274 réponses à ce sujet

[GodlessPaladin]

nuculerman wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Longhammer808 wrote...

After some consideration, point to Nuculerman. Good use of "ad hominem" to describe someone who just straight up called you names.

Straight up calling someone a name isn't an ad hominem.


Not an ad hominem -
Person A: I like candy. Candy is the best.
Person B: You're a ****ing idiot and can go die in a fire. Ice cream is the best!

An ad hominem -
Person A: I like candy. Candy is the best.
Person B: Of course you'd say that, you own a candy store. Ice cream is the best.

Which was his point.  He gave the point to me, despite the fact I incorrectly used "ad hominem" which he pointed out with sarcasm.  However, I called it "laced" with ad hominem because the implication was I didn't know or couldn't do simple math, and therefore my point was irrelevant.  Considering he didn't address "potential" DPS at all, I think it's a valid analysis.

An insulting implication that you read into a statement is also not an ad hominem argument.

[nuculerman]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

An insulting implication that you read into a statement is also not an ad hominem argument.

From google:

Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

He didn't address my position.  He did some math and implied I wasn't capable of doing it.  The math had nothing to do with my point.  Ergo, ad hominem.  

Thanks for playing.

[Omega-202]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Longhammer808 wrote...

After some consideration, point to Nuculerman. Good use of "ad hominem" to describe someone who just straight up called you names.

Straight up calling someone a name isn't an ad hominem.


Not an ad hominem -
Person A: I like candy. Candy is the best.
Person B: You're a ****ing idiot and can go die in a fire. Ice cream is the best!

An ad hominem -
Person A: I like candy. Candy is the best.
Person B: Of course you'd say that, you own a candy store. Ice cream is the best.

Which was his point.  He gave the point to me, despite the fact I incorrectly used "ad hominem" which he pointed out with sarcasm.  However, I called it "laced" with ad hominem because the implication was I didn't know or couldn't do simple math, and therefore my point was irrelevant.  Considering he didn't address "potential" DPS at all, I think it's a valid analysis.

An insulting implication that you read into a statement is also not an ad hominem argument.

Leave him alone in his imaginary glory.  He can't do the math to prove me wrong, but I've got a spreadsheet going right now to prove me right.  Give me 10 mins and I'll post the full numbers.

[astheoceansblue]

/popcorn

[BjornDaDwarf]

nuculerman wrote...

He didn't address my position.  He did some math and implied I wasn't capable of doing it.  The math had nothing to do with my point.  Ergo, ad hominem.  

Except that he did address your position, as multiple people have pointed out.  Total DPS is affected by the power buff of TA, because you are throwing out two buffed powers for every 1 BE detonated.  If total BEs ends up being unchanged (which is what he was showing), then there is a net gain to DPS thanks to the buffed Warp/Throw.

The math favors his position, unless you care to elaborate otherwise.

[Merkit91]

Done little field test with human sentinel (tech armor with power recharge penalty 50%) and difference in warp cooldown with and without tech armor barely noticeable.

Warp cooldown time formula (from narida.pytalhost) = 8(base value) / (1 + 1.5) = 3.2 sec (with tech armor)
1.5 = 
+2 Weight Cooldown Bonus (if weight cooldown bonus + 200%)
-0.5 Tech Armor: Power Recharge.

Warp cooldown time formula without tech armor = 8(base value) / (1 + 2) = 2.67 sec
2 =
+2 Weight Cooldown Bonus (if weight cooldown bonus + 200%)
3.2 - 2.67 =0.53 sec.
Half the second difference for warp cooldown - how long is it?

[nuculerman]

Omega-202 wrote...

Leave him alone in his imaginary glory.  He can't do the math to prove me wrong, but I've got a spreadsheet going right now to prove me right.  Give me 10 mins and I'll post the full numbers.

Please stop with the personal attacks.  I've already reported you once.  I'm perfectly capable of doing math.

[Biotic_Warlock]

Tech armour buff?
Granted the damage protection helpsl, but the recharge time should have stayed >_<

[Serkevan]

nuculerman wrote...
He didn't address my position.

Oh, you blatantly interpreted "DPS" as you wanted to. He did prove you wrong. Just accept it, please. "Potential DPS" inherently implies the need to calculate the damage from the primer and the detonator which are affected by TA's power bonus, which you denied, constantly. So, you can think what you will, the truth is you are wrong and TA is going to improve both real and theoretical DPS values.

[Impulse and Compulse]

Any armor buff is a good buff, same with the Sentry turret, but 40 damage is still pretty damn low, and I don't see why the other armor powers didn't receive the same buff as Tech Armor.

[GodlessPaladin]

nuculerman wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

An insulting implication that you read into a statement is also not an ad hominem argument.

From google:

Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

He didn't address my position.  He did some math and implied I wasn't capable of doing it.  The math had nothing to do with my point.  Ergo, ad hominem.  

Thanks for playing.

Except... he did address your point, and then you attacked his motives and character. 

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 22 mai 2012 - 09:30 .

[nuculerman]

GodlessPaladin wrote...


Except... he did address your point, and then you attacked everything except his actual argument.  Including his motives and character. 

I clearly have a very different definition than you for many things.  Attacked being one of them.  I haven't attacked anything or anyone, just disagreed with a position.


EDIT: ROFL. I attacked his motives and character?  I claimed his argument was fallacious, and reported him for calling me, and I quote: "a moron" and "an idiot."  

Modifié par nuculerman, 22 mai 2012 - 09:30 .

[toastar]

Guys, guys, guys, you all may think that a N7 spreadsheet armed human spamming Lvl 6 math (arithmetics build, stochastics suck, too random) owns the game, but I can ensure you, that's not the case.

[Maria Caliban]

920103db wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

/popcorn

/butter popcorn

Hot chocolate popcorn balls.

[ryoldschool]

What the hell happened to this thread. I was hoping to get views on the changes, instead a bunch of posts about "ad hominem", and personal attacks. at least Merkit91 posted something useful to me.

[GodlessPaladin]

nuculerman wrote...
EDIT: ROFL. I attacked his motives and character?  I claimed his argument was fallacious, and reported him for calling me, and I quote: "a moron" and "an idiot."  

The second part questions his character.  It's not an ad hominem argument though, because you didn't say he was wrong BECAUSE of said character.

You said he was wrong because his argument was irrelevant, even though it kinda is, since he argued that you'd get at least as much damage with Tech Armor.  <_<

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 22 mai 2012 - 09:37 .

[DaDiddles]

Regardless of biotic explosion damage, an extra 10% power damage seems pretty sweet to me. You're not always spamming biotic explosions, and when you are against heavies, that extra power damage from both the warp and throw would start to build up pretty quickly I would imagine.

[LadyAlekto]

Finally a ta buff that makes me interested in my favorite class again

[nuculerman]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

nuculerman wrote...
EDIT: ROFL. I attacked his motives and character?  I claimed his argument was fallacious, and reported him for calling me, and I quote: "a moron" and "an idiot."  

The second part questions his character.  It's not an ad hominem argument though, because you didn't say he was wrong BECAUSE of said character.

You said he was wrong because his argument was irrelevant, even though it kinda is, since he argued that you'd get more DPS with Tech Armor.  <_<

It doesn't.  He called me a moron and an idiot.  It happened.  Reporting him for calling me names is not attacking his character.  If you can't see that, I don't know how to make it clearer.

And you're implying that my argument was flawed, not that I attacked him.  Do you not see the difference?

[Merkit91]

DaDiddles wrote...

Regardless of biotic explosion damage, an extra 10% power damage seems pretty sweet to me. You're not always spamming biotic explosions, and when you are against heavies, that extra power damage from both the warp and throw would start to build up pretty quickly I would imagine.

30% damage bonus to warp = 75 (base damage = 250).
Throw deals 200 damage if you take rank 6 force & damage. 30% damage bonus  to throw = 60.
Will this bonuses make a difference on gold?

[BjornDaDwarf]

nuculerman wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

nuculerman wrote...
EDIT: ROFL. I attacked his motives and character?  I claimed his argument was fallacious, and reported him for calling me, and I quote: "a moron" and "an idiot."  

The second part questions his character.  It's not an ad hominem argument though, because you didn't say he was wrong BECAUSE of said character.

You said he was wrong because his argument was irrelevant, even though it kinda is, since he argued that you'd get more DPS with Tech Armor.  <_<

It doesn't.  He called me a moron and an idiot.  It happened.  Reporting him for calling me names is not attacking his character.  If you can't see that, I don't know how to make it clearer.

And you're implying that my argument was flawed, not that I attacked him.  Do you not see the difference?

You did describe his on-topic, valid and correct analysis as a "meaningless red herring" and signed off with "Thanks for playing."  Both of which are at least insulting, if not rising to the level of an attack.  And being as how you've chosen to define DPS however you like, I can see how someone could decide those qualified as being an attack.