Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

I cant believe I have to point this out....

I don't even bother with asteroid tbh

Just let the Civilians take care of them, they're a reasonable source of income when they deplete an asteroid except for a single mineral with .1 availability and huge abundance, just set to sell and rake in the cash.

Those are the 2 quotes I responded to. Then you (Flying Dice) responded with a post that sounded a lot like you were implying that I had not noticed that mining asteroids was a temporary measure, when there was literally nothing about asteroids not being a temporary measure mentioned. Both of them said they don't bother to asteroids, I made a quip about mining them during a shortage of minerals, and then you came in acting like I didn't notice something, which confused the heck out of me. Maybe "prove the rule" is a saying I am not used to or something. It's really a minor thing and I am tempted to call it a semantics argument.

[Flying Dice]

I cant believe I have to point this out....

I don't even bother with asteroid tbh

Just let the Civilians take care of them, they're a reasonable source of income when they deplete an asteroid except for a single mineral with .1 availability and huge abundance, just set to sell and rake in the cash.

Those are the 2 quotes I responded to. Then you (Flying Dice) responded with a post that sounded a lot like you were implying that I had not noticed that mining asteroids was a temporary measure, when there was literally nothing about asteroids not being a temporary measure mentioned. Both of them said they don't bother to asteroids, I made a quip about mining them during a shortage of minerals, and then you came in acting like I didn't notice something, which confused the heck out of me. Maybe "prove the rule" is a saying I am not used to or something. It's really a minor thing and I am tempted to call it a semantics argument.

Yeah. It's a saying. "The exception that proves the rule..." is literally what it sounds like. Forsaken and Marc both made posts to the effect of "it's generally not worth the bother to mine asteroids yourself." You responded with "well in this one specific situation it did help me out."

Here's my perception:

1. Them: This is a general rule of thumb.
2. You: Here is one case where it was worthwhile.
3. Me: *Insert old saying, somewhat jokingly.*
4. You: Overreact, "OMG what are you talking about this legitimately happened to me," implying that this case shows that the rule doesn't work.
5. Me: "Did you not read what I wrote?"
6. You: "Why are you upset?" Also making assumptions about unfamiliar words.
7. Me: "Here is a definition of that word. And here, let me clarify what I was talking about."
8. You: "What are you even talking about."

So no. It's not pedantry or semantics. It's you not parsing a sentence which was, at least in my experience, pretty straightforward, and me thinking that you legitimately didn't understand what I was saying, or else weren't actually bothering to read my posts before responding. Christ on a crutch, I can't believe we just spent most of a page going back and forth because you didn't understand a saying and I didn't catch that that was what was going on.  :I

Let me explain the saying as plainly as possible. When something generally holds true, we call that a rule. So, for example, it's generally a good idea to look both ways before crossing a street. Sometimes there are specific instances where not adhering to the rule is better. To use that same example, crossing a street without pausing to check for traffic seconds before a drunk driver ran up on the sidewalk where you would have been. In that situation, not following the rule turned out to be beneficial, but that doesn't negate the fact that it usually is. When you translate that into this conversation, it goes like this: Generally, it's best to ignore asteroids and let civilians mine them out, as they usually have pretty small deposits scattered across a system. However, in specific cases where you're out of a given mineral and need some quickly while you search for or develop a larger deposit in another system, mining asteroids yourself can be worth the extra effort. Get it?

[Micro102]

Well when I hear "exception that proves the rule" I find a bit of a contradiction there. Isn't the definition of an exception something that does not follow a rule? So in order to prove the rule, it would have to both follow it and not follow it at the same time. And the rule that I interpreted was "don't mine asteroids". Not "don't mine asteroids in general".

And I was trying to avoid this, but if you want to talk about overreacting, you are the one enlarging your words and citing definitions and making freaking huge posts. I don't get why you thought I didn't realize that there was a stopgap when I said "there are neutronium filled asteroids that can keep you going long enough to set up a mining station on that far away planet". That's pretty much exactly what you said, but you seem to have constantly misunderstood what I have said at the start, which led me to misunderstand the meaning of your posts, and this exploded.

[Nuttycompa]

I think this is a good tome to stop, before next 2 or 3 page of this tread turn into back and forth between you two.

Your question has been answered.
The reason of your playstyle has been explained.
Both point of view and concerned in this argument have been note.
To continue from this point would give no benefit to any of us.

So I suggest we go back to normal schedule, Ask question, tell cool story, show off ship design or something like that.

[FritzPL]

I don't think you understand - it won't be a single page of this, because there is going to be someone reporting this to Toady, resulting in him either deleting these posts and temp banning those involved(that is, if he's in a good mood) or locking this thread altogether. So quit it now. Let the thread die due to inactivity, but not because of grammar nazism.

[Nuttycompa]

Naaaa, I like this thread and people involve in it, so lets not talk about banny thing.
If you ban everyone who change topic in the thread, this board will run out of members before next DF version come out you know

[Culise]

Alright, here's one for y'all to chew on.  One that's *not* related to getting everyone worked up into a screaming fury of quibble-doms.  I hope.

My latest game, I neglected to uncheck Invaders on a conventional start.  I now have a stable wormhole one hop, skip and a jump away from Sol itself, in a void system where I have no intel at all, and cannot set up an automated listening post/PDC to watch for transits.  Except for surveyors, I have yet to expand outside of the Sol system; I've barely colonized Mars and the Moon, and those mostly to set up civilian trade chains.  I'm running a difficulty house-rule that only lets me use scientists in the appropriate field to research topics; due to this and some unfortunate luck with scientists, I have next to no Defensive or Energy Weapon research, and I only have one scientist in Missiles/Kinetics, who I've barely used.  As such, my best weapons are still pre-TN ICBMs.  I'm still on Ion Drives, though I'm working my way up through Stellarators as a priority measure now.  Finally, I'm not really inclined to design Rock-type missile sponges (huge, heavily-armored civilian ships with CIWS and great, honking thermal signatures) or other AI- or game-breakers.  On a scale of 1 to buggered, how much trouble would you say I'm in, and do you have any thoughts on how to get out of this mess?  ^_^

For now, I'm thinking of replacing the old ICBM facilities with hangers, rush-designing some missiles, and setting up a fighter fleet in the near-term to flood anything coming out of that jump point.  Thankfully, I have some ridiculous-large jump nexuses (something like 7-8 jump points out of Sol, and several more similar systems within 1-3 jumps), which means that while defensibility and organizing the galactic map are a concern, expansion paths are not.  Pushing them out more permanently will be more problematic; I can't set up a stationary facility to keep watch, which means that anything put on station there will need to devote space to maintenance, and at this low tech level, space is at a premium. 

[RedKing]

Worth noting that civvies will only set up shop on asteroids containing at least a 0.3 concentration deposit of Duranium or Sorium.
So yeah...if you have a critical need for a mineral other than those two (*cough* Mercassium *cough*) and there's a rock out there with a nice tasty deposit that the civvies are never going to touch, then it makes some sense to go mine it yourself.

Typically in that situation, I build a slow miner (sometimes not even with engines) and either chug away to the desired asteroid/comet or tug it there, then use a freighter to drop off a mass driver and point it at Earth (or whatever collection point floats my boat).

Takes just a small amount of management and resources up-front, and then it's a fire-and-forget solution until that one runs dry, and I close up shop and move it to another asteroid.


I'm still waiting for the patch that will let you hire civilian freighters to haul minerals. That would be tremendous.

[Lord Shonus]

Well when I hear "exception that proves the rule" I find a bit of a contradiction there. Isn't the definition of an exception something that does not follow a rule? So in order to prove the rule, it would have to both follow it and not follow it at the same time.

In "exception that proves the rule", "proves" is used in the slightly archaic sense of "testing" rather than "confirming", much as "bulletproof" means it was tested against bullets (and passed) or 80-proof liquor is at 80% of the testing level.

[Flying Dice]

Well when I hear "exception that proves the rule" I find a bit of a contradiction there. Isn't the definition of an exception something that does not follow a rule? So in order to prove the rule, it would have to both follow it and not follow it at the same time. And the rule that I interpreted was "don't mine asteroids". Not "don't mine asteroids in general".

And I was trying to avoid this, but if you want to talk about overreacting, you are the one enlarging your words and citing definitions and making freaking huge posts. I don't get why you thought I didn't realize that there was a stopgap when I said "there are neutronium filled asteroids that can keep you going long enough to set up a mining station on that far away planet". That's pretty much exactly what you said, but you seem to have constantly misunderstood what I have said at the start, which led me to misunderstand the meaning of your posts, and this exploded.

Sorry, I thought that you were misunderstanding when you said this:

I also didn't see it as preventing me from expanding.

Because the only thing I could see in any of those posts which would make that make sense would be if you didn't know what 'stopgap' meant. But yeah, I'm done anyways. It's a misunderstanding that got out of hand. 

I don't think you understand - it won't be a single page of this, because there is going to be someone reporting this to Toady, resulting in him either deleting these posts and temp banning those involved(that is, if he's in a good mood) or locking this thread altogether. So quit it now. Let the thread die due to inactivity, but not because of grammar nazism.

ITT: Things that made me laugh uproariously today.

[Rince Wind]

So...my fighters moral is going down. They've been deployed (on their carrier) for more than 12 months, so that is fine. Just...the carrier has only been deployed for a little over 11 months and its moral is still fine.
(They are on training excercise, usually they are home by this time.)

[Shooer]

So...my fighters moral is going down. They've been deployed (on their carrier) for more than 12 months, so that is fine. Just...the carrier has only been deployed for a little over 11 months and its moral is still fine.
(They are on training excercise, usually they are home by this time.)

Does your carrier have enough spare berths for the fighter crews?

[Rince Wind]

Yes, 65 berths for 40 flightcrew.

[Vendayn]

I'm gonna give this a real actual try. I did download it a long time ago (years ago, probably 2005/2007) and I opened it up and then closed it. My tastes in games is a lot different though (or I know what I actually like to play compared to a few years ago), and so after watching videos and what not...this looks like my kinda game.

I see a patch is coming out, but for someone who has never really played...outside of having to restart...probably doesn't effect me too much in the short term.

Looks like I'll be losing a lot of time to this though

[MarcAFK]

I found a bug, If a task group is sent to "Land on assigned mothership" but contains ships that aren't assigned to that mothership, those ships will vanish after the rest of the task group lands and gets added to the motherships group.