were not involved in the debate.

If Sig tries the same crap there that he does here, Kage2020 will be on him like the white on rice.

I don't even know anyone on DR.    It seems my reputation precedes me, heh.

At Dragon Lord's suggestion, I'll decline the nomination on the stipulation that Sig also is not a candidate.

That works for me.

Though looking over that starting list of ships you posted, you already know I object vehemently to the Cardinal. You might be interested to know that that's the only objection I have. I haven't seen your rules proposals of course, and needless to say I anticipate a lot of objection there. I'm fine with the Emp/Oberon swap and lighter restrictions. I'm fine with the Vengeance (Avenger? ... one of them).

I Don't agree to disregard Sigoroth opinions, they are logical, informed and wise most of the time (when he's not being rude).

Nonsense! They are logical, informed and wise even when I am being rude!<sup>*


*</sup>Note: as always smileys can be taken as implied, even where absent. Inclusion of smileys does not in anyway imply that an absence of smileys should be taken as serious bzns. Sigoroth corporation limited reserves the right to somethingorother. This somethingorother changes depending upon the situation including, but not limited to, the post hoc insertion or deletion of smileys. Somethingorother is a registered trademark of Sigoroth corporation limited.

Me, being an imperial "I want all those pretty ships in my fleet" freak I curiously always seek for sig's opinions to make me put my feet on the ground.
I respect him as one of the most wise critics in this forum, so I'm so grateful to have him as the wall where we're all crashing when we get rules that might otherwise make this game a crap like  warhammer 40k...

Aw, I'm gunna cry. While being critical is in my nature it's odd to be considered a bastion of conservatism.  Just ask Bob Henderson whether or not I'm conservative.

[Vaaish]

1. So who exactly is on the committee?
2. Why not have CyerShadow set up a hidden dev board for the committee here? This will let the committee work without interruption and prevent people from forming opinions on docs that aren't ready to be reviewed.

[horizon]

Everyone who got nominated is in the team (except baron I). Thus you as well.
It can be found on the previous page, baronI posted a link.

[Sigoroth]

I notice that you guys are after more gunship ideas, including in the BB category. What about the fixed (Plaxor's BFG:R) Invincible fast battleship?

[Vaaish]

Ok, I'd still recommend a private dev forum then to help focus the committee. It will give a clean slate and let us work in peace rather than having the general public getting riled up about concepts or ideas that might not even make it to a final document.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Thanks Sig the Invincible is along the lines I was thinking, fixed of course! 

[BaronIveagh]

Ok, I'd still recommend a private dev forum then to help focus the committee. It will give a clean slate and let us work in peace rather than having the general public getting riled up about concepts or ideas that might not even make it to a final document.

*shrug*  You'd have just as big a potential for drama if it's super secret as you do if it's in the open.  At some point the information comes out since it still has to be voted on.   Since the mods here and the mods there are of one mind, apparently, on any further 'drama' surrounding this, I don't think there's any major concerns.

[AndrewChristlieb]

With the divided list tempers do seem to have cooled a bit.

[CyberShadow]

1. So who exactly is on the committee?
2. Why not have CyerShadow set up a hidden dev board for the committee here? This will let the committee work without interruption and prevent people from forming opinions on docs that aren't ready to be reviewed.

I would be happy to do this if requested.

[afterimagedan]

So yes, until I get all the answers I need I'm going to keep beating my head against a brick wall and I'm going to keep "bullying" people into accounting for my arguments. This is a matter of process though, not agenda. My one and only agenda came in the form of MMS Eldar and that is far more about fixing a terrible game mechanic than anything else. The Eldar from that document still do not come close to the Eldar of my agenda.

I think that a certain amount of compromise is possible.  However, I also hold up that I can generally disagree with others without calling the things they like 'crap' or otherwise disparaging them.

I can't. I've got Crap Tourettes. If I see crap I just automatically scream it out. As for compromise, the only possibility is on assumptions, not argument.

This is exactly what I am talking about Sig. This is saying "yes, I can come across as a bully, but I'm not a bully, I just do bully-ish thing." You aren't going to get more debate form me because I am just indulging you. I feel as if I have given good reason to what I have proposed, even if you haven't accepted it. I have acknowledged that your arguments have validity, but this isn't about one being objectively true or objectively false. This is a preference issue and game mechanic issue about who thinks which of two different methods work better. We don't need to go further on this, Sig, and I don't want to keep building up tension between us, so I am going to let it go.