Alright Kane, this will be the...third? time I've tried to explain this, but I'll try again anyway. I'd be willing to bet there's some sort of scam going on at this point, but who knows. I've gotten to the point in my life (like many on this and other Nerf/Nerd sites I'm convinced) where I have so little useful to do, having this pissing exchanges gets to be kind of enjoyable after awhile; kinda like fencing, only fencing takes skill and I don't get to face you in person.
All you did was make an ill informed suggestion, which even given your incomplete information was fairly stupid. So, that's why we're hating on you.
The fact that you compared WWI to a nerf war has not helped your case.
Anything else I could add would be redundant at this point.
Yeah, I made an ill-informed suggestion...back at post #1. Seriously? What the fuck dude? Yeah, we all got that, even me oddly enough; we moved past it, to things that are somewhat useful (though I'll address that later). I don't think now that my suggestion was stupid or that my info was in fact quite as incomplete as perceived, however it may have been. I've apologized now, and thanked the posters multiple times now actually for their info and updates. What the hell more do you want from me? I don't normally site the CoC or play backseat moderator, but some of the posts here easily qualify (at least in my book, though I know societal norms regarding courtesy and responsibility are rapidly degrading and used as hypocritical ad hominim arguments on principle alone) as "pointless flames," "something to say," (though I think the word 'useful' is missing there, since we are in the full throes of nitpick...again), and frankly "think before you post," because particularly in your case, you seem to have just shot from the hip for the sake of it...which goes back to "pointless flames."
Regarding 'real guns/battles' and 'Nerf,' you missed a key word in that whole quote you read but failed to use constructively (if you had, you'd swiftly realize your own post was the redundant one) was "principles." If you regarded principles, learned and absorbed and used them (besides the quick and easy ones, of course) you would have likely realized I was (and I think am, depending) on the right track. Go take some history classes, seriously. Actually, read the entire post again, and look up those links, and then replace everything that has to do with firearms or any relation thereof with Nerf and it's relations, and you'd find it disturbingly accurate, again
taken from my perspective. Musket engagements in those situations were very short distance, which was much dictated by the cover in that battle (a lot of cover) as the skill of the troops. There are many battles from that time period when opposing troops could see the whites of each others' eyes and shot each other to death. All I did was apply a
principle, and that's it. WWI was merely used as another angle on the argument, and in fact I wasn't relying on at all, because it was a very similar outcome through a different dynamic, which is what Ryan, Ice Nine, and others have been arguing, whereas I was arguing more for the dynamic of The Wilderness and similar battles...and now, but only now, is my post redundant. If it wasn't for your post, and my findings I'm about to delineate following (and event then) my next reply likely would have been just the rather-typical-but-sincere, "Thanks again, Nerf on," but nope, you had to follow like a duck in a row and continue the shit train...I'm not sure you've noticed, but all of us had largely moved on by now, only you came out of left field throwing turd-balls...in the non-existent 10th inning of a 10-2 ballgame...
------------------------------
And now to the sensible people in topic.
Thanks again Vacc and Carbon for your responses; it is...refreshing, to say the least.
I'm more with Vacc on this, I like to play with moderate cover, or somewhat less even, depending. But as Vacc pointed out, this all goes with personal/local-group preference than anything, and something I (and I feel many after I viewed
this little gem largely by accident, trying to find how to make slugs; I found out indirectly, no need to address that) managed to not even register as a possible miscommunication/misunderstanding. Indeed, Chicago seems to have quite the problems pulling off that balancing act, though it seemed to as others have pointed out, quite a year of contention. My main question now is, considering what Vacc has pointed out, Carbon well put as simply having fun (the most important part I feel, besides basic safety), is where are things now in fact? Most of the people posting here, after cross-referencing that thread with this, are of the "Chicago mentality" I guess would be the best way to put it (since as pointed out there, many things are oddly-geographically based). I myself never once had a problem taking a dart, well anywhere; it's always been the nature of the game. As I tried to make clear previously, I and no one I've Nerfed with really had balance issues. Now again, given RoF + range, yes I'd likely get smoked, but then again as Vacc pointed out (and I was alluding to earlier) it's hard to say given you're not there and experiencing the local area. Indeed based on the older thread, the KS-MO border-area Nerfing seems to be just fine, other than that they seem to be somewhat behind the times regarding their tech...but that doesn't seem to have bothered them as much as others.
Regarding game types: I've only actually played a few CTF; virtually everything else has always been TDM. Flow of play, balance, motivation, etc. was rarely lacking. Again obviously things have changed, but we really weren't getting angry at each other.
The conclusion I reached was that if you have a group of good nerfers who know what they are doing, all armed sufficiently, most anything will be fun. It's when you have less experienced nerfers, with sub-optimal weapons, that you run the risk of dud rounds.
This. I think that hits the nail on the head. Both of the conditions must be met for the bad scenario to occur, and here we have the classic, "weapon vs. user" argument. I am a reasonably firm believe in the wielder being able to use most anything to win, given the same broad category (projectile vs. melee, for instance); weapons I feel give edges, but rarely are they make-or-break. In my case, generally (and I gather likely out in Wichita and elsewhere nearby) we'd be generally less-well equipped, but they don't seem to have nearly the same chemistry problems elsewhere. Indeed, that thread (and here) severe skills of eggshell walking were needed to not draw so much as a curse, and well, no skill in that regard seems to have been enough. I recall something in the previous cited thread about basically, 'taking a hit and being a man;' but people seem to have no problem dishing out the abuse with their mouth that they don't seem to be able to take with their body...this is an odd paradox that's been running rampant nowadays I feel.
I think that's it for now, I've pretty much got my answers. I will say, particularly since Vacc has been monitoring this thread, I've already been motivated to join another Nerf forums; not as big as this, but decent size, and none of the latent hostility (or at least much, far less). I'll still be around as NH is obviously the hub of modern Nerf, but my umpteenth return was met exactly with what I had expected: a great deal of good nostalgia and initial interaction, and an equal amount of flame-raping.
This topic is locked
