Warhawks97 wrote:Well, markr, what would speak against it.
So, basically, why shall a tank hold all advantages at once (damage, pen, range, armor, accuracy, rof, HP)? Just in order to fill that "quality" thing? Even if it loses one of these many advantages do you think it would be suddenly not a unit of high quality anymore?
Man, do you think that when I said:
MarKr wrote:Also I would like to ask you to refrain from all those "add X! Also Y is absolutely needed! It would be good if Z was there too!" The concepts are already made and we will not change them at least until they reach testing phase.
That I said it because I was tired of reading stuff on the forum? I still read through it but the main point is that in the rework there is addressed more than "just" the doctrines. Most of the issues that were reported and discussed in last several months are adressed there...probably not in the way you would like but are addressed. I wrote to not ask for changes because I suspected that if these requests came, they would be conflicting with the stuff I've already made (which is lots of hours of work) and the work would just start all over. That was my suspicion and you guys confirmed it with the very first "suggestion list" and keep confirming it still.
Tiger1996 wrote:Did anyone here say that your opinion does not count?
You did not get what I meant...
Tiger1996 wrote:Or are you trying to tell me that your opinion counts but others not!
Oh, I take it back, you got it right!
Tiger1996 wrote:What is your problem?
I already told you:
MarKr wrote:this weird, pompous style of pointing out that someone else agrees with you makes it sound like "look, they agree! Now it has more weight and thus should be implemented".
I take it as you write it but it has already happened that somebody started argumenting with crap like "Tiger said others agree with him, why don't you listen then?" - so it is more about the effect of these implications on people who are actually unable to "take your words simply as they are".
Tiger1996 wrote:Are you upset that you were not part of the conversation we had or something?
Well, maybe because you were offline?!
LOL, sure, MarKr is hurt because the big boys did not invite him over for a chat
Tiger1996 wrote:I expected from you much better to be honest... That's why I posted these suggestions here in the first place!
The least of my expectations were you saying "hmm, could be interesting to test this" or in case you don't agree then I expected you would say:
"Well, there are other things with more priority to test for now" but NO! I was wrong with all my expectations, unfortunately.
Well, they taught me at home not to lie, so I wouldn't be able to say either of those sentences...
Tiger1996 wrote:Your doubt was wrong... Hawks posted and you simply ignored his post right there, because you are apparently still more concerned on the way how I speak rather than focusing on the actual suggestions themselves in the first place.
If you take a look at the times when my and Hawk's posts were posted, you will notice that he posted his 4 minutes before I did mine. You can immagine that writing a post with all those quotes takes time so you can easily deduce that I had started writing my post when there still was no post from Hawks. On the "preview" function you are notified that someone else posted, that is true, but what you cannot know is that I was busy and fruther editing the post to also include reaction to Warhawks was simply not possible due to time pressure on my side.
And given what I just wrote in my reaction to his post, you can see that your suggestions are not happening anyway so yes, I am more concerned with your way of self-expression.