Pyronymer

Members
  • Content count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    394d 5h 39m 19s

Community Reputation

111 Excellent

About Pyronymer

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

164 profile views
  1. Are you sure he is a Hunzakut? The relative size isn't altogether clear but judging from the other (old scale) models he hardly looks noticeably abnormal sized at all. Very unusual for a Hunzakut. Pretty sure modern Hunzakut recruiting guidelines require that no male recruit stand any taller than any given female recruit's navel. He must have got in before they started getting all strict about maximum height regulations.
  2. Janissaries are all very well but have you seen the size difference in Hunzakuts. Sure the age difference is more significant, for that matter I don't think the old guy is even in print anymore. But then again as far as I am aware they are the only two Hunzakut models there are. And the size difference is huge. She is squatting down, right way down and she is still basically as tall as he is standing up. I posed my newer one slightly off the intended angle in a way that does not exaggerate, but does accentuate her sheer size and, well... TINY AND THE GIANTESS, the new crime fighting odd couple detective duo. He is 4 feet tall, she is 8 feet tall, together they engage in wacky detective adventures and will they won't they romance. When you don't know when you Has Or Not it's time to call the Hunzanaughts... Husanutkz...Hunzakuts? (Coming this fall on space netflix)
  3. I actually did that. Seriously Section 9's latest attack on tone, the one that bolded what amounted to "this question makes no sense" and "this question is like asking another less useful question" as examples of unacceptable tone, began against a post I made that included large sections of constructive suggestions for which questions should be asked and how they should be structured. While criticizing the structure and selection of others poll questions I have in fact presented constructive suggestions on how I think poll questions should be structured and which ones I think should be asked. Of course I shouldn't be required to submit new ideas in order to point out the flaws in another one. That's not how you determine or discus the merits of an idea. But the fact is you can't really criticise me for lack of constructive suggestions one page after I made a post full of constructive suggestions which was attacked for not being constructive.
  4. That IS calling me a rude asshole, behavior is what defines a rude asshole. It is also a definitive personal attack, and indeed an ad hominem argument. I criticized specific points and poll questions, I called some ideas wrong and explained why. I did not address anyone's personality or nature. In my post with "bad tone" I never called anyone an asshole, an idiot or any other name. For me, I would say if I were to judge the tone of a post, someone going around calling people rude assholes is rather clearly a vastly greater offense than calling an idea wrong. And indeed I might suggest it is kinda important for a forum to protect and defend peoples right to call an idea wrong without being personally abused repeatedly for doing so.
  5. Do you realize that you constantly accusing me directly like this, unlike me saying "nonsense in nonsense out is bad", is in fact a repeated personal attack substituted in place of a point. I mean you literally just called me a rude asshole. That is a direct personal insult. Did I say anything even remotely that bad in the post you are accusing of "poor tone"? I have the moral high ground here. I am not making personal attacks. You are.
  6. Are you telling me you think that "Critical hits (the base rule) is it priced correctly?" is anything other than a distracting non-sequitur? I've seen one or two half hearted attempts to throw it out there but any assertion that base critical hits might not cost enough is complete nonsense, it's a basic mechanic applied in an effectively uniform and therefore objectively equal manner. The only common thing that modifies it is a separate mechanic in its own right, and the correct and meaningful questions about pricing then become questions about the value of Burst not questions about value of Criticals. And I could write up a series of actual meaningful questions about burst. But even for that, which is at least a discussion that is at least actually about the relevant mechanic. Ultimately if the claim is that cheap units aren't "paying enough" for the critical hits they get from their Burst ratings then the position being held by people that believe that is that cheap units shouldn't be allowed to have Burst. Which is certainly an... interesting? ... position to chose to take or bother polling. For that matter are you telling me "changes to critical hit frequencies, can they be priced right?" is a meaningful question? It's effectively a hypothetical that is polling a question about the sample groups faith in points based pricing systems and their ability to price non-specified changes correctly. Because you essentially also mashed it up with "are criticals priced right" you have also rendered it if anything even less meaningful than that. A pricing question that makes sense is about a specific rule and what it's price should be, you can ask "Is Fat2 the right price?", I don't trust the community to answer that question without treating it as a proxy for "Are other people allowed to have nice things I don't have?" but at least the question makes sense. You can even ask "This Specific Rule, can it be priced correctly or not?", with the understanding that if it cannot be priced correctly it is almost certainly not an acceptable rule at all. But you cannot meaningfully ask "If there were some other non-specific rule that did some thing or other... could it be priced correctly?" That's nonsense in nonsense out stuff right there.
  7. Mashing questions together might be a way to, maybe, get a small amount of information (such as how many people would answer yes to all three questions in a poll) it also loses you information (like how many people would answer yes to a single question if it weren't combined with certain answers to other questions). Also the mashed together version will lead to a greater margin of error through confusion alone by a probably meaningful amount. And unfortunately it's deeply unclear whether something like the difference between asking for instance "Are critical hits frequent enough and can we mess with that?" or asking "Are critical hits frequent enough?" followed by a separate "Can we mess with the frequency of critical hits?" is of sufficiently meaningful difference to be remotely worth that loss in accuracy. Does it really matter how many definitely voted yes on both compared to a more accurate number on how many voted yes on each? For what possible reason would that piece of information actually matter? So it's probably better to sacrifice the specific needless bit of information (who voted yes on both) to get a more accurate answer on each question with less confusion and less burden on the responses from the other questions. Ultimately though your poll should probably go something more like... "Does the base Critical hit rule need to change?" Y/N/Don't Know/Don't Care "Is it acceptable to change the base Critical hits rule anyway?" Y/N/Don't Know/Don't Care "Should basic Critical hits be more or less powerful (or stay the same)?" Much More/More/Same/Less/Much Less/Don't Know/Don't Care "Should basic Critical hits be more or less frequent (or stay the same)?" Much More/More/Same/Less/Much Less/Don't Know/Don't Care Then if you want to (start to) ask meaningful questions about FAT 2... "Should there be skills or equipment that modify and increase Critical hit Power?" Y/N/Don't Know/Don't Care "Should there be skills or equipment that modify and increase Critical hit Frequency?" Y/N/Don't Know/Don't Care A poll designed along those lines answers the questions people are asking, should be asking, or have so far refused to accept from prior very similar polls. And no part of it requires you to know the specific combinations of answers specific respondents gave in order to be useful. Though considering some of the discussion and the focus on master plans being foiled its possible you need to add an additional question or split a question or two to ask specifically about power/frequency in active turns and ARO separately. And if you really want to ask the entirely pointless questions you can also add... "Are basic Critical hits appropriately priced already?" Whatever/Whatever/You realize this question is pretty much nonsense right?/Whatever "Can skills or equipment that modify Critical hits be appropriately priced?" Whatever/Whatever/You realize this is basically just "Correct Points Pricing for anything, can it be done?"/Whatever "Who should get a shiny Critical related skill or item?" My Faction/A Unit in My Faction/A type of unit my faction has the most of/Definitely not those other guys/If we don't get it no one does "Hands up who hates that one other faction getting a nice thing you don't get" Y/Y/Y/n/Y ...though I think it was worth pointing out that those questions are largely silly questions to ask, because a number of questions or parts of questions people have asked or suggested look like those, and we don't really need to ask them because mostly they can't be trusted or don't really mean anything or both.
  8. The only real problem I see with that one is that its a bit of a complex mess. It jams together at least two to four questions, "Criticals, often enough?" and "Criticals, can we change the frequency?" and "Criticals, is the pricing ok" and "changed criticals, can the pricing be ok?". The danger there isn't guiding or limiting your sample group, despite the mash together the options are probably open enough. The danger is confusing the sample group (margin of error through confusion is alarmingly huge as a baseline and goes up really fast if you push it even slightly) and then even aside from that you end up with answers where it is much harder to derive specific bits of useful information out of the combination. You should try as much as possible to ask one thing in one way at a time. If you want more information you don't mix it into the question you just ask another question. The same thing represented as two or three separate questions in a single poll would give you better information and reduce margin of error by a meaningful amount... that we cannot possibly calculate because that's well outside anyone's capability here, but it's probably "pretty big".
  9. There is nothing remotely unacceptable in my last post and if any moderation has a problem with it I will let them tell me themselves directly rather than believing either you, or other aggressively hostile regular posters who apparently get away repeatedly with directly insulting me personally again and again without any consequences whatsoever.
  10. Lets not for a second pretend that "change in a good way" is any different than "better" that is literally what a better rule IS. Aside from that lets try this do you understand why... "Do you want X" OR "Do you want something other than X" is entirely different to... "Do you want X" OR "Do you want something worse than X" Now think about that hard and why YOU don't want to ask the "worse" version of the question before reading the next bit. That's actually exactly the same thing as the prior "same or better" version, and I don't mean "the same only the reverse extreme" I mean due to the nature of the meanings of "worse" and "better" and how they interact with each other if option A is worse than option B that is actually exactly the same as running the poll where option B is better than option A. And what you are doing there. Without ever providing the, as yet mythical "better" change, instead of asking them if they think change is warranted or good you are instead telling your sample group that one option IS better than the other and then asking them to vote on a question which has become "you like it when things are better, right?". This is why when real pollsters write polls they always go with things like... "Which leader do you prefer?" "Current Leader X" OR "Opposition Leader Y" OR "Someone else" and they never ever ask... "Current Leader X" OR "Opposition Leader Y" OR "Someone better than them" Because that isn't a valid poll question, that's just telling the sample group the answer you want.
  11. The problem is that is not a different version of the question you were proposing, it is an entirely different question. To properly demonstrate this for you try this. "Do you want X" OR "Do you want something other than X" Is not the same as... "Do you want X" OR "Do you want something better than X" That is the problem with the non-basic "version" of your proposed question.
  12. Agreeing to disagree does not mean agreeing not to disagree at all. This is a valid point, try addressing it instead of calling it personal as an excuse not to.
  13. OK do you understand that one of those things is a real thing that could have measurable shortcomings and the other is a perfect abstract concept, a hypothetical incapable of having shortcomings? You don't poll between people who like a real thing and people who would prefer "something better" because the question defines the second option as better while giving no other useful details on it. This is pretty fundamental. How exactly do you not get it?
  14. Hey I know for the third try do over to pretend to have a majority lets combine the "want change" and "I guess a vague non-specific change might be ok?" groups together to inflate a number we can point at as in favor of a "change" someone keeps defending and now wants voted on but can't actually define!
  15. @Deep-Green-X you talk big about accepting criticisms then blanket dismiss all criticisms as fact free "opinions". You talk big about demanding that people accept your underlying premise that critical hits need nerfing and remain open to newer better ways to nerf it without ever accepting any potential criticism of your underlying idea, without ever abandoning your "initial" proposals dismissing criticism against them as "opinion" and then, and this by far is the most important thing, you fail to actually propose newer better ideas. I am all for you proposing newer better ideas that do... something useful? (it really isn't clear what since the status quo is, again, fine) and are not subject to the same flaws as your old ideas. But you actually have to come up with these new better ideas. You cannot just call for them and demand everybody shut up and respect them when you cannot even bring them into existence for anyone to look at or discuss.