Congrats and comments

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Qwerty is one of the least stubborn and hardest working members of EB I've known for a long time now (more than a year of hard ass work). If you guys want to discuss this with him, go ahead, but there's an awful lot coming at him here that isn't exactly being done so in a polite way here, and now accusations that he's attacking others, when he's not. I'd much rather him be working on getting us to 1.5 and the next build out than going through and totally redoing all the stats for this mod at this point also, and that may be just my opinion, but I'll tell you it's what the mod as a whole would rather he be doing also at this point. You two have an issue that you are very concerned about here obviously, but he's not just here working on one thing, so keep that in mind.

I don't know if he's right or not - I really don't care much about stat issues as long as the other members are happy (and they are, btw) - but the way your arguments against the EB system and Q in particular are being framed is childish. Enough with the exclamations, all caps, head-banging-rolly-eyes-squintylook smilies, "I already know EXACTLY what you are going to say" and "utter stubbornness" rudeness, and finally demands that he produce answers to your satisfaction.

[fallen851]

Qwerty is one of the least stubborn and hardest working members of EB I've known for a long time now (more than a year of hard ass work). If you guys want to discuss this with him, go ahead, but there's an awful lot coming at him here that isn't exactly being done so in a polite way here, and now accusations that he's attacking others, when he's not. I'd much rather him be working on getting us to 1.5 and the next build out than going through and totally redoing all the stats for this mod at this point also, and that may be just my opinion, but I'll tell you it's what the mod as a whole would rather he be doing also at this point. You two have an issue that you are very concerned about here obviously, but he's not just here working on one thing, so keep that in mind.

I don't know if he's right or not - I really don't care much about stat issues as long as the other members are happy (and they are, btw) - but the way your arguments against the EB system and Q in particular are being framed is childish. Enough with the exclamations, all caps, head-banging-rolly-eyes-squintylook smilies, "I already know EXACTLY what you are going to say" and "utter stubbornness" rudeness, and finally demands that he produce answers to your satisfaction.

What is the deal? Some of you guys need to get off your high horse right now. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter if it includes "exclamations, all caps, head-banging-rolly-eyes-squintylook smilies". If you believe otherwise, your generalizing and that is a logical fallacy. Can't you see that?

Whether or not QM is hardworking or stubborn in other areas of EB and his life is not the dicussion here, right now he is being stubborn. He was stubborn about the discussion of ranged units damage as well. I don't have a problem with QM as a person, I never have a problem with people, I have problems with some of their choices and actions.

Logically Macroi's system makes more sense, or perhaps I'm missing something (which is why I want QM to answer)? But I don't think QM has an answer to Macrois argument because he is can't defeat it logically, and he won't admit he is wrong. He defends himself with defense mechanisms "we tested it, its fine" and "you're acting like you're superior", saving himself from actually addressing the question. Why don't you see this?

Then you guys defend him using defense mechanisms, "well you know he is really busy right now", and "you guys are really taking a negative tone with him", instead of actually asking him "hey QM, why do we do things this way?".

Macroi isn't doing anything wrong, he asked some questions, made some arguements. They were ignored, so where is this going? No where. Instead of actually answering Macroi, you guys just say "we don't care about what you think" nicely sugar coating by saying "you know we tested things and they are fine" and "QM has a lot of other work man, he can't do anything about it".

Gosh my Congressional Representative couldn't have done it better.

This community, not just EB's community, but the entire RTW community puts on an heir of "kindness" and "compassion" to other members, and tries to make it look like they "respect" each other with moderators warning people "bashing" and such, and it is a joke. It defends people who have a lot of posts and a reputation, and berates those use "smilies". I wouldn't be surprised if this post or thread is now censored to defend those same people.

[QwertyMIDX]

I was nothing but patient with you in regards to missile damage, and if I remember correctly at least half of the people involed in the debate agreed with me rather than you. Once again, just because I won't accept your viewpoint you're resorting to personal attacks. Please refrain from doing that.

Despite this, I do wonder why certain "directional" forms of armour, like the greave and the pectoralis, are not included in the shield bonus.

This is a reasonable idea, although a greave protects from both the right and left as well the front of the leg, and of course a pectoral only protects the front. Still it might be a good change, especially for the pectoral.

[fallen851]

I was nothing but patient with you in regards to missile damage, and if I remember correctly at least half of the people involed in the debate agreed with me rather than you. Once again, just because I won't accept your viewpoint you're resorting to personal attacks. Please refrain from doing that.

You obviously didn't care for my posts, and by referring to them as you just did, that is a personal attack on me, disregarding my comments with the same "What is in my interests in good for EB" rhetoric. I made no personal attacks on you, just questioned your actions of not directly responding to points Macroi raised. You still have not done that or offered any explanation.

Just because "half of the people agree" or whatever, doesn't mean you or I are right or wrong. We all should be reasonable* people and come together and reach a compromise. Macroi reached out, and you responded (not attacking you personally, but your actions) by shutting down any kind of compromise with defense mechanisms (ie "you know we tested it, it's fine"). Then your EB friends come and give us more defense mechanisms ("QM is really busy you know"). In that thread, as well as this one, instead of trying to reach a compromise (since we all want the same thing...), you followed the George W. Bush scheme, whip up as much support you can without giving an inch, and then say "what I did was justified" based on this support. That is not a model for compromise or support, your comments in both threads have had polarizing effects.

The problem is not how many people support who, the problem is whether or not people are willing to be reasonable* and compromise and accept others ideas. If we choose to define it in those terms, we see that you have not supported why you do what you have in the EDU by fact, making you unreasonable. Now perhaps you can support what you do with fact (ie to make this clear a fact is "I did this because of this", while an opinion is "This is fine because of this", in other words report what you did objectively, then defend it subjectively, don't just tell us the subjective part), but you won't tell us.

*Reasonable as defined by something being supported or justified by fact.

Macroi, I'll be posting up my system for balancing in the modding forum in a bit. I don't know why anyone thinks editing the EDU text is a monumental task, I edited the one for my mod and balanced it in the matter of days... despite radical changes, it is far more balanced than what I've seen of EB (particularly elephants and generals). I think this can be attributed to the fact I just don't stop working until it is done, and the fact I playtest over and over again.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

This mod is for fun. It's a volunteer thing. We do it for fun and our individual level of interest. That and a lot of hard work make Q a great guy to work in EB. He's a joy to work with and he is reasonable with people who show him respect (which is everyone in EB) and he gets a lot done.

Anyone is free to make further changes to EB as they like and make that available to the public also, but taking a hostile attitude at this point (and it is hostile) is not going to help anything. I don't see why any EB member would feel the need to have to come back and answer the imperatives and demands that are being made here. Actually, if people inside EB were this combative and hostile, no one would pay any attention to them.

[Macroi]

Qwerty is one of the least stubborn and hardest working members of EB I've known for a long time now (more than a year of hard ass work).

Well, that's good to hear, and I certainly have no reason to doubt it.

If you guys want to discuss this with him, go ahead...

We've been trying to do just that, actually. But it's difficult to discuss something intelligently with someone, when they consistently dismisses everything you say as nonsense, and refuse to go into any more detail than that.

...but there's an awful lot coming at him here that isn't exactly being done so in a polite way here, and now accusations that he's attacking others, when he's not.

Is it possible that you missed his earlier post? I could have easily posted a nasty reply of my own, but I chose to take the high road and let it go. So who is the one being disrespectful?

I'd much rather him be working on getting us to 1.5 and the next build out than going through and totally redoing all the stats for this mod at this point also, and that may be just my opinion, but I'll tell you it's what the mod as a whole would rather he be doing also at this point. You two have an issue that you are very concerned about here obviously, but he's not just here working on one thing, so keep that in mind.

I have no doubt that Qwerty is a very busy man, and has much more important things to be doing. Don't we all? But if he's going to take the time out of his day to come on here and dismiss my opinions out of hand, then he should be prepaired to be "called out" in order to back up his views. Is that unreasonable?

Enough with the exclamations, all caps, head-banging-rolly-eyes-squintylook smilies, "I already know EXACTLY what you are going to say" and "utter stubbornness" rudeness, and finally demands that he produce answers to your satisfaction.

Exclamation points and all caps are merely used for points of emphasis. Smilies are just plain fun. Personally, I like them. They add a light-hearted flavor to conversations which all-too-often get overly serious (case in point).

You'll notice that I used exclamation points and smilies in my reply to Fallen, but no one would suggest that I was being disrespectful to him. Punctuation and smilies are not the issue. Respect is the issue. If Qwerty wants people to respect him, then he should take care to respect other people.

As far as "who said what"; well that's the wonderful thing about message boards - the written record is there in black and white for all to see.

I think I started out very pleasant and complimentary, but in Qwerty's very first post he insinuated that I was "working myself into a tizzy" over the numbers. That probably set us off on the wrong foot to begin with. I suppose it degenerated from there.

Anyway, I'm glad that you've taken the time to come here and vouch for Qwerty's character. I'm willing to take your word for it and move on.

(Edited for spelling. I'm sure there's still a few mistakes...)

[paullus]

Rather than this going off into the realms of angry smilies and relentless sarcasm, how about if those dissatisfied with the number system worked on an alternative system, and then posted it in the EB mods subforum, so that people could try it and see if it worked better than the current system?

Now, the idea of some tweaks (eg counting a pectoral as part of the shield) is quite interesting, largely because it could (maybe) increase realism and could be implemented into (rather than replacing entirely) the current system, to which Qwerty has devoted--it would seem--hundreds or even thousands of hours, and which I find works rather well.

Macroi and Fallen, if you do decide to work up your own system, I'd be interested in testing it at some point. Good luck on that if you do go in that direction, though it sounds like quite a bit of work.

[Macroi]

Macroi and Fallen, if you do decide to work up your own system, I'd be interested in testing it at some point. Good luck on that if you do go in that direction, though it sounds like quite a bit of work.

No doubt about that, it would be a helluva lot of work. That's why I was rather hoping one of you would try it out!

I'll give it a go when my schedule frees up a bit.

[khelvan]

Macroi, you are welcome to post and discuss things here as long as you do so with maturity.

However, you have shown that you lack that maturity, and your posts have become trollish. Until you grow up, or mature to whatever age you are, you are no longer welcome to post here, and your posts will be deleted, as is my policy with trolls.

My suggestion to you is to actually experience for yourself some of those things that you say others lack; then you will realize that maturity does not come from the experiences, but from how one deals with one's experiences. When you have done that, you will understand for yourself why the words you have written are simply hollow, and transparent as merely an attempt to troll/flame away. I assume, of course, that you actually care to learn something.

Edit: I have removed the trollish post and those that quote it at length. All further posts similar to it in nature will be deleted. Please try to be civil here.

[QwertyMIDX]

Fallen, your defination of "resonable" is obviously contingent upon my agreeing with you. You've made that abundently clear time and time agian. That is what I was saying.

Rather than this going off into the realms of angry smilies and relentless sarcasm, how about if those dissatisfied with the number system worked on an alternative system, and then posted it in the EB mods subforum, so that people could try it and see if it worked better than the current system?

I suggested this as well. It's fine with me, I'll eve have the mods post it.

Now, the idea of some tweaks (eg counting a pectoral as part of the shield) is quite interesting, largely because it could (maybe) increase realism and could be implemented into (rather than replacing entirely) the current system, to which Qwerty has devoted--it would seem--hundreds or even thousands of hours, and which I find works rather well..

I actually think this is a good idea, and will do some testing and talking with the rest of team and see if, and how far, we want to go down this route.

@Macroi: I didn't dismiss your views out of hand, as I have said I agree that your system is intuitive and logical, it looks very much like the system I started with. When I have enough free time to re-run tests and provide you with results I'm happy to do so, but re-running test is probably my absolute last priority (I am a full time University student with hours of academic and extracurricular actives every day, not to mention my commitment to EB which as any active member will tell you eats up an absurd amount of time). I feel like you've dismissed me out of hand far more often that I have with you, I assure that the defense values don't do work entirely as one would assume if they worked in exactly a one to one relationship. I assume the way in which RTW rolls attack v. defense causes this, but they have not give us this formula. Testing makes it's pretty clear that it's a simple roll of Attack Factor v. Total Defense. When I have time to run a large batch of test shifting the position of various defense factors I will post the results, but don’t hold your breath.

[Reverend Joe]

? This is getting out of hand, and people are getting too angry.

[fallen851]

Fallen, your defination of "resonable" is obviously contingent upon my agreeing with you. You've made that abundently clear time and time agian.

QM please correct me if I am wrong.

Ok definition: Reasonable as defined by something being supported or justified by fact. (From the dictionary).

How have you justified or support your EDU text choices to make them reasonable? How you told us facts about them supporting you choices (ie "I did this because of this" or "I did this because when I tested it this way it came out like this")? No.

These are objective statements, meaning you aren't inserting your opinion, you are simply reporting what you did in testing that made you decide.

You have told us opinions ("I think it is fine" or "The testing was good")

"Fine" and "good" are subjective statements, reasonable assessment would not include these.

My definition clearly comes from my dictionary and not whether or not you agree with me. It does not matter (as stated above) whether or not you agree with me, I just want to know why you did things a certain way (also stated above).

Finally, you notice importantly that I admited I was wrong in a previous arguement about overhand-spears, fully putting to the rest the claim I only think people that are reasonable are ones that agree with me. You were reasonable then, you presented me with evidence.

Now present me with evidence that you are being reasonable now? You simply haven't answered many of Macroi's major points. That is a fact, no subjectivity, it is just like saying "John Kerry lost the last presidential election".

Why haven't you answered his points? I can't answer that, only you can. But I assume (this is subjective) that you don't care, despite the fact Macroi was reasonable.

[QwertyMIDX]

I have in fact answered him, I said "yes this is logical but my testing has led me to move away from a similar system to the one I am using now." Why is this better you ask, I answer, because it provides the results the EB team asked me to provide. I have told you some of the reasons for it; I find defense points from shields to be problematic (because of AP issues) and somewhat erratic (because of the way RTW handles directional armor, soldiers are unable to a) be defended by their neighbor’s shield or to move their shield to defend their exposed side), hence my desire to use other methods. Further, I have said that the stats don't act entirely in the manner that one would predict from reading the information in the EDU, perhaps because of the manner in which the RTW engine applies (for an example of information left out of the EDU description at the top of the .txt, lethality is never mentioned nor is the formula via which RTW applies the stats). I have not had time to re-run dozens of tests to demonstrate this, and I won't anytime soon, feel free to run your own if you'd like. I'm not going to challenge the objective logic of Macroi's argument, because I don't think there is a problem with the logic, the problem is results, which are subjective, and which I have repeatedly tweaked our stats system to provide, as stated before our goal is not to produce a system that has logically flawless numbers, it is to produce a system that gives the subjective results we want. The numbers are a means to an end, that's all. As I have said many times, find me examples where the end result is a problem and I'll do my best to address them, and would be more than happy to try (and adopt if successful) your suggestions in addressing them, but I don't want to waste time throwing out a system gives our team the results it wants (generally, I'm sure there are issues, for example the early triarii need to be nerfed) in favor of going back to a system with more logical numbers and less accurate results.


As a side note about your claims about my "stubborness" as opposed to my claim as to you're inablity to respect my disagreement with you:

"Your" overhand spear argument wasn't yours; you didn’t say it was right, you asked what we thought about the person's argument. I told you I thought it was unlikely given the material and immaterial evidence we have. Other people got involved on issues of the way a spear would be used in the shield wall like formation of the classical phalanx, something that I did not feel was necessary as we don't really know how exactly the classical phalanx worked (it's rather hotly debated) and applies to what an ancient solider logically would or would not do often come up against evidence from our source (both material and immaterial) and I prefer to apply logic within the context of the sources, rather than as an isolated thought experiment. The other times I argued against something you actually declared support for (missile weapons and calavry effectiveness), my disagreement with you on that rendered me, in your eyes, stubborn as well. In the case of calavry my unwillingess to break with the vast majority of military historians and ancient evidence and support your claim that a calavry charge would be effective against the front of a pike formation was stubborn. If that is stubborn in your eyes than I suppose I am, but I do believe I acted in a completely reasonable way.

[fallen851]

"Your" overhand spear argument wasn't yours.

Ugh. I never said the overhand arguement was mine. I never even used "mine". Read it this time.

"Finally, you notice importantly that I admited I was wrong in a previous arguement about overhand-spears, fully putting to the rest the claim I only think people that are reasonable are ones that agree with me. You were reasonable then, you presented me with evidence."

Furthermore if you return to the initial thread, you'll see I support it intially as an "excellent arguement". Sigh.

As a side note about your claims about my "stubborness" as opposed to my claim as to you're inablity to respect my disagreement with you...

I disagree with you because you say this:

yes this is logical but my testing has led me to move away from a similar system to the one I am using now

So your testing led you away from a logical point of view to what? An illogical system? Why? What in your testing led you to do this? Was something particularly unbalanced?

Don't even answer those, I don't even care anymore. Obviously I didn't make it clear what a reasonable arguement was, and what subjectivity is. It should be quite clear that good and bad depend on each other, and right now we have one EDU file, yours, so it is both the best and worst EDU file for EB. People may see problems as part of the game when they shouldn't exist, and not say anything about them. Thus I will be creating my own EDU file. The thread with my formulas is located here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61877 You are welcome to comment, but I will not be moving away from a logical system.

There should be logical forumlas which you can defend precisely saying "I did this because of this", and there is in my EDU file. Formulas that aren't logical shouldn't be used, because the game is consistent. I'll be testing missiles tomorrow or Thursday, and the results of what happens vs shields and normal armor.

Your system is uniquely yours, and in your own words, it has "moved away" from logical testing, which will certainly be beyond my understanding. No one will ever win an arguement with irrationality.

Don't blame me for things you say.