Shard cooperation is neither secret nor illegal, therefore not collusion, so yes it is manipulative and lying to call it such.
You know you're wrong when you're arguing semantics over content.
"It's not illegal, therefore we can do it!" Okay, cool. Enjoy those crystals, but those of us with ethics are going to compete in the literal only part of the game that involves direct competition.
Whatever man. People are misusing 2 terms in ways that are insulting a ton of people.
Your ethics are yours, ethics are not universal. Insulting people because they have different ethics than yours isn't cool.
If you say you don't like it, that you don't want to play that way, I'd be cool with it, but calling people cheaters or colluders when they are plainly not either (by the very definition of those words) is what I take issue with.
I'm arguing semantics because the words people are using are insulting and inappropriate, not because I am trying to justify anything.
I think we will see more of those blue zombies turn purple soon as NS teams evolve and RJT continues to take hold. Once you actually have NS well-built and many on the shard have converted to RJT instead of CLS I think a strong Zombie will clearly be optimal to block the Trooper swap. A strong NS team I think will be better off in D and on offense trading blows and not using NA at all...I think she's dead weight now.
I think we will see more of those blue zombies turn purple soon as NS teams evolve and RJT continues to take hold. Once you actually have NS well-built and many on the shard have converted to RJT instead of CLS I think a strong Zombie will clearly be optimal to block the Trooper swap. A strong NS team I think will be better off in D and on offense trading blows and not using NA at all...I think she's dead weight now.
I do agree with this assessment. I have been using g11 zombie from the start many have had issues with my team. Again the weak zombie has no effect on the na zombie combo weak zombie is all for Asajj and daka.
I have actually won many battles where na never stealthed or is dead.
The weak zombie is a gimmick to help Asajj charge up faster to help a weaker NS team climb ranks but is not needed for a NS team to climb ranks. I have no problems with the gimmick. There will always be gimmicks to let weaker teams climb. To me it seems the main issue for many is they can't use one team to beat everything, we'll in the long run I think that is a good thing. One team beating everything is how you get stale repeative arena teams.
I am honestly torn over the whole NS thing. I will never use them myself because I hate to be such a nuisance to other players, but at the same time, I admire the fact that the team takes very minimal effort/resources yet accomplishes such great tasks and is extremely effective - thus should be the case for any real military team/operation. Plus, it is something different for the meta. But again, I do find it to be the most annoying thing in this game to face.
I think we will see more of those blue zombies turn purple soon as NS teams evolve and RJT continues to take hold. Once you actually have NS well-built and many on the shard have converted to RJT instead of CLS I think a strong Zombie will clearly be optimal to block the Trooper swap. A strong NS team I think will be better off in D and on offense trading blows and not using NA at all...I think she's dead weight now.
The weak zombie is a gimmick to help Asajj charge up faster to help a weaker NS team climb ranks but is not needed for a NS team to climb ranks. I have no problems with the gimmick. There will always be gimmicks to let weaker teams climb. To me it seems the main issue for many is they can't use one team to beat everything, we'll in the long run I think that is a good thing. One team beating everything is how you get stale repeative arena teams.
I don't have an issue with this gimmick per se, i'm fine with NS bringing more diversity to arena. However, an argument could be made for not wanting toons to perform (arguably) better at lower gear than at high gear.
Also, i don't see arena moving away from 1 team being able to beat all teams any time soon. AI is just weaksauce by design. Even if there are many different teams being used in the top ranks, it's not that difficult to form a team that defeats all of them atleast on offense. Weren't you the guy who was using ewoks successfully in arena? Or maybe i'm just pessimistic..
I am honestly torn over the whole NS thing. I will never use them myself because I hate to be such a nuisance to other players, but at the same time, I admire the fact that the team takes very minimal effort/resources yet accomplishes such great tasks and is extremely effective - thus should be the case for any real military team/operation. Plus, it is something different for the meta. But again, I do find it to be the most annoying thing in this game to face.
And it used to be Dooku, and then everyone had to deal with Rey... #nerfrey ... and the Cheese bro's Wiggs, then the big Cheaze themselves, Chaze. and becuase having all those abilities in one toon wasn't enough they came with Cheese Luke Skywalker to make the Arena ABSOLUTELY bland as bland can be.
Like in the other NS thread. There's been cheese and then counter cheese.
Sorry to everyone that you like the bland CLS meta. Sorry you like the single hit team that everyone uses and that NS wrecks it.
Sorry to say, and this is the kicker, weak zombie is there as a detractor - because if he single hit team makes one mistake, they're toast. You don't need zombie for anything, it's low star, so I sub i Talia everywhere else in the game when I use NS, and she does a much better job. The zombie is there because I KNOW it scares the meta teams and, thusly, I can hold rank easier. This is bland team problem - with single hitters - who, like all the META before, don't want to adapt.
Really, if flippin' Plo Kloon can counter a team comp.... then you really are whining. Go join the trans-meta Droid users from the beggining of the game who complained after having months and months and months of of enjoying a meta-proof status. You're all in the same category now.
As always, #nerfrey
On my server we have a guy with a **** team of NS who thinks his place is in top 10, well the shard has decided not to go down the cheap route, we beat him back constantly.
As someone who runs NS, I have to say, one of my favorite things about them is how they make all the entitled shard colluders mad.
There's no such thing as shard collusion. Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer.
Using a word that doesn't really fit to make something seems worse than it is, is manipulative. Accusing people of doing something they aren't doing is lying.
In other words, saying there is "shard collusion" is being a manipulative liar (probably unintentionally, but true nonetheless).
Oh but you did. You implied that the only way cooperation is collusion, by saying "Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer."
On my server we have a guy with a **** team of NS who thinks his place is in top 10, well the shard has decided not to go down the cheap route, we beat him back constantly.
As someone who runs NS, I have to say, one of my favorite things about them is how they make all the entitled shard colluders mad.
There's no such thing as shard collusion. Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer.
Using a word that doesn't really fit to make something seems worse than it is, is manipulative. Accusing people of doing something they aren't doing is lying.
In other words, saying there is "shard collusion" is being a manipulative liar (probably unintentionally, but true nonetheless).
Oh but you did. You implied that the only way cooperation is collusion, by saying "Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer."
Huh?
I implied nothing at any point. I enlightened people that collusion must be secret cooperation by the very definition of the word. I was actually looser than the actual definition by saying it could be collusion if it was illegal but not secret.
But since you made that an issue, I have let go of that, However, it still must be secret (hidden), and it isn't, so there is no collusion.
A misnomer is a misnomer. Not understanding the meaning of a word, doesn't make misusing it not an insult.
Cooperation that isn't hidden isn't collusion. Bottom line. I made my statement to get people to stop insulting others. Why do you want to insult people who are doing nothing wrong?
I think we will see more of those blue zombies turn purple soon as NS teams evolve and RJT continues to take hold. Once you actually have NS well-built and many on the shard have converted to RJT instead of CLS I think a strong Zombie will clearly be optimal to block the Trooper swap. A strong NS team I think will be better off in D and on offense trading blows and not using NA at all...I think she's dead weight now.
I do agree with this assessment. I have been using g11 zombie from the start many have had issues with my team. Again the weak zombie has no effect on the na zombie combo weak zombie is all for Asajj and daka.
I have actually won many battles where na never stealthed or is dead.
The weak zombie is a gimmick to help Asajj charge up faster to help a weaker NS team climb ranks but is not needed for a NS team to climb ranks. I have no problems with the gimmick. There will always be gimmicks to let weaker teams climb. To me it seems the main issue for many is they can't use one team to beat everything, we'll in the long run I think that is a good thing. One team beating everything is how you get stale repeative arena teams.
that's good to hear - I'd been using a g8 zombie, so not full gimp - but not strong either. I'm going to g11 her. Are you still using NA in the squad? I actually swapped her out for Talia and saw notable improvments on O and especially on D.
On my server we have a guy with a **** team of NS who thinks his place is in top 10, well the shard has decided not to go down the cheap route, we beat him back constantly.
As someone who runs NS, I have to say, one of my favorite things about them is how they make all the entitled shard colluders mad.
There's no such thing as shard collusion. Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer.
Using a word that doesn't really fit to make something seems worse than it is, is manipulative. Accusing people of doing something they aren't doing is lying.
In other words, saying there is "shard collusion" is being a manipulative liar (probably unintentionally, but true nonetheless).
Oh but you did. You implied that the only way cooperation is collusion, by saying "Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer."
Huh?
I implied nothing at any point. I enlightened people that collusion must be secret cooperation by the very definition of the word. I was actually looser than the actual definition by saying it could be collusion if it was illegal but not secret.
But since you made that an issue, I have let go of that, However, it still must be secret (hidden), and it isn't, so there is no collusion.
A misnomer is a misnomer. Not understanding the meaning of a word, doesn't make misusing it not an insult.
Cooperation that isn't hidden isn't collusion. Bottom line. I made my statement to get people to stop insulting others. Why do you want to insult people who are doing nothing wrong?
Do you not understand the freaking definition of collusion dude. Man you can be dense. It doesn't have to be secret to be collusion, it can be cooperation that's not secret thats what "or" means. Esecially doesn't mean it has to be either of those to be collusion, especially just means that collusion is greater when it is. Very simple definition. Not to mentio there is collusion regardless as there is a discord channel for all servers and you are only in it if you get invited to it, in that chat if you are not part of it you get a red x by your name meaning that you are to be attacked freely. You are wrong in every way with your post arguing about what collusion is, you dont even know what the word means. Your whole existence is a misnomer.
Definition of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy
— collusive play \kə-ˈlü-siv, -ziv\ adjective
— collusively adverb
Do you not understand the freaking definition of collusion dude. Man you can be dense. It doesn't have to be secret to be collusion, it can be cooperation that's not secret thats what "or" means. Esecially doesn't mean it has to be either of those to be collusion, especially just means that collusion is greater when it is. Very simple definition. Not to mentio there is collusion regardless as there is a discord channel for all servers and you are only in it if you get invited to it, in that chat if you are not part of it you get a red x by your name meaning that you are to be attacked freely. You are wrong in every way with your post arguing about what collusion is, you dont even know what the word means. Your whole existence is a misnomer.
Definition of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy
— collusive play \kə-ˈlü-siv, -ziv\ adjective
— collusively adverb
I'm not the one making a mistake here. the adjective secret applies to both nouns in the subject: agreement and cooperation, not just one of them,
It's not saying: "secret agreement" or cooperation; it is saying secret "agreement or cooperation".
Yes the very definition of the word says that it must be secret.
So, again, people are misusing a word they don't understand in a way that insults others...
On my server we have a guy with a **** team of NS who thinks his place is in top 10, well the shard has decided not to go down the cheap route, we beat him back constantly.
As someone who runs NS, I have to say, one of my favorite things about them is how they make all the entitled shard colluders mad.
There's no such thing as shard collusion. Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer.
Using a word that doesn't really fit to make something seems worse than it is, is manipulative. Accusing people of doing something they aren't doing is lying.
In other words, saying there is "shard collusion" is being a manipulative liar (probably unintentionally, but true nonetheless).
Oh but you did. You implied that the only way cooperation is collusion, by saying "Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer."
Huh?
I implied nothing at any point. I enlightened people that collusion must be secret cooperation by the very definition of the word. I was actually looser than the actual definition by saying it could be collusion if it was illegal but not secret.
But since you made that an issue, I have let go of that, However, it still must be secret (hidden), and it isn't, so there is no collusion.
A misnomer is a misnomer. Not understanding the meaning of a word, doesn't make misusing it not an insult.
Cooperation that isn't hidden isn't collusion. Bottom line. I made my statement to get people to stop insulting others. Why do you want to insult people who are doing nothing wrong?
Do you not understand the freaking definition of collusion dude. Man you can be dense. It doesn't have to be secret to be collusion, it can be cooperation that's not secret thats what "or" means. Esecially doesn't mean it has to be either of those to be collusion, especially just means that collusion is greater when it is. Very simple definition. Not to mentio there is collusion regardless as there is a discord channel for all servers and you are only in it if you get invited to it, in that chat if you are not part of it you get a red x by your name meaning that you are to be attacked freely. You are wrong in every way with your post arguing about what collusion is, you dont even know what the word means. Your whole existence is a misnomer.
Definition of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy
— collusive play \kə-ˈlü-siv, -ziv\ adjective
— collusively adverb
I'm not making a mistake here. the adjective secret applies to both nouns in the subject: agreement and cooperation, not just one of them,
It's not saying: "secret agreement" or cooperation, it is saying secret "agreement or cooperation.
Yes the very definition of the word say that it must be secret.
Your wrong about the definition of or too. It denotes an alternative. Go back to school and learn English.
Definition of or
1 —used as a function word to indicate an alternative coffee or teasink or swim, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases lessen or abate, or approximation or uncertainty in five or six days
2 archaic : either
3 archaic : whether
4 —used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true — compare
On my server we have a guy with a **** team of NS who thinks his place is in top 10, well the shard has decided not to go down the cheap route, we beat him back constantly.
As someone who runs NS, I have to say, one of my favorite things about them is how they make all the entitled shard colluders mad.
There's no such thing as shard collusion. Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer.
Using a word that doesn't really fit to make something seems worse than it is, is manipulative. Accusing people of doing something they aren't doing is lying.
In other words, saying there is "shard collusion" is being a manipulative liar (probably unintentionally, but true nonetheless).
Oh but you did. You implied that the only way cooperation is collusion, by saying "Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer."
Huh?
I implied nothing at any point. I enlightened people that collusion must be secret cooperation by the very definition of the word. I was actually looser than the actual definition by saying it could be collusion if it was illegal but not secret.
But since you made that an issue, I have let go of that, However, it still must be secret (hidden), and it isn't, so there is no collusion.
A misnomer is a misnomer. Not understanding the meaning of a word, doesn't make misusing it not an insult.
Cooperation that isn't hidden isn't collusion. Bottom line. I made my statement to get people to stop insulting others. Why do you want to insult people who are doing nothing wrong?
Do you not understand the freaking definition of collusion dude. Man you can be dense. It doesn't have to be secret to be collusion, it can be cooperation that's not secret thats what "or" means. Esecially doesn't mean it has to be either of those to be collusion, especially just means that collusion is greater when it is. Very simple definition. Not to mentio there is collusion regardless as there is a discord channel for all servers and you are only in it if you get invited to it, in that chat if you are not part of it you get a red x by your name meaning that you are to be attacked freely. You are wrong in every way with your post arguing about what collusion is, you dont even know what the word means. Your whole existence is a misnomer.
Definition of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy
— collusive play \kə-ˈlü-siv, -ziv\ adjective
— collusively adverb
I'm not making a mistake here. the adjective secret applies to both nouns in the subject: agreement and cooperation, not just one of them,
It's not saying: "secret agreement" or cooperation, it is saying secret "agreement or cooperation.
Yes the very definition of the word say that it must be secret.
Your wrong about the definition of or too. It denotes an alternative. Go back to school and learn English.
Definition of or
1 —used as a function word to indicate an alternative coffee or teasink or swim, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases lessen or abate, or approximation or uncertainty in five or six days
2 archaic : either
3 archaic : whether
4 —used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true — compare
On my server we have a guy with a **** team of NS who thinks his place is in top 10, well the shard has decided not to go down the cheap route, we beat him back constantly.
As someone who runs NS, I have to say, one of my favorite things about them is how they make all the entitled shard colluders mad.
There's no such thing as shard collusion. Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer.
Using a word that doesn't really fit to make something seems worse than it is, is manipulative. Accusing people of doing something they aren't doing is lying.
In other words, saying there is "shard collusion" is being a manipulative liar (probably unintentionally, but true nonetheless).
Oh but you did. You implied that the only way cooperation is collusion, by saying "Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer."
Huh?
I implied nothing at any point. I enlightened people that collusion must be secret cooperation by the very definition of the word. I was actually looser than the actual definition by saying it could be collusion if it was illegal but not secret.
But since you made that an issue, I have let go of that, However, it still must be secret (hidden), and it isn't, so there is no collusion.
A misnomer is a misnomer. Not understanding the meaning of a word, doesn't make misusing it not an insult.
Cooperation that isn't hidden isn't collusion. Bottom line. I made my statement to get people to stop insulting others. Why do you want to insult people who are doing nothing wrong?
Do you not understand the freaking definition of collusion dude. Man you can be dense. It doesn't have to be secret to be collusion, it can be cooperation that's not secret thats what "or" means. Esecially doesn't mean it has to be either of those to be collusion, especially just means that collusion is greater when it is. Very simple definition. Not to mentio there is collusion regardless as there is a discord channel for all servers and you are only in it if you get invited to it, in that chat if you are not part of it you get a red x by your name meaning that you are to be attacked freely. You are wrong in every way with your post arguing about what collusion is, you dont even know what the word means. Your whole existence is a misnomer.
Definition of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy
— collusive play \kə-ˈlü-siv, -ziv\ adjective
— collusively adverb
I'm not making a mistake here. the adjective secret applies to both nouns in the subject: agreement and cooperation, not just one of them,
It's not saying: "secret agreement" or cooperation, it is saying secret "agreement or cooperation.
Yes the very definition of the word say that it must be secret.
Your wrong about the definition of or too. It denotes an alternative. Go back to school and learn English.
Definition of or
1 —used as a function word to indicate an alternative coffee or teasink or swim, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases lessen or abate, or approximation or uncertainty in five or six days
2 archaic : either
3 archaic : whether
4 —used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true — compare
Ok... what in my post made you think I denied them being alternatives?
I ask because I never indictated they weren't.
In english, it is common practice not to repeat an adjective twice in a singular part of the sentence with a compound subject.
If I say: "Faster cars and trucks will always beat slower ones"; do you think I am only saying the cars are faster? The rules of grammar and context both indicate I am not.
It's the exact same situation with the definition of collusion.
On my server we have a guy with a **** team of NS who thinks his place is in top 10, well the shard has decided not to go down the cheap route, we beat him back constantly.
As someone who runs NS, I have to say, one of my favorite things about them is how they make all the entitled shard colluders mad.
There's no such thing as shard collusion. Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer.
Using a word that doesn't really fit to make something seems worse than it is, is manipulative. Accusing people of doing something they aren't doing is lying.
In other words, saying there is "shard collusion" is being a manipulative liar (probably unintentionally, but true nonetheless).
Oh but you did. You implied that the only way cooperation is collusion, by saying "Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer."
Huh?
I implied nothing at any point. I enlightened people that collusion must be secret cooperation by the very definition of the word. I was actually looser than the actual definition by saying it could be collusion if it was illegal but not secret.
But since you made that an issue, I have let go of that, However, it still must be secret (hidden), and it isn't, so there is no collusion.
A misnomer is a misnomer. Not understanding the meaning of a word, doesn't make misusing it not an insult.
Cooperation that isn't hidden isn't collusion. Bottom line. I made my statement to get people to stop insulting others. Why do you want to insult people who are doing nothing wrong?
Do you not understand the freaking definition of collusion dude. Man you can be dense. It doesn't have to be secret to be collusion, it can be cooperation that's not secret thats what "or" means. Esecially doesn't mean it has to be either of those to be collusion, especially just means that collusion is greater when it is. Very simple definition. Not to mentio there is collusion regardless as there is a discord channel for all servers and you are only in it if you get invited to it, in that chat if you are not part of it you get a red x by your name meaning that you are to be attacked freely. You are wrong in every way with your post arguing about what collusion is, you dont even know what the word means. Your whole existence is a misnomer.
Definition of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy
— collusive play \kə-ˈlü-siv, -ziv\ adjective
— collusively adverb
I'm not making a mistake here. the adjective secret applies to both nouns in the subject: agreement and cooperation, not just one of them,
It's not saying: "secret agreement" or cooperation, it is saying secret "agreement or cooperation.
Yes the very definition of the word say that it must be secret.
Your wrong about the definition of or too. It denotes an alternative. Go back to school and learn English.
Definition of or
1 —used as a function word to indicate an alternative coffee or teasink or swim, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases lessen or abate, or approximation or uncertainty in five or six days
2 archaic : either
3 archaic : whether
4 —used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true — compare
Ok... what in my post made you think I denied them being alternatives?
I ask because I never indictated they weren't.
In english, it is common practice not to repeat an adjective twice in a singular part of the sentence with a compound subject.
If I say: "Faster cars and trucks will always beat slower ones"; do you think I am only saying the cars are faster? The rules of grammar and context both indicate I am not.
It's the exact same situation with the definition of collusion.
I see what you're saying. Doesn't matter you still claimed there is no collusion when there clearly is. Lol sorry a little too stoned atm.
I see what you're saying. Doesn't matter you still claimed there is no collusion when there clearly is.
You mean I pointed out that people who think there is shard collusion don't understand the definition of collusion...
Since the definition of collusion requires the cooperation be secret, and it isn't. There is clearly no collusion in arena by the very definition of the word...
You wanted to talk about learning english. Respect the definition of collusion and don't misapply it.
I see what you're saying. Doesn't matter you still claimed there is no collusion when there clearly is.
You mean I pointed out that people who think there is shard collusion don't understand the definition of collusion...
Since the definition of collusion requires the cooperation be secret, and it isn't. There is clearly no collusion in arena by the very definition of the word...
You wanted to talk about learning english. Respect the definition of collusion and don't misapply it.
Legal definition. ;
Collusion occurs when two persons or representatives of an entity or organization make an agreement to deceive or mislead another. Such agreements are usually secretive, and involve fraud or gaining an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or others with whom they are negotiating. The collusion, therefore, makes the bargaining process inherently unfair. Collusion can involve price or wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship betweeen the colluding parties.
I see what you're saying. Doesn't matter you still claimed there is no collusion when there clearly is.
You mean I pointed out that people who think there is shard collusion don't understand the definition of collusion...
Since the definition of collusion requires the cooperation be secret, and it isn't. There is clearly no collusion in arena by the very definition of the word...
You wanted to talk about learning english. Respect the definition of collusion and don't misapply it.
Legal definition. ;
Collusion occurs when two persons or representatives of an entity or organization make an agreement to deceive or mislead another. Such agreements are usually secretive, and involve fraud or gaining an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or others with whom they are negotiating. The collusion, therefore, makes the bargaining process inherently unfair. Collusion can involve price or wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship betweeen the colluding parties.
I'm not the one who has brought it up at any point. You will notice that I only responded to those who did. My whole purpose is to stop others from bringing it up, especially since it isn't true.
And by the definition you have provided, this still wouldn't be collusion since there is no deception or misleading occurring.
So why don't you quote the other people in this thread who insist on continuing to bring up the insulting incorrectly used term in this thread and tell them to not bring it up instead of me?
Did you guys get lost? This post is about nighsister zombie and her being useful against high geared teams when she is low geared and whether that is good for the game or not and whether that is intentional by CG or not. Personally I say no to both. Not intentional, and not good for game. Also prob not good for CG (revenue) when a character is good at low gear and low star
This collusion conversation is ridiculous. I don't think there's anything wrong with hooking up with your shardmates on discord and agreeing not to attack each other before your payout time.
However, agreeing with your shardmates to attack a certain person and lock them out of the top 10 because they're new to the top 10, or you don't like the team they run, or you don't like how they're not on your chat and yôu don't think they belong is pretty scummy. Sorry to push the convo back in this direction, but I just don't think that behavior is defensible.
Did you guys get lost? This post is about nighsister zombie and her being useful against high geared teams when she is low geared and whether that is good for the game or not and whether that is intentional by CG or not. Personally I say no to both. Not intentional, and not good for game. Also prob not good for CG (revenue) when a character is good at low gear and low star
Nightsister zombie is definately good for the game. She's the first character that makes us actually need to think about how high to gear her up, which adds another layer of strategy and is awesome. I think we should have more characters like that introduced
I see what you're saying. Doesn't matter you still claimed there is no collusion when there clearly is.
You mean I pointed out that people who think there is shard collusion don't understand the definition of collusion...
Since the definition of collusion requires the cooperation be secret, and it isn't. There is clearly no collusion in arena by the very definition of the word...
You wanted to talk about learning english. Respect the definition of collusion and don't misapply it.
Lol there is. I didn't know that I had a free to be sniped tag on me until I was invited to a private (secret) chat. How is that not collusion. Please explain, after you learn English. BTW collusion isn't necessarily a bad thing. In this case it actually helps.
Also there is nothing wrong with that makes it so much easier to respect others payouts now as before I didn't know who was on same payout. Builds respect for each other and you can talk strategy. Kinda cool.
Lol there is. I didn't know that I had a free to be sniped tag on me until I was invited to a private (secret) chat. How is that not collusion. Please explain, after you learn English.
Also there is nothing wrong with that makes it so much easier to respect others payouts now as before I didn't know who was on same payout. Builds respect for each other and you can talk strategy. Kinda cool.
No. No there isn't. There is cooperation that is not collusion, some of it is even mean-spirited, but there isn't any collusion.
Secret doesn't mean not advertised, it means hidden. Those shard chats were formed through public means, and are a well known occurrence throughout the forums. I mean, come on, there's even a forum set up for people to find each other to do so. Your private chat is not secret, and therefore not collusion.
Replies
Whatever man. People are misusing 2 terms in ways that are insulting a ton of people.
Your ethics are yours, ethics are not universal. Insulting people because they have different ethics than yours isn't cool.
If you say you don't like it, that you don't want to play that way, I'd be cool with it, but calling people cheaters or colluders when they are plainly not either (by the very definition of those words) is what I take issue with.
I'm arguing semantics because the words people are using are insulting and inappropriate, not because I am trying to justify anything.
But I'm very pleased now, knowing that there are no colluders in swgow...
I do agree with this assessment. I have been using g11 zombie from the start many have had issues with my team. Again the weak zombie has no effect on the na zombie combo weak zombie is all for Asajj and daka.
I have actually won many battles where na never stealthed or is dead.
The weak zombie is a gimmick to help Asajj charge up faster to help a weaker NS team climb ranks but is not needed for a NS team to climb ranks. I have no problems with the gimmick. There will always be gimmicks to let weaker teams climb. To me it seems the main issue for many is they can't use one team to beat everything, we'll in the long run I think that is a good thing. One team beating everything is how you get stale repeative arena teams.
I don't have an issue with this gimmick per se, i'm fine with NS bringing more diversity to arena. However, an argument could be made for not wanting toons to perform (arguably) better at lower gear than at high gear.
Also, i don't see arena moving away from 1 team being able to beat all teams any time soon. AI is just weaksauce by design. Even if there are many different teams being used in the top ranks, it's not that difficult to form a team that defeats all of them atleast on offense. Weren't you the guy who was using ewoks successfully in arena? Or maybe i'm just pessimistic..
And it used to be Dooku, and then everyone had to deal with Rey... #nerfrey ... and the Cheese bro's Wiggs, then the big Cheaze themselves, Chaze. and becuase having all those abilities in one toon wasn't enough they came with Cheese Luke Skywalker to make the Arena ABSOLUTELY bland as bland can be.
Like in the other NS thread. There's been cheese and then counter cheese.
Sorry to everyone that you like the bland CLS meta. Sorry you like the single hit team that everyone uses and that NS wrecks it.
Sorry to say, and this is the kicker, weak zombie is there as a detractor - because if he single hit team makes one mistake, they're toast. You don't need zombie for anything, it's low star, so I sub i Talia everywhere else in the game when I use NS, and she does a much better job. The zombie is there because I KNOW it scares the meta teams and, thusly, I can hold rank easier. This is bland team problem - with single hitters - who, like all the META before, don't want to adapt.
Really, if flippin' Plo Kloon can counter a team comp.... then you really are whining. Go join the trans-meta Droid users from the beggining of the game who complained after having months and months and months of of enjoying a meta-proof status. You're all in the same category now.
As always, #nerfrey
Oh but you did. You implied that the only way cooperation is collusion, by saying "Calling cooperation that is neither illegal nor secret collusion is a misnomer."
Huh?
I implied nothing at any point. I enlightened people that collusion must be secret cooperation by the very definition of the word. I was actually looser than the actual definition by saying it could be collusion if it was illegal but not secret.
But since you made that an issue, I have let go of that, However, it still must be secret (hidden), and it isn't, so there is no collusion.
A misnomer is a misnomer. Not understanding the meaning of a word, doesn't make misusing it not an insult.
Cooperation that isn't hidden isn't collusion. Bottom line. I made my statement to get people to stop insulting others. Why do you want to insult people who are doing nothing wrong?
that's good to hear - I'd been using a g8 zombie, so not full gimp - but not strong either. I'm going to g11 her. Are you still using NA in the squad? I actually swapped her out for Talia and saw notable improvments on O and especially on D.
Do you not understand the freaking definition of collusion dude. Man you can be dense. It doesn't have to be secret to be collusion, it can be cooperation that's not secret thats what "or" means. Esecially doesn't mean it has to be either of those to be collusion, especially just means that collusion is greater when it is. Very simple definition. Not to mentio there is collusion regardless as there is a discord channel for all servers and you are only in it if you get invited to it, in that chat if you are not part of it you get a red x by your name meaning that you are to be attacked freely. You are wrong in every way with your post arguing about what collusion is, you dont even know what the word means. Your whole existence is a misnomer.
Definition of collusion
: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy
— collusive play \kə-ˈlü-siv, -ziv\ adjective
— collusively adverb
I'm not the one making a mistake here. the adjective secret applies to both nouns in the subject: agreement and cooperation, not just one of them,
It's not saying: "secret agreement" or cooperation; it is saying secret "agreement or cooperation".
Yes the very definition of the word says that it must be secret.
So, again, people are misusing a word they don't understand in a way that insults others...
Your wrong about the definition of or too. It denotes an alternative. Go back to school and learn English.
Definition of or
1 —used as a function word to indicate an alternative coffee or teasink or swim, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases lessen or abate, or approximation or uncertainty in five or six days
2 archaic : either
3 archaic : whether
4 —used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true — compare
whut?
Ok... what in my post made you think I denied them being alternatives?
I ask because I never indictated they weren't.
In english, it is common practice not to repeat an adjective twice in a singular part of the sentence with a compound subject.
If I say: "Faster cars and trucks will always beat slower ones"; do you think I am only saying the cars are faster? The rules of grammar and context both indicate I am not.
It's the exact same situation with the definition of collusion.
I see what you're saying. Doesn't matter you still claimed there is no collusion when there clearly is. Lol sorry a little too stoned atm.
You mean I pointed out that people who think there is shard collusion don't understand the definition of collusion...
Since the definition of collusion requires the cooperation be secret, and it isn't. There is clearly no collusion in arena by the very definition of the word...
You wanted to talk about learning english. Respect the definition of collusion and don't misapply it.
Legal definition. ;
Collusion occurs when two persons or representatives of an entity or organization make an agreement to deceive or mislead another. Such agreements are usually secretive, and involve fraud or gaining an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or others with whom they are negotiating. The collusion, therefore, makes the bargaining process inherently unfair. Collusion can involve price or wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship betweeen the colluding parties.
Source:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/
Also, guys and gals, quit bringing it up on every topic you comment on; Topic has been banned by mods
Source :
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/comment/1409865#Comment_1409865
I'm not the one who has brought it up at any point. You will notice that I only responded to those who did. My whole purpose is to stop others from bringing it up, especially since it isn't true.
And by the definition you have provided, this still wouldn't be collusion since there is no deception or misleading occurring.
So why don't you quote the other people in this thread who insist on continuing to bring up the insulting incorrectly used term in this thread and tell them to not bring it up instead of me?
lol, fair enough.
However, agreeing with your shardmates to attack a certain person and lock them out of the top 10 because they're new to the top 10, or you don't like the team they run, or you don't like how they're not on your chat and yôu don't think they belong is pretty scummy. Sorry to push the convo back in this direction, but I just don't think that behavior is defensible.
Nightsister zombie is definately good for the game. She's the first character that makes us actually need to think about how high to gear her up, which adds another layer of strategy and is awesome. I think we should have more characters like that introduced
Lol there is. I didn't know that I had a free to be sniped tag on me until I was invited to a private (secret) chat. How is that not collusion. Please explain, after you learn English. BTW collusion isn't necessarily a bad thing. In this case it actually helps.
Also there is nothing wrong with that makes it so much easier to respect others payouts now as before I didn't know who was on same payout. Builds respect for each other and you can talk strategy. Kinda cool.
No. No there isn't. There is cooperation that is not collusion, some of it is even mean-spirited, but there isn't any collusion.
Secret doesn't mean not advertised, it means hidden. Those shard chats were formed through public means, and are a well known occurrence throughout the forums. I mean, come on, there's even a forum set up for people to find each other to do so. Your private chat is not secret, and therefore not collusion.
This. Closed.