The only part of your post necessary was the answer to his question, the jittery "how dare you question my internet credentials!" was completely unnecessary, along with the insults and ad hominem.

That post asking what your experiences of tournaments are is Sideslip's only post on the thread. If you immediately jump to the conclusion that's he's trying to tarnish the credibility you think you have then that's either a sign of paranoia or there's some merit to such an accusation.

Just because you learned a new word today doesn't mean you know what it means. Go look up ad hominem and learn why you use it improperly. I didn't attack the person instead I attack his argument. If I was insulting his character or his own abilities to play the game that would be ad hominem. If I attack the fact his entire point is based on a flawed premise it's NOT ad hominem. I hope you learned something today.

Not only is what you what false dichotomy, but the poster felt the need to preface his post by stating it's not mean to atk credibility when it clearly was since as I mentioned in my rebuttal it's a flawed premise. Furthermore I didn't jump to conclusions when the original poster had the deliberate intention of mentioning it in his post.

And there you go again. "Oh my god how dare someone ask about the tournaments I've been to! He must be trying to undermine me!"

A person making a civil argument doesn't tell someone that asked them a simple question that they've made a "worthless post." If a post is worthless then a civil argument illustrates politely the flaws in the post and allows the reader to come to that conclusion themselves. If you feel the need to directly describe a post as worthless then you obviously feel that it isn't clear from what you're saying. And of course it isn't, because it's false. It's a completely disproportionate hostile reaction to someone asking you a fair question and even qualifying that they mean no offence by it, and that begs the question: why would a calm, confident person not trying to compensate for anything by acting like an internet tough guy react like that?

tl;dr make a point already.

As a rock player I feel paper is overpowered and scissors is perfectly balanced.

Now you're arguing different things. It's not 3PO that makes a matchup between Interceptors and the Falcon hard, it's the turret & gunner.

3PO gets worse the more dice you throw at it. Lots of small ships is the best way to counter it. The Falcon has always struggled against lots of dice being thrown at it. 3PO doesn't really change that. 3PO just makes it better if it's being fired at by less dice.

Or you could just throw gunner on 1 ship and completely invalidate 3PO.

Also, you're not seeing a ton of Falcons right now because they are super/awesome/great/best ship ever. You're seeing a lot because they're the easiest counter to Phantoms, the Wave 4 heavy hitter. Phantoms are doing VERY well in the current meta. So...why wouldn't you want to counter it in the most efficient way possible?

I would put money on Falcon usage dropping off very soon and being replaced with YT-2400's and Decimators. Don't get me wrong, the Falcon is a good ship, but not a best ship and it's not broken with C-3PO. It's just a temporary surge in the meta. It will go away.

The point about turret and gunner was an aside about blocking a ship that's good at mitigating block damage. I even said "as an aside"...

My point still stands about the strength of the Falcon and C3PO against small # ship lists. This is the context I'm referring to when I explained why I didn't like C3PO. I used a three interceptor list as an example of something that already struggled against Falcon and I'm arguing that C3PO makes it even worse. Falcon didn't need a buff against small ship builds and C3PO, as you pointed out, buffs exactly that. It would be somewhat analogous to buffing Tie Swarm survivability or damage against large ships.

Of course swarms counter it. That's already been established and that's not what's being discussed. Hell, the OP of the thread explicitly said that he didn't like what C3PO does to the small ship meta. People still responded by saying that it's not overpowered and to counter it with a swarm, which misses the point, which, again, comes down to the diversity and viability of small ship lists. Falcon/C3PO is a combo that encourages swarms in a game that was already dominated by swarms.

Holy crap, a ship performs well specifically against what it was designed to perform well against!?!?!?

SAY IT AIN'T SO!

It really sounds like you're mad that your specific lists suck against falcons. to which I quote: Less qq more pewpew.

Please take the time to read my post. I was not complaining about Falcon itself countering small ship lists. And the disrespect wasn't warranted.

*whispers* you just made it longer

Oh, that must be a subtly veiled Phantom reference - PHANTOMS ARE OVERPOWERED YOU KNOW!!

tl;dr make a point already.

Simply defending Sideslip, who asked Gungo this completely civil and innocent question -

"What sort of tournaments have you played in since Wave 4 was released? This is a serious question, not an attack on your credibility. In my experience with the meta at major tournaments does not seem to match yours."

- and in return was lambasted for his high treason for daring question the credibility of Gungo The Infallible by the man himself.

Now you're arguing different things. It's not 3PO that makes a matchup between Interceptors and the Falcon hard, it's the turret & gunner.

3PO gets worse the more dice you throw at it. Lots of small ships is the best way to counter it. The Falcon has always struggled against lots of dice being thrown at it. 3PO doesn't really change that. 3PO just makes it better if it's being fired at by less dice.

Or you could just throw gunner on 1 ship and completely invalidate 3PO.

Also, you're not seeing a ton of Falcons right now because they are super/awesome/great/best ship ever. You're seeing a lot because they're the easiest counter to Phantoms, the Wave 4 heavy hitter. Phantoms are doing VERY well in the current meta. So...why wouldn't you want to counter it in the most efficient way possible?

I would put money on Falcon usage dropping off very soon and being replaced with YT-2400's and Decimators. Don't get me wrong, the Falcon is a good ship, but not a best ship and it's not broken with C-3PO. It's just a temporary surge in the meta. It will go away.

The point about turret and gunner was an aside about blocking a ship that's good at mitigating block damage. I even said "as an aside"...

My point still stands about the strength of the Falcon and C3PO against small # ship lists. This is the context I'm referring to when I explained why I didn't like C3PO. I used a three interceptor list as an example of something that already struggled against Falcon and I'm arguing that C3PO makes it even worse. Falcon didn't need a buff against small ship builds and C3PO, as you pointed out, buffs exactly that. It would be somewhat analogous to buffing Tie Swarm survivability or damage against large ships.

Of course swarms counter it. That's already been established and that's not what's being discussed. Hell, the OP of the thread explicitly said that he didn't like what C3PO does to the small ship meta. People still responded by saying that it's not overpowered and to counter it with a swarm, which misses the point, which, again, comes down to the diversity and viability of small ship lists. Falcon/C3PO is a combo that encourages swarms in a game that was already dominated by swarms.

Holy crap, a ship performs well specifically against what it was designed to perform well against!?!?!?

SAY IT AIN'T SO!

It really sounds like you're mad that your specific lists suck against falcons. to which I quote: Less qq more pewpew.

Please take the time to read my post. I was not complaining about Falcon itself countering small ship lists. And the disrespect wasn't warranted.

I did read your post, and bolded the part where you SPECIFICALLY SAID "My point still stands about the strength of the Falcon and C3PO against small # ship lists."

I'm going to try the dastardly 3P0 build everyone's concerned about ASAP, what other upgrades are considered the most egregious so I can test this out? I don't feel like slogging through 17 pages to find out what exactly what builds people are running.

Trying to invalidate someone's opinion because they've been to less tournament's than you is a pretty weak debate tactic.

I know X better than you know X because Y.

I'm going to try the dastardly 3P0 build everyone's concerned about ASAP, what other upgrades are considered the most egregious so I can test this out? I don't feel like slogging through 17 pages to find out what exactly what builds people are running.

You're retarded. It's 18 pages now!

/sarcasm

The only part of your post necessary was the answer to his question, the jittery "how dare you question my internet credentials!" was completely unnecessary, along with the insults and ad hominem.

That post asking what your experiences of tournaments are is Sideslip's only post on the thread. If you immediately jump to the conclusion that's he's trying to tarnish the credibility you think you have then that's either a sign of paranoia or there's some merit to such an accusation.

Just because you learned a new word today doesn't mean you know what it means. Go look up ad hominem and learn why you use it improperly. I didn't attack the person instead I attack his argument. If I was insulting his character or his own abilities to play the game that would be ad hominem. If I attack the fact his entire point is based on a flawed premise it's NOT ad hominem. I hope you learned something today.

Not only is what you what false dichotomy, but the poster felt the need to preface his post by stating it's not mean to atk credibility when it clearly was since as I mentioned in my rebuttal it's a flawed premise. Furthermore I didn't jump to conclusions when the original poster had the deliberate intention of mentioning it in his post.

And there you go again. "Oh my god how dare someone ask about the tournaments I've been to! He must be trying to undermine me!"

A person making a civil argument doesn't tell someone that asked them a simple question that they've made a "worthless post." If a post is worthless then a civil argument illustrates politely the flaws in the post and allows the reader to come to that conclusion themselves. If you feel the need to directly describe a post as worthless then you obviously feel that it isn't clear from what you're saying. And of course it isn't, because it's false. It's a completely disproportionate hostile reaction to someone asking you a fair question and even qualifying that they mean no offence by it, and that begs the question: why would a calm, confident person not trying to compensate for anything by acting like an internet tough guy react like that?

He neither undermined or made a point. He stated nothing but in simplistic terms "what have you ever done". The fact someone prefaces the statement with the comment claiming they are not doing something they clearly are doesn't change that fact. But you should know all this by now. Because as you yourself stated I answered his question and then proceeded to explains to him why his question was worthless considering local metas are only a small amount of data compared to the multiple tournament result threads on this forum. I never once called him names or insult him. I stated his post was worthless and clearly written to atk the credibility of someone when he had no intention of debating the argument at hand. However you are the one in this thread insulting posters by calling people names such as internet tough guy etc. This has nothing to do with this post or the original topic of individual local tournament results have no barring on the argument. So he fact of the matter is other then insulting people and ignoring the topics being discussed what are you bringing to he discussion? Other then the fact you are being the real internet tough guy!

The only part of your post necessary was the answer to his question, the jittery "how dare you question my internet credentials!" was completely unnecessary, along with the insults and ad hominem.

That post asking what your experiences of tournaments are is Sideslip's only post on the thread. If you immediately jump to the conclusion that's he's trying to tarnish the credibility you think you have then that's either a sign of paranoia or there's some merit to such an accusation.

Just because you learned a new word today doesn't mean you know what it means. Go look up ad hominem and learn why you use it improperly. I didn't attack the person instead I attack his argument. If I was insulting his character or his own abilities to play the game that would be ad hominem. If I attack the fact his entire point is based on a flawed premise it's NOT ad hominem. I hope you learned something today.

Not only is what you what false dichotomy, but the poster felt the need to preface his post by stating it's not mean to atk credibility when it clearly was since as I mentioned in my rebuttal it's a flawed premise. Furthermore I didn't jump to conclusions when the original poster had the deliberate intention of mentioning it in his post.

And there you go again. "Oh my god how dare someone ask about the tournaments I've been to! He must be trying to undermine me!"

A person making a civil argument doesn't tell someone that asked them a simple question that they've made a "worthless post." If a post is worthless then a civil argument illustrates politely the flaws in the post and allows the reader to come to that conclusion themselves. If you feel the need to directly describe a post as worthless then you obviously feel that it isn't clear from what you're saying. And of course it isn't, because it's false. It's a completely disproportionate hostile reaction to someone asking you a fair question and even qualifying that they mean no offence by it, and that begs the question: why would a calm, confident person not trying to compensate for anything by acting like an internet tough guy react like that?

He neither undermined or made a point. He stated nothing but in simplistic terms "what have you ever done". The fact someone prefaces the statement with the comment claiming they are not doing something they clearly are doesn't change that fact. But you should know all this by now. Because as you yourself stated I answered his question and then proceeded to explains to him why his question was worthless considering local metas are only a small amount of data compared to the multiple tournament result threads on this forum. I never once called him names or insult him. I stated his post was worthless and clearly written to atk the credibility of someone when he had no intention of debating the argument at hand. However you are the one in this thread insulting posters by calling people names such as internet tough guy etc. This has nothing to do with this post or the original topic of individual local tournament results have no barring on the argument. So he fact of the matter is other then insulting people and ignoring the topics being discussed what are you bringing to he discussion? Other then the fact you are being the real internet tough guy!

Seriously, wtf is your point already? Is there one? Why do you care when nobody else does?

Trying to invalidate someone's opinion because they've been to less tournament's than you is a pretty weak debate tactic.

I know X better than you know X because Y.

If you refer to Sideslip's question, Sideslip asks "what sort", not "how many". Seems clear to me that he was trying to pin down the source of the discrepancy between his personal experience and the person he posed the question to.

He neither undermined or made a point. He stated nothing but in simplistic terms "what have you ever done". The fact someone prefaces the statement with the comment claiming they are not doing something they clearly are doesn't change that fact. But you should know all this by now. Because as you yourself stated I answered his question and then proceeded to explains to him why his question was worthless considering local metas are only a small amount of data compared to the multiple tournament result threads on this forum. I never once called him names or insult him. I stated his post was worthless and clearly written to atk the credibility of someone when he had no intention of debating the argument at hand. However you are the one in this thread insulting posters by calling people names such as internet tough guy etc. This has nothing to do with this post or the original topic of individual local tournament results have no barring on the argument. So he fact of the matter is other then insulting people and ignoring the topics being discussed what are you bringing to he discussion? Other then the fact you are being the real internet tough guy!

His question can be seen at the top of this post. He asked what sort of tournaments you'd been to. His experience didn't correlate with yours and he was clearly interested as to why.

"I stated his post was worthless and clearly written to atk the credibility of someone when he had no intention of debating the argument at hand."

Evidence? You jumping to call his post a "worthless" attack on your ostensible credibility was your reply to the first question he asked.

"I never once called him names or insult him."

If you don't take your posts being called worthless as insulting I'll happily apply that label to all yours.

"So he fact of the matter is other then insulting people and ignoring the topics being discussed what are you bringing to he discussion?"

Feel free to look through my post history in this thread. As for insults, is referring to someone's post as worthless not an insult? As for "internet tough guy", you just called me that, undermining your own point with hypocrisy.

I did read your post, and bolded the part where you SPECIFICALLY SAID "My point still stands about the strength of the Falcon and C3PO against small # ship lists."

Oh? It looks like you bolded one part of my post and responded to it in the wrong context.

Holy crap, a ship performs well specifically against what it was designed to perform well against!?!?!?

This doesn't address my point at all. I even said in my original post that the Falcon was a rightful counter against many small ship lists. I have explicitly said that C3PO is a buff for the Falcon in a matchup where it didn't need one; it was already a great counter.

And, again, for the purposes of clarification:

1. I know falcon has a counter

2. I am not arguing that falcon is overpowered. It's not.

3. I do not like what C3PO does to the game and that's my opinion

I did read your post, and bolded the part where you SPECIFICALLY SAID "My point still stands about the strength of the Falcon and C3PO against small # ship lists."

Oh? It looks like you bolded one part of my post and responded to it in the wrong context.

Holy crap, a ship performs well specifically against what it was designed to perform well against!?!?!?

This doesn't address my point at all. I even said in my original post that the Falcon was a rightful counter against many small ship lists. I have explicitly said that C3PO is a buff for the Falcon in a matchup where it didn't need one; it was already a great counter.

And, again, for the purposes of clarification:

1. I know falcon has a counter

2. I am not arguing that falcon is overpowered. It's not.

3. I do not like what C3PO does to the game and that's my opinion

Right, so you're crying because you can. Nobody cares.

I've come to the conclusion that this is now the best way to respond to any post in this thread:

Right, so you're crying because you can. Nobody cares.

Again, there's no reason for disrespect. Let's try to keep this civil.

Peace is a lie, there is only passion. The chaos unleashed in this thread is pleasing to me.

*evil cackle*

It is clear to me now. Darth Ruin never wished to ban C-3PO. He simply wished to spark a clone thread war so that he could play both sides and reform the forum into the First Galactic -

Wait a second...

Trying to invalidate someone's opinion because they've been to less tournament's than you is a pretty weak debate tactic.

I know X better than you know X because Y.

If you refer to Sideslip's question, Sideslip asks "what sort", not "how many". Seems clear to me that he was trying to pin down the source of the discrepancy between his personal experience and the person he posed the question to.

Personal experience never counts for much as personal bias always effects what you recall, what matters is the hard data.

If you have a valid point it should be able to stand on its own merits without trying to discredit the other person.

The tournament thread gives the results of high level tournaments. Asking what sort (which could mean what level, what format, where in the world) of tournaments one has been to is not an implicit "if it's less than me I know better than you", especially when the poser of the question specifies they are not attempting to do such and are simply interested.

Just to clarify, are we now at the point of the argument in which we argue over the correct way to argue?

On the internet.

With people you don't know.

About toy plastic spaceships.

19 pages LOL

It is clear to me now. Darth Ruin never wished to ban C-3PO. He simply wished to spark a clone thread war so that he could play both sides and reform the forum into the First Galactic -

Wait a second...

Wrong Darth

It is clear to me now. Darth Ruin never wished to ban C-3PO. He simply wished to spark a clone thread war so that he could play both sides and reform the forum into the First Galactic -

Wait a second...

Wrong Darth

I didn't pick his username.

If it was Emperor Palpatine this thread would have melted down on Page 2 and would have been immediately followed by a thread on how to delete forum accounts.

It is clear to me now. Darth Ruin never wished to ban C-3PO. He simply wished to spark a clone thread war so that he could play both sides and reform the forum into the First Galactic -

Wait a second...

Wrong Darth

I didn't pick his username.

If it was Emperor Palpatine this thread would have melted down on Page 2 and would have been immediately followed by a thread on how to delete forum accounts.

Well, he would've used Force Lightning, to teach any pesky young Jedi wannabes the true power of the Force