Redesign of the Research System

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Redesign of the Research System

      This is a groundbreaking proposal that will require the reader to really pay attention in order to fully grasp the importance of — and need for — this suggestion.

      ~O~

      OK. So I've been thinking about the research system. It's designed to encourage players to choose only portions of the total stock of technologies and focus on them. I can agree with that, in principle (somewhat), but it offers a terrible disadvantage in a game where there are many players in some individual matches.

      It's one thing for you and your enemy to both focus on naval technologies. But if you are an island-centric nation and you are surrounded by vast land-based empires, your navy will never be able to compete in the long run. So spending your research on naval power -- which makes sense in the early game for an island nation -- will have been an utter failure since you can't compete on land once your competition has grown past you in the mainland. The most you can hope for is your nearest neighbors to go inactive so you can sneak onto the mainland and take over their holdings without much resistance just so you can grow your army to take on the active mainland players, later on.

      At the same time, if you are a small but powerful landlocked nation in the Pacific Map per se, and your competitors are on the other side of the map with vast navies, you'll never be able to successfully cross the ocean safely enough to invade their lands. Moreover, they're going to eventually be able to transport their entire armies into your lands thus overwhelming you because they have a monopoly on the seas.

      Some players like to hyperfocus on very few technologies, i.e., Tanks and Bombers, where they can gain an early/mid game advantage if they are lucky enough to secure a good supply of Oil. Other players like to hyperfocus on just Infantry and slow-moving guns so they can turtle up and never offer much to the game and, heaven forbid, if anyone tries to invade their puny nation, it'll cost the invader dearly, thus freeing up a third nation to wipe out both of these two after they've decimated each other.

      ~O~

      Sure, those various scenarios offer a variety of playing styles. But the problem with them is that you are pigeon-holed into your decision -- like going down a rabbit trail -- where you can't just back out and change your mind without suffering vast technological deficiencies. So, if you decide to change your focus on naval power (for instance) into air power, your newly-constructed air forces will not be able to compete against your competitors who already built up their air corps and so your change in focus will only fail.

      The point, here, is that the technology is divided into five main groups...well four really, with the "secret" branch being more like a special or supplementary branch to the main four branches. And with the various prerequisite technologies being more varied up front, the early game forces you to at least research Infantry before you can research most of the other slow ground-based technologies and you must research the Armored Car before you can research many of the other armored ground-based technologies. Until the recent categories change, you had to research Fighters before you could research AA. And, despite the reorganization of the categories, you still must research slow Artillery guns before you can research fast Self-Propelled Artillery.

      Now, those cross-category research requirements in the early game do help to balance the play somewhat. But the fact that they only affect the research focus for balancing in the early game is problematic. Because the typical player might only research levels 1 and 2 of Artillery so that they can unlock the SP-Artillery and only research and build the SP versions from there, thus never researching beyond level 2 of regular Artillery and never wanting to build any, anyway.

      Now, I'm not in favor of forcing any player to build a balanced military. Though I much prefer balance, myself, if someone else wants to build nothing but Bombers, that's their choice. But as it stands, now, the way the technology system is set up, it encourages players to hyperfocus on only a few technologies.

      ~O~

      So I propose this change. First, the prerequisites for various techs should continue to be cross-category far and above the early versions of each tech area. For example, instead of just requiring level 2 AA tech before researching level 1 SP-AA, maybe the level 3 SP-AA should require level 4 AA tech in addition to level 3 SP-AA tech. And, the level 5 Naval Bomber should require maybe level 3 Tac Bomber tech combined with level 4 Submarine tech...this would simulate the impetus behind both the need for and ingenuity behind the design of a more advanced Naval Bomber. Maybe it would make sense for a level 4 Light Tank to require the engine upgrades designed for a level 3 Armored Car. And maybe a level 3 Transport Ship should require a level 2 Medium Tank to be researched to simulate the need for, not just a faster ship, but one with a larger cargo-hold for those heavier units.

      Already, this kind of thinking is behind the Nuclear Bomber...the higher level Nuke Bombers require higher-level Strategic Bomber technology. So why not implement this across the board?

      Then, to facilitate this need for more research, so that the pigeon-holing isn't just prevented, but the ability to actually keep up in research across the board is better-balanced, I propose more research slots be made available. However, I am not proposing more of the slots as they currently are. Instead, there needs to be only one research slot per each of the four main categories and one additional slot for any category including the Secret branch. This way, you will always have one research slot dedicated to the naval branch, one for the Air branch, one for the Infantry branch, and one for the Armored branch.

      The fifth slot can focus on the Secret branch while being able to supplement any of the other branches as well. I believe that fifth slot would offer both an additional bit of balance as well as enabling players the ability to still choose to focus on fewer technological paths, somewhat.

      ~O~

      Thus, to sum up, my proposal is twofold:

      1.) Increase the prerequisite technologies for higher level techs with cross-category requirements.
      2.) Have 5 research slots...1 for each of the 4 main categories and the 5th. slot for any category including Secret.

      Mod edit - changed the title of this thread as it is obviously not "Top Priority"
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Currently it is already hard to keep up with all branches, based on the speed of the game. For me, it is already hard enough to keep up on armor and air. I see the importance to what you are arguing so, maybe research times would need to require 2/3 of the time it is now, this way you can keep up with the "day limiting". It is already hard to keep up with it, and for certain things I don't think it is necessary to do this, this would make the game much more dull because this would force players to give up their high level troops, and make them research things that they will likely never use.

      As you have said, the way it is now people research one or two main units such as tanks and tactical bombers. I don't see a problem with this, it is fine how it is now and players can counter different players by researching other branches. For example, if my opponent put all of their research into tanks and infantry, I would put my efforts towards making a great air force, and they would have no chance at coming close to me because I would blow them to shreds. However, their tanks might come strait toward my air strips and tear through my lesser ground defenses and I could still be screwed. My fault that I didn't put any effort into making a strong ground defense.

      It is all about balance, and I can see where you are coming from, but this limits players from using unique strategies and developing their own kind of military, unique to them only. This idea would make the game less interesting because all players would pretty much end up being evenly matched throughout the game. If you don't like the current way because massive tanks destroy you every game, then you are doing something wrong. Maybe YOU should make tanks, or create a different strategy to fend off attacks.
    • beastyben7 wrote:


      For example, if my opponent put all of their research into tanks and infantry, I would put my efforts towards making a great air force, and they would have no chance at coming close to me because I would blow them to shreds. However, their tanks might come strait toward my air strips and tear through my lesser ground defenses and I could still be screwed. My fault that I didn't put any effort into making a strong ground defense.

      It is all about balance
      Exactly. It is crucial to plan ahead with your research, and if you don't you pay the price. If you play the UK on the 25 player historical, and spend all your research upgrading your ships, you will end up with the strongest navy in the world and almost invulnerable against invasion, but not be able to defeat your enemies and take their core because your tanks, infantry and aircraft will all be very low level.

      So the game system forces a player to think ahead, and to research in a balanced manner.
    • Diabolical wrote:


      2.) Have 5 research slots...1 for each of the 4 main categories and the 5th. slot for any category including Secret.
      Having only two research slots is Bytro's way to encourage players to spend Gold. This is one of the best uses for gold because research tends to become a bottleneck in the game i.e. you can't keep researching new levels because it takes so long to complete each research level, so the player who spends that gold and gets two extra levels for his tactical bombers will gain an enormous advantage over everybody else.

      So five research slots is just not going to happen. Besides, I don't think I would want it to, because if people stop buying gold, Bytro will go broke and we will no longer be able to play the game for free.
    • beastyben7 wrote:

      this would make the game much more dull because this would force players to give up their high level troops, and make them research things that they will likely never use.
      Ah, but it wouldn't force you to give up "high level troops" because the added research path prerequisites would be mitigated by the number of research slots. Instead of 2 (which could focus on anything you want), you would have 5. And since each of 4 research slots are dedicated to their individual main groups, the wider research path prerequisites would still be fairly easy to cover, simultaneously, even if you want to focus on one area of tech. AND, the 5th. research slot can be used for anything, so you can still focus more heavily in one area, like tactical bombers, if you want to.

      beastyben7 wrote:

      It is all about balance, and I can see where you are coming from, but this limits players from using unique strategies and developing their own kind of military, unique to them only. This idea would make the game less interesting because all players would pretty much end up being evenly matched throughout the game.
      First off, those "unique" strategies haven't been unique since about the Fall of 2015 (about 6 months after the game was released out of beta) when just about every possible strategy had already been conceived of (within the then-current game design) and tested out by many thousands of players. Ever since, there has been pretty much the same old "same old" body of typical strategies that most players seem to tap into. Sure, there are a few exceptions to this, but not enough to take away from the "been there, done that" aspect of the game.

      That being said, the possible outcomes can still be quite varied -- not because of the seemingly-endless (yet not endless) ways of playing but because of the numerous minds behind the same strategies...after all, this and other Bytro and Dorado games fully qualify as MMORTS games (like MMORPGs). That variability won't change if this proposal is adopted by Bytro.

      As for making the matches more "evenly matched throughout the game", well, that actually would be a good thing, in concept -- leveling the playing field, more. However, this proposal would not actually do that since my previously mentioned explanation (further above) already showed how that the 5 research slots would still allow players to focus on narrower paths if they wanted to. Although, the wider research path prerequisites would at least keep you from completely pigeonholing yourself such that you can't at least make some changes to your current course of research paths without suffering too much for being "that" far behind in a crucial area or research that you hadn't considered before.

      Thus it is that with my proposal, you not only keep from losing your ability to focus on narrow paths, but you gain also in that you can keep from suffering too much for choosing more "balanced" research choices. My proposal does make the hyper-focused tech research a little less "hyper" while also not quite making the balanced tech research "too balanced". Obviously, too great of extremes in any one direction, or even an extreme of a so-called "perfectly balanced" direction, would make the game less enjoyable, but my proposal would do a better job at preventing the extreme cases than the current model.

      beastyben7 wrote:

      If you don't like the current way because massive tanks destroy you every game, then you are doing something wrong. Maybe YOU should make tanks, or create a different strategy to fend off attacks.
      Hah. In 2 of my 3 current matches, I have numerous "massive tanks" -- including dozens of Heavy Tanks -- at my disposal; your example is, ironically, moot. However, that aside, my record clearly shows that I'm no novice. I've been playing for two and a half years in many many matches and my experience has put me in the top 100 players world-wide....96th, overall, currently. (My current ranks are: economic ~ 163 and military ~ 70 ;¬)

      I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm just interested in having matches where you can actually have both a navy AND an air force, or a super-army and a massive rocket corps, or even just an insane Zergling Militia horde backed up by Nuclear Bombers. Right now, these combinations (and others) aren't really possible unless a match lasts many months on end.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • MartinB wrote:

      Exactly. It is crucial to plan ahead with your research, and if you don't you pay the price.
      I find this to be limited in possibility because you don't know what your neighbors are researching until after they've implemented unit builds that you can see...often only after they've invaded you. With my proposal, having both the wider research path prerequisites and the larger number of research slots, I believe that you can become more dynamically adaptable to be able to counter your opponent's choice of research without having to wait for weeks to implement your new strategy. Thus, you can actually mount more than just a token defense against another player's unusual [or expert] R&D choices.

      Anyone who plans too far ahead with their research (regardless of how "good" they are at this game), aside from pigeonholing themself into a dead-end path, they are making choices that might not be able to be selected by anything other than arbitrary reasons. The "let's upgrade our navies because we are UK" excuse is a somewhat rare exception yet it illustrates the impracticability of planning too far ahead. So, in a way, your own example kinda disproved your point.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • MartinB wrote:

      Diabolical wrote:

      2.) Have 5 research slots...1 for each of the 4 main categories and the 5th. slot for any category including Secret.
      Having only two research slots is Bytro's way to encourage players to spend Gold. This is one of the best uses for gold because research tends to become a bottleneck in the game i.e. you can't keep researching new levels because it takes so long to complete each research level, so the player who spends that gold and gets two extra levels for his tactical bombers will gain an enormous advantage over everybody else.
      So five research slots is just not going to happen. Besides, I don't think I would want it to, because if people stop buying gold, Bytro will go broke and we will no longer be able to play the game for free.
      I disagree. Simply put, the additional research slots are -- in part -- to make up for the additional research path prerequisites from the first half of my proposal (they go hand in hand). Also, this part of my proposal has the limiting factor where you still can only use two research slots for any focused area of research (1 of the 4 main slots with the addition of the 5th. slot.... a 2 slot focus on 1 path while having 3 other slots to keep researching side-techs and other prereqs for your focused path). And, the Gold aspect of hurrying your research still applies since there is no reason for my proposed model to leave out that ability.

      Still, research isn't the only really useful aspect of the game on which to spend Gold...if you are one who has it. Another great example of a smart way to use Gold is to sabotage airbases to forcibly-land huge enemy airfleets so you can destroy the aircraft on the ground with your rockets. There are many other Gold-based tasks you can do, so I'm not really buying that my proposal would in any way cause Bytro to lose revenue (pun intended).

      In fact, if the better design of my proposal gets adopted, and is advertised so as to reach out to former players who've since given up out of boredom and/or "always losing" to the super bomber fleets, etc., then Bytro might actually gain revenue from an influx of both former and new players because of how much more interesting and complex the technology system would become. The kind of change that my proposal would offer can be a good selling point (at least to strategy gamers), i.e., "Call of War....now use even more advanced research paths to upgrade your units and conquer your enemies!"
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Diabolical wrote:

      The "let's upgrade our navies because we are UK" excuse is a somewhat rare exception yet it illustrates the impracticability of planning too far ahead. So, in a way, your own example kinda disproved your point.
      No, you have just completely misunderstood the point. The UK upgrading its navy is not an example of the impracticability of planning too far ahead, it is an example of the stupidity of not planning ahead.
    • Diabolical wrote:



      Still, research isn't the only really useful aspect of the game on which to spend Gold
      If you take the trouble to read my post carefully, you might observe that I never claimed it is the only really useful aspect of the game on which to spend Gold. I said it is 'one of the best uses'.

      There is a world of difference between 'one of the best uses' and 'the only really useful aspect', surely you understand that?
    • Diabolical wrote:

      MartinB wrote:

      Exactly. It is crucial to plan ahead with your research, and if you don't you pay the price.
      I find this to be limited in possibility because you don't know what your neighbors are researching until after they've implemented unit builds that you can see...often only after they've invaded you. With my proposal, having both the wider research path prerequisites and the larger number of research slots, I believe that you can become more dynamically adaptable to be able to counter your opponent's choice of research without having to wait for weeks to implement your new strategy. Thus, you can actually mount more than just a token defense against another player's unusual [or expert] R&D choices.
      Anyone who plans too far ahead with their research (regardless of how "good" they are at this game), aside from pigeonholing themself into a dead-end path, they are making choices that might not be able to be selected by anything other than arbitrary reasons.
      Planning ahead with your research does not require you to know what your neighbours are researching. Part of the challenge of this game is to come up against a determined adversary who has made specific research choices (e.g. an artillery spammer who relies on massed artillery to the nth degree) and then have to use your intelligence and creativity to respond to his strategy effectively. If you are unable to mount more than 'just a token defence' against another player's specific research choices, then what you really need to work on are your own skills in the game and also, yes, plan ahead.

      If you have planned your research ahead of time and spent some time and effort in making sure that you have a balanced research program, you are never going to be in a situation in which you will only be able to mount 'just a token defence' against another player. You may be beaten, but you will be able to mount more than 'just a token defence'.

      Having five research slots is a cop-out, which means that you do not need to plan ahead, and you can just research what you want and then respond very rapidly when you come up against an effective opponent. A good player will not need so many research slots in this situation because he or she would already have managed his research tree in such a way that it would be balanced and he or she will therefore be able to respond quickly to ramp up those specific units that he or she needs in order to counter this specific opponent.

      If you find that you are repeatedly getting into situations where it takes you weeks to respond to an opponent with a particular strategy, then I would suggest that you probably need to manage your research tree more effectively.
    • Diabolical wrote:

      beastyben7 wrote:

      If you don't like the current way because massive tanks destroy you every game, then you are doing something wrong. Maybe YOU should make tanks, or create a different strategy to fend off attacks.
      Hah. In 2 of my 3 current matches, I have numerous "massive tanks" -- including dozens of Heavy Tanks -- at my disposal; your example is, ironically, moot. However, that aside, my record clearly shows that I'm no novice. I've been playing for two and a half years in many many matches and my experience has put me in the top 100 players world-wide....96th, overall, currently. (My current ranks are: economic ~ 163 and military ~ 70 ;¬)
      Dick-swinging aside, being high level and 96th overall doesn't mean a thing, other than you have played a lot of games. It does not mean that you are playing them well, or are a good player.

      No need to be so patronising about your record. It really is no big deal.
    • MartinB wrote:

      Diabolical wrote:

      The "let's upgrade our navies because we are UK" excuse is a somewhat rare exception yet it illustrates the impracticability of planning too far ahead. So, in a way, your own example kinda disproved your point.
      No, you have just completely misunderstood the point. The UK upgrading its navy is not an example of the impracticability of planning too far ahead, it is an example of the stupidity of not planning ahead.
      It can be said that by choosing to focus exclusively on naval power, you are planning ahead, just not in the right direction.

      MartinB wrote:

      Diabolical wrote:

      Still, research isn't the only really useful aspect of the game on which to spend Gold
      If you take the trouble to read my post carefully, you might observe that I never claimed it is the only really useful aspect of the game on which to spend Gold. I said it is 'one of the best uses'.
      There is a world of difference between 'one of the best uses' and 'the only really useful aspect', surely you understand that?
      I would say that, in this instance, I wasn't picking on your words. I was focusing on your example, not on your [apparent?] exclusion.

      MartinB wrote:

      Having five research slots is a cop-out, which means that you do not need to plan ahead, and you can just research what you want and then respond very rapidly when you come up against an effective opponent. A good player will not need so many research slots in this situation because he or she would already have managed his research tree in such a way that it would be balanced and he or she will therefore be able to respond quickly to ramp up those specific units that he or she needs in order to counter this specific opponent.
      I would say that it isn't about that "ramp up" of emergency response tech as you seem to think I mean. Rather, it is about the fact that you can't plan for every contingency. No amount of wise foresight will give you the perfect combination even if you have great espionage against all of your neighbors. That's not practical nor practicable.

      With only two research slots, as the system now is, as an example, you can have three neighbors, each of whom focuses on entirely different combinations, and all potentially hostile against you. You can spy on them, know their research and unit choices, and not be able to build the best combination to counter all three. Probably not even two. And possibly not even one of them.

      Sure, there are always counters to every possibility in this game. But you have to make a judgement call as to which neighbor is most likely going to attack you, which is most likely -- if any -- to ally with you, and whether or not more than one will team up with you. And, meanwhile, you are stuck trying to build defenses against all three because, as it turns out, they joined the match together and have plans on linking up in the middle of your nation.

      So, OK....s**t happens. But there is no "perfect" combination, no matter what the Light Tank/Tac Bomber combo players might say.

      MartinB wrote:

      Dick-swinging aside, being high level and 96th overall doesn't mean a thing, other than you have played a lot of games. It does not mean that you are playing them well, or are a good player.

      I would challenge you to find anyone in the top ranks who just plays a "lot of games". That's not how you gain points nor win. There are tons of players that play a "lot" of matches. But they don't score high on the rankings and they never will because they aren't interested in learning all there is to know about this game. They don't live and breathe this game nor do they really care. Maybe they play it a lot. But they aren't becoming the game.

      I am a good player. I'm not the best. But I'm among the best. And I earned my spot in the rankings. I fought tooth and nail to get into the top 100...and for the second time (I fell behind last summer when I was offline for a few months). And I didn't buy my way to the top like some unnamed players whose economic scores are insane. That is why I'm far more proud of my military score than my own economic score. But, even my ecomic score is relatively high when you realize that I did it without the benefit of Gold. I'm an economic player, meaning that I plan far ahead to keep my economy at the top when most of my competitors in the late game are dealing with failing national morale and resource deficiencies. But that's just one of my many "expert" strategies.

      Am I tooting my own horn. You darn right I am. I'm a top-rated player. I earned that status and I'm proud of it. I don't go throwing that in other people's faces very often. Yet, more to the point, I detect a note of jealousy on your part. Well, don't be jealous of me, after all, because I do have a lot of time on my hands. But my rank isn't because of all that time, it is because of how I use that time when I am playing this game.

      And now, after typing late into the night on all these forum posts, I need to retire my pen because I've got Church in the morning and it's already 4:30 am. Alas, I'm fine with the four hours sleep that I'm gonna try to get.

      So, to you, I say "good night" from west coast USA....and from the top 100 players worldwide :D
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Diabolical wrote:

      MartinB wrote:

      Dick-swinging aside, being high level and 96th overall doesn't mean a thing, other than you have played a lot of games. It does not mean that you are playing them well, or are a good player.
      I would challenge you to find anyone in the top ranks who just plays a "lot of games". That's not how you gain points nor win. There are tons of players that play a "lot" of matches. But they don't score high on the rankings and they never will because they aren't interested in learning all there is to know about this game. They don't live and breathe this game nor do they really care. Maybe they play it a lot. But they aren't becoming the game.

      I am a good player. I'm not the best. But I'm among the best.
      No you aren't. You have just signed up for a lot of games. The game system gives you points for every building you construct, so you could easily just sign up on a noob map and get loads of points just building a lot of barracks, and that proves exactly nothing. Anyone can sign up on a lot of games and get a high level.

      I did take the trouble of looking up your stats though, Mr. 96.

      Untitled2.png

      Your kills-to-losses ratio against the AI is only 3.00, so you are probably slightly below average as far as skill goes. 'Good' is not a word that can be used to describe a player who performs so poorly against the AI.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by MartinB: Added and edited image ().

    • Honestly, I like the current research system. I would prefer a third spot, but other than that it's fine. This allows a certain amount of strategy that this game is starting to lack.
      There's not much strategy in facing AI with a randomized damage output. I like that you have to choose wisely based on your commitments. You always need land and air, but the rest is situation-based. Will you choose nukes? Navy? Armor?
      To build, you must first destroy.
    • T-3PO wrote:

      You wanna know something that I find funny. That whenever there is a fight in the forum, it's ALWAYS the same people. I would love to see a well-written post in the forum and people nicely disagreeing with it. It's not hard to be nice for one damn moment.
      You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about arguing your particular point of view. Are you perhaps a bit awkward in real life, the kind who prefers to pretend to agree even if someone else is making ludicrous claims, instead of standing up for what you think is right? Many people are like that, and that is their right, but there is really no need to characterise those who are not like you because they are confident assertive individuals. Not everyone is awkward and unwilling to state their point of view.

      Nobody is fighting. There is a difference between fighting and pointing out that being high level because you have played a lot of games does not give you automatic bragging rights, and it certainly does not give anyone the right to patronise others. Beastyben made a very salient point when he said


      beastyben7 wrote:


      If you don't like the current way because massive tanks destroy you every game, then you are doing something wrong.
      This was a very astute observation on his part, and it did not warrant the kind of response that it received. Having played a lot of games does not mean you are a good player. Some people have played chess all their lives and are still bad at it. In any case, the observation itself is perfectly valid, a player who repeatedly gets beaten because his opponents are smashing him with 'massive tanks' all the time is obviously doing something wrong and not playing very well. There is no need to demand a modification to the game system and certainly no need to try and browbeat others because you are level 96, because as I have pointed out, it really doesn't mean a damn thing.
    • MartinB wrote:

      You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about arguing your particular point of view. Are you perhaps a bit awkward in real life, the kind who prefers to pretend to agree even if someone else is making ludicrous claims, instead of standing up for what you think is right?
      You literally just proved my point. You go out of your way to attack people who disagree with you. I literally just stood up for what I believe in, polite arguments. I prefer them, because they're right. Are you perhaps a bit rude in real life, the kind who prefer to yell at those who disagree with them instead of trying to convince them. I supported nobody in this argument. That's where you are wrong. I disagreed with both sides.
      You and diabolical are both fighting.
      To build, you must first destroy.
    • T-3PO wrote:

      You literally just proved my point. You go out of your way to attack people who disagree with you. I literally just stood up for what I believe in, polite arguments.
      So you are being a hypocrite here. Because if you had bothered to read the thread you might have noticed that Beastyben replied politely and he was patronised and spoken to rudely in return.

      You on the other hand, seem to have a chip on your shoulder about me, perhaps because I have pointed out that some things that you like to do are not very smart. That is why you keep following me about and making snarky comments perhaps?

      Allow me to point out that your snarky comments are in fact very rude, and uncalled for, and I would appreciate you not making them.