Anak said:
I never stated nor implied that nuances of a new SR Spec from the original would be analogous to the skybolt's nuances from the rocket launcher.
Actually, you did. At best, you can claim a lack of clarity on your part.
Anak said:
are you guys going to create a replacement for the LR Spec like you did the RL spec? just curious.
hellsniper:l2aim.
Gheist said:
Nonetheless, anak asked for exactly such a possibilty (or better, he sees the SB as a RLII replacement, and asks if something similar will happen in this case), which is a different question than yours, and has not been answered by me.
Anak said:
exactly. also - isn't the skybolt the RLII replacement? i thought i read it somewhere.
Notice that you and Gheist were very specific re. the specialist weapons. You went so far as to reply “exactly” to Gheist's “or better, he sees the SB as a RLII replacement, and asks if something similar will happen in this case”. The reason one might see the SB as the RLII replacement is that the bolt features the specialist's rocket speed increase. It features, in other words, the specialist's defining feature. Now, I don't think that's how they went about creating the bolt, but it's a reasonable inference.
The other interpretation, as Riptack mentioned, is that you meant a “simple replacement”, i.e., a new weapon brought in to replace the weapon lost.
However, I'd discounted that since a) the dev team has been moving away from specialist weapons for ages, and b) the addition of new weapons doesn't require the removal of existing ones.
So you can understand, then, how someone could interpret your words as such. Arguing intent's difficult, though, especially when it's not your own. And even though you've shifted positions several times, and have been particularly equivocal, I cannot describe with certainty your original intent.
Fortunately, that doesn't matter.
Your mistake was to assume my argument hinged on your intent. It doesn't. Let's look at the second step in my syllogism: Again, the reason the SRII and RLII aren't analogous is that with the loss of the latter, you've lost something unique (its “fast rockets”). With respect to the former, there's nothing to lose, as its slightly increased rof and damage don't fundamentally alter the weapon. In other words, they don't have to
replace anything.
There is nothing to replace, for you've lost nothing but rof and damage points. It's a simple nerf to the sniper spec, and a simple buff to the hornet spec.
Also, notice that nowhere within the actual argument did I suggest intent (or even awareness) on your part.
Ironically, it's your counter-argument vs. my non-existent straw man that is the straw man.
INCEPTION.
Now, asking whether they'll include a new hitscan weapon is a totally different question than asking whether they'll “replace the SRII”. You've used the “replacement” wording every time, going so far as to distinguish it from “reintroduction”, so it's definitely not idle semantics. Remember, too:
Nept said:
the addition of new weapons doesn't require the removal of existing ones.
As for the hitscan question, I think that given the difficulties they've had balancing the sniper, and the leanings of the dev team, we'll not see any more hitscan additions. And I would think you'd know that, given the information to which you're privy.
As for the rest:
One: You were clearly arguing. Questions can incite arguments.
Two: I replied because you were equivocating and arguing poorly. Also, Hellsniper was holding his own. The two of you were just too stubborn to realize it.
Three: I tend to reply when people argue poorly.
Four: You'll forgive me if I make you use a dictionary on occasion.
Five: The word for which you're searching is “esoteric”, not “archaic”. “Casuistry” has not fallen out of use over time.
Six: You don't end two-pages worth of argument by suggesting that the next person to reply is doing so meaninglessly.
