SweetChilli

Oh look! Fantastic! Her sycophant has arrived!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nope - you've taken the word science in a very narrow context. A common mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? I've taken my definition on the basis of personal experience, and every dictionary/encyclopaedia entry I've ever seen.

What's your definition, and what supporting references are available?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your personal experience? I didn't realise that a scientist was defined as someone who sits around all day with their thumb up their bottom.

Every dictionary/encyclopaedia entry that you have read eh? Now lets see. That would be none then. I'll tell you this. You have never, ever opened a dictionary/encyclopaedia and looked up the word science. NEVER. And if you say you have then you are a liar. I KNOW YOU!

Now you ask me my definition? Let me ask you this. Does God know geomitry or can he do quadratic equations?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing that you can prove exists that doesn't fall into the realm of science. Every particle of matter and every bit of energy are governed by scientific rules. We may not have all of those rules in our books but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Religion and art are not the opposite of science. They too are subject to laws and theorems. Art is quite scientific. Anyone remember the golden rectangle? Religion is studied part of social sciences like psycology and sociology.

Like I say, every particle or group of particles is subject to laws. Just because we don't know the complete formula, doesn't mean that those laws don't exist.

I don't know the formula for why some people like the Mona Lisa - but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've confused science and the natural laws.

Natural laws are, by definition, the rules absolutely everything obeys, so while "There is nothing that you can prove exists that doesn't fall into the realm of natural laws" is true, it doesn't actually say anything useful.

Science, on the other hand, is an entirely human activity - the process we use to try to infer what the natural laws are, so we can make predictions and plan our actions on the basis of how we think things will behave.

As the link Shannon posted said, strictly speaking science doesn't definitively prove what things are; rather, it involves putting forward a hypothesis as to how things might work, then attempting to disprove it by observation. If enough attempts at disproof fail, it's provisionally accepted as an accurate reflection of the way things work. That's where theories (c.f. Relativity) come from.

A lot of things can be subjected to the scientific process, from the fundamental behaviour of the universe (physics) to the rather fuzzier behaviour of people and cultures (anthropology, sociology, etc...)

Some things, like religion, are just plain outside of science - if you propose the existence of an omnipotent, supernatural and invisible God, who only intervenes in an observable way when He/She/It chooses, there's just no experiment you can do to disprove such a proposition. You can attempt to form a scientific argument as to why people follow religions, c.f. Dawkins, but that's a different matter again - such an argument doesn't address the truth or falsehood of a religion itself.

Similarly art doesn't really involve any sort of falsifiable hypothesis. An artist will paint/draw/build/whatever something, and say "That's art". Some people may agree with that, others may not, but there's no generally accepted way of proving the matter one way or another. So producing, or judging, art isn't a scientific process.

You see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope - you've taken the word science in a very narrow context. A common mistake.

There is nothing that you can prove exists that doesn't fall into the realm of science. Every particle of matter and every bit of energy are governed by scientific rules. We may not have all of those rules in our books but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Religion and art are not the opposite of science. They too are subject to laws and theorems. Art is quite scientific. Anyone remember the golden rectangle? Religion is studied part of social sciences like psycology and sociology.

Like I say, every particle or group of particles is subject to laws. Just because we don't know the complete formula, doesn't mean that those laws don't exist.

I don't know the formula for why some people like the Mona Lisa - but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PvP should be a science.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid statement. Show me something that isn't science and I'll show you something that doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
This, this and this, to name a random few?

[/ QUOTE ]


I fail to see which of those 3 things do not involve science.

[ QUOTE ]
PvP should be a science.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid statement. Show me something that isn't science and I'll show you something that doesn't exist.

So whens the next Hami raid then?

Bad.

If you kill them over and over again and its easy to do and they are crying - then keep doing it.

At the end of the day they need to get tougher or not bother entering the zone if it casues them distress.

Because if you don't do it - then someone far nastier will do it with a mob (Malborus) and then they will have something to cry about.

Of course I (Malborus) do my mob tp to also toughen them up. Just in case 1 life hardcore Diablo style ever enters the game. Also be cause I am a cruel insect with scant regard for any life what-so-ever.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And in summary - yes, I know more than posi about this game. He may have a large spreadsheet that he looks at, but I don't think he even plays the game. Probably plays WoW or GW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who claims stuff like this and anyone who supports anyone who would make a claim like this I can't take seriously. Last night in a team on Union, I said to people "Oh no, its official, no one likes me because Sweet Chilli said so" and the reply was "who?" and I said "exactly".

Now then this is a section that is supposed to be about scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You see now? Instantly dislikable. No wit, gumption or cleverness. Warped with a weird kind of bitterness. No wonder you spend so much time on this game.

Sometimes the easy option is the most effective though. Its for her own good after all. I call it tough love.

But Shannon - its so easy - I just can't resist it tubs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless you mean that in game terms all powers are knockdown and their mag determines if they are knockback?

[/ QUOTE ]
Or to put it differently, knockdown is simply low mag knockback. Most people who play the game well know this though.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said - claws do not contain knockdown. They contain knockback only.

And technically there is no suck thing as knockdown - knockdown is low mag knockback. Maybe you'll understand when you have played the game a bit longer.

Well, such an easy target - hard not to.

[ QUOTE ]
I can see how Aid Self works better for claws. Knockbacks or the Knockdown is just right amount of time for Aid Self.

[/ QUOTE ]

The is no Knockdown in the claws set. Only Knockback. Most people who play the game well know this though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other thing is that the Cyst itself blows up when you kill it, with enough force (Fire + Smashing damage) to kill anything short of a Tank or a Dull Pained Scrapper.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't need Dull Pain. My /dark scrapper can take the explosion from a Cyst. I generally use dark regen just before it goes to ensure I'm at full health, and I've seen other scrappers take the blast. Blasters and defenders nearby, on the other hand, fall like flies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Dark Scrappers have near 40% res to neg energy whilst dullpained regens might need 40% more health. All of this is saying stuff without much reference to level and luck. Has anyone truly worked out the damage of these things? All I know is in seeing for example Crey and a Cyst with Nictuses you can pull the Crey leaving the Nictus to do seperately or you can have a Tank head on in if numbers are low enough. What people don't do is allow enough time for the Tank to select and gain the right aggro for others to survive or stay in the most obvious place for survivability...away from the cyst.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bothered to read what was written, rather than just trying to write all the time, its fire/smashing damage that come from the explosion.

I think most people know who play the game well and pay attention know this though.

WB dude. Things have changed around these parts but you're still the biggest Nimm3r N00bz0r!

I know it was sarcasm - thats why I said what I said. If i'd have taken what you said in a none sarcastic way, I wouldn't have said what I said.

First time I've ever mentioned a bug. I never said I was the only one who knows about it. Why you getting a bit weird about it? Have I offended you in some way?

Nope - different bug that was still working yesterday.

There is a known bug/exploit that others can use if people do not use hide in a zone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i dont disagree but i think maybe your thinking from a pve point of view im talking about pvp and i still see no need for a stalker to have any def after they come out of hide ,they kill in 2 shots or sometimes 3 then 5 seconds later they back into hide so theres a window of maybe 7 or 8 seconds and on top of that they got defence , there mitigation is getting to pick there targets and attacking from hide with the biggest attack in the game , i still dont see why they get a def buff aswell

[/ QUOTE ]

Mmmm a delicious plate of copy-pasta coming up

I don't see why -Tankers- get -attacks- at all shouldnt they just have 9 more -Taunt AoE's- i mean that's all they do right?

I don't see why -Defenders- get -attacks- at all shouldnt they just have 9 more -Heal/Buffs- i mean that's all they do right?

I don't see why -Controllers- get -Support powers- at all shouldnt they just have 9 more -Hold/Immobilizes- i mean that's all they do right?

I don't see why -Blasters- get -Melee- at all shouldnt they just have 9 more -Damage buffs- i mean that's all they do right?

I don't see why -$class- get -$target seconday powerset- at all shouldnt they just have 9 more -$class signature powers- i mean that's all they do right?

To force people to alternate tactics between enemies, to trancend stereotypes, to force you to realize, theres someone out there with a better or different build.
Of couse the whole them being lucky thing might kick in, also are you sure you didnt have fly on?..

[/ QUOTE ]


The noob OP has now been PWND....

Removed-ML-967968-ML-

Removed due to several violations of board rules.

I think thats a fact as I sahre your opinion. Mind you, all my opinions are fact - even the wrong ones.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
simply play at max level where all characters are evenly balanced out

[/ QUOTE ]


Warburg is not the max level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he said it was...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
max level where all characters are evenly balanced out

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I get it. This is the old PPP v's Epic debate.

Nice one. Good point, well made.