Paddy4583
Paddy4583
About
- Username
- Paddy4583
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
Nope as I said in the simple context of your example.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:You had my answer ages ago. You simply decided to close your eyes;
In a multi-route environment neither routes are mandatory. Neither are they side-quests. Both are doing the main quest, but there are simply multiple ways to do so.
In case you still don't understand it after hearing it over 5+ times:
If you have to go to Rome and there are 5 pathways going directly to Rome, taking neither route is mandatory, but picking any of the routes is you doing the main objective.
In my OP there are 2 pathways. The existence of 1 allows you to ignore the other.
In the Handle example there is only 1 route, meaning that doing that route is mandatory.
In a multi-route environment no route is mandatory, but choosing (a mix) between the routes IS still mandatory, by definition of them being you doing the main objective.
yoi can’t do it because you know exactly what’s coming, I’m taking you evasion to conclude as the sign you agree and you acknowledge you’ve been mistaken.
Further reply’s evading will cement this idea further. -
So agreed or not, it’s not difficult, unless ofAlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So it being mandatory is the differing factor then? Come on now I thought this was a clear as a dead fish that it wasn’t?
This really shouldn’t be this difficult, for you to convey.
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.
Not that hard to understand is it?
It wouldn’t be if when I asked you if the finding of parts being mandatory was the differing factor, you’d simply replied YES, instead of NO.
Great so now we are on the same page that, you believe a mandatory additional action added to the game, would in fact just be a way of “adding more time to the gen”, which you believe to be a nerf as it adds mandatory additional steps to pull off the escape, and you would define that as a nerf because it essentially reduces the odds by slowing survivors down?
Are we agreed so far?
You did not read what I said. Reread what I said until you understand it:
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.
cause it because you know exactly where this is going and you need to deflect before the conclusion?
re-reading and then me making an assumption gives you and exit clause.
That is why I asking for clear statements from you and making sure we BOTH have the same understanding.
i have already implied what my understanding of what you refer to as an extension of gen time and that extension is nothing but a nerf is and asked if we are in agreement, if yes you just state yes if no, you have to further explain, within the context you’ve already provided.
-
It wouldn’t be if when I asked you if the finding of parts being mandatory was the differing factor, you’d simply replied YES, instead of NO.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So it being mandatory is the differing factor then? Come on now I thought this was a clear as a dead fish that it wasn’t?
This really shouldn’t be this difficult, for you to convey.
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.Not that hard to understand is it?
Great so now we are on the same page that, you believe a mandatory additional action added to the game, would in fact just be a way of “adding more time to the gen”, which you believe to be a nerf as it adds mandatory additional steps to pull off the escape, and you would define that as a nerf because it essentially reduces the odds by slowing survivors down?
Are we agreed so far? -
So it being mandatory is the differing factor then? Come on now I thought this was a clear as a dead fish that it wasn’t?AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
You cannot ignore that part. That part is what makes it a nerf. If you didn't have to find handles but you could just add them (dunno, for decoration's sake?) then it wouldn't be a nerf.
What the hell are you doing xD
And thisis your idea at its simplest level!
My idea gives more options. Giving more options to someone is not nerfing them, even if an extra option would be considered so weak that it's impossible to use in the same way that adding:
New totem: Takes 10k hours to cleanse and gives you a cool sound when it breaks!
Note how it doesn't slow the game down? It's just something you can do that you can ignore.But the 10k hours totem being MANDATORY would nerf survivors to the ground, making it impossible to win.
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your exampleNo, you cannot ignore that part, what the hell, lmao
This really shouldn’t be this difficult, for you to convey. -
No IT as in the simple context of your example.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:however you seem to have included the premis of it being mandatory
It: in the context of what we have previously discussed is the main objective. If there are 10 ways to get to rome, neither route is mandatory to achieve your goal; It means the choice between those routes.
So no:
so is your definition purely and additional mandatory action is a gen in disguise?
That's completely not it, which is as obvious as a dead fish.
As for
it being clear as a dead fish: not sure why you’d mention it and capitalise it if it wasn’t realivant, which is why I asked for clarity.
Which you’ve clarified as that not being the case so
the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example, so now the only added time comes from finding handles?
And this is your idea at its simplest level!
Not sure where you go from here, but I look forward as ever to seeing how elaborate your own simple example and definition becomes. -
Fantastic.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Generators take 80 seconds do they not?
Great a good start:
So when you say people want to add more gen time in another form, give my an example
of what you mean by that...More gen time refers to the 440 second objective timer;
The following proposal would be part of that:You have to do 5 gens (like normally) >> Now you have to find 2 handles that spawn >>> now you open the exit gates with the handle.
Normally you could just open the exit gates but now you are MANDATED to find handles.
however you seem to have included the premis of it being mandatory, so is your definition purely an additional mandatory action, making this the single different factor in your proposal?
-
Great a good start:AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more timeGenerators take 80 seconds do they not?
So when you say people want to add more gen time in another form, give my an example
of what you mean by that...
-
Your idea literally adds more time, to doing a gen. it’s that simple.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:<Nope not interested in your after the fact comments. I’m very clear in what I’m referring too, seems to me most of the last 10 pages are people who are clear in seeing its you who doesn’t understand!
Me: Yeap, you'd be surprised how many people claiming they want "second-objectives" simply just secretly want to add more gen-time so that they don't have to be confronted with their lack of skill.
They try to make extra gen time come in another form as to make it less obvious.
You:WTAF you see the hypocrisy in this right?
You:That is basically the whole proposal of your idea!My post doesn't want to secretly add more gen to make survivors weaker. My Op both buffs killers and survivors in a different area, which means that if you're a killer you will definitely be confronted for your lack of skill. Same goes for you, since you clearly fall in the category of players that want to simply add gen-time.
que additional waffle and misdirection to justify why this isn’t so in 3,2,1 -
Nope not interested in your after the fact comments. I’m very clear in what I’m referring too, seems to me most of the last 10 pages are people who are clear in seeing its you who doesn’t understand!AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Nope I never stated such a thing I have never once mentioned nerfs.
I stated that many people simply want to make survivors weaker. My OP doesn't do that. No hypocrisy. Just you not understand things, but we are used that.
-
Nope I never stated such a thing I have never once mentioned nerfs.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So a nerf that can be ignored and doesn't progress the main goal. Not really a nerf is it?
Not realivant to what I called you out on, or the topic we are discussing.
Im not moving to a new topic you’ve added in along the way to deflect from you just giving a simple straight answer
You said that me stating that simply nerfing the flat amount time needed for survivors to progress is a bad idea and you said it's hypocrisy.
Showing you how I didn't simply nerf the flat time requires is exactly relevant to the topic lmao.You don't even know what topic you are on yourself. You didn't even know what topic you started with. Every single claim has been wrong.
its very clear which of your comments Inwas referring too and why I find it hypocritical.
like I said it doesn’t need your twist on it and additional after the fact circumstances.
its literally a 3 comment thread, no more. -
Not realivant to what I called you out on, or the topic we are discussing.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So a nerf that can be ignored and doesn't progress the main goal. Not really a nerf is it?
Im not moving to a new topic you’ve added in along the way to deflect from you just giving a simple straight answer
-
Where did I state I do not see it as a side quest?AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
This is literally the whole proposal of your idea in a bit shell... and we are literally saying it’s not a secondary objective.
You are the person in this situation passing extra gen time off as something else.Ha, and now it's suddenly no longer a side-quest? (:
I thought a side-quest after all would be ignored.My OP is not a survivor nerf. My OP is twisting power for high-survivor counts to low-survivor counts, creating a more generally functional outcome throughout the board.
my reply to your actual comment is apt and cohearant, it doesn’t need you to twist it and add in content that has nothing to do with your comment! -
This is literally the whole proposal of your idea in a nut shell... and we are literally saying it’s not a secondary objective.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Yeap, you'd be surprised how many people claiming they want "second-objectives" simply just secretly want to add more gen-time so that they don't have to be confronted with their lack of skill.
They try to make extra gen time come in another form as to make it less obvious.
You are the person in this situation passing extra gen time off as something else.
-
WTAF you see the hypocrisy in this right?AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@The_Crusader said:
5 totems = 70 seconds, and then there is the time running between them. It's like an extra gen.6 gens isn't enough for some people it seems. I bet these people are loving the load screen issues. 3 vs 1 and Noed, when you need every advantage you can get.
If gens go too fast it's on the player not the gane.
Yeap, you'd be surprised how many people claiming they want "second-objectives" simply just secretly want to add more gen-time so that they don't have to be confronted with their lack of skill.
They try to make extra gen time come in another form as to make it less obvious.
That is basically the whole proposal of your idea!
-
And that is a good way to force your end game perk, that’s a straight up strategy, and why wouldn’t a killer go for the weakest player, their objective is too killYamaoka said:
Yeah let's ignore the fact 99.9% of all killers tunnel and camp to kill the first survivor as quickly as possible forcing (and allowing) survivors to finish gens as quickly as possible.Master said:Because survivors like to gamble in favour of genrush and then blame the perk
-
Locate bench and make part by.....?AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
His topic title shows he understood the M1 situation...A second objective (correct); An alternative to pressing M1 (referring to "gen-jockey m1 simulator")
You do get an alternative and through that alternative you aren't going to complete any generator with a bot that can only press M1.
return to gen and install part by...?
Complete gen after installing parts by...?
Like I’ve said it’s just an optional side step to doing a gen!
Only your optional side step means hold M1 somewhere else and moving between holding M1 again to complete the gen.
The side step may offer a different option but it is by no means a secondary objective or an alternative to doing a gen with M1.
most of the linked post was referring to the other listed objectives as not required mandatory to do in order to escape, and your idea is the same! -
They probably haven’t staters it yet
-
His topic title shows he understood the M1 situation...
-
Ever thought that people specificity play it to be their end game plan?Swiftblade131 said:Much like decisive, it allows poor players to be in a rank they should not be in, just from a perk.
If u not winning the entire time until it pops, you don't deserve to win. End Story.
Ive seen people use this to their advantage in a game and thought yep you deserve that win well played. If you can get one person out of 4 because of NOED I wouldn’t call it a win, and if you get all 4 it most definitely is a deserved win -
I don’t mind it on either side, it can be a game changer or it can be a wasted slot I see no reason for it to be changed or removed or hated
-
He completely understands what people are saying, but if he acknowledges it, then he admits his logic is flawed, this will not happen.
It’s clear he understands because he’s changed the OP idea to fit his argument. He wouldn’t need to do this if the logic wasn’t flawed.
He will continue to change his OP idea to fit a narrative, and you’ll agree with this new situational proposal, and he’ll then take that as an agreement to his OP idea.
You call it out as a false argument
rinse and repeat.
-
Never mind see belowAlwaysInAGoodShape said:I asked for the definition of what exactly makes something distinct from doing a generator. (Simple question)
-
No they really don’tJacoby2041 said:Devs need to see this and really give it some consideration
-
-
I think thats your best argument from fallacy yet!AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
Please see example to deduce definitionDefinition of a second objective that is distinct from doing a gen:
for a secondary objective, the killer has a gate key in their back pocket. A survivor must move behind the killer for at least 1 second to grab the key, which is then held as a secondary item.
A survivor must have a key to open an exit gate.
Which means that everything opposite to this is you doing a gen. Sounds like a ridiculous definition.
-
Please see example to deduce definitionAlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Free_Hugs said:
Sure.Off the top of my head, for a secondary objective, the killer has a gate key in their back pocket. A survivor must move behind the killer for at least 1 second to grab the key, which is then held as a secondary item.
A survivor must have a key to open an exit gate.
I meant the definition; not an example.
-
Not distancing at all, just getting back to the actual idea you proposed and showing the irrelevance of an example that has no relation to what you’ve presented as an idea.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Pssst I’ve always referd to the collecting of parts as a side quest that hasn’t changed, I don’t need to change my argument.
You are the only person changing the scope to fit a narrative, I’ve remain consistant in my view and point.
Yes, your referral is wrong and you've not been consistent with anything xD
What I quote is literally the first things you've said. That was the part we were arguing about.
Your claim that by virtue of it being a side-objective it is not necessary, and rejecting the idea that in any system where there are multiple routes to complete anything, neither route is mandatory.You've only been trying to distance yourself from your own claims since in the 1000 gen example, you admitted that you'd never touch a flat gen xD
Your proposal is
DO GENS or DO GENS with additional side step of collecting parts first, the part of collecting the parts I refer to as a side quest using the following reason Side Quests are additional or extra quests that a player can attempt. Side quests are not necessary to complete a game.
you then took this and twisted it to fit to fit a narrative, by trying to make doing a gen and doing a gen 2 separate things within the same outcome by referring to them as flat gens And part gens.
I still stuck to my Original oppinion that doing a gen is the main objective irrispective of the option you use to do it but one option involved the side quest of doing something else first.
You then tried to make out these gens were totally different by removing them from gens altogether and making it a different way to escape, and to that I agreed that it would be a different objective, but as I said that’s not what your idea was.
Ive agreed with you 3 times in this string, but only when you have changed your whole idea to fit your narrative. -
Pssst I’ve always referd to the collecting of parts as a side quest that hasn’t changed, I don’t need to change my argument.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:You: Amazing idea definitely see everyone doing this optional side quest.
You: The objective that I'm going to create will not be mandatory..... and if it’s not mandatory it’s.......
Me: I wouldn't call it an optional side quest. It's 1 of the 2 main routes through which you can complete your objective. With the current variables typically slower than choosing route A but with more late-game security.
If your mission was to fill a glass with liquid and you could choose to fill it with either cola or orange juice, I wouldn't call filling the glass with cola you doing an optional side-quest to filling the glass. It'd be doing the main objective.
You:The objective that I'm going to create will not be mandatory..... and if it’s not mandatory Its???**
You dropped the ball there.
The flat generators weren't necessary when you could do the stick with beefs.
In a multi-route through which you can complete the main objective, neither route is mandatory. Only the mix or sole use of 1 of the, in the pool of routes is mandatory.You tried to weasel out after I replaced the word, since you couldn't answer it. Then you tried to say that you "said different things", while everything you typed is saved xD
This was your argument:
You: Amazing idea definitely see everyone doing this optional side quest.
"Nobody would be doing it since it's a side-quest."
Then I showed you how it's a main quest with the 1000 second gen example, showing there are 2 routes and everything is determined by META.No matter how much you try to distance yourself from your own claims, it's saved. Everyone can read the blatantly false claims. xD
You are the only person changing the scope to fit a narrative, I’ve remain consistant in my view and point.
Im aware of what I have said and I’m fine with people reading it as I don’t think or believe I’ve changed my oppinion since the first comment -
LmfaoAlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Free_Hugs said:
That is the point, though. It is not two different things, even in your alternate version of the game.Because in the end, you're still doing the same thing, "doing a gen" that we agreed upon. Standing beside a generator, holding M1, watching a progress bar.
Your idea is not different enough. That is what everyone has been trying get through to you for the past 8 pages.
Your idea isn't different enough to not just be "doing a gen" still.
Well, hugs. I see your point, but this is not what me and paddy were arguing against.
We were arguing whether doing parts was a "side-objective" or not, and I've been trying to explain him/her that in any system through which there are 2 ways to complete the mian objective (to escape) neither of the 2 (or 3/4/5) are mandatory, but all are main objectives as through every route you can complete the main objective.It is that basic fact that we've been arguing about.
-
Why are you editing your posts and then replying to me as if I was replying to a post that didn’t exist at the time of reply???AlwaysInAGoodShape said:No Paddy. The parameter for distinguishing a main objective and a side-objective is not the cosmetics of an object.
-
..
-
There’s a reason they make noise!SkerpiTwitch said:Why does pallets not get blocked after vaulting them 3 times?
It's not the loop i wanna see removed, it's the survivors intentionally taunting the killer in order to constant create noise. Very frustrating ofcourse. A part from a wel deserved facecamp to that survivor, i don't see any other fix atm.
i hope they will change this one day.
Theybare designed to be a distraction to the killer. Break them -
PC and PS4
-
There is more than just your internet involved in experienced lag.bleep275 said:But why would my lobby have everyone with good ping, but they lag like mad once the game starts?
But more
likely it’s because your lag switching
joking.
-
In theory not really, a lag switch is an artificial spike in ping, but most reports will need evidence and lag switches are pretty noticeable and because they are controlled by the player they tend to be spikes that happen at convenient times.
I wouldn’t worry, normally bad ping is rather consistant and doesn’t spike to the same extent as a lag switch -
I wouldnt say that...Yamaoka said:
Nothing comes close to dbd.Eveline said:All multiplayer games are toxic.
I find this quite tame in comparison to some other mulitiplayer games I can mention, Ive have had death threats on mario cart for Christ’s sake!
I will say that I stopped playing for a few months, missed spirit coming out and blight event came back after legion.
I stopped because of how the Clown release was handled, and I wanted to play other games for a while, I’d pretty much killed DBD for a while, I came back to playing because fundamentally I really love this game and it’s community of players, they really aren’t that bad.. -
Your making the assumption That could be completely wrong,The_Crusader said:
So the problem then becomes, how can the developers justify adding more objectives when survivors are dying anyway? Especially when you add cleansing all totems into the mix.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:For PS4 it's exactly 40%.
The other 2 are in between 40-45% I think.At lower ranks, the win-rate drops to almost 25% and that is terrify if you actually consider that at this point everybody is escaping through the hatch and not the exit gates.
The number of people escaping through gates is a lot lower.
This is why I think if they were to add more mandatory objectives gen times would be lowered a bit to compensate.
I know this isn't the answer a lot of people want or feel is fair but when the survival rate is in the 40's the developers just can't justify making it even harder. -
You seem to believe it’s a low survival rate because we play to escape every time?The_Crusader said:What's the escape rate around 40%? It's less than half.
But apparantly survivors need more objectives to do.
God forbid the problem lies with the person playing killer rather than the objective time. -
Personally neither.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:I hinted at this in my OP: That there's a trinity of options. Basically in DBD you're doing the same thing under many different names:
"healing", "doing generators", "Sabotaging". You are doing the EXACT same thing. The only difference is what it accomplishes + the location.
Therefore, to me it was important that we didn't simply name the same experience as something else; instead we'd CHANGE the experience.So what would you prefer?
A: Instead of doing 5 Gens; you need to do 3 Gens and 2 cankers? (Cankers take 80 seconds to complete and give skillchecks)
B: or would you want to do what the op suggests meaning you do the "same thing"; doing generators, but you'd actually be doing different things.
i would prefer to see complety new additional features added to the game, gens are gens and slowing them down is pointless and adding additional mandatory steps to competing gens would probably annoy more then anything, though I would be bothered about this personally.
Id like to see more end game objectives, mandatory or not, but if they are optional they need to be high risk high reward.
Or even a start game addition that can impact the game from the start.
IDK like if the killer could sabotage up to 2 random generators per match that if touched has some sort of game effect that can’t be removed until something’s done.
Id love to see a killer offering that removes a door from the map, giving survivors only one exit gate and adding an additional escape route that only 2 survivors can use if all four are still alive, I don’t know anything but extra time to do gens lol -
Nope not how this works with me, you don’t get to change the concept of the original idea, and then declare the previous argument as void.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
And if your idea was that there was an alternative to doing gens, I’d totally get where your coming from and agree that it’s different from doing a gen and not just a different way of doing a gen, alas this was not your OP idea at all #sadfaceemojiIn the example, you're literally sitting at a stick right next to the generator. There's no gameplay difference xD
It's just deceptive wording.So all we had to do was change the name of a Part-Generator to a Stick with beef instead of a Part-Gen and all was solved. No more side-objectives.
Well that was easy (:
the two concepts are different, and to be clear I stated an alternative to doing gens I would agree, I wasn’t agreeing to same game play and meat on sticks.
-
But that does fit your argument of it being different and not a side step. So it’s okay for you to use that analogy because it fits your argument. It just doesn’t change mine on the original idea of gens being done as a main objective but with an optional side step of collecting parts.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
And if your idea was that there was an alternative to doing gens, I’d totally get where your coming from and agree that it’s different from doing a gen and not just a different way of doing a gen, alas this was not your OP idea at all #sadfaceemojiIn the example, you're literally sitting at a stick right next to the generator. There's no gameplay difference xD
It's just deceptive wording.
If to prove your point you have to change you whole concept, then I dont understand the reasoning in arguing it at all.
-
And if your idea was that there was an alternative to doing gens, I’d totally get where your coming from and agree that it’s different from doing a gen and not just a different way of doing a gen, alas this was not your OP idea at all #sadfaceemojiAlwaysInAGoodShape said:@NuclearBurrito2 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:I kinda already played that game by replacing parts with totem.
You said:
What have I proven here? Absolutely nothing, since the generators are still required and the totem still isn't
With sticks, the generators are no longer required.
Ok I literally swapped out every instance of part gen with "stick with beef" and it doesn't change my argument a bit
You can't see how you wouldn't need to do a generator if there were literally sticks?
-
Well if I paly be the rules then first I must amend your question to fit the answer I want so now on page 65 it says she can eat the beef and get out. So my answer is B because who wouldn’t eat beefEdys said:ANTI-DRAMAH QUIZ TIME!!
A survivor is left alone in a dark and ugly forest. Scared as she is, she can't stop thinking about her little sister, Joey, coughing due to the scarlet fever afflicting her. Mrs survivor soon comes to a horrendous conclusion: if she wants to escape, she needs to sit on a generator and repair it with her bare hands.
She comes closer and, first things firsts, she opens the INSTRUCTION MANUAL.
"Welcome to Gen-orator 2003 User Manual! Before every operation, be sure to fix the generator! (How to Fix it? pp. 87)"
The survivor exhales, then finally reaches page 87.
"In order to fix this generator, press m1 for 80 seconds". That's it?! - she thinks
"If you want to speed up the process, you can go in search of a workbench and produce a part, after that..." M1 M1 M1 M1... - she clicks.In this story, if we want to fix a generator by going in search of a workbench and producing a part, we are:
- A. doing an ALTERNATIVE route
- B. doing the ONLY route
- C. doing the MAIN route
- D. all of the above
Pick one!
-
You can lag switch anything that has a host!
-
See how this goes now?NuclearBurrito2 said:
I kinda already played that game by replacing parts with totem.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Now replace the word part-generator with the word sticks with beef.
See how nothing inherently changed gameplay wise?
See how the factor of you doing "the same thing" no longe equals doing a generator? since generators can be done through different ways?That is my point. It's only semantics;
If you instead add the parts to a stick right to the gen nothing changes gameplay wise. Are we suddenly "doing different things" now?No, because doing a gen is no longer "doing the same thing". The routes are a completely different experience and both are doing the main objective;
You can open the gates with sticks (part-gens) or do them with flat gens, without ever having to do them with the other.
Semantics. Semantics; semantics.
He will not acknowldge the idea of it being a side step to completing a gen, or acknowledge that the end game is still just doing gens!
welcome to lobby hobby -
Oh sweet baby cheeses your so bad at this, I think that’s why I find it so amusingAlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
Like I’ve said already that’s not the point, neither was it my argument.I'm applying your logic. You're back peddling.
The basis on what you called something a side-quest is that it wasn't MANDATORY.
Doing generators isn't mandatory when you can do sticks, thus doing generators is doing side-quests.That's your logic not mine.
-
Oh don’t use big words you clearly can’t use in context. Double fallacy argument? Good one. You’ve not corrected anything, you’ve not even addressed the actual argument, at all.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
Mc_Harty said:This entire discussion is a brick wall. Just let it die already.
I enjoy watching how ludicrous it becomes, because he hates being criticised, it’s my new lobby hobby
Criticising my idea? You've barely criticised it. I've mainly been correcting you applying fallacious logic, which is wrong whether my idea existed or not xD
-
Like I’ve said already that’s not the point, neither was it my argument.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Again not talking anout the gens, but the collecting and installing of parts....
the actual argument I had, that you keep avoiding.
Yes, what about collecting parts? Collecting parts and finishing sticks is the main quest is it not? After all, you don't have to do any generators in order to escape. Doing sticks with parts is all you need.
Nope it not.
You cannot escape with purely parts, sticks and opening the exit gates?
-
Nope it not. Your still doing gens but with an extra side quest before hand.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Again not talking anout the gens, but the collecting and installing of parts....
the actual argument I had, that you keep avoiding.Yes, what about collecting parts? Collecting parts and finishing sticks is the main quest is it not? After all, you don't have to do any generators in order to escape. Doing sticks with parts is all you need.
no matter how you try to explain it, that’s what it is, and it’s how you describe it everythime.
