Karon

[ QUOTE ]
But then again, Karon and I never would have bonded.

[/ QUOTE ]

<grin> I'm real busy with a product release next Monday, or I would have responded to everyone here earlier: hopefully I'll get time tomorrow.

But for now, if you ever make it over to Justice server Dal (surely, that'd be more appropriate for you? :-) we gotta team up :-)

Karon

[ QUOTE ]
Um... O.K., but remember, you told me I could.

[/ QUOTE ]<grin> No worries, we can take it :-)

[ QUOTE ]
Particularly after reading your last post, it really seems as if we're basically in agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]I think we are in agreement about the main issue, but I think it took a little while to clarify what that issue was. Not helped by our antagonistic stances :-)

But, don't misunderstand: I think you were just stating the obvious, and I don't think there was any need to do so since I don't think you added anything. So while I agree that the devs have good intentions, I still think there was no point in starting this thread to say that. I hope you understand that I don't mean that in a deragatory way: and of course, I'm happy to be disagreed with.

[ QUOTE ]
That happens somewhat regularly around here, too. Yet another downside of electronically typed communication.

[/ QUOTE ]Absolutely. But wouldn't it have been worse if we'd gotten into this F2F? Since I'm not an American, and I don't live in the US, you have the advantage over me with your right to bear arms :-)

[ QUOTE ]
I really think that the devs should have taken at least a moment to respond - in some way - to the Reeve thread.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, this is OT, but again, I can't say I'm surprised. What could they have said that wouldn't have brought potential legal trouble around their heads?
I'm certain that everyone in the dev team felt his loss as much as the rest of us did, but any official recognition could have been conceived by lawyers as an attempt to link to and thereby profit from, a character to whom CoH has no rights.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the issue wasn't dead, but just being worked on.

[/ QUOTE ]<smile> It would be nice if it were being worked on.

[ QUOTE ]
But that was one instance where I think they may have dropped a communications ball.

Ok, now I'm arguing against myself. Or am I? I'm so confused...

[/ QUOTE ]No, I don't think you are arguing against yourself. If your point was that the devs aren't doing this maliciously, then nothing you've said here contradicts that.

Karon

[ QUOTE ]
does anyone have any pie ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like pie! You're not allowed to!

Err... oaf!

Karon

[ QUOTE ]
I had thought about addressing a couple of specifics in your latest post

[/ QUOTE ]
If there is anything to be added to the thread, please do: we can always flame the other people together then :-)

If we can team up to beat the head of the Hydra, we can do this :-)

Karon

Alright, I'm up for a neutral rephrasing.

I believe that the devs have done an excellent job with CoH.
I would be proud to have written this game myself.

Sometimes, however, I believe they make mistakes. Apart from balance issues, which are notoriously difficult to get right because the playing community don't generally have access to all the information and the devs don't generally experience the frustration of playing, the devs have, on occasion, slipped up.

For me, in my experience here and with many other MMOs not to mention having played virtually every game ever made, the worst mistake they have made is in the area of hype, a la the Halloween event, for which another thread exists. I only mention it here so you have a reference that I am talking about a specific thing, rather than a vague concept.

Is that a big mistake? No.
Is that something to ruin my game experience? No.
Will I continue to play and enjoy the game? Absolutely.

But, and this is where I came in, I think that people that blame the devs as intentionally breaking the game, are very, very few and far between. Every flame I've seen on here says that the devs have missed a facet: or that they have made the wrong choice between elements.

Hence, I think the OP was stating the obvious, and didn't really add anything new except his own personal meeting.

(Granted, this is now that we've removed any contentious phrases from both his and my posts).

Can you understand why I thought that your post had no real purpose? Or why I thought that any purpose you might have had, had nothing to back it up?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should use a specific where you disagreed with the fact that the developers did not respond to a thread, such as the recent Christopher Reeve mega-thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your disagreeing with the devs doesn't really add anything to whether people think the devs are breaking things deliberately though, does it? It *does* add to the evidence against you being a fanboi, but as you were the only one that said that, it still seems somewhat redundant.

As for the CR thread: well, CR was my Hero too, and while I wish the devs could have done something, I understand the complexities behind licensing, copyright, and Paramount's lawyers, should they do anything. I don't believe that anyone who has a reasonable degree of understanding can blame the devs for that one either.

Karon

[ QUOTE ]
Paranoid and defensive much, Karon?

(They should warn people about tin-foil poisoning.)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what they all say about me :-)

BST, no, I was being serious. The OP made some statements that I can't possibly accept as being intentional: saying that he's been accused of being a fanboi, telling us what a fanboi does (!), and then saying that he is a fanboi now, is surely not the intended meaning, but that is what he *said*.

Having discarded that meaning as being the intent, the rest of the post seemed to be just a PR job, and I couldn't figure why anyone would post just that. So I asked.

Yes, I asked in my usual flippant manner, but really, that's not personal. That's just the way I am at the moment. I don't believe that makes the post less valid.

Karon

[ QUOTE ]
You know, I wonder if you're a griefer in-game. Seems like you're just following me around and attacking every opinion I hold

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. Imagine my surprise when I read the thread, and wondered why I was reading a PR puff piece, and saw your name! I wonder if you always accuse people of following you around when our only previous contact has been to post in one other person's thread?

And if these -- two -- opinions are 'every opinion you hold', why, you must be a sparkling conversationalist!

[ QUOTE ]
If you'd read my last post... excuse me.. comprehended it...

[/ QUOTE ]

Fascinating: so you're the type of person that likes to bring up completely separate views into every contact you have with a person? That must come in handy in your line of work. Or is that what you meant when you said that for 21 years now, you've been a reader of people, an 'x-ray machine' I'd bet you consider yourself? (Hint: watch Cube. The cop in there makes a very interesting speech that's almost exactly like yours)

But, tell me, if you believe I hadn't read your post, how is it you think I was able to ask several questions that referenced your post?

[ QUOTE ]
you'd have understood that I was making reference to criticism that is leveled without consideration

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that was my first thought. But then, that's not actually what you *said*. I had to go back and re-read your post to make sure I'd read it correctly, because what you *actually* said was: "Some people have called me a fanboi. That's someone who rushes to defend without thought or justification. I met Statesman. He impressed me, and if I wasn't a fanboi before, I am now."
So you see, what you *said* was that you now *are* going to defend without thought or justification.
Since I can't believe that fanbois (and what a great use of the language that term is [note that I'm not blaming you for that]) are capable of seeing what they are, and since I've never before seen anyone admit to it, I can't quite believe that you'd be stupid enough to do this. Despite the evidence of your post that says exactly that.

So I figure you must have meant something else, despite what you said. That's why I asked for clarification of your purpose.

I'm terribly sorry if I went too fast for you there: without crowing, I've been in a line of business for 25 years that offers a unique perspective on reading (and comprehending) than most people gather in a lifetime.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I do have enough ability to get a good feel. You can take that or leave it. I have a funny feeling you'll prefer to leave it.

[/ QUOTE ]

<grin> Challenge accepted. Hey, does that mean that you lose, since your 'funny feeling' was wrong? Let's take your statement at face value, and completely accept that you do have enough ability to get a good feel. (I'm certain that everyone here has heard plenty about the honesty, integrity, and infallibility of Texan Police Sergeants to back this up).

Are you suggesting that if you speak to someone whom you believed before you met them were doing a good job and providing you with entertainment you enjoyed, that two things must then happen: 1) that in future, they will never deviate from being the same honest, upright citizens they were when you met them, and 2) that the posts that claim a flaw, bug, balance issue, or anything that makes CoH less than 100% perfect, must be imagining a conspiracy theory?

This is what you said in your post: I do not believe that this is what you *meant*, because I do not believe that you are stupid.

All banter aside -- and I only really do this with people that amuse me, it's not malicious -- I tried to ask some genuine questions, but so far, all you've done is to shout people down that didn't previously agree with you, and claim 'hijack' when a single post that talks about one facet of your argument is made. Come on, lighten up and try to see that other people may actually have a view point that isn't yours, but is equally valid.

Sorry for the lucidity break folks: normal service now resumes.

[ QUOTE ]
It's easy to be disrespectful and rude when you're on the other end of a monitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that actually what you feel I'm doing? Does disagreeing with you really make you feel that people are being disrespectful and rude? After 21 years, your line of work must be great fun.

[ QUOTE ]
I find that many people tend to be more open-minded and understanding of people that have a face.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain you're correct. If that was the sole intent of your post, you might have done us all a favour and said that to begin with, and then we could have got back to whatever we were doing before...

[ QUOTE ]
If someone proves themself unworthy of respect, then I'll typically support whatever they deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooh, that's a fascinating statement. I bet your analyst *loves* you. So according to that line, there *are* people that are 'unworthy' of respect, yes? Even basic, human rights respect? Who decides who it is? You? That's not scary at all...

And who decides what they 'deserve'...? You again? Dang, you'd have to be pretty near infallible to determine that.

[ QUOTE ]
I just tend to think many people on this board attack simply because they're anonymous and feel safe tossing respect out the tubes.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I tend to think that many people simply have no concept of the words they utter, and must resort to hiding behind personal attacks.

Look, I'm sure you're a decent guy. I get a little nervous twitch when anyone -- anyone, including me -- tries to say that because they've been doing something for a long time, it means that they must be correct.

[ QUOTE ]
And, no, I wasn't crowing at all. But you're welcome to see it as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, ok. Glad to get that clarified.

Karon

I don't think I understand the purpose of your post, or this thread.

Are you using it to justify shooting down alternate viewpoints if they're not complimentary to CoH? (when you said that if you weren't a fanboi before, you are now)

Are you using it to say that because you met these people, they must necessarily be a) telling the truth, and b) completely trustworthy in future? (Using only the fact that you talked to them and they didn't tell you anything you didn't already know)

Or are you just trying to say that anyone who has a less-than-perfect view of CoH must think that it's because Statesman et al are doing it out of 'some evil malice' (is there any other kind? a nice malice?) or 'corporate greed'?

It seems to me that you're just crowing about having gone to a conference?

Karon