Just make it so we can do terrain!

Just make it so we can do terrain!

Psh. I lack motivation for such a project, especially in the shadow of the mountain of SC... Sure it's far away, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cast a far shadow. xC

Psh. I lack motivation for such a project, especially in the shadow of the mountain of SC... Sure it's far away, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cast a far shadow. xC

[quote=devilesk]No.[/quote] Reason plz or gtfo. I'm gonna re-write this article soon. I has a new plans for it.

Quote from devilesk

No.

Reason plz or gtfo.



I'm gonna re-write this article soon. I has a new plans for it.

[QUOTE]Reason plz or gtfo.[/QUOTE] NO U!

Quote

Reason plz or gtfo.

NO U!

[quote=Falkoner][QUOTE]Reason plz or gtfo.[/QUOTE] NO U![/quote] [IMG]http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/3948/nouhq5.jpg[/IMG]

NO U!!!! [IMG=http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9585/noucyclemo5.gif]

NO U!!!!

Please don't spam. . .Spamming NO U! is only for mafia :D .

Please don't spam. . .Spamming NO U! is only for mafia .

[quote=Falkoner][QUOTE]Reason plz or gtfo.[/QUOTE] NO U![/quote] I actually agree with this. The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest. [QUOTE] * Kudos: No map = an eventual end to praise over the idea once people get over it. Ideas, unlike real products, do not have substance to them. The idea itself is only half the equation. Without the other half, it's only hollow suspense and anticipation. You miss out on the long-term investment if you can't put an idea into reality.[/QUOTE] Define "real" [QUOTE] * Community: No map = nothing to play, learn from for other mappers, or to provide new avenues to sustain interest in UMS maps and mapping.[/QUOTE] Why must one need to play to learn or learn from other mappers? New avenues are not needed to sustain interest. Anyway there are plenty of ways untapped avenues in the realm of discussing maps that will never be finished. [QUOTE] * Learning: How can you know what went right or wrong about a given idea if you don't get to see the results of it in practice?[/QUOTE] How can you even know what "right" and "wrong" are?

Quote from Falkoner

Quote

Reason plz or gtfo.

NO U!

I actually agree with this.

The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest.

Quote

* Kudos: No map = an eventual end to praise over the idea once people get over it. Ideas, unlike real products, do not have substance to them. The idea itself is only half the equation. Without the other half, it's only hollow suspense and anticipation. You miss out on the long-term investment if you can't put an idea into reality.

Define "real"

Quote

* Community: No map = nothing to play, learn from for other mappers, or to provide new avenues to sustain interest in UMS maps and mapping.

Why must one need to play to learn or learn from other mappers? New avenues are not needed to sustain interest. Anyway there are plenty of ways untapped avenues in the realm of discussing maps that will never be finished.

Quote

* Learning: How can you know what went right or wrong about a given idea if you don't get to see the results of it in practice?

How can you even know what "right" and "wrong" are?

[quote=devilesk][quote=Falkoner][QUOTE]Reason plz or gtfo.[/QUOTE] NO U![/quote] I actually agree with this.[/quote]Good. Then you acknowledge you're just here to troll and I needn't waste time replying to the rest of your bs.

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Falkoner

Quote

Reason plz or gtfo.

NO U!

I actually agree with this.

Good. Then you acknowledge you're just here to troll and I needn't waste time replying to the rest of your bs.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=devilesk][quote=Falkoner][QUOTE]Reason plz or gtfo.[/QUOTE] NO U![/quote] I actually agree with this.[/quote]Good. Then that saves me some trouble wasting time to reply now that I know you're just full of shit. As usual.[/quote] I take that as an admittance of defeat. I have provided good reason, you have not. That is why I agree with "no you" in your response asking for reason.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Falkoner

Quote

Reason plz or gtfo.

NO U!

I actually agree with this.

Good. Then that saves me some trouble wasting time to reply now that I know you're just full of shit.

As usual.

I take that as an admittance of defeat. I have provided good reason, you have not. That is why I agree with "no you" in your response asking for reason.

The last quoted reply you "agreed" to indicated you think you don't need to bother explaining why you said I was wrong. Therefore anything else you say afterwards can safely be ignored because clearly you think you have no obligation to bother providing valid information with your statements. So, neither do I. To you, at least. I've done this shit long enough to know how it works, thank you very much. I needn't suffer stupid trolls to tell me it works otherwise.

The last quoted reply you "agreed" to indicated you think you don't need to bother explaining why you said I was wrong. Therefore anything else you say afterwards can safely be ignored because clearly you think you have no obligation to bother providing valid information with your statements. So, neither do I. To you, at least.

I've done this shit long enough to know how it works, thank you very much. I needn't suffer stupid trolls to tell me it works otherwise.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar]The last quoted reply you "agreed" to indicated you think you don't need to bother explaining why you said I was wrong.[/quote] Define "wrong", gg. I never said what you said was "wrong", but what is "wrong" and how am I "wrong"?

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

The last quoted reply you "agreed" to indicated you think you don't need to bother explaining why you said I was wrong.

Define "wrong", gg. I never said what you said was "wrong", but what is "wrong" and how am I "wrong"?

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar]The last quoted reply you "agreed" to indicated you think you don't need to bother explaining why you said I was wrong. Therefore anything else you say afterwards can safely be ignored because clearly you think you have no obligation to bother providing valid information with your statements. So, neither do I. To you, at least. I've done this shit long enough to know how it works, thank you very much. I needn't suffer stupid trolls to tell me it works otherwise.[/quote] That quote implied he thought you needed to give reasons or gtfo. Try harder to understand. Btw, you totally fail at handling 'trolls'. Calling them stupid (and that attitude) feeds the fire. (I, personally, don't find this to really be trolling)

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

The last quoted reply you "agreed" to indicated you think you don't need to bother explaining why you said I was wrong. Therefore anything else you say afterwards can safely be ignored because clearly you think you have no obligation to bother providing valid information with your statements. So, neither do I. To you, at least.

I've done this shit long enough to know how it works, thank you very much. I needn't suffer stupid trolls to tell me it works otherwise.

That quote implied he thought you needed to give reasons or gtfo. Try harder to understand.

Btw, you totally fail at handling 'trolls'. Calling them stupid (and that attitude) feeds the fire. (I, personally, don't find this to really be trolling)

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar]I've done this shit long enough to know how it works, thank you very much. I needn't suffer stupid trolls to tell me it works otherwise.[/quote] I'll take that as an admittance that you are an experienced troller and everything else you say can just be ignored.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

I've done this shit long enough to know how it works, thank you very much. I needn't suffer stupid trolls to tell me it works otherwise.

I'll take that as an admittance that you are an experienced troller and everything else you say can just be ignored.

[quote=Dapperdan][quote=Tuxedo-Templar]The last quoted reply you "agreed" to indicated you think you don't need to bother explaining why you said I was wrong. Therefore anything else you say afterwards can safely be ignored because clearly you think you have no obligation to bother providing valid information with your statements. So, neither do I. To you, at least. I've done this shit long enough to know how it works, thank you very much. I needn't suffer stupid trolls to tell me it works otherwise.[/quote] That quote implied he thought you needed to give reasons or gtfo. Try harder to understand.[/quote]Except the ball was in his court already for explaining why he thought my earlier reasons were wrong (his 'No.' reply, obviously). [i]My[/i] explanations had already been made and were in need of the reply, so that doesn't apply. Try harder to understand. [quote]Calling them stupid (and that attitude) feeds the fire.[/quote] Meh. He already knows he's a troll. I just wanna see if I can get him banned again. :lol:

Quote from Dapperdan

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

The last quoted reply you "agreed" to indicated you think you don't need to bother explaining why you said I was wrong. Therefore anything else you say afterwards can safely be ignored because clearly you think you have no obligation to bother providing valid information with your statements. So, neither do I. To you, at least.

I've done this shit long enough to know how it works, thank you very much. I needn't suffer stupid trolls to tell me it works otherwise.

That quote implied he thought you needed to give reasons or gtfo. Try harder to understand.

Except the ball was in his court already for explaining why he thought my earlier reasons were wrong (his 'No.' reply, obviously). My explanations had already been made and were in need of the reply, so that doesn't apply.

Try harder to understand.

Quote

Calling them stupid (and that attitude) feeds the fire.

Meh. He already knows he's a troll. I just wanna see if I can get him banned again.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=Dapperdan][quote=Tuxedo-Templar]The last quoted reply you "agreed" to indicated you think you don't need to bother explaining why you said I was wrong. Therefore anything else you say afterwards can safely be ignored because clearly you think you have no obligation to bother providing valid information with your statements. So, neither do I. To you, at least. I've done this shit long enough to know how it works, thank you very much. I needn't suffer stupid trolls to tell me it works otherwise.[/quote] That quote implied he thought you needed to give reasons or gtfo. Try harder to understand.[/quote]Except the ball was in his court already for explaining why he thought my earlier reasons were wrong (his 'No.' reply, obviously). [i]My[/i] explanations had already been made and were in need of the reply, so that doesn't apply. [/quote] You have still failed to explain how your reasons are "right", and no doesn't mean "wrong" either. [QUOTE] Meh. He already knows he's a troll. I just wanna see if I can get him banned again. :lol:[/QUOTE] I'm not trolling, but you have admitted that you are.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from Dapperdan

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

The last quoted reply you "agreed" to indicated you think you don't need to bother explaining why you said I was wrong. Therefore anything else you say afterwards can safely be ignored because clearly you think you have no obligation to bother providing valid information with your statements. So, neither do I. To you, at least.

I've done this shit long enough to know how it works, thank you very much. I needn't suffer stupid trolls to tell me it works otherwise.

That quote implied he thought you needed to give reasons or gtfo. Try harder to understand.

Except the ball was in his court already for explaining why he thought my earlier reasons were wrong (his 'No.' reply, obviously). My explanations had already been made and were in need of the reply, so that doesn't apply.

You have still failed to explain how your reasons are "right", and no doesn't mean "wrong" either.

Quote

Meh. He already knows he's a troll. I just wanna see if I can get him banned again.

I'm not trolling, but you have admitted that you are.

[QUOTE][QUOTE] Meh. He already knows he's a troll. I just wanna see if I can get him banned again. :lol:[/QUOTE] I'm not trolling, but you have admitted that you are.[/quote] Trolling a troll... is that like a double negative? Or a divide by 0? I need to understand the nature of this. You see, the thing is this: Whenever someone claims they really need the definitions of "right" and "wrong" explained to them, especially in a map making thread (a pretty easily understood context), either they're too dumb to look around them and bother using common sense to figure it out, they're just trolling for a discussion they know will just go around in circles, or they're legitimately trying to establish a common agreement on terms. When you go and agree to a "NO U" reply, that pretty much eliminates the latter case. And I don't think you're actually [i]that[/i] dumb to not understand the first. Therefore, there's only one left. And hence, gg. I eat trolls for breakfast! :flamer:

Quote

Quote

Meh. He already knows he's a troll. I just wanna see if I can get him banned again.

I'm not trolling, but you have admitted that you are.

Trolling a troll... is that like a double negative? Or a divide by 0? I need to understand the nature of this.

You see, the thing is this: Whenever someone claims they really need the definitions of "right" and "wrong" explained to them, especially in a map making thread (a pretty easily understood context), either they're too dumb to look around them and bother using common sense to figure it out, they're just trolling for a discussion they know will just go around in circles, or they're legitimately trying to establish a common agreement on terms.

When you go and agree to a "NO U" reply, that pretty much eliminates the latter case. And I don't think you're actually that dumb to not understand the first. Therefore, there's only one left. And hence, gg.





I eat trolls for breakfast!

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar] [QUOTE][QUOTE] Meh. He already knows he's a troll. I just wanna see if I can get him banned again. :lol:[/QUOTE] I'm not trolling, but you have admitted that you are.[/quote] Trolling a troll... is that like a double negative? Or a divide by 0? I need to understand the nature of this. [/quote] I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] You see, the thing is this: Whenever someone claims they really need the definitions of "right" and "wrong" explained to them, especially in a map making thread (a pretty easily understood context), either they're too dumb to look around them and bother using common sense to figure it out, they're just trolling for a discussion they know will just go around in circles, or they're legitimately trying to establish a common agreement on terms. [/quote] Define "common sense". It seems like you just can't define "right" and "wrong" and instead are attacking me in an attempt to avoid an answer. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] When you go and agree to a "NO U" reply, that pretty much eliminates the latter case. And I don't think you're actually [i]that[/i] dumb to not understand the first. Therefore, there's only one left. And hence, gg. [/quote] I have already explained my agreement with the "no u" reply. You're just ignoring it once again. Hence, gg. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] I eat trolls for breakfast! :flamer:[/quote] You are what you eat.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote

Quote

Meh. He already knows he's a troll. I just wanna see if I can get him banned again.

I'm not trolling, but you have admitted that you are.

Trolling a troll... is that like a double negative? Or a divide by 0? I need to understand the nature of this.

I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

You see, the thing is this: Whenever someone claims they really need the definitions of "right" and "wrong" explained to them, especially in a map making thread (a pretty easily understood context), either they're too dumb to look around them and bother using common sense to figure it out, they're just trolling for a discussion they know will just go around in circles, or they're legitimately trying to establish a common agreement on terms.

Define "common sense". It seems like you just can't define "right" and "wrong" and instead are attacking me in an attempt to avoid an answer.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

When you go and agree to a "NO U" reply, that pretty much eliminates the latter case. And I don't think you're actually that dumb to not understand the first. Therefore, there's only one left. And hence, gg.

I have already explained my agreement with the "no u" reply. You're just ignoring it once again. Hence, gg.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

I eat trolls for breakfast!

You are what you eat.

devilisk, you almost completely remind me of Shocko, you just like to come into topics and start arguments. There is no need to argue over this, at least not in this topic, if you want to continue arguing, argue over PMs, or start another topic. [QUOTE]You are what you eat.[/QUOTE] This is his topic, why would he troll in it?

devilisk, you almost completely remind me of Shocko, you just like to come into topics and start arguments.

There is no need to argue over this, at least not in this topic, if you want to continue arguing, argue over PMs, or start another topic.

Quote

You are what you eat.

This is his topic, why would he troll in it?

[quote=devilesk]I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling.[/quote] You agreed to a snarky NO U reply targeted against my request that you provide information to back your reason for saying 'No.' to my previous answer. You wouldn't say no to something if you agreed to it. Therefore you disagree, and you think it's wrong. But whatever. Here, I'll entertain your request for "common sense": In a mapping thread that addresses the topic of team-based map making where my addon reply for a separate issue was that mapping ought to be taken more seriously instead of just being expressly for fun (because maps don't get done or don't get done properly), my claim was such that this is what I think is the only thing that's "right"; a term that, in this context, applies to anything that furthers the mapping community and general interest in UMS maps and map making for Starcraft. Can you agree on that much at least? Ok. Then building off of that, you then went on to say "No." to my claim that WITHOUT new maps, there's little or no new growth to the mapping community. Ignoring that your NO U reply already just negated the rest of your arguments, you said the following: [quote]The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest.[/quote] Except that's not true. There's only so many times a person can be told something that isn't true (like a map that's going to be made but never is), or else simply let down with poor products, before credibility diminishes towards claims like that in general. Therefore, that is why I've stated that it's not enough to ONLY have map [i]ideas[/i]; ideas are only half the equation. You need the other half (at least some of the time) to sustain credibility by holding to promises. Which directly translates to helping the mapping community, and thus being "right" in this context. Hence why it's important for maps to be made without the expectation of an immediate personal return; they need to be oriented towards the goal of producing a playable product just as much, if not more, than simply being JUST for the personal fun of making them. Otherwise, more often then not, they fail to be completed, or simply drag on ad nauseum, and thus diminish credibility in the community (again). Consider that the last time I entertain your "arguments".

Quote from devilesk

I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling.

You agreed to a snarky NO U reply targeted against my request that you provide information to back your reason for saying 'No.' to my previous answer. You wouldn't say no to something if you agreed to it. Therefore you disagree, and you think it's wrong.


But whatever. Here, I'll entertain your request for "common sense": In a mapping thread that addresses the topic of team-based map making where my addon reply for a separate issue was that mapping ought to be taken more seriously instead of just being expressly for fun (because maps don't get done or don't get done properly), my claim was such that this is what I think is the only thing that's "right"; a term that, in this context, applies to anything that furthers the mapping community and general interest in UMS maps and map making for Starcraft.

Can you agree on that much at least?



Ok. Then building off of that, you then went on to say "No." to my claim that WITHOUT new maps, there's little or no new growth to the mapping community. Ignoring that your NO U reply already just negated the rest of your arguments, you said the following:

Quote

The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest.

Except that's not true. There's only so many times a person can be told something that isn't true (like a map that's going to be made but never is), or else simply let down with poor products, before credibility diminishes towards claims like that in general. Therefore, that is why I've stated that it's not enough to ONLY have map ideas; ideas are only half the equation. You need the other half (at least some of the time) to sustain credibility by holding to promises. Which directly translates to helping the mapping community, and thus being "right" in this context.



Hence why it's important for maps to be made without the expectation of an immediate personal return; they need to be oriented towards the goal of producing a playable product just as much, if not more, than simply being JUST for the personal fun of making them. Otherwise, more often then not, they fail to be completed, or simply drag on ad nauseum, and thus diminish credibility in the community (again).





Consider that the last time I entertain your "arguments".