Why do my berserk commanders disappear after winning fights

[Sombre]

Er,.. ok. So it's only ok for you to point that out?

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Er,.. ok. So it's only ok for you to point that out?

Actually Sombre, I'm not really interested in getting in a flame war with you, especially as you're dead on on a lot of topics especially modding and code.

That said, your previous post left the distinct impression you were once again policing the threads and saying what points of views were valid and which were not; something I reject.

IlluminatedOne made several new statements to which I wished to respond. New content hence new discussion. Some of his points were contrary to what I actually believe. For example, I indicated that I'm favor of NT's spells that add insanity; I suggested that games should have an option to set what the autokill duration should be. I just don't believe that they are relevent to the essential points. Are SC's too limited or too strong? There are *very* few effective midgame and endgame tactics, and increasing the strength of SC's will only narrow effective strategies.

Finally, when posts get into the area of discussing people, as opposed to topics they are really falling afoul of the spirit and letter of the usage agreements, and I'd like to suggest that courtesy, is the more appropriate response.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Actually Sombre, I'm not really interested in getting in a flame war with you, especially as you're dead on on a lot of topics especially modding and code.

What does that have to do with anything? You're the only one 'flaming' by suggesting I'm trolling to provoke a flame war.

That said, your previous post left the distinct impression you were once again policing the threads and saying what points of views were valid and which were not; something I reject.

I don't see where you're getting that at all. I just pointed out a logical problem in your post.

I find the accusation that I try to 'police' what other people say insulting and amusing in equal measure. Since when is disagreeing with someone when they're wrong and pointing out the faulty logic and inaccuracies in their posts 'policing'?

IlluminatedOne made several new statements to which I wished to respond. New content hence new discussion. Some of his points were contrary to what I actually believe. For example, I indicated that I'm favor of NT's spells that add insanity; I suggested that games should have an option to set what the autokill duration should be. I just don't believe that they are relevent to the essential points. Are SC's too limited or too strong? There are *very* few effective midgame and endgame tactics, and increasing the strength of SC's will only narrow effective strategies.

Nice recap, but nothing to do with my interjection.

Arguing against the theory behind proposed changes, that's fine, that's discussion. Pointing out that the changes aren't going to happen, also fine, that's pragmatism. But using the fact that the changes aren't going to happen as part of your argument against them, that's silly. Your argument in favour of autokill is equally 'bootless' if you believe nothing will change. You level that charge against them, I turn it back on you. Recapped.

Finally, when posts get into the area of discussing people, as opposed to topics they are really falling afoul of the spirit and letter of the usage agreements, and I'd like to suggest that courtesy, is the more appropriate response.

You're the only one discussing people as far as I can see. But what would I know, I'm just a flame war starting troll trying to police the forums.

[Rookierookie]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Actually Sombre, I'm not really interested in getting in a flame war with you, especially as you're dead on on a lot of topics especially modding and code.

That said, your previous post left the distinct impression you were once again policing the threads and saying what points of views were valid and which were not; something I reject.

IlluminatedOne made several new statements to which I wished to respond. New content hence new discussion. Some of his points were contrary to what I actually believe. For example, I indicated that I'm favor of NT's spells that add insanity; I suggested that games should have an option to set what the autokill duration should be. I just don't believe that they are relevent to the essential points. Are SC's too limited or too strong? There are *very* few effective midgame and endgame tactics, and increasing the strength of SC's will only narrow effective strategies.

Finally, when posts get into the area of discussing people, as opposed to topics they are really falling afoul of the spirit and letter of the usage agreements, and I'd like to suggest that courtesy, is the more appropriate response.

Are you aware that by accusing the people who are against the current autokill mechanism of being mindless SC proponents, and by saying things like "using the versimilitude gripe as a way of attacking the turn limit", you already stand on the wrong side of trolling?