It's not an accusation if it's true.
Now that's completely weak sauce. I mean, jebus, if I do stoop to calling you names, will you also chant "I'm rubber, you're glue" at me?
I mean, hell, you insisted, INSISTED, that the inclusion of that option and the limitations as such would "cripple" the game, using your impenetrable point of the game is too hard for me. Despite the fact that I explained that generally still 95% of any given tech tree would still be able to be traded, you remained oblivious and stuck to your own little submission that the AI-exploited, abusable, broken tech trading system was flawless.
I did not say that the game is too hard for me. I said that making your so-called "option" the default for tech trading (which is explicitly what you wanted) would make tech trading worthless, and would make the game harder for some races over others, simply because they have holes in their tech trees that they can only fill by trading for techs - like the Altarians (and Drath) and morale techs, or the Yor or Iconian and economic techs.
I also never said that the tech trading system is flawless.
And, no, 95% of the tech trees would not be available to be traded. Some weapons, some drives, some defenses, and depending on race, some planetary improvements and starbase modules would be tradeable across most races. Specifically, techs that relate to holes in any given race's trees would not be tradeable, because they don't have those techs. So Altarians could never trade for upgrades to either of their morale paths because they don't have anything past the first tech in those parts of the tree.
What do you expect me to call you? Intelligent? Sagacious? I don't know anybody that actually thinks the tech trading system DOESN'T suck, so I suspect you're a liar. You denied my idea on the principle that the game is "too hard" based on a race that has not been tested or even implemented completely. What am I supposed to think?
This is what I expect from you: The ability to address my arguments, and not attack me as a person. The ability to address what I actually
posted and not warped interpretations that you
claim I posted to justify your little anti-me crusade. For example, I never said the tech trading system doesn't suck. I never said the game was "too hard," as I noted above. Do you even understand the difference between "the game shouldn't be harder if you play race A over race B" vs. "race B's tech tree makes them impossible to play?" Here's a hint: I never said the latter.
You understand the idea that certain choices shouldn't make the game harder than other choices because you have argued at length to balance the morality choices so that evil is not advantaged over good, so why is it that it's okay for some races to be advantaged over other races? Why can you not see that this is exactly the same principle without claiming that I said stupid things that I did not say? Is it just remotely possible that you have trouble dealing with disagreement? You
attack anyone who doesn't fall into line with your ideas. I mean, you try to tear into them, again, as we can see in the morality threads as well as the tech trading threads, and as we can see here.
Can't you try to engage like a mature human being, or is it that important for you to be considered right all the time that you're just not able to disagree without acting like a complete ass in the process?
No, let me explain to you. I called you a retard because you vehemently denied my submission in an extremely long-winded and boring post about how one race is too hard for YOU without piling up on ridiculous, exploitable unique-tech benefits.
You're repeating yourself, and I didn't do that. In fact, I won the game I was talking about, and I didn't exploit unique tech benefits. I did trade up the morale tree to get better morale so I could build a fleet that could keep the Drengin at bay
because I could not afford a fleet to fight off the Drengin without better morale buildings that would also allow me to add farms, which would increase my population and thus my income. That's not an exploit, and the fact that you have to resort to calling it an exploit just shows how you consider the way you play to be the only legitimate way to play, and how you're willing to cover yourself in mud just for the sake of shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with you 100%.
I alluded to you having some sort of mental trauma because you were fabricating laughably untrue "facts" about how certain races perform to support your point, and therefore, in your own words, were against changing tech trading to allow you to overcome these phantom weaknesses - weaknesses that, whether or not they exist, are implemented intentionally.
Laughably untrue? I've played all of those races at least once under beta 3, and some of them again under beta 4. That's how they performed. If you look around, you can see other posters saying the same thing I did. I'm not alone in these impressions. In fact, I question whether you've even gone so far as to select those races to see their stats, let alone played one.
I wasn't against changing tech trading, I was against your suggested sweeping change to tech trading.
I also realize that those weaknesses - which do exist - are implemented intentionally. I do not agree with them, but if they're going to stay, I'd like to be able to work around them.
Yet the only way to overcome any weakness, like Torian research, is in your games, by getting the Discovery Spheres tech and combining it with your own +research% techs - and this behavior is perfectly acceptable to you - because Torians are probably too hard for you as well.
You shouldn't base your arguments on something as flimsy as anything I didn't say. Like, for example, that the races were "too hard" for me to play.
I see you as my inferior, and until you manage to stop sending little posts of concentrated idiocy, I suspect you will stay as such, and I'll simply treat you as one.
And you had the gall to ask me for an apology, while spewing nonsense like this? Did you notice that I've pretty much ignored you - except once, to correct a laughably wrong assertion that
you made - since those arguments?
Correct me if I missed something here. If you can't, I suggest you get a god damn spine and at least try to fabricate a valid counterargument to restricted tech trading that isn't COMPLETELY asinine.
You missed
everything here. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a straw man that you're pretending is me. You may even think if you yell loud enough, your false characterizations may be taken as truth, but the threads are still there for anyone to read. You're right that the arguments you're complaining about are asinine, but I didn't make them.
Like I said, you're pissed off because I don't agree with you. It's all about your ego, not my ability to present an argument. Until you can get over yourself enough to realize that
it's not all about you and you're not
entitled to have everyone fall down on their knees and praise your ideas to the stars, you'll keep throwing tantrums when you encounter disagreement. If that's the impression you want to give people, fine, but stop trying to drag me into your mud.
I'm not your inferior. I'm smart enough to tell the difference between a person and his argument. Maybe someday you learn to do this as well.
